Mao criticised Khrushchev for his policies such as de-Stalinisation and his secret speech. He was also very critical of the policy of Peaceful Coexistence as he believed it was a way of being friendly with the United States (the enemy) and also Mao saw it abandoning millions of comrades struggling to free themselves of capitalist and imperialist oppression. This, therefore, made the USSR an ‘enemy’. How could two countries work together if they had such differing beliefs about how to run their countries? This problem had a big contribution to the split as they couldn’t agree on anything, and if they did, it was because their national interests were at risk.
This was an economic concession that Lenin was forced to make due to the deteriorating economic conditions and the real threat of a revolt against the Bolshevik government. It was always intended as a temporary measure, and the question after Lenin’s death wasn’t whether it should continue or not, but how it should be put an end to. The debate lay between the left-wing, lead by Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who advocated a quick movement into rapid industrialisation, which would mean abandoning the New Economic Policy, militarising the labour forces and exploiting peasants for grain to fund the industrialisation; and the right-wing, led by Bukharin, who wanted to continue the New Economic Policy for another 20 years, which would mean peasants would grow wealthier and be encouraged to buy consumer goods, which in turn would lead to more products being made in factories and a gradual process of industrialisation. This became a passionate issue because economic policy was also at the heart of the debate of what a socialist society should look like. The growth of a rich super class led to activities such as property dealing, land speculation, gambling and prostitution, all of which conflicted greatly with the ideology of Communism.
On the contrary this shows that the disputes between these factions may imply that the King was weak and not in control thus significantly threatening the stability of government . However the rivalry between factions could not be seen as an significant threat to Henrys government because a more important factor jeopardised the stability of the government. Foreign Policy dominates during the last years of Henrys VIIs reign. The difficulties in Scotland contributed greatly to financial complications thus effecting the stability of the government and shadowing the rivalry between reformist and conservatives which would suggest that the threat was not major. Henry was exposed to the pull of the factions but a new aristocratic approach to the government strengthened the conservative faction however with the arrest of Duke of Norfolk (1547) and the dismissal of Gardiner from the Privy Chamber the reformists gained the much needed advantage .
During the revolution, members of the imperial parliament gained control of the country.The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. It is argued that the social and economic factors were the most important catalyst and the main cause of the revolution. Others may argue that the military factors were the downfall and breaking point of the country. Although the military factors were important and did play a huge role, the social and economic factors were perhaps the more important reason. The military issues perhaps would not have escalated the way they did if it was not for existing social and economic problems at home.
Although Zinn argues that the conflicts caused by the differentiating social classes in order to dissolve the class divisions was the main cause of the American Revolution, the “other side of the story” is told by Schweikart and Allen, as they reason that it was actually the British who unknowingly burdened the colonies with oppression, which brought about the revolution itself. In Zinn’s fourth chapter of A People’s History of the United States, Tyranny is Tranny; he focuses more on the class differences in society that triggers the opposition against England, rather than the effects of British oppression. He states that the “American leadership was less in need of English rule, and the English more in need of the colonists’ wealth” (Zinn 60). With this said, the colonists then focused more on the pursuit of exploitation and profit, which would definitely spark rebellions of the poor against the rich especially because the poor had been overwhelmed by British taxes and the fact that only a small percentage of the wealthy controlled a huge majority of the city’s taxable assets. For this reason, the poor developed a hatred for the upper class that would
They feared once these principles were established they could be extended to ‘soak the rich’ and even out the unfair distribution of wealth in Edwardian Britain. The land taxes were especially controversial, as they would not actually produce a great deal of tax revenue. The Lords denounced this proposal as a ‘class war’. The Lords believed it was their duty to restrain governments from making sweeping changes the electorate had not voted on. A final less important reason was that the Lords believed that it was the fault of the poor that they were destitute in the first place.
Similarly Source K exhibits the hatred Ulster Unionists felt towards Home Rule as they ‘would resort to force’ to ensure their prosperity was not compromised by a terrorists wishes to become independent. The media displayed negative views to Parnell also, Source R indicates how publications like The Times linked Parnell to Fenianism, ‘series of articles on ‘Parnelism and Crime’. Being associated with Parnell made Gladstone’s struggle for Home Rule harder, perhaps the reasons the 1886 Bill failed both houses but the 1893 Bill made it through Common’s as Parnell’s involvement in Home Rule had dramatically decreased in the years beforehand. The split in the Liberal party meant internally the party had opposition indicating that while divided amongst themselves there was no chance to defeat the conservative dominated House of Lords. Overall numerous factors contributed to the downfall of both Bills but the main reason inevitably was the immediate rejection to the Bill by the Conservatives as it opposed what they believed so neither Parnell or Gladstone could
Secondly it examines reason why Britain has become a ‘nation of home owners’ and how renting has come to be perceived as an ‘inferior’ tenure. Thirdly it looks at the effects of this redistribution of the housing stock what caused people to be deemed ‘socially excluded by the New Labour government. The key claim is that social exclusion is a result of two conflicting social ideologies that manifest through social and housing policy and it is not the architecture of the social housing estates that causes their demise but their social mix in terms of tenure, and the way this is perceived by the wider population. Contents Statement of Originality iii Acknowledgements iv Abstract v Introduction 2 1 – The emergence of two British housing ideologies 3 2 – Brief History of Social Housing in the UK pre-1945 6 2.1 - Giving in to Collectivism 6 2.2 - Government Involvement 9 2.3 - Slum clearance 10 3 - Post WWII Housing 11 3.1 - Post WWII 12 3.2 - Ronan point 13 3.3 - The backlash against dense social developments 14 4 - Britain’s Growing Obsession with Home Ownership 17 4.1 - Right to Buy and Buy to Let 18 4.2 - Why has Britain Become a Nation of Homeowners? 21 4.3 - The Tone Beginning of Social Exclusion 21 5 - The Homeowner Society 26 5.1 - Linking
He argued that reparations forced on Germany by the Allies after WW1 were far too severe and would cripple the German economy to such an extent and would lead to socio-political problems in the future which would not be in the interest of the Allies. He saw that the financial burden of reparations on Germany would not allow the development of a stable economy. Could WW2 have been averted if Keynes had been listened to at the Peace Conference at Versailles in 1918 where he strongly put this argument? 3. What was Keynes fundamental criticism of Neo-Classical Economics?
It would push Russia further onwards in terms of a state free from private trade and ownership. However ideology is often seen as Stalin’s weak point however, since he is often thought of as frequently changing policies to further his political aspirations. The leadership challenge of 1925 – 1928 showed how Stalin changed his policies to decimate both the left and right wing of the party and strengthen his position over the party, by varying his beliefs in order to outmanoeuvre his political opponents. On the other hand, some historians (such as Viola) argue that the NEP was causing extensive discontent within the party, and that rather than being as capricious as is often presumed, he can be seen as a pragmatist in the face of the will of the party. His “Great Turn” can be seen as a realistic and attractive policy, suited to the rank and file of the party, that he did not adopt earlier in the 20’s since it was not a fitting policy at the time.