Food shortages were a key problem in Russia as it meant the people were starving and desperate. It has consistently been a problem to the rulers of Russia such as the Provisional government. The people wanted change but they also wanted grain to feed themselves and their family. It was important that the food crisis would be solved by the Bolsheviks in order to gain the support of the people; however, due to Russia’s poor transport and little fertile land, it was simply an impossible job for any party or rulers of Russia especially due to the high demand of the huge populace. The demand for food has always been high in Russia which meant that no matter what reforms or radical changes a party can bring in, if they can’t feed the people there will always be bitterness which can and did result in opposition to Lenin and his Bolsheviks.
The political effects of Mongol rule in China and the Middle East were similar in their leadership. In China and in the Middle East Mongols served as governers and conquerors. The Mongols knew that just conquering the regions would only temporarily benefit them. So they became governors as well to be able keep control of such large regions. This was also a way for the Mongols to ensure their government was stable and trustable instead of having others govern the state.
The Mongols mainly focused on collecting taxes, and when they conquered the areas, they destroyed a lot of farmland in each. Little pay made its way to the farmers and inflation arose when paper money started to be distributed. With the many similarities the two empires held, a lot of differences occurred through the empire’s run. As for the most prominent reason, it was evident that their governments were run completely different. When conquering China, the Mongols kicked the bureaucratic elite to the curb, hired new foreign rulers, and eliminated the civil service examinations.
The political impact from the Mongols was much more centralized and uncompromising in China rather than in Russia, where political impact was didn’t have as much effect. Both the Chinese and the Russians had a greatly improved economy under the Mongolian rule. This is due to the fact that the Mongols believed in taxing the peasants in both regions as a way to earn money for themselves. In China, it was said that Silk Roads and trading was so safe, that a traveler could voyage across the entire Mongol area with a golden platter upon his head and not be robbed or encounter any violence. Russian towns had increased profits from the trading of the Mongol links.
Although his opinion may be biased, he offers a perspective that many important officials, emperors, and Confucian scholars would also possess. To continue, Buddhism was thought to bring social and cultural unrest in post-classical China. Accusing Buddhism of depriving people from food, clothes, and propriety, Tang Emperor Wu strongly opposed the permeation of Buddhism. He continues to express his contempt blaming Buddhism on the loss of people’s strength, wealth, and family unity (Document 6). In 845 C.E, China was suffering from a serious financial problem.
He spent his entire life working on the issue of the peasants’ welfare in China. On one hand, Mao unprecedentedly elevated Chinese Peasants politically, economically, and socially; especially through his superb policy --- land reform. Unlike leaders of peasant uprisings in China before, Mao not only motivated the peasants, but also formed a set of defined principles and consolidated his success with the implementation of them. Mao Zedong had a deep understanding of the Chinese peasantry. Unlike other communist leaders who considered China an industrial nation, Mao made accurate judgments over China’s national conditions in the twentieth century.
In only 5 years a lot of factories were created but the former farmers didn’t know how to use the factories and causes a famine in 1960 and twenty million people starved because of it (doc 8). Deng Xiaoping understood that communism was failing in China and in his speech he was sure to mention that both of the reforms that Mao Zedong suggested did nothing but hurt the economy and didn’t help at all. It left many people hurt and was a wasted attempt. If China is going to reform and wants any results then they need economic and political changes for a real effective change to occur (doc 9) In conclusion the two economies that were chosen had many draw backs and fewer advantages to them. Only certain people were living a good life while other suffered.
Although it has obtained some successes at the beginning, the dramatic changes were not far away. Russia was badly equipped and led; the army suffered a run of disastrous defeats as well as the rail way signalling system breakage of food transportation, causing blocked lines and trains being abandoned, over 200,000 men were found dead. Food riots broke out in Russia’s countryside and major cities. Because Russia was receiving supplies and support from their European allies the provisional government refused to pull out of the war, and began announcing new offensives. Loyal army has been replaced with around 15 million peasants, the army had sympathised with workers and themselves along with the navy began mutiny against a government they had no wish to fight and die for with the Bolsheviks rioting.
This was a sign of Mao's unwillingness to accept criticism, even if it was constructive. This shows the lack of communication between Mao and the people, his stubbornness overpowering common sense, and shows the early onset of corruption. The idea came, to get China forward thinking again. Small-scale industry was invoked into villages. Why was the Great Leap Forward programme a failure?
While the Han and Roman empires declined socially from epidemic disease and wealth problems, they differed in the fact that Rome partially declined because of unequal land distribution and the Han declined because the dispute between the ruling elites. While Rome had suffered from political decline due to unequal land distribution, the Han struggled because of unequal power with the ruling elites. Unequal land distribution caused uproar in the economy which made the lower class citizens upset because the land was being unequally and unfairly distributed. A prime example is the Latifundia. They specialized in agriculture destined for export, and were run by