Mussolini’s economic policies can be seen as improving the standard of living of ordinary Italians. This was done by the initial liberal economic policies, the policy of autarky which resulted in the ‘battles’. However, Mussolini’s economic policies can be seen to not improve the standard of living because of the failures of the ‘battles’, the early recession, the rise in cost of living and the drop in income. One of Mussolini’s economic policy that helped to improve the standard of living was the economic policy Autarky. Mussolini wanted Italy to survive on self-sufficiency -which wasn’t surprising for a nationalist country.
This act was passed to improve health and ensure children were sufficiently educated. This act was certainly very successful in improving lives as by 1914 14 million children were receiving a daily meal allowing them to concentrate and therefore perform better in school. This led to a better economic future. However, because this act was only voluntary at first by 1912 over half the authorities did not provide meals. Also, many needy children missed out as it was difficult to determine eligibility and many were given out in error.
Poor harvests, famine, a lack of freedom and repressive policies meant that Russia was a country that was teetering on the brink of revolution long before dissatisfied factory workers marched on the Winter Palace in St Petersburg. Some of the causes of the 1905 revolution were due to poor working and living conditions. For instance, up to 15 people would share one room to live in, because of this demonstrations such as the one outside the Winter Palace commonly known as Bloody Sunday took place. 100’s were killed due to horrific misunderstanding by the Russian army. In many ways this helped fuel Russian Revolt.
This was significant because smallpox had a mortality rate of up to 35% so this vaccination would have saved a lot of lives and it would have made life considerably better for those who could afford to be vaccinated. However, it wouldn't have made much difference to the poor, who didn’t have enough money to pay for the vaccine, until it was made mandatory in 1853, towards the end of the Industrial Revolution. Education also improved during the Industrial Revolution. For example, before the Industrial Revolution, only the very rich children went to school and most children worked at home. But by 1900, school was compulsory and free for all children between the ages of 5 and 12.
Before the Liberal Reforms of 1905, poverty was an ever present endemic within the working-class of Britain. The general attitude towards those who suffered from poverty, as defined by ideas of Victorian Liberalism, gave the government little imperative to take any real action against poverty. However, after two major studies on the conditions of England had been conducted by Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth, the Liberal government introduced a series reforms aimed at improving the lives of the poor. Naturally there is a degree of importance to these two studies concerning how they led to government awareness of poverty; however a series of events around this era also served as possible catalysts for the introduction of social reforms, for example, the Boer War displayed the impact of poverty on war, which compromised the British concept of imperialism at the time. The main question is to what extent were the social reforms of the Liberal Government between 1905 and 1914 a response to more in depth knowledge about the extent and impact of poverty in British affairs.
Therefore, his work was extremely important because it led to the first Public health Act. However, the first Public health Act didn’t have a lot of impact, and it was only passed at that time because there had been a cholera epidemic. The government didn’t really want to force local authorities to make improvements because it cost a lot of money. It wasn’t until 1875, after the link had been made between dirt and disease, that a second Public health Act was passed which forced local authorities to improve conditions. This was passed partly because working class men had the vote.
Their anger was made evident during the peasant disturbances of 1902. The landowners were also unhappy with the terms of emancipation. They lost the free labour of their serfs and a large amount of land. As a result many were facing huge debts by 1905. Another long-term cause of the 1905 Revolution was the general disappointment with which many Russian people viewed the reforms of the previous decades.
Though some visible improvements were made by Mussolini, such as the introduction of the OND and its positive impact on the lives of Italians, D Williamson states in Mussolini, from Socialist to Fascist, (1997) that “The standard of living fell drastically in the South”. As it is evident that much of the South of Italy can be seen to have represented ‘ordinary Italians’ – the agriculturalists, farmers, etc. – this statement is contributory to establishing that Mussolini’s economic policies of the years 1922-43 improved the standard of living for ordinary Italians only to a limited extent. The economic expenditure on welfare was a factor which affected living standards across Italy in a notably varied way. Mussolini aimed to use welfare provision as a form of propaganda; a means of gaining stronger support from the mass of ordinary Italians – arguably his real intentions did not massively lie in actually improving their living standards.
Mazzini gave tremendous support to Italian Nationalism and he spent most of his time convincing Italians to support the creation of a democratic, self-governing state of Italy. His complex ideas such as ‘The Brotherhood of people’ meant that he had limited appeal to upper classes, and his radical views also did not appeal to the middle classes and liberals who opposed violence. The revolutions in support for national unity in the years 1848-9 meant that for 18 months the Italian peninsula was in turmoil until the gains won by liberals were reversed and the revolutions that had taken place were suppressed. To a large extent I agree that Mazzini’s limited appeal contributed to slow progress, however I think that there are other over-riding factors such as the influence of the Church and lack of foreign support that would have also contributed. It could be argued that Mazzini’s ideas were the main reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy in the years 1815-48.
One of the main problems was the social problems it caused because of the loss of agricultural workers in the war led to a massive food shortage in Russia it also dint help when the tsar announced their would be bread rationing, in the war Russia also didn’t perform very well they lost 1.6 million Russian soldiers 3.9 million were wounded and 2.4 million were captured. another reason why the 1905 revolution survived was because the Tsar issued the October manifest which meant that a lot of people were happy because it allowed people to have a freedom of speech it also said that the Tsar would share his power which he had to intention of doing over time he started undoing concessions and arguing that the Duma was only a shell of democracy as it could not pass laws without the approval of the monarch, and that freedom of speech was heavily