For Lenin, the party was to be a group prepared to seize power as soon as possible yet on the other hand, for Martov, the main purpose of the party was to spread propaganda and raise the level of consciousness of the proletariat. This was because he did not believe that Russia was ready for a Marxist revolution for many years. Lenin believed that is the Mensheviks had their way, it would take years to start the revolution; they would just waste time on useless discussion and argument. Martov, replied that the revolution would fail if it did not have the support of the whole working class. The social democratic party remained spilt on the issue.
(doc 1)” Since Zedong was the leader of the Communist Party, he would have had the power to influence the Communist Party’s political position. Since Mao Zedong decided to advocate the peasant class to have equal rights, the Communist Party also had the power to do so. Communist support increased the nationalism and unity within the peasant class. Nationalism and the unity is presented to us in document2 through an example of a teenage peasant and his grandfather. The teenager argues with his grandfather on the effects of the Communists.
Foreign policy is important because it has a lot to do with the trade, technology, and communications of the United States. Also by nations working together global problems can be fixed easier. Equal rights are important to the U.S because it shows that everyone has the same rights including: black people, white people, Asian, men and woman, ect. A bad president would make the economy go down, not believe in equal rights and have a bad foreign policy. The best president in U.S history I believe is Abraham Lincoln.
The governing authorities again like to use culturally significant figures in the tales of innovation and invention and discovery. Even with such advanced politics and thought, a class distinction still persisted, and though they had seen the benefit of all this technology, there were those in the upper class who felt it was beneath them to use such tools in any way. T Innovation was of great value to both the Han and Romans. The Han placed a higher attribution to culturally relevant creators. For example, Huan Tan, an upper-class Han philosopher wrote in New Discourses (Document III) of an emperor of myth inventing and refining the pestle and mortar for all people.
He believed in ‘Socialism in one country’ where the USSR would become strong enough to survive, then would take over the rest of the world. There is no doubt that his plans were successful in many ways, but would it be logical to call this phase an overall success when we consider the human cost, chaos, un-organization and the slip in overall living conditions in everyday life? Or are those flaws completely irrelevant as Stalin was a tyrannical leader who did what was necessary for the country to move the country forward and the deaths would probably be viewed as a necessary statistic. Stalin’s first plan (October 1928 – December 1932) was extremely far fetched, the plan lacked reality and rather random enormous statistics were demanded for the factories to produce. This was largely down to the two groups involved in the construction of the plan; the Gosplan (in charge of the wider plan – not the specifics) and the Vensenka (who were in charge of the specifics e.g.
Regarding mao, He actually gained support by the things he did such as, giving his people better education and giving women more rights. Thus, Both Mao and Gandhi made their countries what they are today socially, economically, and politically. Although the things they wanted to do were alike, the way they actually did was dissimilar. Gandhi was a peaceful leader, no matter what happens, whereas Mao was a violent leader. China and
He wanted them to be able to fix their problems themselves and let the government do more important jobs and have to worry about them less. He wanted them to become strong, independent people, but when America’s situation was as bad as it was nothing the people did could get them out of that situation. The government needed to step in and help them get out of the hole because they were too far in to pull themselves out. This concept had good intentions, but failed miserably. FDR’s Liberal ideas set new ground rules for the coming presidents to follow and his spirit and work ethic were going to be the top bar the next Presidents would have to compete with, even still
In spite of this, the CCP managed to secure victory due to a combination of their strengths and their opposition’s shortcomings. A principal reason for the success of the CCP was due to their political competence, and the consequent trust this inspired in the people of China. Whilst the GMD had a reputation of unreliability and false promises, the CCP were trusted to implement their promised policies and correct any mistakes should they arise. Consequently, the people trusted the CCP when they stated that their utmost objective was to establish communism in China. Furthermore, their promise that there would be a place in their envisioned New Democratic society for peasants and proletariats, as well as capitalist and intellectuals, appealed to the population en masse.
By the time someone of my generation steps in and becomes president, the economy will be in full affect. This generation has so many bright and intelligent people who already have plans to better the world around us. We will bring this world to peace and give Americans that security that they have lost over the years. It will be very difficult, but with great effort and hard work it can be achieved. The future of America is a bit foggy to some, but to others it is clear that our country will come back and once again be a dominant nation.
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.