- Culture as political weapon especially art and cinema. Was Lenin a `Red Tsar` NO! lots of CHANGE! Tsar Lenin - Backward looking, holding back progress, conservative. - Forward looking to golden age of socialism - Inefficient bureaucracy e.g Crimean war and Japanese wars - Soviet bureaucracy highly politicised and more efficient - Repression and terror common under all Tsars but not personalised - Repression more personalised, more directly involved - Agriculture and industry: Tsars aimed to preserve traditional authority - Collective farms and nationalised industries: more forward looking with requisition at times = taking poverty - Pipe`s views: Tsars never so involved in detail - Pipe`s views: Lenin`s grasp of detail - Cult of Tsar?
Key Historical Concepts- Autocracy- Absolute rule or government by one person. This relates to my studies, with how the German and Russian governments are run, with Joseph Stalin leading the Russians in an Autocracy and also Adolf Hitler leading the German nation in an autocratic government. Communism- An economic system that encourages individuals to make profits through investments and private ownership of goods, property and the means of production, distribution and exchange. This is very closely linked to my assignment as the Soviet state was a communist country. With Russia being a communist country this created hatred between the Nazis and the Communists.
Communists do not stand apart from other workers, but are made up of the most advanced political sections of the working class. Marx says that Communists have been "reproached" for desiring to abolish the "right" of acquiring private property through the fruits of one's labor. However, he points out laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Marx said " we communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally……..to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.” (374) Marx wanted to abolish all individuality freedom, and independence. Marx argument was against the "infamous" communist proposal of abolishing the family.
Embarking to achieve this objective, Roosevelt came to be a president of the normal man while Wilson turned into the "better" dynamic president. Despite the fact that they were both progressives, the two presidents had distinctive ways as a primary concern for the fate of the United States. Their alternate point of view and necessities were apparent in their addresses: New Nationalism by Roosevelt and New Freedom by Wilson. Wilson's New Freedom looked to the demolition of all trusts to push budgetary rivalry and allow little organizations by and by to thrive. While the national government was to utilize its energy on a one-time premise to bust all trusts, the central government was to have no part in managing business.
While Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all had the same same Cold War intention of ending communism, their ways of achieving their goal were different.The Cold War was an angry dispute between the United States and the Soviet Union about whether we should spread or contain communism (Ayres 817). According to Edward Ayres in American Anthem: Reconstruction to the Present all three Presidents used some form of Economic Aid, how we help other countries financially; Military Aid, how we help other countries’ militaries; and finally, Military Use, how we utilise our military (Ayres 817). Their end goal was to completely contain, or confine communism(Truman).
He used ideological methods such as making accusations of Bonapartism. This can be seen as an accusation of a broad centre-right political movement that advocates the idea of a strong state . This is one of Stalin’s strengths because this undermined Bukharin and the right opposition . Hence , the popularity of the right opposition soon declined . Another ideological method that was central to his success of emerging as the leader of the Soviet Union by 1929 was accusations of Trotskyism .
It is important to note that Mussolini also advocated ideas of anti-egalitarianism and elitism, making him a very peculiar socialist. He was tied up in underground financial deals which may have changed certain of his political conceptions. When WWI broke out Mussolini first opposed the war but soon realized it was an opportunity (to overthrow the Hapsburg Hohenzollern families, whom he saw as imperialist and anti-socialist. He also saw WWI as an opportunity) for the working classes to rise up and participate in the Italian
This essay will seek to examine these policies and their varying successes or failures. Economic policies in Fascist Italy can be divided into distinct periods. In Mussolini’s early years, from 1922-1925, the economy was run using traditional liberal ‘laissez-faire guidelines.’ Under the guidance of the then Minister of Finance, Albert de Stefani, taxes were lowered and government expenditure cut. These policies found favour amongst the industrialists, bankers and big landowners who had been instrumental in the Fascist rise to power and thus served the ‘dual purpose of placating the big-business interests and balancing the state’s budget.’ Although the economy enjoyed modest growth, its inherent structural weaknesses were not addressed and in 1925 de Stefani was sacked amidst rising inflation and a falling Lira. The economic policies he had implemented had served their purpose in helping to garner further support for Mussolini and the fascists.
Revision:Mussolini - economic policy TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Mussolini - Economic Policy Mussolini wanted to build a “Third way” in the economy – neither Capitalist nor Communist! “I shall take the best bits of both capitalism and communism” The main thing Mussolini wanted, though, was Autarky. At first, the Fascists took a laissez-faire approach. Public spending was reduced Taxes on war profits reduced Mussolini tried to balance the budget “What is good for [Fiat] is good for Italy” However, from 1929 onwards, Mussolini tried to control the economy. Autarky was his main goal.
He clarifies it is dictator on the grounds that it is a mix of topics of conventional Toryism, for example, obligation, power, principles, along with country, with the forceful subjects of neo-progressivism, for example, aggressiveness, independence, and hostile to statism. He guarantees it is additionally populism because it prepared populist advances in opposition to high pay charges, wellbeing advantage dependents, along with deprived community administrations as though they were 'the foe of the general population' following the collapse of Keynesian political financial system. He observes this like a hegemonic venture – intentional, rational social building began by means of the economy, and then proceeded onward to other old foundations set up by the post-war