Russia was seen as having a feudal system where the working class (peasants) were holding up everyone above them and retaining nothing. The response from the Tsar was the emancipation in 1861. Nicholas was quoted saying to nobles of Russia that “the existing condition of owning souls cannot remained unchanged. It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait until that time when it begins to destroy itself from below”. Although there were a few cases of the Tsar redistributing land to the peasants Riasanovsky claims that the “Fundamental inequality and widespread destitution could not be remedied by a re-division of the peasants inadequate land” This further brings the idea of Marxism into Russia which is discussed later.
“Reluctant reformers.” How far do you agree with this view of Russian Rulers from 1855-1964? There is a common theme through most of the period that Russian rulers and the reforms they introduced were less than radical, and were indeed ‘reluctant’ in their approach. As the tsars were only the most recent of a long line of autocratic and orthodox rulers it is hardly surprising that they may not be particularly progressive. This essay will define reform as changes to government and processes wherein that cause a notable impact upon the population. The areas to investigate include political, economic, social and military reforms from the Russian government in order to see if they are ‘reluctant reformers’ or not.
- 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?
Russia was severely behind the rest of Europe when it came to industrialisation, partly because the agricultural techniques used in the mid nineteenth century had not changed since the medieval period. The Russian social system being based on serfs did not assist the change that was needed to industrialise Russia because the serfs were effectively slaves and made up about 85% of the peasant population. Almost every other country in Europe had freed their serfs because they were hindering industrialisation; however Russia had not and could not hope to improve their industry if they continued to use the serfs. The Russians also believed that once the serfs were emancipated, they would create a pool of flexible labour and that they would be more willing to work if they were viewed as free people and were paid for their labour. Alexander had to emancipate the serfs in 1861 because he saw that they were delaying progress and change.
The usage of the state enterprise, allowed the hunters to keep their jobs from the Soviet past, but the salaries from the government were seldom, and supplies such as fuel became limited. Family/clan holdings were created in 1992 by a Decree, from former president Boris Yeltsin. The purpose of family/clan holdings was to protect the lands used by the indigenous people of Siberia. The Decree stated that there would be no property taxes on the holdings, but there would be taxes on profits from sales from the regional government. The
The substantial difference between indentured servant in the 17th century and slave in the 18th was the fact. The first example, Indentured servants had the choice, and could look forward to the end of their servitude. Indentured servant chooses to come over, in the hope of finding a better life than he or she had known in their home land. Slaves had no such prerogative. Slavery was involuntary and hereditary.
When in fact we seen them as rogues and slaves they were used only for their harvesting. Colonial self government by Charles Mclean Andrews speaks of colonies as being not legally independent. The created self government. This would lead to the reason why there were no laws governing assistance with food or other necessities. He speaks of trade and receiving product from overseas.
Their leading industrial products were textiles, iron implements, utensils, and machinery. Socially, because cotton was not grown frequently in the North, the workers did not need extra labor. Therefore, they did not need slaves. The minority of the whites owned slaves in that part of America. Poor whites lived in the slums of Southern society and did not hold slaves.
The authors illustrate how preconceived notions emphasize faults in specific people, causing distrust and hatred between individuals and societies. Although, many negative effects of false assumptions are shown in both
This was a nobility grab. Prior to King John, England relied heavily on societal custom. The king and his family were the only truly unassailable people. The feudal system kept royalty safe. Feudalism allowed lands and money to be taken from the nobility class at will.