A Civil Society

The division of society into bourgeoisie and proletariat in Russian revolution brings conflicts and disputes among the classes .The bourgeoisie annihilated fundamental rights of the

The December of 1991 marked the end of the Soviet Union—and with it, an entire era. Like the February Revolution of 1917 that ended tsardom, the events leading up to August 1991 took place in rapid succession, with both spontaneity and, to some degree, retrospective inevitability. To understand the demise of Soviet Union is to understand the communist party-state system itself. Although the particular happenings of the Gorbachev years undoubtedly accelerated its ruin, there existed fundamental flaws within the Soviet system that would be had been proven ultimately fatal. The USSR became a past chapter of history because it was impossible to significantly reform the administrative

A comparison between the U.S. constitution and Russian constitution is interesting due to the fact that America is often regarded (at least from the view of most Americans) as the pinnacle of freedom and democracy. The Russian Federation on the other hand has a much more complex image. The Russian Federation was formerly a country known as the Soviet Union, which was the pinnacle of communism throughout the 1900’s. Communism is a polar governmental structure compared to the U.S. The Russian Federation is today classified as a democracy, however, there are still remnants of the communist structure seen among leaders as a result of the way that the constitution is constructed.

Civil societies are voluntary social institutions and organizations that are separate from the government and the market where a community of citizens are able to come together and pursue their shared common interest. They are beneficial to the community as well as the broader society as civil societies ultimately promote progressive policies, nurture positive social norms that encourage stability, and advocates accountability and checks against state authority (Edwards 2010). Moreover, civil societies represent a third sphere of association where citizens are able to address the deficiencies that the state and market fail to handle and then have the opportunity to develop their own

On December 5, 1936, the Soviet Union adopted a new constitution to reform the government. It replaced the 1924 constitution that was ratified shortly after the death of Vladimir Lenin. The 1936 constitution lasted until 1977, when a new constitution was adopted. According to a former kulak named Andrei Arzhilovsky, people celebrated on the streets when the constitution was ratified, and everyone called it the “Stalin Constitution”. Rightfully so, it deserved the name because Josef Stalin was heavily involved in the creation of the new constitution. Indeed there were good reasons for Soviet citizens to celebrate the adoption of the new constitution, because it granted rights that were previously denied to the people. Among the rights that were provided were: (1) universal rights for all Soviet citizens including kulaks (2) freedom of religion (3) preservation of the rights of all ethnic groups. In this paper, I will argue that the 1936 Soviet Constitution did not achieve its goal of providing universal rights to all Soviet citizens,

19). That begin said, Russian politics have always governed around protecting themselves from threats inside and outside their boundaries both economical and militarily. In addition, Lynch elaborates that the capability of a state is so important in developing; in order to form a democracy since having been a built on post communist and Imperial auspices (Lynch, p. 5). In other words, a democracy does not merely come out of nowhere in a civil society, unless there is a capable national service where a political authority may draft, pass and enforce legislation. Furthermore, it is the neopatrimonial model that best describes the functioning of the Russian state that took hold in post communist Russia ruled by Yeltsin and Putin (Lynch, pp. 128-30). To clarify, it was significant that Russia established itself in a liberal economy, which was mostly supported by Western states, however the emergence and eventual consolidation under Putin established a neopatrmonial Political system.

The Russian government is creating a notable history of political and economic system changes, as well as leaders. Although the age of the Russian Empire was the beginning of the established long-lasting power, it had some fundamental faults in terms of wealth and equality of its citizens. Tsars and tsarinas had too much power to provide the necessary equilibrium of social growth and development. This problem was developed and used to convert the country into the era of socialism, which later became the communist era. Despite strong hopes of positive changes after the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, the current, “semi-presidential” Russian federation hasn’t gone too far from its wealth-egoist past. However, it raises the question: what

The intentions for the different social structures seemed to be benevolent, allowing all people to be equal, but once the institution had been established the malevolent truths of monotony became present. The Russian communism system, produced by Karl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto,” depicts this scenario very clearly, from Russia’s recent history. The clumped masses of similar people, all providing similar products and services, were thought to allow the very upper two-hundredths percent of the population to go on with their lives as normally as possible, which in theory would allow the bottom ninety-nine percent of the population to enjoy the same luxuries as well. However, this reality, as seen from history, never occurred due to the simple fact that the Russian people had to obey to tyrannical laws that suppressed or razed any

Russian Federation has a long and interesting history. Many different events the structure and development of the country. Nowadays, Russia plays one of the most important roles in our world. Russia is located at the intersection of different cultures and contains multinational population and ethno-cultural diversity. Russia is an interesting country to discuss its issues of ethnicity and religion, try to predict the future development and economics of the country. How different country’s issues such as class distinction, equity and equality, race, religion, nationalism and other political variables are solved or considered by the state at least. The main goal of this work is to show weaknesses and struggles which Russia faces on the road

Between 1900-1960 CE, Russia/Soviet Union had undergone major developments in which their political ideologies progressed from an absolute monarchy to communism. Another major development in Russia was the change in the status of religion as the power of religion progressively decreased as communism arose. Although Russia’s political ideologies and the status of religion has changed, the forms of governance in Russia generally remained the same. Russia at the time were faced with millions of casualties from both World War I and World War II, this caused their government to be in turmoil which then lead to the major changes in the Soviet Union.

In the years spanning the Cold War, government types affected their societies by instilling new foreign policies, influenced the opposing population’s outlook towards communism and democracy through propaganda, and encouraged the establishment of new industries and trade agreements to support the war effort.

During Russia’s transition to communism in the early 20th century, conflict and unease permeated every part of life. Nothing was stable and very little of what the Bolsheviks had fought for had come to fruition by the time the USSR disbanded in 1991. The “classless society”, which was to work together for the prosperity of everyone, never became a reality. In the end, the majority of Russia’s 20th century was an utter failure on a grand scale. However, there were many amazing products of the system do to the great importance of education in Russian culture. Priceless novels were written, timeless movies were made, and great scientific endeavors were realized despite the rigid control placed upon Russian persons by the government. In

Oligarchy as it is known in Aristotle’s politics; is a government run by a small group of people, ‘elites’. However, the oligarchy which this essay addresses is currently referred to in Russia as “a very wealthy and politically well-connected businessman...one who is the main owner of a conglomerate of enterprises and has close ties with the president” (Aslund and Dabrowski, 2007; 144). In the 1990s Russia’s economic reforms are said to have created the rise of a small group of oligarchs who gained an overwhelming amount of power and control. By 1997, this small group of previously unknown businessmen and bankers, often with gangster ties, had acquired control of many of the key parts of the Russian economy. Why did they emerge? It is argued by David Satter that three processes facilitated the emergence of the oligarchs. The first was hyperinflation and the social, economic and political consequences. The second was the process of privatisation, and finally the third was criminalisation (Satter, 2003). However, were these powerful oligarchs just a phase during the transition from Soviet to Post-Soviet Russia? Even with Putin’s efforts and declaration to distance the oligarchs from politics and power, and start a war against them exemplified by the Khodorkovsky affair, are oligarchs still significantly powerful in contemporary Russia? What is the role they play in Russia? It seems that the power of those original oligarchs of the 1990s has decreased or been concealed in

Instead, the regime programmed people with the notion of social order, with traditional attitudes to great power, superiority and history, “Orthodoxy” the primary religion of the state and military. The area where politics and civil society should have been was "purged" decreasing the rights of citizens unknowingly. “If participation were not contained, the Kremlin feared the state would lose control; if the constraints were too tight, citizens would not participate, and the state would again need a cumbersome bureaucracy to get things done” (Richter 41). Political parties, independent television channels, non governmental and public organizations, the system of elections, the courts and law-enforcement bodies as autonomous bodies

The present day Russian Federation involves a democratic system, given the presence of elections, an independent judiciary, and the supremacy of law. Yet, in democracy, the crux of it involves an inevitable paradox: law limits state power, but the state must have the power to enforce the law. However, finding the balance of the ability to enforce laws, and therefore maintaining order, while not infringing on civil liberties, requires a mutual understanding, a social contract, between the rulers and the ruled. This requirement has not found its place in the Russian political arena, especially since “creating a rule-of-law-based sate out of dictatorship is not easy” (Bressler 2009). In addition, the Russian psyche views authority as a source of force and violence (Yakovlev 1996), an etymological result of a continuity beginning from imperial Russia. Although the Russian Federation, the Union Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russian Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia differ significantly, a strong state remains prevalent in the core of Russian history and politics. In short, the nature of political rule in Russia involves a never ending tug of war between the seemingly undying authoritative soulless entity known as the state and the equally undying Russian people’s hunger for liberty.