Hobsbawm 's The Age Of Extremes

Many historians argue The Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861, to be a key turning point within Russian history. It drastically altered Russia’s economic, political and social stipulation. One could propose the argument that this event lead to the fall of communism in 1990, further more suggesting the extent to which this event affected Russia. Hence this is ‘perhaps the most defining moment in Russian history, with its impact being seen many years after the event itself’. Although historians identify short term effects of this event, the significance to which this event

The American “way of war” is primarily based on the American interpretation of the national fundamentals and values to include capitalism and basic freedoms surrounding financial enterprising as applied in the democratic system. Along with these ideals concerning free marketing and democracy, the American “way of war” seeks to reinforce alliances with nations that uphold similar concepts and values through international trade and commerce. In doing so, the United States intrinsically denounces political ideologies that are contradictory, such as communism.

The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

Throughout the development of one of the greatest countries in the world, the he United States had created a world empire between 1890 and 1945. In such a short amount of time, the country as a whole as able to produce a homogenization of life where the measurement of national and international power and the level of control of economic, military, political, media, institutions, education, sport, music, etc. came together to form a new kind of American cutlure. However, during this time, it was all about the projection of the “American-self” and demonstrating characteristics and qualities that distinguished the U.S. (us) and the foreign outsider (them).

Historians argue that the 1917 Russian Revolution represents a major turning point in world history. Two specific pieces of evidence that support this argument is that the Revolution led to the spread of communism with the formation of the USSR and the emergence of Russia as a world power. Both of the pieces support the argument. The Revolution led to the formation of the USSR, otherwise known as the world’s first nation to base its government on the teachings and writings of Karl Marx. This event would not only be groundbreaking for Russia, but the entire globe. The formation of a communist nation meant a new battle was about to start -- the battle between communism and capitalism. The formation of the USSR would directly lead to the Cold

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

This paper offers a definition, while recognizing that it may contrast from that of different researchers, societies, governments, media, and maybe the person who is reading it. It will also include a brief history of the country as a whole.

Going back the road, to the distressing aftermath of World War One, there arose many questions about progressive political coordination of man and if civilization as they knew it then, was one of man’s greatest achievement or a revelation of his weaknesses. Growing questions about democracy were of raveling the minds of every citizen. America as a republic then, had suffered traumatic pains from several civil wars and political corruption and many feared the emergency of the “tyranny of the fifty one percent”. American democracy seemed to have suffered a blow from the start as it was considered as a fragile ideal. In

In truth, its history dates back as far as the sixteenth century, following the first great expansion of European capitalism, which resulted in slave trade, colonialism and neo-colonialism (Ezema, 2009). Throughout history, world powers have continually sought to perpetuate their way of life: from the philosophy and mythology of the Greeks, the political ideologies and linguistics of the Romans, and the art and architecture of the Italian Renaissance (Daghrir, 2013). Thus, it comes as no surprise that the aftermath of the post-war era, which saw the collapse of Soviet communism and the emergence of the United States as the sole hegemon, saw the aggressive spread of American ideals, values, and beliefs. Indeed, just as American goods flooded world markets in the post-World War II era; American culture now penetrates every continent through the aggressive development of mass communications, trade expansion and information technology.

In a country of complicated decisions made by politicians about far away places and the people that live there, it's only a guess as to the motives behind each of these decisions. In Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance", Noam gives a scrupulously researched critique of America's quest for dominance at any cost that not only has cast us in the role of a rogue superpower but also jeopardizes the very survival of humanity. From reading this book, I will give an account as to what Chomsky says about American hegemonic ideals and give him credit for the attempt that he has made to expose historical truth.

A society 's progressively evolution has based a process of collective conditions and consensus, reversal parties which had obsolete ideologies. Besides, a society 's changing in which individually participates, then a society is prepared to innovate until a cooperative opinion is fulfilled. That a process of society growth causes two different definitions: tradition and modernity. There are numerous viewpoints and conversations between traditional and modern society. For example, in traditional society, in the words of Thompson, "the child labour was an intrinsic part of the agricultural and industrial economy before 1780, and remained so until rescued by the school" (Thompson, 1991, p. 121). However, within modern society, Conlin mentioned the argument of Karl Polanyi "the economy has a life of its own" (Conlin, 2015). The questions arise, whether the tradition is more brutal to people or community than modernity? Is modernity drifting apart from tradition as a heretic? Therefore, to compare two societies this essay will provide the main view of modern society 's traits and conducts more conform the human beings, to compare two societies, and this essay will only elaborate an opinion is more sympathetic to the modernity.

The catastrophes of the past are the foundation of the future, events that occurred in the past cause people to envision a “better life” of not only for themselves but a society as a whole. By envisioning a better future individual rose up, advocated ideas, and policies that they believed would help in advancing their countries. For the purpose of this course, let us discuss the uprising of the Russian government and the European Council; both as single entities have their own goals, but collectively they seek to benefit their country(‘s) and promote prosperity, but through history and the changes of power has that aim been reached? Or if it is already has reached it, will these forms of government fail?

Looking back at the world in the past few hundred years, it would have been difficult to imagine that one day, majority of Western Europe would come to dominate the world in global economy (Landes, European Exceptionalism: A Different Path, 1998). Frank (2001) described the process of which the western society

Capitalists and supporters of democracy believe that socialism and modern liberalism are detrimental to economic progress. Because prices of goods and wage of workers is controlled directly by the government, privately-owned companies and institutions cannot flourish under a socialist or modern liberalist government. People who value freedom of speech and human rights likewise oppose socialism and modern liberalism, because they believe that such ideologies limit a citizen’s right to choose which products to buy, what job to take, what religious belief to espouse. Even though modern liberalism is more subtle and suave than socialism, it still ends up giving too much power to the government in the guise of economic, political, and social security.