Imperialist Autocracy In Russia

“…the Bolsheviks, cherishing an imagined class community yet inheriting a shattered and fragmented class structure in Russia after the revolution, found themselves obliged to invent classes on the basis of Marxist theory... in that most obvious and yet least expected place, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” (Suny 172)

Stalin’s unquestionable dominance over the Bolshevik party and their actions highlights the impact of Stalinism

Lastly, is the politics which would form from a dictatorship government across nations, and the effect that had on the economy. Marks demonstrates how each Russian theme influenced world history by citing before mentioned individuals and the regions which were impacted: United States, England, Mexico, and China to name a few. This is done using studies conducted on revolutionary violence, examinations of Russian characters in Chinese fiction, and visual examples embedded in the text. Counterevidence is not his burden, however had he touched on it more some of his connections would be more concrete, for example anarchism on its own is a stretch. There is a lack of context, or it is brief when he discusses how the topics influenced the world but is understandable as he deals with complex and broad topics. In general the book is an advancement in Russian inclusivity with world history simply by existing, a great addition to a topic long neglected. While it is an interesting read, it may seem incomprehensible to those with limited historical background, it is directed to the academia

In the short story of proposals for a new code of law talks about how Catherine the II came to power in Russia. She came to power following a coup when her husband Peter III, was assassinated. “After death of her husband” (201). With the support of the army and the nobles, Catherine took power made her husband sign a document of abdication. Leaving no one to dispute her coming to power. Under her rule, Russia was modernized and she also became the longest ruling female leader of Russia. With the country growing and becoming stronger than ever, Russia was recognized as one of the powerful nations of Europe. During her reign, Russia was able to accomplish many achievements and she added about 200,000 square miles of land into the country. Not only did she added more land to the country, but she also modernized the monarchy and tried to improve the lives of her citizens. Inspired by

There was a rather significant continuity between Lenin and Stalin’s policies on Political Control. When the Bolsheviks first came in to power Lenin banned Liberal parties who where seen as a threat and later banned all parties

Threatened by the event Bloody Sunday, Tsar Nicholas II faced the choice of military dictatorship or granting a new constitution. In the end, he determined to write a new constitution called the October Manifesto. Issued and signed by the Tsar, he promised to guarantee civil liberties as his last venture to continue his family’s history of unlimited autocracy. When the document was signed, it rested the anger most Russian civilians had for their Tsar. Although, the public was not pleased when it came to their attention that the Duma could not initiate legislation and Tsar would continuously dissolve the Dumas when they opposed him. One can see the contrast between the Tsar’s doing and his peoples needs, even after protests. In conclusion, the indifference brought upon the monarchy’s abdication and advanced in the outcome of the Bolshevik

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

The view is also entangled with Soviet historical development; many of the preliminary analyses were conducted by the Bolshevik revolutionaries themselves and, as such, they are highly political and driven by the need to establish the legitimacy of the Bolshevik regime. While Trotsky is a standout of these historians for his political dissent and blatant disregard for Stalinist power, he is still one of many. This fact greatly mitigates his effect on the passage of history; his need to legitimise the revolution echoes the sentiments of the Politburo historians such as Mikhail Pokrovsky, one of the foremost Bolshevik Historians of the time and one of Trotsky’s ideological and Historical rivals.

When you are in a revolution as large as the Bolsheviks were in Russia, it can be reasonably expected that everyone in their group is in on it. There are a myriad of different opinions possible but if you were a member of the Communist party, you would think you would be expected to commit to and follow communist beliefs. In the article “Paper Communists” Gayle Lonergan, from the University of Oxford, paints a picture of men who saw the communist party as a way out. She documents how many men saw “such benefits as preferential food rations and free health care” (p. 139)(1) and wanted to have the opportunity to get out of the farm country. Lonergan also argues the key issue of how much of the communist population was actually committed to

In his book, Lieven’s argument regarding the word “empire”, is known to be a hazardous and authoritative term that exists throughout the languages of the world. He argues throughout the book that Russia has always been an empire, due to its authoritarian rule. Although it has existed for centuries through the rule of the Tsars, the people who became unified under the USSR regime, had experienced massive amounts of force and control under Lenin, and more so under the reign of Stalin, according to Lieven. In order to prove his argument, Lieven examines the meaning of the term, “empire” and how there have been many attempts and different definitions that have existed throughout the course of many centuries. He divides the book into four sections:

Russia had been an imperial autocracy since the reign of Peter the Great in the 1700s, Before the revolution of 1917. Russia had become a great world power after Napoleon’s army got defeated in the 1800s. The want for social and political change in Russia began to grow, during the 1800s. In the early 1900s, Russia had split into two factions, the Bolsheviks, and the Mensheviks. In 1917 Russia found itself in the middle of World War I. In 1917, Czar Nicholas II resigned his position as leader of Russia, ending the nation’s imperial rule. For more than half a year after czar left, an unsuccessful provisional government ran the vast empire.

October 1917 marked the year that Vladimir Lenin led the Bolshevik Party to the first, and only successful proletarian revolution in history. A proletarian revolution is defined as a social revolution in which the working class attempts to overthrow the bourgeoisie. The proletariats are the workers, or working-class people, whereas the bourgeoisie are capitalists who own most of society’s wealth as well as the means of production. A central tenet of Marxism is that the means of production is the economic base that influences, or determines political life. The Bolsheviks took it as their responsibility to light the flame of revolution throughout Europe, in an effort to usurp the Western influence that was encroaching on the area. The role and

In his work The Bolshevik Revolution, Edward Carr expands through a detailed historical account how exactly it was that the Russian councils took power in October 1917. Sociological frameworks will also allow for a deeper understanding of the social unrest that led to the culmination of the October Revolution of 1917 and the unintended consequence of the bureaucratization of the state. To fully comprehend the events that led the council to take power, it is necessary to acknowledge both the institutional breakdown that is derived from an institutional lens while at the same time challenging its limits through a Neo-Marxist dialogue. Therefore, the focus of the institutional structures that are discussed by Theda Skocpol will best

Vladimir Lenin was the leader of the Russian revolution. Lenin’s reason for writing “State and Revolution” was to explain his view on Karl Marx’s reasoning for a state and views on what the proletariat, working class, should do during a revolution. The goal of a revolution such as this, a communist revolution, is to give the power to the working people, which is to say that Lenin, similar to Castro and Nkrumah, wants to be free from imperialism. Another is to Lenin’s view on revolution is that it can only be achieved through nationality and unity.(Lenin, “State and Revolution, page 22) “The overthrow of bourgeois rule can be accomplished only by the proletariat, as the particular class, which, by the economic conditions of its existence, is being prepared for this work and is provided both with the opportunity and the power to perform it.”(Lenin 23) He believes that a revolution can only succeed with the use of violence from the proletariat against the party that is in control.(Lenin, 22-23) “The replacement of the bourgeois by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution.”(Lenin, 22) As a leader Lenin is an advocate of change. He is a communist and believes in giving power to the people, mainly the proletariat.(Lenin 20)

When comparing the French Revolution of 1789 and Russian October Revolution of 1917, a series of parallels become evident. Both revolutionary groups became determined with an extensive emergence of new ideas, which captured a strong majority of the respective populations. The importance of the ideas was critical to maintaining a drive for the revolutions considering they acted as a manifestation of what the public and the politicians wanted for change. The primary ideas that evolved out of the outbreak of revolution revolved around the Enlightenment, political ideologies, propaganda and human rights. The momentous significance and importance of these