The Intellectual And Political History Of The Triumph Of Communism In Russia

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

Progressivism was a wide and varied movement that changed American values and lifestyles having everlasting impact on American history.

The October 1917 Revolution is undoubtedly a momentous and extremely important event in Russia’s history, one that ousted the centuries-old Tsardom that ruled over the empire, in favour of the radical communist movement in the form of the Bolsheviks, headed by one Vladimir Iliych Lenin. However, did this sudden move from autocracy to a supposedly more progressive democracy actually bring about the modernisation of Russia industrially, agriculturally and culturally, or was it simply a rebranding of a totalitarian state that would continue to oppress the

Progressivism started as a grassroots movement. While it began at the bottom and made many state level changes, progressivm impact reformed America at a national level as well. Progressivism is a response to industrial expansion in the United States. While progressivism made some changes in America like the 17th & 19th amendments and labor laws, a lot of the problems Progressivism tried to tackle

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

The Second World War left Europe utterly devastated once again, by the modern armies of Europe. The Russian Red Army liberated Berlin from Nazi dominance and control in 1945, installing their own governmental ideologies, social, economic, and political terms. Contracting postwar governments, in the post war period immediately after the war known as "Zero Hour". Once the Russians liberated Germany any type of governmental stability and law/order just deteriorated. In its wake building East Germany to become known as the German Democratic Republic (GDR) under the control of the Soviet Union. Life and society in general, was controlled by government, not just political institutions but also social institutions as well. The people were always watched and suspected by the elites in the communist party using their network of secrete spies and police. Only later to be overthrown in a domino effect of Revolutions all throughout Eastern Europe towards the final years of the Soviet Union.

The Russian Revolution is a widely studied and seemingly well understood time in modern, European history, boasting a vast wealth of texts and information from those of the likes of Robert Service, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Allan Bullock, Robert Conquest and Jonathan Reed, to name a few, but none is so widely sourced and so heavily relied upon than that of the account of Leon Trotsky, his book “History of the Russian Revolution” a somewhat firsthand account of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Trotsky’s book, among others, has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the events of The Revolution; but have his personal predilections altered how he portrayed such paramount

Richard Edward Pipes is a Polish raised American citizen with a long history of Russian publications from a western liberal-conservative lens.[footnoteRef:1] An extreme loyalist to the anti-communist movement, he has three publications relevant to this week?s discussion. He began with the historically significant publications of The Russian Revolution and A Concise History of the Russian Revolution that were followed during the revisionist period with Three "Whys" of the Russian Revolution. He openly acknowledges the influence on his objectivity by living in post Russian revolution Poland in several of his publications. [1: . Http://facebook.com/alphahistory, "Historian: Richard Pipes," Russian Revolution, 2015, accessed November 08, 2016,

The year of 1917 wasn’t one of the easiest with World War One destroying Europe, but one country had it worse, Russia. Communism is no longer present in Russia, it has played a major role in its revolution though. The build up to communism, and the revolution was due to many things, like bloody Sunday in 1905, but, mainly power struggles and leadership roles being pursued. World War 1 also greatly affected Russia, and its society. During the war, there was much famine, because the army was not getting the support that it needed from its country. The citizens were starting to lose faith in Tsar Nicholas II. A new government was intact, made of a group of socialist revolutionaries, one that was run by the people of Russia,

The idea of progress is the idea that advances in technology, science, and social organization can produce an improvement in the human condition. That is, people can become better in terms of quality of life , or social progress, through economic development, modernization, and the application of science and technology. The assumption is that the process will happen once people apply their reason and skills.

The concepts behind communism, in and of itself, appealed to American radicalists who felt that a lot of the existing discrimination was the result of capitalism and its effects on the workforce.

Revolution provides some of the most dynamic and complex parts of history. New countries and governing systems arise from revolution, and these changes not only affect said countries, but also the rest of the world. In the case of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution, the political changes that occurred sent the rest of the world into panic, as they sensed a dangerous threat to their political and social systems. With social and political issues tracing back to 1891, the conditions of Russia in 1917 provided Lenin with the perfect substance for revolution, as boundless displeasures with the Russian war involvement, a failing economy, and a decline in living conditions during World War I created an environment in which his ideas and messages met little opposition and much accord.

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

There were many different equally important reasons why Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to hold on to their power. For Lenin, and the Bolsheviks, winning political power was relatively easy, compared with retaining it. They had many different objects to overcome, such as; Russia was in chaos, politically and economically, and normal government had broken down in large areas, yet despite all these problems Lenin was able to consolidate his power – and create the world’s first communist state.

Vladimir Lenin was a Marxian idealist who devoted the majority of his adult life to bringing about a Socialist state in Russia. His years committed to the cause would culminate in the October Revolution of 1917, during which the Lenin-led Bolshevik party would seize upon a weakened political regime and institute themselves as the ruling authority of Russia. With Lenin leading the Bolshevik party, eager to usher in the doctrine he had faithfully subscribed to and expounded upon for decades, his dream of a Russian Socialist state was now a humbling yet exciting reality. How, then, did such a Marxian purist fall well short of the utopian vision promised by his political ideology? Lenin’s inability to successfully implement the policies which would bring about the ever-elusive socialist utopia can be directly attributed to a variety of factors stemming from three root causes. The first, and most damning, predictor of imminent failure was that, though Russia was ripe for revolution at the time of the Bolshevik takeover, the economy of Russia was not yet ripe for the implementation of Socialist ideals and practices. The second and third root causes of Lenin’s ultimate failure are byproducts of the issues that arose from the initial root cause just stated. Due to the impracticality of full-scale implementation of Socialist policies in Russia at the time, Lenin made the reprehensible, though practical, choice to utilize dictatorial tactics of repression and force, often by way of