Can there ever be a justification for revolutionary politics.
Political Theory 2nd Semester Essay Can there ever be a justification for revolutionary politics. Revolutionary politics are responsible for some of the most violent and destructive events in history, and continue to be so today. On the other hand revolutions can often be constructive in their final outcome, and have often improved social conditions in the long term, without resorting to bloody and divisive conflict. Whether or not revolution is a destructive force which must be guarded against at all costs, or a natural and necessary form of political evolution is subjective, and will now be considered in greater depth. Any political or ideological group, which seeks to replace or radically alter an established and dominant system with one of its own, or one which significantly encompasses its objectives, is, by definition, revolutionary. Revolutionary action comes in many forms, from the violence of the French (1789) and Bolshevik (1917) revolutions and the current revolution in Haiti together with the continuing actions of extremist groups such as the IRA and ETA, to the more peaceful actions of the US civil rights movement (1950s) the collapse of the soviet union (1991) or the feminist revolution (1920s). "The possibilities for political action lie on a continuum which stretches from obedience through tolerated nonconformity, conventional protest, direct action,
Although the American Civil War started after the Confederate States seceded from the Union and fired upon the American flag, was slavery the true cause of the War? If so, how?
Although the American Civil War started after the Confederate States seceded from the Union and fired upon the American flag, was slavery the true cause of the War? If so, how? "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal"!1 The irony of the statement mentioned in the 1776 Declaration of Independence is which echoes the rallying cries of the anti-slavery protesters that campaigned for the abolition of slavery in the 19th Century. When we look at the build up to the America Civil War, it is evident that there was one recurring argument that unmistakably divided the Northern states from the South. That is the issue of slavery, the North maintaining the consensus view that slavery was inhumane and therefore should be abolished. And the South argued that slavery was essential to Southern prosperity and should be expanded. This division in the United States culminated in the Confederate states seceding from the Union and declaring Civil War. Historians have often battled with what the true causes of the war were. Alan Farmer introduces this argument in The origins of the American Civil War, as he states that around the time there were many terms used to refer to the American Civil War some of which being 'The War for Slavery', 'The War for Nationality', 'The War for Southern Independence' and 'The Confederate War'2. Overlooking the question of which
Was Italy any closer to unification in 1849 than she had been in 1847?
Was Italy any closer to unification in 1849 than she had been in 1847? The Italy of 1847 was as Kemp describes, "the disadvantaged latecomer" in more respects than one. After all she had not seen any agricultural or industrial revolution and her economy was extremely weak and localised largely to the stronger Northern states, although there is evidence of metallurgy and a small cotton industry in Naples. But the link between economic development and change however important was not the major one, for was Italy to have any drastic and successful degree of change it would have to be through Politics and the ideologies of major Politicians. The major point in this period was undoubtedly the Revolutions of 1848, and although not a popular revolution, due to the lack of peasant support, it was nevertheless one that would bring a sense of hope and an encouraged feeling of nationalism to most, although perhaps not in the short term. There was disunity amongst the states with drastic differences between them, and only 2 stood out as real leaders capable of leading Italy into a new era, namely Piedmont and The Papal States. These however were only two strong links in a chain that was largely completed with weaker links. The Papal states' political outlook had changed quite markedly pre-1848, for example they had been given a limited freedom of speech and also he appointed a
What were the consequences of the agricultural revolution for the rural poor? And how did they respond?
What were the consequences of the agricultural revolution for the rural poor? And how did they respond? By Kevin Dean Throughout history a so-called agricultural revolution has been detectable in every age. From the Neolithic period, from ancient Egypt, through to Rome, thirteenth century England, Britain in the 1860's, and again in the 1950's, are all given dates to when agricultural revolutions have taken place.1 In this essay, however, the term `agricultural revolution', is used to refer to the, roughly, one hundred years after 1750. In fact, the term itself is somewhat misleading, as the word `revolution' means a full circle, or a cyclical return to an original starting point, whereas in this context the term is used to indicate a series of connected events occurring in linear fashion, and according to some historians, stretching back some centuries before 1750 and being part of, and central to, the industrial revolution.2 What did the `agricultural revolution' consist of? As is often the case, the answer is multi -causal, but there are several recognisable factors that can be pointed to. Firstly, and the most contentious by dint of the difference of opinion amongst historians, the removal of common property rights to land, or `enclosure'.3 The enclosure process of denying access of cottagers and labourers to the farmlands and `commons' of the parish, and the
Bernard Bailyn. Ideological Origins of the American Revolution - review
Bernard Bailyn. Ideological Origins of the American Revolution .Enlarged Edition. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge, United States. 1992 pp. xvi + 1-396 As the back cover of Bernard Bailyn's book, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, suggests, the book discusses the foundations and original principles of the American Revolution. It is indisputable significance in the literature of the area of American Revolution and American History can easily be seen from the awards the book received. Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is both the winner of the Pulitzer Prize of History and the Bancroft Prize in 1968. The author of the book Bernard Bailyn is a stimulating and important historian of our times. He is an Emeritus Professor of Early American History at Harvard University and the Director of the International Seminar on the History of the Atlantic World. He is the author of many scholarly articles and books among which are Voyagers to the West (1986) for which he win also the Pulitzer Prize, The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson, which was awarded the National Book Award in History in 1975,The Origins of American Politics, The Peopling of British North America and many others. However, his most significant work was Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. He also received many other prizes and medals for his academic works and
Why did Tsar Nicholas II Abdicate in 1917?
Moscow Economic School Extended Essay Why did Tsar Nicholas II Abdicate in 1917? History HL Michael Rodzianko cfx756 000904-005 2006 Abstract The abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917 was a profoundly mysterious event in Russian history. This unexpected event caused the Romanov Dynasty, which had ruled for 300 years to collapse in several months. This essay will aim at distinguishing the roles of various figures involved and the reasons for the event itself. This essay will focus mainly on the period leading up to and on 1917, in which the Tsar abdicated in early March. The memoirs of Michael Vladimirovich Rodzianko, the president of the fourth Duma will be used and to in order to get a contrasting view the work of G. Z. Yoffe, a Soviet historian who accessed archives opened in the 1980's will also be used. Along with these the works of renowned western historians will be used to back up much of the historical content. By using sources on the same time period by authors with contradicting points of view the most objective view, which is usually found in between the extremes can be traced out. The essay is structured into three chapters; the first focuses on the role of the Duma with emphasis on its president, Rodzianko; its members, Guchkov and Shulgin, and the parties of which it was comprised. The second chapter considers the Army and World War I, stressing
To what extent can the Nazi Revolution be described as a "legal revolution"? Discuss in relation to the period January 1933-August 1934.
To what extent can the Nazi Revolution be described as a "legal revolution"? Discuss in relation to the period January 1933-August 1934. The Nazi revolution of power was as extraordinary as it was unique. It was a revolution that placed the 'unknown soldier' or the 'nobody of Vienna' in charge of government in one of Europe's most powerful countries. It had not been too long before, that Adolf Hitler had been in prison and it had not been too long before, that the Nazi party was a fringe party on the edge of the political spectrum, which most people considered to be irrelevant. The amazing fact is that to the general observer, the revolution would appear to be completely legal. After all, the Nazi party did receive the largest share of the votes in the Reichstag elections and the Enabling Act, which secured Hitler dictatorial powers, was passed through the Reichstag. However, if the general observer was to look beneath the surface, there is no doubt that he would discover elements of illegality, which were crucial in assuring the Nazi ascension to power. As Ian Kershaw points out, Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was an extraordinary political drama and one, which unfolded largely out of sight of the German people (1). It was the result of several meetings between Hitler and Von Papen and several more between Hindenburg and Von Papen. It was not the result of elections,
Industrialisation and urbanisation radically changed nineteenth century English society, sometimes for the better, more often for the worse. Discuss.
Industrialisation and urbanisation radically changed nineteenth century English society, sometimes for the better, more often for the worse. Discuss. The industrial revolution was the first step in modern economic growth and development, altering both the appearance of land and establishing a different way of living and working for the majority of families. Britain's production moved from its traditional agricultural locations in the countryside to large industrial cities where the factories were based, in turn, large percentages of the population began relocating from the country to the towns. Around 1851 there was roughly half the countries population living in an urban environment and this had raised to approx. 80% by 1900 (The Victorian Web 2003). Industrialisation led to the rise of the middle class, giving them political power and improving their quality of life, but although industrialisation was good for some, mainly the middle and upper classes, it led to urbanisation and along with the benefits of an industrial society came the disadvantages of urban dwellings and poor working conditions for the working class. The growth of cities and economy brought many new members to the "Middle Class Community". The term was used to describe those members of society who were below the aristocracy but above the workers; "the middling sort". The middle class spread
Account For America’s Industrial Growth After 1865.
ACCOUNT FOR AMERICA'S INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AFTER 1865. America's experience of industrial growth in the last third of the nineteenth century was unique in comparison to the experience of other industrialised nations. The cessation of Civil War hostilities in 1865 coincided with an unprecedented increase in industrialisation, the rapidity of which projected America from an understated agrarian economy to the world 's leading industrial nation by the beginning of the twentieth century.1 This meteoric ascent cannot be attributed to one solitary factor, although academics such as Walt W.Rostow2 have sought to champion one prime dynamic as the driving force for the phenomenon. Instead it was the complex amalgamation of diverse environmental, technological, political, economical, social and ideological factors that heralded America's industrial growth. Although this essay is concerned with industrial growth in the period after 1865 it is worth mentioning the debate that surrounds the Civil War and whether or not it acted as a stimulus for industrial expansion. The widely held idea that the Civil War directly pre-empted the acceleration in industrialisation is a highly contentious issue among historians. The war did create demand for clothing, armoury and food, but it was also highly destructive, especially in the South. Thomas C. Cochran questions the role of the Civil War on
Trotsky's autobiography, My Life. An Attempt at an Autobiography reveals much about the October revolution from Bolshevik eyes.
Trotsky's autobiography, My Life. An Attempt at an Autobiography reveals much about the October revolution from Bolshevik eyes. Although written in the year following Trotsky's expulsion from the party and his exile in Turkey, the sentiments received are of a very pro-revolutionary and pro-Bolshevik nature. Through Trotsky's autobiography, we are allowed insight into a personal account of the events of October 1917 in Russia and although his writings are extremely biased, this can be seen as a strength in analysing the Bolshevik revolution. Trotsky, as a leading figure within the Bolshevik party, is able to provide us with great details of the Bolshevik revolution and the feelings and actions of other party members, including Lenin. Although Trotsky did play such an imperative role in the revolution, his autobiography was written not long after his opponent Stalin expelled him from the party and Russia. Due to the power struggle between these two key figures in Russian history, we can see that Trotsky used his autobiography to attempt to discredit Stalin. He does this not through slanderous comments, but through no mention of the dictator. Although this may not seem as though Trotsky is continuing the fight, the absence of Stalin in Trotsky's account of the October revolution and the emphasis on Lenin's relationship with the author places Trotsky as a greater supporter
