Is the Cultural Revolution best characterised as a top-level power struggle or a mass movement?
. Is the Cultural Revolution best characterised as a top-level power struggle or a mass movement? 'In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, it is the masses who must liberate themselves. We cannot do the things for them which they should do for themselves. We must trust the masses, rely on them and respect their creative spirit...We must not be afraid of disorder.' (Mao Zedong quoted in Chan et al, 1980) Mao's epic return to the political limelight on July 16th 1966 not only stunned the masses of China, but also sent shockwaves rolling through the political establishment. Amidst rumours of illness and death, Mao surprised everyone by springing back on to the scene and swimming 15km of the Yangzi River at Hangkou. A tremendous feat for a man 73 years of age; reports in the media quickly hailed him as superhuman. This was indeed the comeback that Mao had desired, having felt increasingly threatened by his 'advancing age...and his concern that his senior colleagues were seeking to shunt him aside' (Spence, 1991, 603). In 1965, Mao had become angry at the extent to which the Politburo under Liu Shaoqi, and the Secretariat under Deng Xiaoping had taken policy making into its own hands1. Having retreated to Shanghai where he gathered with hard-line Communist intellectuals, he set about planning the initial stages of what Mao felt would reignite his Communist Revolution. For
Expressions of German Nationalism 1815-1847
Expressions of German Nationalism 1815-1847 1815 was the year of the Congress of Vienna and the formation of the Confederation of German States. These conferences followed the ceasing of hostilities against France and a re-construction of European power relations as they were before the Thermidorian influence of the French revolution extended outside its natural borders through French occupation of much of Europe. The cause was liberalism and constitutional government but was eventually to become an expression of the megalomaniac tendencies of the French leader. The experience of the German people under French occupation had been mixed but the wars of liberation provided an opportunity for a sense of unity to develop amongst the German speaking peoples. The German Confederation arising from the Congress of Vienna consisted of 39 states and 4 free cities. The Hapsburg Empire and the Prussian Kingdom were the leading influences in this new structure that was essentially a revised version of the Holy Roman Empire. The period between 1815 and 1847 is traditionally known as 'The Restoration' as the policies of the German confederation during this period revolved around the restoration of absolute rule by monarchs. The statesman Metternich represented the Austrian-Hapsburg Empire in the Confederation and it was under his direction that policies were developed and
Was the industrial Revolution a good thing?
Was the industrial Revolution a good thing? The Industrial Revolution was a series of many changes that took place in Great Britain from 1750 to 1900. There is much controversy as to whether the changes were for better or for worse and to whether the Industrial Revolution was a good thing or a bad thing. Some people say that it improved peoples' lives, and that technology and entertainment got better. They say that Britain was made a great, rich and powerful country. Others disagree and say that it was a bad thing and that during the Industrial Revolution there were terrible working and living conditions and many people suffered because of the changes that took place. They also say that it caused a lot of pollution and that it changed many people's lifestyles for the worse. In this essay I will investigate the bad and then the good things that happened to people's lives in Britain between 1750 and 1900 and then make up my own mind as to whether the Industrial Revolution was a good thing or not. In the early 1700's a lot of people worked on the land. Nearly all of the people that didn't work on the farms worked in their homes, spinning or weaving. Most families spun and wove in the same room as they did all of their domestic chores. This room was usually quite full, with the children, adults and even the elderly all helping to produce wool and cloth. This was a good idea,
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
![It is true that Comrade Mao Tse-tung made gross mistakes during the 'Cultural Revolution', but his contributions to the Chinese revolution far outweigh his mistakes.'[Resolution on some questions in CCP history, CCP Central Committee, June 1981]Discuss](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/93459/listing/93459_1.jpg)
It is true that Comrade Mao Tse-tung made gross mistakes during the 'Cultural Revolution', but his contributions to the Chinese revolution far outweigh his mistakes.'[Resolution on some questions in CCP history, CCP Central Committee, June 1981]Discuss
It is true that Comrade Mao Tse-tung made gross mistakes during the 'Cultural Revolution', but his contributions to the Chinese revolution far outweigh his mistakes.'[Resolution on some questions in CCP history, CCP Central Committee, June 1981]Discuss Introduction Mao Tse-tung is one of the most disputed person in Chinese history. He was the acknowledged leader of the greatest and most popular revolutions and remained the dominant figure in the post revolutionary regime for near 30 years, presiding over not only the industrial but also the cultural transformation of People's Republic of China. He influenced profoundly on Chinese by his power, policies, personality and thoughts. He contributed a lot to China and also brought China to chaos and made millions of people lost their lives during the Cultural Revolution. That makes him a mysterious and controversial figure. In this essay, I will discuss the above statement of Mao by examining the biography of Mao Tse-tung and the contemporary Chinese history in order to have a proper evaluation towards him and help make in-depth comprehension of Modern China. Mao's revolution life Mao Tse-tung was the son of a rich peasant, he was born in Xiangtan in Hunan province on 26 December 1893. During his early years, the old imperial Chinese order was rapidly changing, the radical reformist and revolutionary movements were rising, and
Why did the Industrial Revolution Occur in Britain First?
The Industrial Revolution was a period between the eighteenth and nineteenth century that was characterized by continued economic growth as a result of industrialization. It witnessed extensive changes in almost every facet of society: agriculture, technology, demographic, finance, and many others. These changes stimulated a major transformation in the way of life, and created a modern urban society that was no longer rooted in agricultural production, but in industrial manufacture. In the late eighteenth century, the Industrial Revolution made its debut in Great Britain and subsequently spread across Europe, North America and the rest of the world. Great Britain was able to emerge as the world’s first industrial nation through an amalgamation of numerous factors. Great Britain had succeeded in undergoing key preconditioning processes– the Agricultural Revolution, Financial Revolution and Scientific Revolution – before its European counterparts. Furthermore, Great Britain had several comparative advantages including its geographical location and nature, expanding empire and worldwide trade network, growing transportation network, rich supply of natural resources, ready supply of capital for investment, available labor supply and relatively high labor productivity, government support for innovation and economic changes, and expertise in tinkering with technology.
Through examining the historians Georges Lefebvre and Alfred Cobban, what are the underlying factors that shape and affect the historian's writing of the French Revolution
Through examining the historians Georges Lefebvre and Alfred Cobban, what are the underlying factors that shape and affect the historian's writing of the French Revolution? _____________________________________________________________________________________ Synopsis By exploring the different interpretations of the French Revolution, the aim of my historical enquiry- which was consistent throughout the entire process- was to demonstrate the notion that historians in writing history are affected by their context and methodology. This directed my research and the formulation of my essay. As both historians are prominent, I was able attain copious amounts of information detailing their context, methodology, political affiliation and ideological convictions. Initially, the intended focus was on the historiographical issues which shaped the historical debate between the Marxist interpretation of the Revolution and the Revisionist reaction against this interpretation, represented by Lefebvre and Cobban respectively. This debate would revolve around the question of whether the revolution was 'bourgeois'. However, in analyzing Cobban's The Social Interpretation and Lefebvre's Coming of the French Revolution, it dawned that what seemed to be a debate was in fact a change in the historiography of the French Revolution which resulted from the differing contexts of the historians.
Were the American Revolution and subsequent constitution influenced more by Lockes idea of the social contract or by Montesquieus concept of checks and balances?
Were the American Revolution and subsequent constitution influenced more by Locke's idea of the social contract or by Montesquieu's concept of checks and balances? "American Consitution being drafted at the Constitutional Convention1 " Were the American Revolution and subsequent constitution influenced more by Locke's idea of the social contract or by Montesquieu's concept of checks and balances? The American Revolution was perhaps the single greatest impact for human rights and libertarian reform in the history of the Modern World; this is of course a controversial statement standing against later movements and revolutions which are depicted to be of greater reward to some, who may regard the French Revolution or social reform movements of the Industrial Revolution to be of far greater influential merit upon the Modern World. The renowned historian who stands against the opening argument is the work of Eric Hobsbawm, who stated "the American Revolution has remained a crucial event in American history, but (except for the countries involved in it and by it) it has left few major traces elsewhere. The French Revolution is a landmark in all countries2". However "The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen3" was not as liberating in conventional thought as it should have been e.g. "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. (Social distinctions may be founded only upon
The Bolsheviks did not seize power in October 1917, it fell into their hands
The Bolsheviks did not seize power in October 1917, it fell into their hands The very nature of revolution is to seize power and this the Bolsheviks did, but they were greatly assisted by circumstance and the incompetence of those around them. Their ascent to supremacy began not in October but years before. To rigidly frame the Russian Revolution as one of the above statements is thus simply a matter of semantics. Lenin himself admitted that power had not so much been seized as had fallen to him like a ripe fruit from a tree. Yet the events of October were the culmination of decades of turbulent high politics, universal social revolution and Bolshevik spadework. There was no great, symbolic battle to announce a traditional seizure of power - it was the inadequacies of every Bolshevik rival that meant the opportunity to take power was presented and duly taken. From February through to October, there were abundant openings for various political parties and individuals to take control but none took full advantage. With the increasing socialist nature of society, the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries had as equal an opportunity as the Bolsheviks, but they either failed to recognize power was in their grasp, or they couldn't bring themselves to brake with the liberal coalition. Lenin showed prudence to ensure that events would unfold to his benefit, but that the
Intrigue and controversy surround the role of Grigorii Efimovich Rasputin in the final years of the Tsarist Empire and the rule of Nicholas II in particular.
Intrigue and controversy surround the role of Grigorii Efimovich Rasputin in the final years of the Tsarist Empire and the rule of Nicholas II in particular. From extremely humble beginnings in the deprived state of Siberia, to virtually unlimited access and potential influence over the Russian royal family, Rasputin's life and influence are both the stuff of legend and shrouded in mystery. There is limited reliable evidence on Rasputin's earlier life and, as a consequence, many writers have tended to focus his colourful habits and lifestyle, following his rise to a position of influence within the Russian court. This has contributed to popular understanding of his role and influence on Russian politics that has focused much more on personality than any formal examination of the extent to which he contributed to the downfall of the Russian royal family. Reliable sources are not plentiful, but such records do exist and provide us with an intriguing catalogue of events and opinions surrounding not only Rasputin but also those who closely surrounded him during his times at the Alexander Palace. Understandably when dealing with such highly sensitive issues, many differing opinions exist as to Rasputin's influence have on Tsar Nicholas, Alexandra and the Romanov Empire itself. To a large extent these hinge on whether the preoccupation with Rasputin's personal characteristics and
