Free Essay

Bolshevik Consolidation of Power

In:

Submitted By jakescrivens
Words 2013
Pages 9
How did the Bolsheviks consolidate their power in the first few months after the October 1917 Revolution? (30 marks)
Lenin’s Bolshevik takeover of power in Russia left the country confused and inquisitive into what the future may hold, with their recently adopted power only leaving them with a tenuous grip around the nation. The majority of Russia predicted that the Bolshevik’s would only last a matter of weeks, before worsening economic and social issues would leave their power insecure and prove too difficult for them to correct. Also the opposition was gathering momentum which Lenin knew had to be stopped in its tracks before any attacks were made on his newly formed government, consolidating power was key for the Bolsheviks and the first few months were paramount to their success.
Right from the start Lenin realised that opposition was plentiful to one-party rule and his emerging Bolshevik dictatorship. Still throughout the cities many working class citizens still supported the idea of Soviet power, not Bolshevik power. The majority expected the Socialist to remerge from the dismantled Provisional Government and reinstate their power over Russia, but Lenin had always proposed to rule alone and made it clear that his party were going to merciless to any opposition that came between him and total supremacy. At the top of Lenin’s list of objectives was forming his new government, named the Council of People’s Commissars, also known as the Sovnarkom. This came as a surprise to many as it was expected that the Soviet could and would have become the main body of government in Russia as many Soviets were in fact Bolsheviks. The reason that Lenin decided to not include the Soviet’s in his plans was that he believed to gain real strength and a robust grip around Russia, he had to have total control, any other political influence may lead to that grip being loosened and consequent forfeiting power to political rivals. At the end of the day, Lenin had no intention whatsoever of sharing power with opposition, including the Mensheviks, Socialists Revolutionaries and other socialist groups in the Soviet.
Lenin appointed fellow Bolsheviks to certain posts with the Sovnarkom wiith Lenin himself being Chairman, Trotsky initially as Commissar for Foreign Affairs (until becoming Commissar for War in February 1918) and Stalin and Commissar for Nationalities. Lenin knew that by employing people that respected him and he had one-hundred per cent trust in, Russia would be stable for the time being under the Bolsheviks as any problems initiated could be dealt with efficiently by the applicable Commissar leader. When the government started operating in was in an extremely precarious position, opposition leaders gave it now more than a few weeks, mainly due to the fact that the Sovnarkom’s power was incredibly limited, astonishingly the Soivets were still in control of many opposition parties including the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries. To many people’s surprise the Soviets never really made an explicit attempt to regain power over Russian, when it was quite a realistic chance that the Soviets could have defeated the Bolshevik’s and left Lenin in disarray. Also in the Russian Countryside Bolshevik influence and presence was basically absent. Many protests took place in th capital city of Petrograd as civil servants held strikes and to add to the problems for Lenin the State Bank initially refused to give any money to the Bolsheviks, adding to Lenin dismay, which led to him for the first time becoming worried over the future control of the Bolsheviks and consequently the whole of Russia. Despite his worries the Government did eventually get their hands on the money at this stage they desperately needed, however it wasn’t political negotiations that led to the banks agreeing to supply the money, it took armed force to make staff at the banks to open their vaults so the Sovnarkom could get their hands on as many roubles as they required. This was the first sign that Lenin was going to stand by his words and was going to be complete ruthless in his reign as the leader of Russia, showing that he wasn’t afraid to over power to state bank to steal an infinite amount of money illustrated this, but at the end of the day he knew it paramount to his success, without economic power the Bolshevik’s wouldn’t have been able to fund the regime, defeating opposition and bringing the Great War to an end was going to be an economic drain on the government, so it was incredibly necessary that he got his hands on the money.
The problems that Lenin had did beg the question of how did he manage to survive the first few months. Lenin had realised the problems that the Provisional had feel due to, so proposed to ignore the tide of popular aspiration and instead appease the workers and peasants in the hope of gaining support as a result, which would subsequently tighten his grip around the working class as a whole. As many of the Soviets were Bolsheviks Lenin gave power to them in order to manage their own affairs, and give the central government less to worry about. The Sovnarkom ruled by decree without going to the Soviet for their approval – this meant that Lenin and his government could make decisions on the running of the country without consulting any other political parties, therefore protecting any political influence. The three most important decrees were as follows, starting with the Land Decree. This decree gave the peasants the power they had been craving for years, the right to take over the estates of the gentry and then decide for them how to divide the land up amongst them. This made it no longer possible for any land to be bought, sold or rented, essentially the land belonged to the country, everyone. Despite this, it was not what the Bolsheviks wanted, but Lenin knew it was essential to appease the peasants and therefore gave them what they wanted t prevent any possible counter-revolution from them. Lenin had it in his plans that the peasants were going to play a vital role in his consolidation of power, with class warfare, as I will discuss later, essentially being Lenin’s answer to eliminating the middle-class. Secondly the Workers’ control decree gave factory committees control over the production and finance within the workplace, this was not what many Bolsheviks wanted, however it was inevitable that they would have to give in to pressure for worker’s pressure for reform. The final decree was the Rights of the people of Russia decree, which gave the right of self-determination to the national minorities, meaning that they could denounce themselves from Russia, despite this being opposite to Lenin’s intentions he knew that it was necessary to keeping the national minorities at bay.
Overall, the Sovnarkom didn’t have the experience or backing of political experts, however Lenin managed to fight his way through the struggle to come out of the struggle still in control of Russia as a whole. Decrees appeasing peasants was a paramount part to his success and he knew that he would need the backing of peasants later on to defeat and eradicate the bourgeois middle-class. By giving peasants the concessions that they desperately wanted, including eight-hour days, land and peace, the urban workers and peasants were beginning to come round to the idea of a Bolshevik run state.
Lenin knew that giving into the popular demands in certain aspects would go some way in consolidating his Bolshevik power within Russia, however he also knew that this technique wouldn't be enough, so pursued the idea of eradicating all political opposition. One of the very first measures that Lenin introduced was the close of opposition press, the newspapers of the opoosition centre and right were the first to be hit, closely followed by the socialist press. By doing this Lenin knew that he would be able to stop the opposiiton ideology from spreading across, stopping any momentum in it's tracks to try andmake Russia a strictly one party state. Lenin especially knew this as he has invested high amounts of money into the papers during the 1917 revolution, subsequently knowing the impact that any hostile press could have. Soon after Lenin turned his attention to the Kadets, quickly being outlawed by the Bolsheviks. Then on the 7th of December Lenin set up the Cheka, much like the Okrhana of past years, this force of dedicated Bolshevik supporters provided depdanable security, it soon became clear that the Cheka would be a vital part in holding the Bolshevik regime together. Lenin also encouraged class warfare, with his aim being to wipe out the middle class, and have the peasantry running the country. Workers, soldiers and peasants supported the end of privlege and them oves to a more egalitarian society. Titles were completely abolished and everyone was simply known by the title of 'comrade', this allowed no one to have power or dignity over anyone else and left everybody on a level playing field. Lenin knew that by doing this he would have the backing of the peasants, which he had already pleased after introducing numerous decrees as previously mentioned. The Socialist press made sure to publicise content which would spur on the peasantry t view the middle-class (burzhui) as 'enemies of the people'. Lenin had earned the respect of the peasants so knew he could rely on them to deal with the Burzhui in an aggressive manner to try and eradicate.
Also the abolishing of the Constituent Assembly aided Lenin in his pursuit of total the monopolisation of Russia. His intentions were to win the election and then rule Russia in a similar way that he was doing so pre-assembly. Lenin has his hands tied in his decision whether to form a Constituent Assembly as threats were made to disrupt his reign if orders weren't carried out, for example the Railwaymen's Union, backed by the post and telegraph union, threatened to cut of communications if the Bolsheviks did not hold talks with other political parties. The power they possessed would easily allow them to paralyse food supplies to Petrograd as well as contact with other cities. These demands gave Lenin with no option, so reluctantly had to hold talks with other parties about sharing his political powers. This was when Lenin was convinced to form the Constituent Assembly, Lenin believed that by doing this (if he won) he would be viewed to have legitimately gained power in Russia and no disruption could be made into the validity of his position and then subsequently consolidating his power as leader of Russia. However things didn't go to plan for Lenin, as when voting took place for the Assembly the Bolsheviks found that they had only won 175 seats against an enormous 410 won by the Socialist Revolutionaries, this was a disaster for Lenin, his plan was in tatters. Consequently, Lenin asserted that his Soviet Government represented a higher stage of democracy than an elected assembly. He said that the Constituent Assembly portrayed a bourgeois parliamentary democracy and then declared it redundant, after the Assembly just meeting once to discuss national matters. Interestingly a crowd demonstrating in favour of the Assembly were fired on by the soldiers, the first time soldiers had fired on citizens since February 1917, this demonstrated two things, firstly that Lenin was in no position to mess around with his new regime and that any backlash would be extinguished in the most remorseless manner and secondly the fact that the army were still loyal to the Bolsheviks, paramount to any success they were going to have in power. These factors were highly necessary for Lenin to be able to consolidate his Bolshevik parties power.
Overall, after seizing power in late 1917, Lenin knew that these steps were necessary to consolidating hi position in charge of Russia, and then factors such as forming a new government and suppressing opposition was pivotal to his success, which he carried on until his death in 1924.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Bolsheviks Rise to Power

...Bolsheviks consolidation of power How did the Bolsheviks deal with the socialists? Lenin started talking to other parties about a power-sharing government because he was forced after the railwaymen`s union, the post and telegraph union threatened to cut off communications if the Bolsheviks didn't hold talks with the other different parties. What could have happened is that food supplies would be paralyzed to get to Petrograd and also to other cities. Brest-litovsk treaty consequences The main implications of the treaty were that Russia ceded Finland, the Baltic states and Poland – a million square kilometres of territory which contained 74% of the country´s coal and iron ore mines, 27% of their productive farmland as west Russia had the best agricultural resources, one fourth of the railway, and 30% (62 million people ) of the population. Finland had been ruled by the Tsars since 1809, the Germans helped the Finns to defeat a Bolshevik rising and Finland remained independent under the Brest-litovsk treaty. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became independent republics as well as some of the Russian-held area of Poland, Bessarabia was handed over to Romania. Germany set up semi-independent governments in Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia. Patriotic Russians started loathing the Bolsheviks and a civil war seemed inevitable. The Social revolutionaries left the Svornkom as they rather have a revolution that a Coup d´ état. The Cheka leader was captured during an uprising, however he...

Words: 716 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

History

...How did the Bolsheviks gain power, and how did they consolidate their rule? The Bolsheviks implemented measures which allowed them to strengthen their rule over Russia. Some of these were due to victories, which gained them support and respect from the people. Other measures used force. This enabled the Bolsheviks to take control of certain aspects and ensure their rule was reinforced. While Trotsky’s role had been of secondary importance in the November Revolution, it was crucial to the Bolshevik consolidation of power in the years between 1918 and 1921. Trotsky’s first contribution was in his role as Commisar of Foreign Affairs in the newly created Council of People's Commissars. Lenin gave him the task of negotiating a peace treaty with Germany. Initially, Trotsky had hoped to end the war without the loss of territory. However, when the Germans rejected his demands and resumed the offensive, he was forced to agree to their terms. Despite the treaty’s onerous clauses – the loss of 25 percent of Russia’s land, 30 percent of its population, and 6 billion gold marks in reparations – it gave the Bolsheviks the breathing space they needed to remain in power. With the war over, they could honour the promises they had made before coming to power – to provide land, bread and peace to the peasants, workers and soldiers. This allowed them to consolidate their support with these groups. Even so, the Bolsheviks still faced considerable opposition in 1918, and soon found themselves...

Words: 851 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Historian

...How successful was Lenin in creating a totalitarian society by 1924? Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik party and most importantly the ruler of Russia had to sacrifice a lot to get the Communist utopia Karl Marx foresaw. Despite it being a modification of the official ideology which people refer to as Leninism, it had major flaws which made you question, was Lenin really successful in creating a totalitarian society? Lenin was very successful in creating a totalitarian society; one of his beneficial areas of control was his one party state which was crucial in order to achieve Lenin’s adaptation to Marxism, this would mean the Bolsheviks would have complete control over the state and get rid of all and any opposition to their ideology. Lenin did this by dissolving the constituent assembly which meant a step forward in a totalitarian state by means of no opposition, Lenin made sure it stayed this way by ensuring the ban on factions within the Party as well as using the Cheka to make sure everyone stays in line and does not oppose the new Bolshevik regime. This was effective as it now left the Bolsheviks in complete control in this area. Another reason Lenin was successful was the fact he had control over the economy which is absolutely essential in any Totalitarian regime as controlling the economy meant they have the financial capability needed to maintain and produce a totalitarian society. As well as that, it meant sure that the state controls everything and that communism...

Words: 913 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Jibberz

...Communism in the Soviet Union and why it FailedCommunism is defined as "a system of political and economic organization in which property is owned by the community and all citizens share in the enjoyment of the common wealth, more or less according to their need." In 1917 the rise of power in the Marxist-inspired Bolsheviks in Russia along with the consolidation of power by Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, the word communism came to mean a totalitarian system controlled by a single political party. This came to justify that the means of production is controlled and the wealth is distributed with the goal of producing a classless or possibly a stateless society. The ideological meaning of communism arose in 1848 with the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They believed that communism is inevitable and is an outcome of the historical process. They believed that the "struggle between an exploiting class, the capatalists at present age, and an exploited class, the workers, would enter a crucial stage in the period of capitalism where industrialization occurs and that the effects of industrialization is to heighten and intensify the internal contradictions in capitalism." To put it bluntly they believed that the ownership of industry would be in fewer and fewer hands where the workers would plunge into a state of ever-increasing misery. These impoverished workers grow in numbers and organize themselves into a political party which would lead...

Words: 1572 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Russia

...Opposition The nature of opposition and how it changed Repression as a way of controlling opposition Reform as a way of controlling opposition Social and Economic Change In the countryside In the towns and cities War and Revolution and the development of Government Government - Ideology Strong continuity in autocratic Tsarist rule 1832 Fundamental Laws (Nicholas I) “The emperor of all Russians is an autocratic and unlimited monarch: God himself ordains that all must bow to his supreme power, not only out of fear but also out of conscience” 1906 Fundamental Laws (Nicholas II) “The All-Russian Emperor possess the supreme autocratic power. Not only fear and conscience but God himself commands obedience to his authority” Government - Ideology Subtle changes in the extent to which different Tsars were autocratic. 1861 Emancipation Edit (Alexander II) Though Alexander II used his autocratic powers to enact the edict, this was only after a long period of discussion and consultation with his nobles, which started in 1856. 1881 “The Reaction” of Alexander III to his father’s assassination. Under the influence of Pobodonostev, who believed that most Russians were incapable of understanding the complexity of the world, and therefore could not be given freedom, or the vote (he said democracy was “a great lie”) Russians would therefore have to be ruled in order to be protected. Government - Ideology Marxism ...

Words: 2462 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

Latin

...Lincoln High School IB History Internal Assessment Student Handbook Table of Contents What is the History IA? ­ ­ ­ Planning Your Historical Investigation ­ Examples of Types of Investigations ­ Examples of Research Questions ­ ­ Choice of Topic ­ ­ ­ ­ 20th Century ­ ­ ­ ­ History of the Americas ­ ­ Alternative ­ ­ ­ ­ The Written Account & Assessment Criteria A. Plan of the Investigation ­ ­ B. Summary of Evidence ­ ­ C. Evaluation of Sources ­ ­ D. Analysis ­ ­ ­ ­ E. Conclusion ­ ­ ­ F. Sources and Word Limit ­ ­ Sample History IAs ­ ­ ­ ­ 1­Trotsky and the Russian Civil War 2­US in Chile 3­Women in the French Revolution 4­Pre­WWI Alliances ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 4 7 9 ­ 10 11 12 13 14 14 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 1 2 2 3 4 ­ ­ 10 ­ ­ 16 Information in this guide is gathered from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to: The IB History Course Guide, Oxford’s IB Skills and Practice, IBOCC, and anecdotal experience. What is the History IA? The History IA is your chance to explore a period, theme, or event in history that you are interested in. For full IB Candidates, it also serves as 20% of your final History Grade. The final paper will be assessed by your teacher, with a sampling sent off to IB for score moderation. The History IA asks you to use the full range of skills you have been taught in class. In particular: ● knowledge and understanding ● application and interpretation ● synthesis and evaluation...

Words: 14314 - Pages: 58

Premium Essay

An Unnatural Alliance That Was Bound to Fall Apart After the Defeat of the Common Enemy. to What Extent Does This Statement Explain the Origin of the Cold War

...During the Second World War, the USSR and the USA, the two great nations in the 1940s united each other to defeat their common enemy, Nazi Germany. Their alliance was however ‘unnatural’ as both countries had conflicting ideologies, capitalism vs. communism and both wanted to spread their power and control in the world. Their incompatible ideologies from the start together with their troubled relationship since 1918 when the west intervened on the Russian civil war on behalf of the White Army, created an uneasy alliance in 1941 that that was most certainly ‘bound to fall apart’ when the common enemy was defeated in 1945. In order to come to a conclusion on the extent to which “An unnatural alliance that was bound to fall apart after the defeat of the common enemy” explains the origin of the cold war the essay will be divided into four parts: the opposed ideologies, events from 1919 to 1945, the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, and events subsequent to the conferences until 1949. The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 leading to the establishment of the world’s first socialist state whose guiding ideas were those of communism. For the leaders of the western countries these ideas threatened the very basis of their societies, economically and politically, as they followed an ideology of Capitalism. For the USSR, capitalism which revolves around private enterprise was seen as creating divisions between rich and poor and thus the communists believed that all goods should be taken over...

Words: 1809 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Paper

...History Notes Topics * Alexander II (1855-81): emancipation of the serfs; military, legal, educational, local government reforms; later reaction * policies of Alexander III (1881-94) and Nicholas II (1895-1917): backwardness and attempts at modernization nature of tsardom growth of opposition movements * significance of the Russo Japanese water: 1906 revolutions; Stolypin and the duma; the impact of the first world war (1914-18) on Russia * 1917 Revolutions: February/ March revolutions; provisional government and Dual power (soviets): October/November Bolshevik Revolution; Lenin and Trotsky * Lenin’s Russia (1917-24): consolidation of new soviet state; civil war; War communism; NEP; terror and coercion; Foreign relations * * Gorbachev and His aims/Policies (glasnost And perestroika) and (1931-1991) consequences of the soviet state * consequences of Gorbachev’s policies for Eastern European; reform movements: Poland- the role of solidarity; Czechoslovakia- the velvet revolution; fall of the Berlin wall * china: Mao (1935-1976) Conditions that produced authoritarian and single party states * emergence of leaders: aims, ideology, support * methods of force and legal used to establish authoritarian * form of government ideology establishment * ...

Words: 780 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Sdvsfve

...AS Level History Russia 1855 – 1917 Alternative F Revision Guide Contents 1. Alexander II 2. Alexander III 3. Nicholas II 4. Stability of the Tsarist Regime 1905 - 14 5. Political Opposition 6. February / March Revolution 1917 7. October Revolution 1917 Tsar Alexander II To what extent does Tsar Alexander II deserve to be viewed as the Tsar Liberator? Think BALANCE!! Alexander II 1855-81 ▪ Came to the throne during the Crimean War (1855) ▪ Initiated a wide range of reforms (social, economic, administrative and legal) ▪ Earned the title ‘Liberator’ for giving freedom to the peasants BUT did not wish to share political power ▪ Assassinated by the People’s Will in 1881 Answering the key question |Introduction |Use this chart to answer any question on Alex II | | |All questions (whether relating to ‘Liberator’ or not) will require BALANCE | | |Precision of knowledge – “Detail is King!” | | |Yes |No | |Emancipation |Emancipation Committees set up |Redemption Payments...

Words: 7115 - Pages: 29

Premium Essay

Stalin's Revolution

...Essay response to: Why did Stalin implement forced Industrialization, Collectivized Agriculture, and the Terror in the Soviet Union? Why did many Soviet peoples cooperate in this “Stalin Revolution,” despite the violence, cruelty, and tremendous sacrifices involved? Joseph Jughashvili (1878 – 1953), later known as Joseph Stalin believed that industrialization was necessary in order to create a true proletariat class so a true communist revolution could occur. Stalin and true Marxists believed that only through a modern industrialized economy could a true proletariat class be developed. Additionally, Stalin believed that the Soviet Union was “backward” and behind in the times and had to catch up with the rest of the world, otherwise the Nation would be conquered. Stalin made this clear when he said, “we are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. Either we do it, or they crush us” (Perry, 193). In doing so, Stalin brought about sweeping changes of economic reform. While Vladimir Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) was successful in returning agricultural harvests to prewar levels, by the late 1920’s, Stalin sided with the critics of Lenin’s NEP in that the Soviet Union could not catch up with other industrialized countries by relying on taxes from peasant farmers (Coffin/Stacey, 908). In 1927, Stalin implemented the first five-year plan, which he referred to as the “revolution from above” and called for a command economy (McKay et al., 907). The five-year...

Words: 1930 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Evaluation of Stolypin's Reforms

...Topic – Russia : Assignment Question – Evaluate Petr Stolypin’s Reforms P.A. Stolypin was a pivotal political figure in the 1906-11 period. He became Minister of Internal Affairs in Russia from the spring of 1906, after the revolution of 1905. He combined this position with Russian Premier (Prime Minister) from 23rd July 1906 until his assassination in September 1911. Peter Waldron claims that after the "near downfall of the tsarist regime in 1905" Stolypin's reforms could "have changed the face of politics and society, yet they left the unreformed autocracy to face the onslaught of the First World War and it's attendant social and economic strains". Despite the latter, it seems erroneous to attribute total failure to Stolypin's reforms. After the devastating actions of Bloody Sunday in 1905, the Tsar Nicholas II had been given two choices, which was to repress or reform. To stay in control, he had chose to reform, as he thought that he could control the situation by creating useful reforms. The pressure of the revolution on the autocracy made the Tsar take drastic political action to appease the revolting classes. He had started of with the October Manifesto, a legislation which consisted of a number of points of reform drawn up under Weete, promising the people Civil liberties, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of assembly, and the promise that no laws were to be introduced without the agreement of the Duma. However, it was not necessary that the Duma should introduce legislation...

Words: 2231 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Industrial Revolution

...Kent Horii 4/22/15 Block 4 ITSMW Potter Most revolutionary progresses are social based When you think of national progress, what would you think of? Economical, Political, or Societal? Actually, although people believe that most reforms or progress is for the benevolence of all three of these elements equally, revolutions such as the Industrial Revolution are more driven towards the success of the economics. The industrial revolution itself caused a massive uprising of ideas based on engineering for the sole purpose of convenience, and made a huge gap between the rich, the middle, and the poor, and classified the middle and the poor as the working classes and most of the topics went to the working class. However, this is more unlikely to be a political progress since the convenience and affordable factor all went to boost England’s economy and have the society afford them for cheaper. The progress of the Industrial Revolution was based on socioeconomic reasons because, due to the Industrial revolution, England’s economy increased, rate of employment for unemployed workers increased because of the ability to mass produce products using the newly invented machines to create a better economy for corporations, and a lot of products could be produced in cheap prices because mass production was possible and this increased the standard of living to modernization. Another example of socioeconomic progress is the French Revolution. The French revolutionists and poor social...

Words: 1787 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

History

...The Edexcel International GCSE in History Schemes of work We are happy to provide these new enhanced schemes of work for you to amend and adapt to suit your teaching purposes. We hope you find them useful. Practical support to help you deliver this specification Schemes of work These schemes of work have been produced to help you implement this Edexcel specification. They are offered as examples of possible models that you should feel free to adapt to meet your needs and are not intended to be in any way prescriptive. It is in editable word format to make adaptation as easy as possible. These schemes of work give guidance for: * Content to be covered * Approximate time to spend on different key themes * Ideas for incorporating and developing the assessment skills related to each unit. Suggested teaching time This is based on a two year teaching course of five and a half terms with one and a half hours of history teaching each week. This would be a seventy week course with total teaching time of approximately 100 hours. The schemes suggest the following timescale for the different sections: * Paper 1: 20 hours for each of the two topics: Total 40 hours. * Paper 2 Section A: 20 hours for the topic: Total 20 hours. * Paper 2 Section B: 25 hours for the topic since it covers a longer period in time. Total 25 hours. * Revision: 15 hours. Possible options for those with less teaching time * 20 hours for Section Paper 2 Section B ...

Words: 19278 - Pages: 78

Free Essay

Globalization

...GLOBALIZATION BACKLASH AND THE RISE OF ANTI-HEGEMONIC PARTY STATES Diego Olstein Hebrew University of Jerusalem Contents Introduction: Globalization and Anti-Hegemonic Party State………………………………..5 Part I: Principle Chapter 1: Defining Anti-Hegemonic Party State………………………………………………….18 Chapter 2: Anti-Hegemonic Party State and Domestic Features of Political Regimes…………………………………………………………………………………………… 44 Chapter 3: Anti-Hegemonic Party State and Exogenous Perspective on Political Regimes……………………………………………………………………………………………75 Part II: History Chapter 4: The Global Rise of Anti-Hegemonic Party States and Globalization Backlash 1917-1945...…………………………………………………………….91 Chapter 5: The Big Leap of Anti-Hegemonic Party States: The Second Wave 1946-1975…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………111 Chapter 6: Globalization Anew and the Marginalization of Anti-Hegemonic Party States 1976-2010………………………………………………………142 Conclusions Introduction: Globalization and Anti-Hegemonic Party State In 1997 the European Commission defined Globalization “as the process by which markets and production in different countries are becoming increasingly interdependent due to the dynamics of trade in goods and services and flows of capital and technology. It is not a new phenomenon but the continuation...

Words: 33126 - Pages: 133

Free Essay

Ride of Power

...The Ride of Power: Mamata Banerjee from being an Opponent party leader to a State leader Nature of Power- Power in the most general sense may refer to any kind of influence exercised by objects, individuals or groups upon each other. “Power terms in modern social science refers to subsets of relations among social units such that the behaviours of one or more units depend in some circumstances on the behaviour of other units”-Dahl,1961 According to Max Weber power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance regardless of the basis on which this probability rests. Power is the ability of one group or person to influence another within the given social system (Martin, year). Power may also refer to as having the authority to influence other individuals and group. The authority to exercise power may be perceived legitimately by the social structure. The important difference between power and authority consists in the fact that power is essentially tied to the personality of the individuals whereas, authority is always associated with some social position or roles. So, in other words, power is a contingent property, a property of individuals, rather than a property of social structure (Martin, 1978). Some kind of obedience is also subjected to power. Power can be seen as unjust or evil from the perspective of the members anchored to the low-end status. Similarly, power can be seen as a...

Words: 6014 - Pages: 25