Russia

In August of 1991, the collapse of the communist system in the USSR and it’s neighboring republics occurred. Out of the smoke emerged fifteen new republics and a union known as the Commonwealth of Independent States. These new regimes faced formidable obstacles. The collapse brought massive inflation which in turn forced the economy into a spiraling decline and a state of almost worthless value. Many people were quick to point the finger at their communist past, and even more eager to lay blame.

Traditional communist ideology was to “provide for every individual an equal amount of goods and services, thus reating a state of equality amongst the populous” (Leveler, 16). Many people felt as if their current hardships could be blamed on the communists and their economic policies, specifically their “Core-Periphery” plan. The communist sponsored “Core-Periphery” economic policy that was evident in Russia was quite simplistic in nature. The theory, traditionally used to describe inter-continental trading and production, was adapted for use in the Russian economic zones.

The theory was as follows; Areas which surround the capital (core region), usually rich in one material or another, would be used or the extraction of raw materials. These materials would then be shipped back to the capital in order to be manufactured into goods. From there, the manufactured products would be shipped back to the surrounding regions (periphery region) for resale. The citizens of Russia were surviving on this system, but barely. The Core-Periphery policy was not efficient, nor effective, for usually a product needed on one side of the federation, was produced at the other end.

Factors such as transportation costs and adequate use of human resources was very inefficient and cost-consuming. Strong influences from the world urged Russia to make the transition into the market-oriented economy. This seemed tempting, for the market-oriented economy preached individual wealth and prosperity. Seeing no better solution to their current economic woes, Russian policy-makers took the plunge. By 1995, 4 years since the beginning of the transition into a market- oriented economy, no satisfactory economic improvment had taken form.

Productivity in many states such as Turkmenistan and Belarus continued to fall (Table 2), and inflation was still at high levels. Many new Russian capitalists n the regions chose to exploit what had already been exploited in the past; raw materials. Looking to make a fast income, these new Russian capitalists sold whatever they could get their hands on, for practically no cost at all (Co- Existence, 146). Expropriation of state property, shady deals, and corruption were rampant. Productivity in industries such as agriculture declined as farmers did not want to take care of their land (Co-Existence, 146).

Nobody had money to buy their goods, so they questioned as to whether or not they should take the time to produce them. The economy was contracting and in turn, people were actually getting poorer. The newly separated states were yearning for economic growth and prosperity. This would hopefully bring stability and a much needed improvement in the standard of living as well as individual wealth. This however, has not been the case. Many of the breakaway republics have actually experienced considerable negative growth.

Many of the republics made the transition to the market economy hoping to make the individual citizen wealthier. In many of the republics this did not actually take place. In 1995, all but 2 of the 15 ountries saw their net exports per capita fall drastically. Lithuania, once with a net export per capita rating of 49. 2, was experiencing one of -54. 1 in 1995 (Table 1). On average the citizens now had less than before. Many countries began to realize that they were in many ways still dependent on so-called “mother Russia”.

The past Core-Periphery policy had made them heavily rely on internal domestic trade. Being nothing more than satellite states in the centrally planned economy, these countries were traditionally used for the extraction of materials or the production of a singular industry. Their economies were not diversified. Traditionally supplies had to be brought in, and this was still the case. Import statistics in the newly independent republics have seen a drastic rise in totals. In 1992, the Ukraine with a population of approximately 51 million people imported a total of 2. billion million dollars worth of goods (Table 1).

In 1995 however, the Ukraine with a population less than what it had been in 1992, actually imported more; 5. 6 billion dollars worth of goods (Table 1). This rise in imports was also evident in Georgia, Lithuania, and Uzbekistan (Table 1). For these countries, importing more than they are actually exporting is proving to be a tough economic obstacle to overcome. In order to import, they have had to borrow heavily from international sources. Without exports, they have been lacking sufficient funds to make these re-payments.

Diversification was not happening rapidly enough to help them cope. Many feared that their debts will become so large, that no matter what diversification occurred, it will be too late, thus making is almost impossible to repay what they have borrowed. The economic transition occurring in Russia has also led to political trife. Diplomatic relations between many of the republics and the Russian nation have been drastically reduced, if not completely severed. Ukraine, and Georgia have officially laid out in their constitution that they will have no formal ties with their Soviet past (McLelland 108).

The Ukraine was fortunate to border one of the only Soviet access points to a large body of water; the Black Sea. It was from this port that the former Soviet Union established one of it’s larger naval divisions, known as the Black Sea Fleet. Consisting of over 1700 warships of various sizes (McLelland 63), his fleet was one of the most dreaded in the world. Aboard those ships, there were approximately 430 thousand employed operational personnel (McLelland 66). Indirectly, in areas such as food production, and maintenance staff at the shipyards, there were approximately 15 thousand people employed (McLelland 66).

When the dissolution occurred, the Russian government declared that the Black Sea would fall under its permanent control. To the newly formed Republic of Ukraine, this was very alarming. To lose the Black Sea would mean to lose all the jobs that were directly or indirectly associated with it. Knowing that the upcoming years may be harsh in terms of economics, the Ukraine was not readily willing to accept a sharp blow to it’s employed work force. The Ukraine already had an unemployment rate of 7% (McLelland 24), and this was straining the limited social safety nets.

The last thing the Ukraine was prepared to do was pay out more to it’s people without getting anything in return. The Ukrainians were yearning for a future free of any Russian grip. The Russians, on the other hand, were still deeply in favour of upholding their Tsarist ancestors conquestial territorial gains. Ultimatums were sent back and forth between Moscow and the Ukraine. Neither side was willing to budge. Finally Russia backed down, and control was left to the Ukraine. Nevertheless, during that period of stalemate, Russo-Ukrainian relations, diplomatic and more importantly economic, suffered a great lose.

Slander and many outcries of corruption had been directed at many of the policy makers in both countries. Trade between the two nations has also dropped to an all time low. Out of Russia’s total exports, only a meager 1. 7% gets shipped to the Ukraine (Dart, 117). In these harsh times of conomic transition in the region, one would expect that the two countries would be more willing to co-operate for the goal of greater good. The Russian republic has also seen it’s fair share of strife; internally.

Harsh economic times, and less than admirable results from the transition to the market oriented economy have paved the way for much political opposition. Communists, the former leaders of the Soviet Union, were one of the first political movements to wage war against the newly formed liberal government. Traditionally, communist ideology preached that “no citizen will be in any reater position of status or economic wealth that that of another citizen” (Perdues, 66), and that “all citizens shall live with ample food on the plate, and little worries as to life” (Perdues, 93).

For the communists the time of economic hardship was heaven sent. Capitalizing on the citizens disgust in the shape of the country would be no challenge. This has led to the communists waging wars inside of the Russian parliamentary house. The Duma as it is known, is where most legislation and debate over domestic and foreign policy goes on. It is in this institution that the Communists have on numerous occasions ttempted to gather support to impeach the liberal government. The Communists’ goal: dissolution of the current government, and establishment of the old.

Instead of attempting to reform and fine tune the new economic policies, they wished to return to policies more consistant with the Communist ideology. The Communists are not alone. In Russia itself, there has been a spawning of over 12 new political parties (Co-Existence, 147) that pose threats to the current government’s stability. Amongst those parties, over 86% of the individuals do not approve of the market-place economy (Co-Existence, 149). Though Russia is constantly hindered by economic downfall in many aspects, that is not to say that all is bad .

Some of the new countries who have embarked on the long road to growth, have in fact showed signs of improvement. Many of them have realized that diversification is needed desperately. Both Uzbekistan and Georgia were traditionally used as resource extraction states in the Core-Periphery economic plan of the centrally planned economy. Since the establishment of independence, Uzebekistan now promotes a large degree of exploration, and thus has a large oil and gas industry (Blij, 321) they have lso experienced growth in their new found service sector.

Georgia is also experiencing diversification. With its fertile lands, Georgia has harnessed it’s agricultural sector into producing tabacco, various fruits, and even timber (Blij, 150). It also has a booming tourist industry because of it’s warm climate and scenic beauty (Blij, 150). Recent statistics show that in the year 1995, because of this diversification, countries such as Uzbekistan and Georgia have drastically improved their overall Gross Domestic Product when compared to statistics recorded in 1992. Uzbekistan had a rating in 1992 of -11. % and Georgia had a whopping -45. %.

In 1995, the totals showed signs of great improvement; both at -5. 0% (Table 2). Contraction was still occuring, but at a slower rate. This in turn provided some hope. There was even a larger increase in the country of Armenia where the 1992 statistic for GDP was -52. 4%, and in 1995, it had improved to a +5. 0% (Table 2). The question of economic coexistance between Russia and its former republics still remains a mystery. There are many stronger, much more controversial issues in Russia’s republics, when it comes to the issue of conomics, independance, and growth.

Many of the citiznes in the breakaway republics are not eager to have peace and open relations with their russian counterparts. The republics have yearned for independance for sometime now. Russian Census data showed the majority (60 to 80 percent) of the ethnic populations in Russia itself have supported movements for more autonomy. The root of the turnaround in opinion from supporting the federation to wanting soverign nation states, has been caused by one simple reason; nationalism. Oppressed for many years, culturally speaking, the republics wanted to ring rise to their ethnic beliefs and values.

The intelligentsia, long considered instigators threatening the Russian Federation, have been primarily concerned with cultural objectives, such as defending the use of national languages or controlling the local educational system, to ensure that history is taught from the perspective of indigenous peoples (Drobizheva, 2). There is a direct relationship between identity and peace. In an oppressed society, ethnicity assumes a stronger role, however, when democracy and ethnicity are balanced, political stability is possible.

As a result of a lack of democratic institutions and means for dialogue, the former Union’s inhabitants were increasingly identifying themselves as members of ethnic groups rather than as citizens of the Russian Federation. Many of the breakway republics are filled with ethnic russians; Kazakhstan 41%, Lithuania 8%, and the Ukraine 21% (Wells, 31). Hatred and distrust of these Russians is infact growing. This is especially true when Russians are in the minority, as in the republic of, for example, where Russians comprise 30 percent of the population (Drobizheva, 2).

In such circumstances, any perceieve the Russians as developing a “hyperidentity,” characterized by a low degree of tolerance for others and a feeling of being threatened (Drobizheva, 3). Many of these Russians tend to consider themselves members of a higher ethnic group whose rights are above others (Drobizheva, 3). This has fueled mch anger towards the Russians, and in many regions the Russians are now being alienated. Due to past abuse of rnatural and human resources, opression of fundamental rights such thought, voice, and opinion, has led to a severe feeling of disgust towards the Russians, and more importantly distrust.

In Short, the market economy did not bring any good to Russia immediately following its implementation. That is not to say however, that growth and prosperity will not occur in Russia and it’s former states. Statistics as recent as 1995 have shown that since 1992, on average, there has been an upward trend. Overcoming the obstacle of the core-periphery based economy that was imbedded in the Russian culture, and the ideology aswell, has proven to be no easy task. Relying on imports has taken its toll on many of the nations. To combat this, the republics must build their own production base, and produce goods domestically.

Diversification will mean continued growth, and who is to say that the newly sperated republics and Russia itself can not join forces in an effort to produce one large core zone, with the world as it’s periphery. As the nations utilizing the market driven economy continue to increase and reap it’s benefits, it was only a matter of time before the inefficeint bankrupt communist system would have to topple. The key to success in the region is not to expect too much too soon. Ultimately everything must start somewhere, and in today’s fast paced, market oriented global economy, so too must the newborn Russian capitalist baby.

In this paper I plan to prove that even though Stalin made improvements in the Russian industrial system, his rule did not benefit Russian society and the Russian people. In order to accomplish this, several questions must be asked. How did Stalin affect Russia’s industrial power? How did Stalin try to change Russia’s agricultural system? What changes did Stalin make in society? What were Stalin’s purges, and who did they effect? Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili was born on December 21, 1879, on the southern slopes of the Caucasus mountains, in the town of Gori.

His mother, Ekaterina was the daughter of a peasant who married at fifteen and who lost her first three children at birth. Vissarion, his father, was a self-employed shoemaker who had a violent temper (Marrin 6-7). Young Djugashvili was small and wiry and had a deeply pitted face from a small pox attack that nearly killed him. He also had blood poisoning in his left arm that was probably caused by Vissarion’s beating fists. The arm would stiffen at the elbow joint and wither, making it lame and useless for the rest of his life (Lewis 8; Marrin 8).

He was dedicated to only one person, his mother, and her only ambition as for her son to become a priest and to bless her with his own hands. But, this dream was crushed when Joseph was expelled from Tiflis Theological Seminary for reading “forbidden books” such as Marx and Lenin (Lewis 8; Marrin 20). After his expulsion from Tiflis school, Joseph became a revolutionary. He organized strikes and demonstrations at factories and also found ways to gather money for Lenin and the Bolshevik party.

He was banished to Siberia six times between the years 1903 and 1917. Each time, he escaped easily, except the last, when he was released because of the February revolution (Lewis 19; Marrin 4). After the death of his first wife, Ekaterina Svanidze, Joseph became more cold and tough. He gave the child that his wife bore him to her parents and even chose a new name for himself, Stalin, the Man of Steel (Marrin 26). Then came the October Revolution and the rise of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Stalin became general secretary of the Bolshevik party’s Central Committee. He was also the commissar of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate and the commissar of nationalities (McKay 927; Treadgold 205). After Lenin’s, death Stalin gained power by allying himself with the moderates to fight off his ival, Leon Trotsky, who was a radical and another member of the Central Committee. Stalin expelled Trotsky and suppressed his radical followers. Then he turned against his own allies, the moderates. Stalin at last had gained complete control (McKay 927-928).

One of the great achievements that Stalin made for the Soviet Union were the Five Year Plans in industry. Russia had not yet had their industrial revolution and were far behind the other powers of the world. Even Stalin said,” We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good his distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed. ” So, that is what Stalin set out to do (Dmytryshyn 158). The First Five Year Plan was adopted in April 1929 by the Sixteenth Party Conference. It’s purpose was to increase Russia’s industrial production.

On December 31, 1932, the First Five Year Plan was declared officially completed ahead of schedule. Total industrial output increased two hundred and fifty percent, steel production increased three hundred percent, production of large- scale industry showed an increase of one hundred and eighteen percent, roduction of machinery and electrical equipment increased one hundred and fifty-seven percent, heavy metal increased sixty-seven percent, coal output increased eighty-nine percent, and consumer goods increased about seventy-three percent (Dmytryshyn 158; McKay 928; Treadgold 266).

After the success of the First Five Year Plan, the Seventeenth Party Congress formally adopted the Second Five Year Plan, covering the years 1933- 1937 in January, 1934. To overcome the lacking of iron and steel, the Second Plan ordered construction of forty-five new blast furnaces, one hundred and ixty-four open-hearth furnaces, and one hundred and seven rolling mills. Other goals of the second plan were an expansion of machine tool production, the development and production of non-ferrous metals, and the improvement and double-tracking of the main railroad lines (Dmytryshyn 159).

The results of the Second Five Year Plan were that some items reached their estimated targets while others lagged behind. Overall, by the end of the Second Five Year Plan, the Soviet Union was emerging as a strong industrial country. It possessed increased capability to produce iron, steel, coal, and electric power. It also had a whole new range of new industries, including aviation, tractor, locomotive, chemical, aluminum, nickel, and tin. The Soviet Union now had a well-established industrial base capable of further expansion and growth (Dmytryshyn 160-161).

Although rapid industrialization helped improve Russia, it hurt the workers. Industrialization moved so fast and was often so poorly planned that disasters frequently resulted . . . ” (Marrin 102). The amount of work that had to be put in was also hard on the workers. The workers had to work longer under Stalin than when they were ruled by the tsars. Depending on the industry, they worked between forty-eight and sixty hours a week, Sundays included . . . ” (Marrin 103). Once the industrial Five Year Plans started to roll, Stalin decided to make some agricultural changes to support the industrialization. In April, 1928, Stalin presented the draft of a new land law.

Although the draft failed to become a law, it showed a couple of Stalin’s objectives. One was the rapid and forcible collectivization of the peasants in order to industrialize the country quickly. The other was the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. Kulaks were lassified as, “Those peasants who were either industrious, or more prosperous than their neighbors, or simply those who were not enthusiastic about the policies of the communist party . . . ” (Dmytryshyn 167). Collectivization was the forcible consolidation of individual peasant farms into large, state-controlled enterprises.

It was suppose to help Russian agriculture and support the quickly industrializing country (McKay 928; Dmytryshyn 167). Soviet writer, Lyudmila Saraskina believed that, “Collectivization was a bloody, terrible, and monstrous means of the seizure of bsolute power, because the free peasant and master of the land, the farmer, constituted one of the main obstacles on the path to the absolute feudal power that Stalin really wanted . . . ” (Lewis 65). The kulaks were the well off peasants that opposed collectivization any way they could.

The way Stalin dealt with them was to first turn the bedniaks or poor peasants against them offering the bedniaks the kulaks castles and machinery. Then, Stalin had the rest of the kulaks either killed or exiled to the northern or eastern regions of the country. The death toll recorded in the nti-kulak campaign is between three and ten million killed (Treadgold 268; Dmytryshyn 168; Lewis 63). Many peasants killed their cattle, pigs, and horses; destroyed the farm implements; and either burned their crops or let them rot in the fields before being forced into collectivization.

Because of this, poor harvests, grain seizures, and the elimination of the better farmers, the kulaks, there was a man made famine (Lewis 65) . The famine was so bad that some people resorted to cannibalism. Mykola Pishy reported this about her neighbor, “Ivan was a good pecialist – a joiner, a tailor, a shoe-maker – a good fellow who could turn his hand at anything. But the famine was awful and he got to the end of his tether. He was so hungry that he killed his child, and ate the meat . . . ” (Lewis 66-67). In Targan, the city where Alisa Maslo lived, 362 people died from the famine.

They went from house to house and they took away everything to the last grain . . . and this included ours. And they really left the family to certain famine death. And so my grandma died and then one of my brothers. . . . My mother was lying in bed swollen with hunger . . . my older brother had died. And I told my mother that ‘we’re the only two left’, that my brother was also dead. Up came the cart and the man took my brother and dragged him to the cart, and then my own live mother. I started crying and the man said, ‘Go to the orphanage where at least you’ll get some soup.

She’ll die anyway, why should I come here a second time? ‘ And so I became an orphan (Lewis 65-66). Between five and ten million people died from starvation because of the famine (Dmytryshyn 169). Along with the improvements in industry and the attempted improvements in agriculture, Stalin started to make improvements in society. Soviet workers received some important social benefits, such as old-age pensions, free medical services, free education, and free day-care centers for children. There was also the possibility of personal advancement.

To improve your position, you needed specialized skills or technical education. Massive numbers of trained experts were needed for the rapid industrialization going on. High salaries and many special privileges were offered to the technical and managerial elite. Millions struggled in universities, institutes, and night schools for the all important specialized education. In Soviet Russia there is no capital except education. If a person does not want to become a collective farmer or just a cleaning woman, the only means you have to get something is through education . . ” (McKay 931-932).

Another change under Stalin was that there was an equality of rights for women. They were urged to work outside the home and to liberate themselves sexually. Divorces and abortions were also made very easy. “Young women were constantly told that they should be fully equal to men, that they could and should do anything men could do . . . ” (McKay 932). Most women had to work utside the home because it took both the husband and wife working to support their family. But, the woman had a heavy burden of household chores in her off hours.

Soviet men still considered the home and the children the wife’s responsibilities (McKay 933). Along with some of these beneficial changes that Stalin made to society came some non-beneficial ones, specifically the purges. One of the first to be eliminated was Stalin’s wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, who after being ridiculed by her husband at a party for the fifteenth anniversary of the revolution on November 8, 1932, apparently shot herself (Lewis 83-84; McKay 930). Then, at four o’clock in the afternoon of December 1, 1934, a young disillusioned Communist named Leonid V.

Nikolaev shot Stalin’s number-two man, Sergei Kirov, who had just been offered Stalin’s job of General Secretary from the senior members of the Party (Marrin 116; Lewis 86; McKay 930; Treadgold 278). Stalin used Kirov’s death to launch a reign of terror. Stalin blamed Kirov’s death on foreign powers, the exiled Trotsky, and the moderates. Stalin ordered the “purification” of the party. On August 19, 1936, sixteen old Bolsheviks were publicly tried for conspiring with Trotsky and for the murder of Kirov (Dmytryshyn 179-181; Treadgold 279). Anyone connected anyway to Nikolayev was also arrested.

Robert Conquest explains: Everyone who was remotely connected with the case was seized. One woman had worked as a librarian at the ‘Young Communist Club’ in Leningrad which had been disbanded in the mid-twenties but, with which Nikolayev had in some way been associated. Not only was she arrested, but also her sister with whom she lived, her sister’s husband, the secretary of her Party cell, and all those who had recommended her for jobs (Lewis 90). Then in January 1937 there was another trial for seventeen more party embers. They were accused of conspiring with Nazi Germany and Japan to dismember the USSR (Dmytryshyn 181).

The trials and arrests continued. There were mass arrests, confessions extracted by force, and the executions and deportations of thousands of peasants. Soviet officers were also arrested and convicted. The Red Army lost three of it’s five field marshals, fourteen of it’s sixteen army commanders, sixty of it’s sixty-seven corps commanders, 136 of it’s 199 division commanders, 220 brigade commanders, all eleven deputy commissars of war, seventy-five members of he Supreme Military Council, all military district commanders, all air force officers, all except one navy fleet commander, and all eight Red Navy admirals.

In addition, the army lost half of it’s officer corps, 35,000 men ranging from colonels to company commanders (Dmytryshyn 180-182; Marrin 127). Many that suffered from the purges were sent to labor camps or were just executed by the secret police. Local units of secret police were even ordered to arrest a certain percentage of the people in their districts (McKay 931). Graves were discovered in 1934 holding over 9,000 bodies of people killed around 1938 n the Ukraine.

Since then mass burial sights have been discovered outside major cities such as Minsk, Kiev, and Novosibirsk, and one with possibly 40,000 bodies in the Kirov region of Donetsk. A burial sight at Chelyabinsk, was found to contain more than 80,000 people. Zenon Pozniak, an archaeologist who has excavated many of these burial plots also found 510 burial pits in Kuropaty and calculated that each one contained about 150 bodies. That could mean there are around 75,000 bodies in there. Apparently there were as many as 1,000 pits originally (Lewis 106-107).

Pozniak has also researched the circumstances of hese people’s deaths: They were shot by NKVD (secret police) soldiers in NKVD uniform. They shot them from behind, in the back and pushed them into the pit. When that group was finished, they covered the corpses with sand like a layer cake. They got the contents of the next lorry and shot them, and in that way they filled the pit right up to the top . . . people who lived in the villages nearby told us that . . . the earth would breathe. Some people weren’t actually dead when they were buried, and the earth breathed and heaved and the blood came through (Lewis 107).

Imagine you are a high school student just about to graduate. You are about to leave your parents,who have directed your actions for your entire life. However, you have never had to make your own decisions, and are having trouble handling your new situation. Now imagine that on a larger scale. An entire nation released from the control of its “parents” with no idea how to use its newfound freedom. The Russian Federation is only a shell of its former glory as the U. S. S. R. because it had to withstand just such a change. The “high school student”, a socialist market in which the government makes all the rules, recently was overhauled.

The new economic condition in Russia is a free market. However, the people had no experience in handling the independence that they acquired as the capitalist market was established. It had been a long hard journey to get where they were, and now a longer, harder journey is beginning – the journey into capitalism. The Beginnings of Socialism Capitalism in Russia Russia did not exist as a nation just seven years ago. It was formed from the ruins of a greater nation. Russia’s current troubles are based on problems it found, or created, during the years it operated under socialism.

This theory, which proposes equality and the means of achieving it, has been scorned by the Western world. One must wonder why such a grand conception has failed. Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto By far, the most important document in the development of socialism was The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Frederik Engels in 1848. (Berki) This document was published as a reply to politicians who would accuse their opponents of being Communist for the sake of scaring the public. (Marx) Marx’s Manifesto was the driving force behind socialism and Communism in Russia.

In it, he described the fall of capitalism at the hands of the working classes. (Berki) The following paragraphs are excerpts from that work. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-masters and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Marx) “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – bourgeoisie and proletariat…. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’, and has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’. (Marx) “Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers.

The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of their laborers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces above all are its own gave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. (Marx) “In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front as the leading question in each case the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their aims can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution, The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains, They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! Marx)

The Theory of Socialism Socialism is a set of beliefs about the most desirable possible government. Socialists claim that their doctrines are superior because they would create total equality. A perfectly socialist state would incorporate cooperation, progress, and individual freedom as well. In a socialist state, all free enterprise would be abolished, and in its place would be a system of “public ownership”. The state would control production and distribution. (Berki) The basic principles of socialism developed from the writings of Plato and parts of the Old Testament.

However, modern socialism is considered by most scholars to be a product of the French Revolution of 1789 and the second Industrial Revolution in England. These two events created a democratically governed region with vast potential for economic growth. In this environment, the beginnings of a conflict between the property owners, known as the bourgeoisie, and the working classes, called the proletariat, developed. (Berki) Socialists propose a solution for this conflict. (Berki) All means of production and distribution are controlled by a central organization, likely a branch of the government.

These people instruct all those within the state as to how their capital should be managed. In exchange, all wealth within the state are distributed equally. The government also controls prices, ensuring that all people have the same amount of wealth. This eliminated both the rich and poor from society. As one might expect from such a system, the people with the most to gain – those under the poverty line – were the most staunch supporters of socialism. The wealthy, who would lose much of their money in a socialist society, were strongly opposed to the theory.

This division of support created an poor image for socialists, as the lower classes were the primary adherents to the socialist theory. Socialism has a number of benefits, especially in that it would truly create greater equality. However, there are fatal flaws in this theory. The black market is one major flaw. Citizens may be able to purchase goods at lower prices from non-governmental dealers. Also, because of the immense amount of power which the government has, socialism is a system extremely susceptible to corruption. (Fry) The Dual Revolution in Russia

In March of 1917, the 300-year-old Romanov dynasty was overthrown. (Lih) Massive discontent with the czarist state, an ongoing revolutionary movement, and the onset of World War I all contributed to the outbreak of fighting in Russia. Since peasants were freed from servitude in 1861, poverty was widespread in the nation, and inadequate resources pried apart the classes. (Rosenberg) Early in the twentieth century, Russians divided into unofficial political organizations. The Marxist Social Democratic Labor party was organized in 1898.

Populists, which had previously existed in the rural areas, and socialists combined to form the Socialist Revolutionary Party by 1901. In 1903, the Marxist party split in two: the Mensheviks, who favored mass rule; and the Bolsheviks (below), led by Vladimir I. Lenin, who wanted more organization. In 1905, middle-class liberals formed the Constitutional Labor Party. (Rosenberg) World War I forced reforms to be suspended and tight political restrictions to be imposed. Russian efforts were failing, costing morale.

A provisional government was set up on 15 March 1917 when Czar Nicholas tried to give his post as emperor to his brother Michael, who refused the crown. Although welcomed at first, a division arose quickly in the ranks of the new government. Again, the well-to-do and general populous had different interests, and different factions within the legislature. (Rosenberg) Aware of the crises within the government, Lenin quickly mobilized the Bolsheviks. He began using propaganda against both major factions within the government. The Bolsheviks grew in number quickly, using slogans such as “peace, land , and bread” to attract members.

They worked their way up in the system, winning many local elections and leading many committees in corporations. As Bolsheviks won a majority in Petrograd and Moscow legislatures, Lenin prepared an armed uprising. (Rosenberg) On 6 November, the Bolsheviks seized control of Petrograd with little opposition. They declared a Soviet government led by Lenin with Leon Trotsky in charge of foreign affairs. Few believed this government would last, however, as it inherited the problems which plagued the previous administrations. Lenin was determined, and quickly began to shape his nation.

He seized control of much land, requisitioned grain from the countryside, and nationalized most industry. Private trade was forbidden as the Communist state was established. (Rosenberg) Many people were unhappy with Lenin’s changes, and civil war broke out in 1918. One “All-Russian” faction was suppressed by a “White” dictatorship proposed by Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak. A “Volunteer Army” was organized in the south, and was a “Green” party led by anarchists. A guerrilla-style warfare erupted between each of these armies and the “Red” Bolsheviks. The Red Army had crushed all resistance by 1920.

Formerly the preeminent republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Russia has been an independent nation since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Because of its great size, its natural resources, and its political domination, the Russian Federation played a leading role in the economy of the Soviet Union. In the years preceding the disintegration of the union in 1991, the economy of Russia and the union as a whole was in decline. In 1992, immediately after the separation, the Russian government implemented a series of radical reforms.

Price controls were abolished as the beginning f a transition from a centrally controlled economy to a market economy. An immediate series of sharp price increases caused extreme hardships for the Russian people. 1 Inventor of the fictional five-year plan,2 the fake harvest, Russia introduced another novel economic concept in 1996. It was a society modeled after the capitalist society. High expectations of economic growth even with “shock therapy”– unemployment, social discontent and opportunities for corruption;3 influence of western politicians and the U. S. policy; and failing to completely reform the communistic system ere some factors to why some became rich but led many to misery and an early death.

Despite the huge infusions of Western money, millions of ordinary Russians struggled to survive in an economy neither capitalist nor communist, but something brand new and strange which ultimately led to the failure of economic reform in Russia. 4 In the Fall of 1996, Boris Yeltsin won the presidential election in Russia. He was viewed as the “personification of reform in Russia…. ho had vanquished the Communist dragon during the hard-line coup attempt of August 1991 — and the leader best placed to ntroduce democratic, market-oriented reforms. “5

In the same year Yeltsin became the President of Russia, the U. S. ambassador to Russia, Thomas R. Pickering, predicted by the fall of 1999, Russia would be one of Americas top trading partners. But in fact, three years after Pickering addressed his farewell speech to the American Chamber of commerce in Moscow, Russia ranked thirtieth in the list of American trading partners.

In 1998, Russias gross national product plummeted by nearly fifty percent over the last decade. More than sixty million Russians, which is nearly half of the population, lived elow a very low official poverty line. A steep fall in prices of their natural resources — oil, gas and gold consequently led to reducing both the export revenues and tax collection in Russia. Almost an article of faith for Russian reformers and their Western supporters, an assumption made was that Russia’s salvation lay in tight monetary discipline, rapid economic liberalization and a massive privatization program.

According to Richard E. Rawles, head of the Russian Psychology Research Unit, in University College London, western financial institutions were unaware of “the cultural traditions of Russia and omplicated interactions of pyschologies and mentalities with social structures”7 that had been largely ignored. E. Wayne Merry, who was head of the political section from 1991 to 1994, sent a telegram early 1994 which criticized America’s “evangelical attempt”8 to remold Russian society in its own image.

Just as Rawles had argued that Russia was physcologically and culturally unprepared for a free market so suddenly, Merry argued that such efforts would almost certainly fail because Russia — unlike Eastern European countries such as Poland nd the Czech Republic — had little tradition of free markets or the rule of law. The United States, in Merry’s view, would end up getting blamed for the failure of “shock therapy”. Reformers were well aware of the risks — unemployment, social discontent, and opportunities for corruption.

Nevertheless, foreign investors disregarded these handicaps and invested in the Russian stock market to unprecedented heights. It was believed these problems would resolve themselves if the economic medicine were applied with sufficient vigor. 9 In actuality, they played a role in the failed reformation. Since western investment was involved, it was inevitable that western politicians were also factors in the unsuccessful attempt to bring capitalism into the Russian economy.

There were reports of massive Russian money laundering through the Bank of New York, which raised new questions about the logic of pouring international loans into a country spending an estimated ten billion to fifteen billion a year in capital flight. Billions of dollars loaned by the IMF was going into the Russian economy but there was no evidence of progress. Foreign policy advisers to George W. Bush, the leading Republican presidential candidate, attempted to link Vice President Gore to the failure of economic reform in Russia because of his much exaggerated relationship with former prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin.

For their part, the Democrats accused the Republicans of throwing away the best chance of influencing future events in Russia during the period of 1991-92, in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of communism. 10 With a country of two opposing views, how did they expect to successfully aid Russia in the reformation if they were unable to agree on what went wrong? That the attempt to shift to a more Westernized capitalist economy failed in Russia was immensely due the structure of the economy. Analysts called it a “virtual economy.

It was a false economy because Russia failed to reform the communist economic system. According to the Washington Post in June 2, 1998, Russia took strong measures to initiate transition from communism to a free-market, but in many instances it was not followed through. Land was not fully privatized and the tax code had not been updated. Although most companies were privatized in name, judicial and legal reforms ecessary to force them to behave like truly private corporations were not forthcoming. 1 It quickly became apparent that such words as privatization and economic reform and even democracy meant entirely different things in the Russian context than in the American context.

Russian privatization has come to mean the wholesale transfer of valuable state assets to a small group of tycoons known as oligarchs who are more interested in shipping anything of value out of the country than in investing their profits in domestic production. Moreover, inefficient factories were handed over to their Soviet-era managers, who bitterly resisted the necessary downsizing and restructuring. 2 In the fall of 1998, Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov wanted to gear Russia sharply away from the free-market approach that had shaped its economic policy since 1991.

According to Wellingtons Evening Post dated November 9, 1998, Primakov, with assistance of his First Deputy for the Economy, a communist Yuri Maslyukov, presided over a programme to step up State intervention in the economy. They were aware that it may have jeopardized the International Monetary Fund assistance ut the attempt at capitalist society was not successful. 3

To the beleaguered people of Russia, certainties of old-style communism seemed attractive. A joke on the streets of Moscow, according to World Bank staffer John Nellis, was: “Everything the Communists told us about communism was a complete and utter lie. Unfortunately, everything the Communists told us about capitalism turned out to be true. “14 The establishment of a free-market may require decades to accomplish since this quick attempt was not successful. The economy of Russia did not improve as speculated.

Due to years of practicing communism, the Russian people experienced “therapy shock” when a free-market was in action. Another explanation was: because of constant U. S. influence, Russia was never at a state where they decided on the major decisions until the end. And finally, capitalism never worked in Russia because they did not fully let go of communism. After experiencing many hardships, the Russian people are confused as to what will work in their country full of resources yet lack of economic stability. Maybe the answer is a return to state controlled industries.

Throughout history, Russia has been viewed as a regressive cluster of barely civilized people on the verge of barbarism. In the eighteenth century, ideas of science and secularism grasped hold of Europe, and Russian Czars, realizing how behind Muscovite culture was, sought out this knowledge, attempting to imbed it into Russian society. Catherine II was one of these Czars. She listened to both the ideas of the philosophes and the problems of her people and strove to enlighten Russia by codifying the laws, establishing an elected government, funding hospitals, and forming a functioning school board.

Her attempts, however, were met with only partial success. Her reforms received much criticism, especially from the serfs, and Catherine was forced to realize, through the Pugachev Rebellion in 1773, that enlightening all of Russia was an impossibility. Catherine IIs greatest glory was seen in her foreign policies, as she solved two fundamental problems for Russia by winning victories over Turkey and Poland. As well, she established a League of Armed Neutrality and spoke out against the French Revolution.

Catherines reign created both prosperity and poverty for Russia. In order to decide whether she was truly great, one must evaluate her accomplishments upon the foundation of Russian ideals. At the end of the seventeenth century, Russia was a country in transition. The death of Czar Alexis in 1676 marked a change in Russian society, a movement from traditional Muscovite culture toward new, educated concepts. Reforms in the 1650s divided and weakened the Russian Orthodox Church, and a few bold individuals began to adopt a semi-westernized lifestyle.

By western standards, however, Russia still seem backward, and at best, a fringe nation of Europewithout benefit of middle class, universities, academies, or secular culture (Oblensky and Stone 144). The rebellion of the musketeers, or streltsy, in 1682 exposed a web of destructive feuds, religious superstition and xenophobia within Russia. Peter I took the throne in 1682 and reigned until 1725, with themes of war, love of foreigners, and love of the sea marking his rule. He and his army defeated Sweden at Poltava in 1709, he founded a navy at St. Petersburg, and he expanded the policy of hiring foreigners.

Peter wrought numerous changes, attempting to impose order on the Russian society, but, along with these reforms, he forged a gap between the upper Russian classes and the peasant population. After his death, Russia was turned over to several meager Czars: Peters wife, Catherine I, a self-indulged illiterate, from 1725-27; Peter, his 12 year old grandson, from 1727-30; his niece Anna, a woman with no political interests from 1730-40; and Ivan VI, an infant from, 1740-41 (Oblensky and Stone 145).

In 1741, Peters daughter, Elizabeth was raised to the throne, overthrowing Ivan VI. Lavish baroque palaces, an increase in western culture, and the taking of Berlin from Prussia in the Seven Years War characterized her reign. Again, Russia seemed to be establishing itself as a powerful society. However, Elizabeths successor, Peter III, undid much of what she had accomplished, as he returned Russias gains from the Seven Years War to his hero Frederick the Great (Oblensky and Stone 145).

Within six months of his succession, Peter was overthrown by a Guards coup in favour of his German wife, Catherine II. Catherine was thirty-three years old when she ascended the Russian throne. She had survived a loveless marriage, in which ambition alone sustained her (Gooch 6). Ignored by her husband, Peter III, she dedicated her time to learning the Russian language, studying the writings of the philosophes, and adapting cleverly to her new environmentskills which constitute important aspects of her reign.

Schooled by these teachings, she favoured religious tolerance, justice tempered with mercy (Gooch 91), education for women, civil rights determined within the bounds of class and estate, and the classical style in art and architecture. A women quite out of the ordinary, Catherine possessed high intelligence, a natural ability to administer and govern, a remarkable practical sense, energy to spare, and an iron will (Riasanovsky 256).

Along with her determination went courage and optimism, self-control, skill in discussion and propaganda, and a clever handling of men and circumstances to best serve her ends. Yet, together with her virtues, Catherine had certain weaknesses: her determination easily became ruthlessness, just as her ambition became vanity (Gooch 96). Even Catherine IIs admirers sometimes noticed that she lacked something, call it charity, mercy, or human sympathy (Riasanovsky 256).

Indisputably, however, for the first time since Peter the Great, Russia had acquired a sovereign who worked day and night, paying personal attention to all kinds of matters, great and small. Catherine began her reign with numerous enlightened, ambitious ideas, based on her readings of the philosophes. She took the first step toward liberalism by forming the Legislative Commission in which elections were introduced, codifying the Russian laws, creating a uniform school system and establishing a branch of public hospitals.

Upon her inauguration to the throne, Catherine had asked God to help her observe the law of the Orthodox Church, strengthen and defend the beloved fatherland, preserve justice, eradicate evil, all lies and impositions, and finally, to set up state institutions, by means of which the government would work within set limits and each department would have a defined sphere of action so that general good order would be maintained. For these purposes, she investigated every case that had come to her attention in order to discover the shortcomings that existed in Russia and how to best relieve them (Dukes 51).

In the first year of her reign, she noticed the general confusion and the inadequacy existing in the arrangement and the application of imperial laws. Peter the Great attempted twice to codify Russias laws, first in 1700 and again in 1714, with similar attempts made by his successors, particularly Elizabeth. None, however, were successful. For two years Catherine prepared her Instructions, or Nakaza set of principles which reflected her opinions on the political and legal structure desirable for Russia (Hosking 95).

Although Catherine had no intention of granting her subjects a constitution, and although her propaganda greatly exaggerated the radical nature of her intentions, the Nakaz was a strikingly liberal document (Riasanovsky 258). To discover the needs and wants of the Russian people, Catherine formed a Law Code Commission in 1767. The members were elected in local gatherings of the relevant estates: the nobility, the townsfolk, the state peasants, the Cossacks, the odnodvortsydescendants of the militarized peasants who had staffed the frontier linesand the non-Russians. (Hosking 98).

Deputies were sent to Moscow from all districts and towns, each with their own nakaz, or cahier, in which the requests and statements of grievance originating from their electors were drafted. However, the representatives were insensitive to the broad vision of creative statesmanship laid before them by their monarch (Dukes 100) and efforts were directed only at obtaining what they could within the existing system rather than recommending fundamental reforms. Catherine was quick to realize that the members were unaware of the needs of society as a whole and that they were unable to exercise self-restraint for the general good (Dukes 101).

Conveniently, she dismissed the Commission in 1768 when Russia went to war against Turkey. Nevertheless, the drafts written by the electives were not wasted, as the materials were employed in a Description of the Russian Empire and its International Administration and Legal Enactments, published in 1783. This proclamation was the closest thing that Russia had to a law code for the next 50 years (Hosking 100). It denounced capital punishment and torture, it argued for crime prevention and, in general, was abreast of advanced Western thought for criminology (Riasanovsky 259).

Catherine decided that, before positing common interests, which did not exist, she should put more backbone into fragmented Russia by creating institutions which would enable citizens to work together at least within their own estates and orders; Catherine adopted the task of laying the foundation for a civilized Russian society. Catherines first contribution toward forming an enlightened nation was to create a system of hospitals. Although medical science had yet to reach a respected position, Russia lacked, as did many other countries, a method of administering the small amounts of medical knowledge it did possess.

In attempts to alleviate this, Catherine funded the Town Hospital at St. Petersburg, the St. Petersburg House for Lunatics, and the Foundling Hospital; as well, she popularized vaccinations. The Empress donated money to fund the Town Hospital at St. Petersburg, where poor were admitted without payment (Kochan 26). Upon admittance, they were shaved, bathed, and put in tidy dress. The hospital consisted of 300 well spread beds with curtains and a professor of electricity who was permanently employed to relieve diseases. Likewise, the St. Petersburg House for Lunatics was constructed, which became renowned for its gentle treatment.

Unlike other mental hospitals, it did not use chains to subdue raving patients, but instead used thongs, and, it only used gentle remedies, such as a strict diet, for mental disorders (Kochan 26). Finally, Catherine built the Foundling Hospital on the banks of the Muskva. This hospital broke new ground, for it was one of the first establishments of its kind. Through it, Catherine intended to discourage infanticide. A branch was set up in St. Petersburg in 1770, which acted as both a lie-in-hospital, admitting all pregnant women without pay, and a school, teaching girls sewing and boys the arts.

The function of the Foundling Home has been described as the transformation of private indiscretion into national benefit (Kochan 27) since all children were accepted without chargethe mother just had to state the name of the child and whether it had been baptized. Furthermore, it was through Catherine that vaccinations became widespread. Smallpox took the lives of many Russians, and permanently disfigured its survivors. Catherine was one of the first people in Russia to submit to an inoculation against the disease (Kochan 27). In 1768, she summoned the Quaker, Dr.

Thomas Dimsdale to perform the procedure; later that year, she had a Smallpox Hospital built, which, twice a year, inoculated children without charge. Through this, Catherine attempted to both instill scientific ideas in Russiashe decreed that Russia be equipped to produce its own medicines and surgical instrumentsand, to save the lives of many commoners (Riasanovsky 264). However, rather than seek medical aid, unenlightened peasants ran to The Virgin as a cure from the disease. The peasants were unable to appreciate the hospitals along with many of Catherines other broad visions.

Catherines final social reform was in the education system. Not only did the Empress reorganize the schools of elite classessuch as the Cadet Corpsand introduce the first female schoolssuch as the Smolny Institute for Noble Girlsshe also created a successful nationwide education system of elementary and secondary schooling. Russian education was a failure up to the 1760s for several reasons: it lacked textbooks, it had no set curriculum, it used a wide application of over-rigorous discipline, it stressed education for state-service purposes, and it was limited by Russian superstitions.

It was Russian tradition that reading secular books was a temptation from the devil (Miliukov 5), and so, grammar was taught with Church Slavonic print and church books until the 1760s. This practice was harmful because, by the 1700s, Church Slavonic was no longer the vernacular (Dukes 30). Catherine alleviated this by drafting an index of secular books to be used in schools, including The Primer, Rules for Pupils, On the Duties of Man and Citizen, History of the World, Introduction to European Geography, and Russian Grammar.

Prior to Catherine, the curriculum was as useless as the textbooks since it laid emphasis on only a few practical subjects, and was, for the most part, without rhyme or reason (Dukes 31). The Russians of the first half of the eighteenth century tended to view education as general, separate pieces of information, and that to learn these and become an educated man was simple (Dukes 31). Catherine observed this restraint, and formed a system of successive learning, where specific subjects were studied in four grade levels, each level increasing in difficulty.

Through this, Catherine gave her people understanding, not just superficial knowledge. Russians also believed that severe discipline aided knowledge, a belief which stemmed partly from the nature of military Russian education and partly from teachers wanting dumb obedience (Dukes 31). It was also the consequence of the seventeenth century religious theory, that children were naturally wicked and that they had to be purged before they could learn, that led to the physical abuse of children (Dukes 31). This abuse handicapped Russian education by creating mindless followers instead of outspoken thinkers.

Catherine condemned this practice by banning physical punishment in schools, and therefore, taking the first step in creating a non-militaristic, rational education system. Another concept that impeded Russian schooling was Peter the Greats notion that the purpose of education was the preparation of the young for services of the state (Dukes 32). Consequently, people did not learn for curiositys sake, and they did not experiment. The installation of provincial schools was Catherines solution. In 1786, the Statute of Popular Schools was produced and published.

Although F. I. Iankovich, a Serbian graduate, was its chief architect, the Statute reflected, to a considerable degree, the education plans composed by Catherine (Dukes 242). This education system was nationwide, with cost-free elementary and secondary schooling for boys and girls, including serfs with the permission of their land owners. The Education Statute stated that, in every provincial capitol, there must be one major school, consisting of four grades and, in every provincial and district town, one minor school with two grades.

The classes were to study reading, writing, catechism, elementary grammar and arithmetic, drawing, church historyfrom teachers rather than clergyand, rudimentary civics, all in their native tongue, as well as in the foreign language which was most useful for everyday life, depending on where the school was situated (Obolensky and Stone 211). This system recognized that, education is for the prosperity of the individual, and not the state, and in order for Russians to become broad-minded, they must acquire the fundamentals of knowledge.

The final concept that made Russian education a failure was the influence of a peculiar Russian culture, composed of ancient, Slavic superstition and folklore, and simple, but powerful Orthodox Christian faith (Dukes 34). Peter the Great began the struggle against the old culture by creating a strict order with uniform regulations, however, this organization was rejected by the vast majority of Russians who wanted to stick to the old ways. Catherine tried to create a school system that would be embraced by all Russians, with moderate success.

Although the education was free, and open to all classes, just after Catherines death, there were 49 major schools in operation, with 269 teachers and only 7 001 students enrolled; similarly, there were 239 minor schools, with 491 teachers and only 15 209 students. In comparison with the Russian population, these numbers were miniscule, but, in comparison with the number of students of 1727, which was no more than 2 000, her educational reform marked a great leap forward.

In many ways her principles were remarkableself-governing institutions and the spirit of free intellectual enquiry (Hosking 125). The Statute of Popular Schools was Catherines last major act in the cultural field. Three years after its publication, the French revolution broke out and Catherine turned her attention to foreign acquisitions. By the 1780s, Catherine had realized that her dreams of recreating Russia were not possible. Although she was greatly influenced by the philosophes, she argued with Diderot that his theories could not be applied to Russian reality:

Monsieur Diderot, I have listened with the greatest of pleasure to all that your brilliant genius has inspired you with; but all your grand principles, which I understand very well, though they make fine books, would make sad work in actual practice. You forget, in all your plans for reformation, the difference between our two positions. You work only upon paper, which submits everything. Whereas I, a poor empress, work upon human nature, which is on the contrary, irritable and easily offended. (Oblensky and Stone 210)

The bloody rebellion, led by Cossack Pugachev, showed too well that enlightened theories and domestic realities were often at odds. In 1773, a Don Cossack claimed to be the late Peter III, reclaiming his throne and bringing justice to the oppressed. He started his rebellion in southern Russia, and at its height, it encompassed a huge territory in eastern European Russia. The aim of the rebellion was to exterminate all officials and property owners and free the serfs, and to replace Catherine IIs government with a Cossack-style democracy.

The system failed, however, because of lack of coherent program and serious rivalries between different groups (Oblensky and Stone 225). Pugachev was betrayed by his followers, tried in court, and executed. The rebellion demonstrates a major flaw in Russian lower class: the serfs knew they were dissatisfied with Catherines system, but they were too self absorbed and uneducated to be able to work toward the general good.

Catherine had realized long before, during the Legislative Commission, that in order to abolish serfdom Russia would have to be completely re-instituted: priests must become as literate as foreign priests and the nobles as sharp-witted as the English, the peasants must know their ABC, become honest and obey the wrath of God and the rabble must have a better understanding of foreign crafts and become more intelligent (Dukes 31). The Empress realized that it was first necessary to educate the higher classes and to then let the knowledge seep down until it reached the peasantry.

Regardless, Pugachevs Rebellion was a shock to Catherines liberal instincts and it marked the most critical moment of her reign: a turning point in which she replaced her radical internal reforms with an aggressive foreign policy. Shaping foreign policy was one of the principal tasks of the Russian Czar and through it, Catherine accomplished her greatest glory for Russia. Russia had three fundamental problems in foreign relations: the Swedish, the Turkish, and the Polish (Riasanovsky 264).

Peter the Great solved the first and Catherine the Great the final two. In their struggle against Turkey, the Russians aimed to reach the Black Sea, to obtain their natural southern border, and to reclaim the fertile lands lost to the Asiatic in the days of the Kievan state. In The First Turkish War, 1768-74, impressive victories over Turkey were won by Count Peter Rumiantsev on land, and Alexis Orlov on sea. By the summer of 1774, Turkey was ready to make peace.

The Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji awarded Russia the strategic points of Kinburn, Yenikale and Kerch in and near the Crimea as well as part of the Black Sea coast (Kochan 5). In addition, Russia acquired the right to build and Orthodox Church in Constantinople. The First Turkish War marked the first decisive defeat of Turkey by Russia and, although the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji reflected the Russian victory, Catherines ambitions were yet to be fulfilled. The Second Turkish War began in 1787 when Turkey declared war on Russia.

Catherines troops, led by General Alexander Suvorov, scored a series of brilliant victories over Turkish forces, notably in 1790 when Suvorov stormed and won the supposedly impregnable fortress of Ismail. By the Treaty of Jassy in 1792, Russia gained the fortress of Ochakov and the Black Sea shore up to the Dniester River, and Turkey recognized her annexation of Crimea. The conquest of this region freed Russia from many of the chronic disadvantages it had suffered for centuries while hemmed in among the forests and on the poor soils of the north (Hosking 107).

Catherine had won for Russia her natural boundaries in the south, and essentially solved the Turkish problem. Catherine IIs Polish policy turned out to be as impressive as her relations with Turkey. It is often said that Poland was ready for partitioning in the second half of the eighteenth century: elected kings were unable to control their subjects and the only other form of authority, the sejm, or diet, failed almost entirely to function (Riasanovsky 267).

Catherine felt that Poland was constantly overrun with disorder and violence; she always looked with particular sympathy upon the oppression to which the lands and towns adjacent to the Russian empire, which were formerly her property had been subjected to (Oblensky and Stone 214). The conflicting interests of numerous religions and an avaricious gentry accentuated the weaknesses of the Polish government. For these reasons, Catherine felt it necessary that Russia take under her power all the lands, towns, and regions enclosed within Poland.

By the first partition of Poland in 1772, Russia obtained White Russian and Latvian Lithuania to the Dvina and the Dnieper rivers with some 13 million inhabitants; by the second partition in 1793, Russia took more of Lithuania and most of the western Ukraine with a total of 3 million inhabitants; by the third partition in 1795, Russia acquired the remainder of Lithuania and the Ukraine, with 12 million inhabitants, as well as the Duchy of Courland, where Russian influence had predominated from the time of Empress Anne (Riasanovsky 270).

The partitioning of Poland brought tragedy to the Poles, but glory to the Russians. Poland had always been regarded as a hindrance if not a danger to the growth of the Russian state (Kochan 5). Catherine had eliminated an old enemy, rival, and a source of conflicts, while at the same time adding to her own lands, resources and populations. After the division of Poland, Russia, Prussia and Austria cooperated closely on the international scene, holding Eastern Europe completely under their control. Catherine is criticized on the aggressive nature in which she, Austria, and Prussia seized the Polish lands.

However, Russias case differs greatly from those of Prussia and Austria: in the three partitions, Russia took old Russian lands, once part of the Kievan state, populated principally by Orthodox Ukrainians and White Russians (Hosking 60), whereas the two German powers grabbed ethnically and historically Polish territory. The Russians, therefore, came as liberatorsas Catherine had statedthe Prussians and Austrians as oppressors. Catherines foreign policy was not limited to the relations with Turkey and Poland.

Other important developments included the Russian role in the League of Armed Neutrality, a war against Sweden, and the Empresss reaction to the French Revolution. To protect the commerce of non-combatant states against arbitrary actions of the British, Catherine proposed a doctrine of armed neutrality at sea in 1780. It insisted that neutral ships could pass freely from port to port and along the coast to combatants, that enemy goods in neutral ships, except contraband, were not subject to seizure, and that to be legal a blockade had to be enforced, rather than merely proclaimed (Riasanovsky 271).

Several other European countries supported her proposals which eventually became part of international maritime law. In 1788, Sweden attacked Russia while the Russian armies were at war with Turkey. Repeatedly, the Swedes threatened St. Petersburg, however, with no success, as the Treaty of Werala in 1790 confirmed the pre-war boundary. Catherine triumphed in defending her adopted country. The French Revolution made a strong impression on Catherine: the heroes she embraced in her youth became the objects of criticism in her maturity.

I cannot believe in the superior talents of the cobblers and shoemakers for government and legislation, she wrote in 1789, they know ten times more and do ten times more harm than my employes who do not indulge in such fine phrases (Gooch 99). Catherine, however, lived in Russiaa backward country with no middle class, where education and science were rejected in favour of Muscovite superstition and religionand not Francea developing nation with a powerfully educated middle class.

Although Catherine had made the first step in progressivism, by introducing a system of government, laws, hospitals, and schools, the Russian commoner remained unaffected. In France, the peasantry knew their desires; in Russia, they only knew their duties. Consequently, the people of Russia were unable to govern themselves and remained solely dependent on the strength of an enlightened despot; no one need blame Catherine for accepting the prevailing ideology of her time (Gooch 107). Although Catherine IIs list of achievements is of great bulk, merely recording them is not enough to define her as great.

Rather, the reforms imposed by Catherine must be evaluated upon the background of ancient Muscovite beliefs. Catherine adopted a backward and ignorant society, installed provincial governments, codified the laws, created a school board, established hospitals, expanded the borders, and overall, took the first step in progressiveness. Influenced by the thinkers of her time, and observant of her countrys flaws, Catherine was able to combine the new ideas of the eighteenth century with the realities of traditional Muscovite society.

The Empress understood that, in order to bring Russia abreast with western society, she must first build a backbone of government institutions from which knowledge could percolate down through all ranks of society. Her greatness comes, not only through her internal and foreign accomplishments, but also through her appreciation of Russian antiquity, and her ability to apply the new enlightened ideas to its eccentric culture. She won for Russia a place among the Great Powers which since her day, has never been lost.

Throughout Russian history, there were many individuals who captured the interests and curiosity of scholars both domestic and foreign, but one stands out as the most ambiguous. Grigori Yefimovitch Rasputin, the so- called “Mad Monk” or “Siberian Mystic Healer”, has gained notoriety throughout the world for his astounding medical feats involving the stopping of the sometimes never ending bleeding of hemophiliacs. In the time of Rasputin, 1864-1916, there were no effective medical means to stop the bleeding that plagued hemophiliacs, yet the mystical powers of one man had the power to do so.

Since there were no written records compiled at the time to account for his legacy, the stories of Rasputin have been passed along throughout time by believers and skeptics alike. It is said that as early as 1900, Rasputin had gained fame in Eastern Russia as a faith healer, or wandering holy mendicant. He was said to have had the powers of precognition, foreseeing the future, clairvoyance, seeing events happening elsewhere, and healing the sick without medication or therapy. Many have attributed Rasputin’s powers to the arts of the Orientals, which he had picked up along his travels.

Many groups in Russia wished Rasputin dead, because they could not logically interpret his actions and could not rationalize his power. He was seen at this time as a sort of “Devil’s Advocate”, because no one believed that a Holy Man could posses such powers. His methodology was not that of the time period he lived in, and just as it is today, people fear what they cannot understand in rational means. Though Rasputin was a savior for many, he was looked upon by the majority of Russian peoples as a fraudulent evil doer.

No matter what the general consensus was, Rasputin extended the lives of many where they would have surely died without his help. (Candler 1). From an early age Rasputin’s mystical powers were present. When he was only a child, he had the ability to calm and heal farm animals. He also possessed the powers of clairvoyance at an early age. He could judge a man’s motives and character with just a glance into his eyes. On one described occasion in his childhood, Rasputin was in bed with a fever, when he envisioned the face of a man stealing a horse.

Rasputin identified the man, who was a rich and prominent villager, and though the man denied the accusation, it was later proven that he was the thief. These small accomplishments of his youth, along with the teachings he received at the Monastery of Verkhotourie, provoked Rasputin to speak with the holy hermit Makari. Makari informed him that God had some large tasks for him to overcome, and that he must travel abroad to sacred sites to enrich his knowledge of the divine. He spent many years of his life wandering as far as Mt.

Athos in Greece, walking twenty-five to thirty miles a day with little or no sustenance, searching for enlightenment. (Kwapien 1-2). While traveling abroad, Rasputin was introduced to some of the remaining heretical sects of the Old Believers. During this time, thousands of Old Believers were persecuted by the Patriarch Nikon, as he attempted to cleanse Russia of these sects and enforce Orthodox Christianity. Those who escaped fled to Siberia and continued to establish churches and communities.

Nikon’s rapid persecution of these sects weakened the Orthodox Church and gave rise to groups such as the Khlysty, which Rasputin is said to have taken part in. Their secret rites were extremely sexual and orgiastic in nature, and it was believed that through sexual sin, one could gain repentance. It has been said that Rasputin strengthened his powers through sexual acts performed while taking part in the Khlysty. (Kwapien 1-2). Rasputin’s greatest feat in spiritual healing was the aid he provided the Tsarevitch Aleksei, a hemophiliac, in 1912.

Aleksei had inherited the blood disorder from his mother, Alexandra, and the Romanov family had a history of the affliction. Aleksei had been badly bruised by his own actions and was bleeding to death. Nicholas and Alexandra were extremely reluctant to invite Rasputin, because their son’s condition was kept secret, in fear that if this information was made public, he would never become tsar. Finally, realizing the powerlessness of the boy’s doctors and the seriousness of his affliction, Rasputin was called to St. Petersburg. (Hollenbach 3).

Rasputin came to the boy’s bedside, and with only a few spoken words and a wave of his hand, pronounced the Tsarevitch cured. Rasputin had induced a feeling of calm and a sense of well-being in the Tsarevitch, which amazingly changed the boy’s body, slowing his bleeding, sending him into a deep tranquil sleep, and eventually stopping the bleeding altogether. Doctors were baffled, and Nicholas and Alexandra were forever thankful. According to those who viewed these actions, Aleksei did recover fully. Though this seems like something out of a fairy tale, Rasputin did indeed cure the Tsarevitch.

It has never been conclusively proven as to how Rasputin did in fact heal the afflicted, but the evidence in hand strongly points toward hypnosis. In hematology, the study of bleeding in hemophiliacs, it has been proven that the emotional state of a hemophiliac directly effects the flow of blood through the capillaries. Anger, discomfort, and mental anguish can cause an increase in blood flow, and if these feelings are turned to calm, comfortable, and jubilant, the blood flow will in turn decrease. It is hypothesized that Rasputin hypnotized the Tsarevitch and put his mind at rest, thus slowing the blood flow. Massie 191). J. B. S. Haldane, a British geneticist said “it is also possible that by hypnotism or a similar method, he was able to produce a contraction of the small arteries [capillaries]. These last were placed under the regulation of the [autonomic] nervous system and although they are not normally controlled by the will, their contraction can be provoked in the body of a hypnotized subject” (Massie 190). This account along with research done throughout a three-year period, points to hypnosis as the only logical means of Rasputin’s healing abilities.

In Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, from 1961-1964, a research project was conducted by Dr. Oscar Lucas. One hundred and fifty teeth were taken out of hemophiliac patients without using a single transfusion. Under normal circumstances extracting teeth from a hemophiliac would be major surgery, and would require massive amounts of transfused blood. Dr. Lucas used hypnotism to erase his patient’s fears, because this procedure would normally cause panic and unrest to hemophiliacs. The doctor is quoted as saying “An emotionally tranquil patient has less bleeding difficulty than one emotionally distressed.

Bleeding engenders fear and fear of bleeding is considerably greater in the hemophiliac than in non-bleeders. The anxiety which results may be averted through hypnosis” (Massie 190). This evidence is the proof that was needed to understand the miracles of Rasputin. Using hypnosis, or some other means of comforting the Tsarevitch, the anxiety and fear which would have otherwise caused him to bleed to death was relieved, and replaced with feelings of tranquility which slowed the flow of blood through his capillaries.

Though Rasputin was viewed by most during his time as the “Mad Monk”, a shady and notorious character, modern science and methodology has proven that Rasputin was a pioneer of spiritual healing. In these times of little or no medical means to cure bleeding hemophiliacs, Rasputin used the power of his mind to induce his patients into healing themselves. Rasputin’s methods are a perfect example of mind over matter, and he single-handedly pioneered a totally new type of medicine substantially before its time.

There is so much that can be said in regards to the question “Why the Downfall of the Russian Empire? ” You cannot blame it on just a few individuals or because of any single factor, but you have to consider the historical and spiritual situation during the time Tsar Nicholas reigned. You have to consider historically development of Europe, its spiritual changes and also of course, the political aspects that had deeply affected the internal life of the Russian Empire and contributed to the downfall of the Tsar and the empire.

In Russia, there were various spiritual changes that took place. Citizens began to turn away from their beliefs in God, and instead were influenced by new philosophical ideals and beliefs, many of which came from writers based in Germany. These writings had a tremendous influence on the Russian political life. Atheism was the new philosophy. The outcome was highly significant for Russia. There was a turning away from Divine Revelation and from the former attitude of respect and love for Tsar. Treason also was a key ingredient.

From Germany, the Kaisers agents found Russian willing to collaborate with their plans of conquest, and used every means to influence supporters of the revolutionary cause. There were frequent, emotionally charged rallies, and much use was made of the press to exploit the revolutionary atmosphere being created. Rumors were encouraged and spread rapidly, and most citizens believed what they read, whether it was true or not. There was an assumption that if you were not Russian that you were a German spy.

Her Imperial Highness Tsarina Alexandria, the empress and wife of Tsar Nicholas was accused of being a spy, simply because she was born in Hesse, Germany. The war with Japan in 1904 didn’t help internal matters and the war with Germany in 1914 caused Russia to lose some territory. Both of these wars severely damaged the economy of the Tsarist Empire, and the revolutionaries took advantage of these internal and political and economic problems, and manipulated them to bring about the end of Imperial government.

The Russian railway system had never been adequate and the war had reduced its capacity to transport essential supplies. The lack of food and medical supplies, which could no longer be transferred from Western Europe rail, accelerated the problems of the Russian Empire, and the Germans made sure the trains did not get through to reach the needy people. The distress and anger this caused also contributed to the downfall of the Russian Empire. Then we must consider the political influences affecting the Duma at this time.

Several members of the Duma where very much influenced by the new philosophy and sought means to bring about rapid change in the country, indeed some of them had the same ideas as the revolutionaries. The Duma helped to destroy the Empire by failing to maintain its traditional ideals and purposes. Assassinations were on the rise too. In Moscow, alone twenty administrators appointed by Tsar within the government at the time were a powerful influence in keeping in Tsar in power. The revolutionaries knew that the best way to promote the downfall of the Tsar was to get rid of those who worked with and supported him the and the Russian Empire.

We begin with the assassination in February of 1905 of Grand Duke Sergei Romanov who was the Governor General 7T6T76T7TYof Moscow and the Prime Minister PytYGYGor Stolypin who brought abut reforms and found the means to helpGYGUGGHG the Russia with its internal progress and development. TheTRT87TGUGBJHB Prime Minister had implemented significant new economic8YY policies that astonished intellectIHHI87T98uals across the world. This death had a deep effect on the downfall of the Tsar and Russian Empire.

Before the war, there were lots of problems which led up to the revolution and we call them the long term causes. The peasants working and living conditions were very bad but the government made it even worse by its own policies. Russia needed to develop its industries, so that it was a modern agricultural country instead of a backward one and also to remain in an important military power. To aid this dilemma the government invested in enormous amounts of money in improving Russias industries.

Where did most of this money come from? From the pockets of the people in Russia! To do this, the peasants had to pay huge taxes ot only on grain but on nearly all everyday items such as alcohol and salt! Nevertheless, the workers wages still stayed very low and did not increase much at all as the government wanted to squeeze the people for every penny they could get to put into industrial development.

Soon later, all seemed well, iron and steel industries grew rapidly but then thousands of workers lost their jobs. This was a cause for strikes and rebellions against managers and the government. Also, things were not going very well in the country side. As if being taxed for all you were worth wasnt enough, there were very bad harvests for couple of years so now they were starving as well! To return the favour, the peasants became violent and started to burn landlords houses.

Then the Tzar went to war with Japan which he thought would make the public believe in the government again. However, it backfired on him and caused all the same problems again but by a greater degree. That really infuriated the people! Leading up to the war the peasants and workers still had: *Inadequate clothing *Insufficient and unhealthy food *Long, hard hours at work *Inadequate housing/shelter *Self-made entertainment *Impoverished standard of life *Very low quality of life Age of death-early 20’s-30’s.

These were the huge differences in the quality of life between the rich and the poor as the rich had: *More than adequate clothing *More than adequate food *Lived on rising and unearned income *Entertainment was provided for them *Excellent standard of life *More than excellent quality of life *Age of death-late 50’s, 60’s and above In these years leading up to the war, as you can see, the living standard of the peasants and workers did not improve as so they were forced to rise up against these massive inadequacies!!

Politically, Russia was very unstable as the people had lost a lot of respect for the overnment and the Tzar. When the Tzar started to use the Dumas people began to wonder whether they would have any real power. By the Dumas first meeting it was clear. They could not pass laws, they could not appoint ministers and they could not control finance in such important areas as defence. Was there much point in them if the Tzar did not like what they were doing or proposing to do, he could dissolve them?? So, no. In my opinion the peoples views were not being heard through the Dumas.

There are lots of opinions as whether the Tzar was fit to rule Russia. In my opinion, the Tzar was not fit to rule Russia but this was by no means his own fault. He was taught as a soldier and he was not taught to act and behave like a king so it was his statesmanship that was at fault, not him himself!! The War. The war did not only effect the army but the people at home. Food was getting short, all the male peasants had to be taken off to the army so only women and invalids were left to tend the farms, shops . etc.

All the working trains were being put to use for the war effort so food was not getting through from other places. Nearly all unnecessary factories in the cities were closed so that furthed in another massive nemployment. People were not getting coal and wood to burn because the coal industries were shut down so the people were freezing as well. Not only that but the prices were rising as well because of the shortages! Wages were not going up, workers had to work longer hours, and Vodka had stopped being made during the war so the people now had nothing to drown their sorrows in!!

There was a greater poverty all round, a loss in confidence in the government and there was no end to the awful news about the terrible deaths and casualties from far at the front lines! Nicholas II made two very large and obvious mistakes. The first was that he made himself head of the armed forces so when anything went wrong the people and soldiers blamed him as he was the head. What he should have done was make a General the head so that if anything did go wrong he would be blamed and not him. Then he could have sacked that General and given the job to another person!

His second mistake was that when he went away to fight in the war he left his wife in charge of the country and she was German and they were fighting the Germans so that was a unfortunate mistake. She did not know how to rule any more than he did so the government just carried on as they were doing nyway!! The Tzarina was then involved with Rasputin as he had (supposedly) saved her sons life, twice. She was a very religious woman and was convinced that Rasputin had been sent by God to save her son. Rasputin then became a close friend of the royal family.

Their relationship shocked even the highest level of government and society and their reputations suffered from it!! The Revolution. By March 1917 the situation had become desperate and there was a serious mood of discontent. The workers wanted political changes as well as food and fuel. Tens of thousands of workers were going on strike and ven the women joined in as it was International Womens Day . They were demanding food, fuel, better conditions and a better government. On the 12 March, soldiers refused to fire on crowds, some regiments shot their officers and joined in the demonstrations.

They had had enough of the war and the way they were being treated! The soldiers joined the strikers and the women in the streets marched to the Duma to demand that they take control of the government. I think that this was a major turning point. In my opinion it would have taken a much longer time to overthrow the government without the soldiers joining in!! Conclusions. In my opinion, most of the above issues are long term causes, the short term ones were about the lack of equipment and hospital facilities, the incompetence of the officers, inadequate armour, weapons . tc. , the massive loss of life and the 25% desertions!! In my opinion, it was not the Tzars fault intentionally to be a bad leader. It was his predecessors who did not train him properly. If they had really cared about what was to happen after they had died they would have done something about bringing up proper leaders. I think that they were very careless about choosing leaders but I also feel very sorry for the Tzar, it was NOT his fault!!