Political Culture of Russia Essay Example for Free

Political Culture of Russia Essay The nature of Russian political culture and by extension its politics has been shaped and molded over the previous centuries. While we can by no means attribute its entire political culture to a single event or time period, we also can’t point to a time period, say the Soviet time, and draw our perception of Russia’s political culture from that alone. That being said, the totalitarian nature of the Soviet State is by partial means attributable to Marxist-Leninist philosophies. The nature of Russian political culture was (and still is in many regards) authoritarian. Throughout Russia’s history there has been an authoritarian attitude in how the country should be ruled. The state was always there, the state was behind forced modernization policies from Peter the Great through Joseph Stalin, and today Vladimir Putin. Russia for the large part of its history been just as vast as it is today. The sheer size of it requires a centralized power to keep regional autonomy down. Every country that followed or still follows Marxist doctrine did (does) so with different flavors of Marxism, none of which are exactly and entirely what Karl envisioned. China and Russia were rivals in several policy areas throughout the 20th century. The same dichotomy can be seen between China and its smaller (communist) Southeastern Asian neighbors such as Cambodia and Vietnam. Communist countries were partially authoritarian because of Marxism. The nature of establishing and perpetuating a command economy demanded authoritarianism. While China has wiggled out of many of the responsibilities and pitfalls of running a command economy by establishing market-driven economic reform, it remains authoritarian. This illustrates that while the key components of Marxism are abandoned, the system and its actors continue to grasp to power as it seeks to adapt and integrate itself into the world system. This is counter to previous attempts to establish a parallel world system behind Soviet ideology. Bottom line: the only way a Communist system can take continued hold and root itself into the political system is through authoritarianism. Not to mention the guise under which many of the Soviet Republics were brought into the fold and behind the Iron Curtain. These weren’t spontaneous Communist Revolutions toppling several governments around the world; it was the Russian’s moving in after having kicked the Germans out and act ing marionette to their new puppets. If it were populist support that kept Communist governments in power around the world one would not see states efforts to cripple freedoms of the press, of assembly, and of religion. Current Communist governments fear a slippery slope, and perhaps rightfully so, where an inch of social freedom given would mimic Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms in the late 1980’s and lead to an eventual collapse. Russia’s Political culture is more authoritarian than a lot of countries around the world, but today it is a functioning quasi-democracy with authoritarian overtones. This goes to show that in the right circumstances, Russian’s can and will subject themselves to semi-authoritarian rule. Under other circumstances, such as the situation in the 1990’s that followed the collapse of the Soviet system, it’s a wonder that authoritarianism didn’t come back in force. Putin still governs with legitimacy at the front of his mind, and hasn’t suspended the constitution or ruled by decree. True democracy can and will eventually be realized, but realistically this is only possible through generational replacement and hard, slow change. The privatization process can be viewed with much rightful criticism, it didn’t take into account Russians lack of understanding of the West’s definition of ‘rational economic behavior’, nor did it find a happy middle ground between the two extremes of command economy and wild-west capitalism. What it did do was change the rules of the game being played. We can fault the broad shock therapy method for any number of shortcomings in the economic policy in the Russian arsenal, but it accomplished one incredibly more important goal. It changed the rules of the game. People who knew the rules (or knew which new rules were coming), mobsters, party officials, and Western interests, leapt upon the opportunity to make money hand over fist. This is still a vastly improved scenario as opposed to gradual economic reform, with the state greedily holding onto the â€Å"commanding heights† of the economy, and leaving the unprofitable sectors open for private investment and development. The large majority of the Russian people didn’t have a firm grasp on private property, or selling one of two cows to buy a bull, or how to ‘invest’ with these vouchers. The sharks ate them up in the incredibly free market. This is a point that was necessary for the facilitation o f real capitalism and eventually democracy in Russia. How does one instill in its population the concepts that go hand in hand with capitalism? My answer would be to force them to adapt to a changed environment. Gradual change would’ve perpetuated for a longer time the stagnation and poor cost-management of the Soviet period. An aggressive and immediate changing of the environment began the painful instilling of capitalist values into the populace and government. After the dust cleared and a new millennia unveiled, Vladimir Putin inherited a new Russia, with new problems, and an semi-regulated albeit capitalist system. I also reject the notion that a stake in a company translates to a certain level of commitment and productivity associated with it. I can think of just in my own history a number of bosses with a small level of commitment to the company, they weren’t there to operate or manage, they were there to own. That being said I’ve also experienced several hands-on owners, who corrected the techniques of severa l employees to their liking. My other inference comes from day-traders on the Stock Market. People with no vested interest in a company putting their money up because they think the stock will go up, not necessarily because they believe in the product. One doesn’t need a stake in a company to incentivize success within it, it sure helps, but it is not required and wouldn’t have made the Russian transition any less painful. The decades of propaganda had really affected some 10% of the population and they were the ones who fell off the cliff when the system changed. Russia in the 1990’s was bad, but it was nothing compared to the massive famines that led to the deaths of millions of Russians, or the Great Depression. Many Russian’s who bought into the Soviet ideology were left out in the cold, yet others found jobs, and others made easy money. 1991 was a turbulent time in Russia, the collapse of the system left countless questions unanswered about what the Russian state and its business sector would look like after the dust settled. I see absolutel y no way, no system, no path that could’ve mediated such a drastic change with minimal economic displacement and suffering. We could’ve lessened the blow with a Russian version of the Marshall Plan, but frankly that was much too much to expect from America. We were in a position of triumph after decades of struggle, and the prospect of the massive new markets had American businesspeople salivating. The Marshall plan also wouldn’t have worked as well as it did in Western Europe because the political and economic culture of Russia was very different from Western Europe. Saturating a country with cash and loans to build (or rebuild in the case of Western Europe) modern infrastructure was out of the question. Half the reasoning behind the Marshall Plan in the first place was to cultivate capitalism, and combat the spread of communism. What is to be gained from a US policy of propping up our old foe? This is especially true when there was so much money to be made via exploitation. Russia in the 1990’s was exactly was America desired it to be, complacent. The Russian mob played a major role in blocking true market reforms; they reveled in the post-collapse chaos and orchestrated the major piece of the Russian economy that is sti ll today conducted underground, and more importantly, free of tax revenue. While this percentage has decreased considerably, it still accounts for nearly a double digit hole in economic exchanges. Along with the mob, the Communist Party knew what was going to happen and planned accordingly. They snapped up the profitable sectors of the economy for pennies on the dollar and became fabulously wealthy. Both groups served as major obstacles in the path of real reform, and real democracy for Russia. The fact is that the reforms proposed were free-market in principle and not free-market in practice. Favors, subsidies, inside information, and possessing capital (not to mention the knowledge of how to use it) made for a grossly tilted economic playing field in Russia. Just like water, the money flowed down the tilt and into the hands of elites and future oligarchs, leaving real policy and progress for later leaders and generations to wrestle with. To quote Winston Churchill, â€Å"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.† Western style democracy is by no means the pinnacle of human achievement, it is however a necessary condition to providing the basis for equality of opportunity, rule of law, and political representation. That is not to say that there is no value in the Russian path, or that it is inherently wrong. Order just isn’t as valuable (according to the West) when one holds the aforementioned societal values. Order works for Russia, much better than it ever could’ve worked in the â€Å"Go west, young man† America that encompassed so much of the formation of our identity. Order keeps the barbarians out, order keeps the serfs from rebelling, order centralizes power in an Empire. Russia, without the concept of order built in like ours of liberty, would’ve faltered and fell from the world stage many times, of this I have no doubt.. The two biggest examples of Order trumping Liberty (in Russia) I can imagine are the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler. In the former and the latter, slash and burn tactics were employed. Hell, Moscow was a husk in the dead of winter when Napoleon got there, and I have no doubt that similarly drastic measures would’ve been taken to preserve the Soviet state. People throughout the best land in Russia, burned their property, poisoned their livestock, poisoned their water, destroyed everything of use, and fled. The enormous sense of communal responsibility and togetherness that these behaviors exhibit illustrate that Order worked and may continue to work for Russians, in the same manner that Liberty worked for Americans. I could never imagine American’s destroying everything in the face of invasion and retreating. That’s sacrilegious in this country; luckily we didn’t have quite as aggressive neighbors as Russia had. The Russian political system must meet several criteria I believe before it is widely accepted as completely legitimate. First off, centrist parties crafted by United Russia have to dissipate. They’re there to fracture opposition support, and nullify the voices of the overriding political currents that sway governments to control of one party or another. Representative politics works best when it represents the electorate, if there are pressures to decrease opposition support via backhanded ways, then that is where one sees wide-spread dissent. United Russia may have the backing of a majority of the Russian citizenry, for now, but by treating the opposition as the problem rather than part of the solution, Putin and by extension United Russia is alienating many mainstream voters on the left and right. Their reaction is to then become more extreme and problemati c because they’re being talked down to. When legitimate political parties and beliefs aren’t represented, parties and organizations that hold them have nothing to lose by taking up much more extremist views. If they felt that United Russia would play ball, they wouldn’t be taking the positions that they have taken. They would come to the table with more of a pragmatist view and plan of compromise. The military’s role in the democratization of Russia needs to be minimal. I am of the belief that a Roman-style coup utilizing the military is a very real albeit remote possibility. Civilians need to be the head of their equivalent to the Department of Defense, and ending discrimination in the armed services is a must for minorities in Russia to truly feel that they have a say and a stake in the country as it moves forwards. Divided government demands compromise, and it is yet to be seen whether Russia is ready to grapple with and deal with people who don’t agree with you. As of this point, the answer has been to silence them, or to shuffle them into a centrist party like sheep, or to run up the tally of people who think like you. For Russia to move past the post-Soviet period it must start engaging opposition, utilize independent parties, and stop fighting the opposition. This is very possible, just not at a breakneck pace. Russia’s value of Liberty will inevitably keep the country moving towards a more representative and legitimate democracy, but its value of Order will make sure that it is a slow and deliberate process.

A Marxist Reading of Native Son Essays -- Native Son Essays

A Marxist Reading of Native Son In the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx states clearly that history is a series of class struggles over the means of production. Whoever controls the means of production also controls society and is able to force their set of ideas and beliefs onto the lower class. The present dominant class ideology is, as it has been since the writing of the United States Constitution, the ideology of the upper-class, Anglo-Saxon male. Obviously, when the framers spoke of equality for all, they meant for all land-owning white men. The words of the Declaration of Independence, also written by upper-class, Anglo-American males, are clear: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are rights necessary to each human being and should never be taken away. Governments are established to protect these rights, yet these rights do not apply to everyone, particularly to the Bigger Thomases of the world. Although the framers of the Constitution and the authors of the Declaration of Independence could not look into the future to see the arrival of Richard Wright, his 1940 novel, Native Son, with its main character, Bigger Thomas, or the frustrated urban youths whom Bigger was patterned after, they did know their own needs. They also understood the importance of being free to attain those needs. Years later, Abraham Maslow agreed with the forefathers and gave the theory of needs a name. In 1943, psychologist Abraham Maslow developed a theory of basic human needs: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. His theory suggests that embedded in the very nature of each human being are certain needs that must be attained in order for a person to be whole physically, psychologically, and emotionally. First, there are phys... ... is what society does to Bigger: it puts him in a cage, backs him into a corner, and when he lashes out, it kill him, just as Bigger killed the rat. Works Cited Boeree, Dr. George. "Personality Theories: Abraham Maslow." 1998. 7 November 2001. , Booker, Keith M. A Practical Introduction to Literary Theory and Criticism. White Plains: Longman 1996. Butler, Robert James. "The Function of Violence in Richard Wright's Native Son." Black American Literature Forum. Vol. 20, Issue 1/2, 1986. DeCoste, Damon Marcell. "To Blot It All Out: The Politics of Realism in Richard Wright's Native Son." Style. Vol. 32. 127-148. Grigano, Russel C. Richard Wright: An Introduction to the Man and His Works. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970. Inge, M. Thomas ed., Fadiman, Clifton. New Yorker. 2 March 1940 53-53.

Florida Fast Track program Essay

Time is very valuable, and if there is a way of using it efficiently, and gaining the most in the shortest time possible, that is the way I would go. Florida Tech’s Fast Tack program gives me this opportunity, to be very efficient in my overall attaining of a masters degree. Being part of the program will help me achieve my goals, faster and earlier than I expect. Taking this program gives me an advantage of being able to qualify for the scholarship award during the fifth year as a full time student (Financial Aid, 2010). This also means that if I get a scholarship award during my undergraduate I can keep it if I undertake the fast track program. This will help me a lot in financing the masters program too. I will also have a head-start in my career, way before my colleagues who are taking the traditional program. This will go a long way in helping me serve my fellow citizens as soon as possible, for I have a great desire to work to benefit them through my career. The program will therefore enhance my fast growth to attaining qualification in this career. The program is also diverse and not specific to any course among those offered in the university. Through this, my choice is also catered for. By stating, â€Å"FastTrack is open to all undergraduates and is comprised of the following combined, accelerated degree programs†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Fast Track Masters’ Program, 2010), the admission department of Florida Tech makes it clear that the courses being offered at undergraduate level are available at masters’ level. I will therefore be happy to be part of the family of the Florida Technical College, and pursue my dream career. The other good thing about this program is that it is designed in a way to give full attention to the individual student. I will therefore be able to interact closely with my instructors to help me grasp the concepts very well. In addition to this, the program has nationally recognized certification, which gives me confidence in working through it to get the degree (Fast – Track a Career in Medical Assisting, 2010). I therefore know that I will have no problem getting a place in the corporate world in my career.

The Colosseum Of The Roman Empire - 2608 Words

The Colosseum The Amphitheatrum Flavium or Flavian Amphitheater are two of the more cultural Roman names for what we know as The Colosseum. This historical monument dates us all the way back to the birth of Jesus. Roman Emperor Nero who once held power lead for over a course of many years. Not too many favorited him because of all the misrule throughout his term. This lead to Nero taking his life in A.D* 68 leaving his land in a fueled civil war period. Vespasian, eventually would take the throne after him for ten years. Vespasian was looking for change within the Roman Empire. Along with his two sons, Titus and Domitian, they made attempts on restoring the Roman authority and gaining public welfare. Roughly three years later Vespasian decided he wanted to do even more by replenishing the land near the center of the city. After years of war and a terrorizing fire in A.D 64, Vespasian, decided to use that center city space for The Colosseum. After its completion in 80 A.D, this world wonder was onl y a personal amphitheater for Vespasian himself. It wasn t until later he opened it to the public for entertainment. The Colosseum, is an enormous structure done in Roman architectural times. It was completed relatively quickly for it how big it was, and also its time period. Holding more than 50,000 spectators standing three stories tall, six hundred twenty feet by five hundred thirteen feet making this the largest structure the Roman’s have ever built. Each story was beingShow MoreRelatedThe Roman Colosseum Of Rome1153 Words   |  5 Pagesarchitecture, what do picture? I am going to assume you would picture colosseums. The piece of art I chose to research was the granddaddy of them all, the Roman Colosseum. This is potentially the most famous monument to survive the classical period. Today, the Colosseum is one of Rome’s most popular tourist attractions, attracting millions of visitors every year. This massive amphitheater is located in the center of Rome, Italy. During ancient roman times these massive amphitheaters were commonly placed aroundRead MorePolitical and Cultural Significance of the Flavian Amphitheatre1748 Words   |  7 PagesAssess the political and cultural significance of the construction and initial use of the Colosseum. Throughout the history of Ancient Rome, the construction of public buildings was used as a political tool, to manipulate the views of the people and to demonstrate the power of the State. The very first emperor of Rome, Augustus, initiated social reform through the construction of buildings from 27 BC onwards. Emperor Vespasian in 69 AD used a similar initiative, and throughout Rome’s history it canRead MoreImportance Of The Colosseum1054 Words   |  5 PagesThe functions religious or otherwise, of the colosseum were irrelevant to the ultimate design of the architecture. â€Å"Once the colosseum had been built it seems to have become the model for many, if not most, of those that followed† (Hopkins and Beard 2005, 24). The Colosseum stands proudly upon the villainous Emperor Nero’s once grand Valley of the Golden House, projecting the munificence of Imperial Roman Architecture of the Flavian period. Its ultimate design could be said to be formed throughRead MoreAncient Roman And The Roman Empire1236 Words   |  5 Pageswicked idea of entertainment. The Colosseum or Coliseum, also known as the Flavian Amphitheatre, is an elliptical amphitheater in the center of the city of Rome, Italy. Built of concrete and stone, it is the largest amphitheater ever built and is considered one of the greatest works of architecture and engineering. The Roman Colosseum, constructed in 79 AD, is a visual representation of the importance of physical strength and military proficiency in Ancient Roman civilization, this is because itRead MoreSocial Structu re in the Colosseum1229 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿ The Ancient Roman Social Structure in the Colosseum Ancient Rome is one of the greatest and most influential societies in the history of the world. From the basic rules of how the Roman Empire is set up to the infrastructures in the city, the strict hierarchy of Roman social structure can be reflected clearly all over the whole ancient Rome. In fact that â€Å"public architecture presents people with the official view of a society and provides the background against which its individual markersRead MoreA Brief Note On The Punic Wars And Rome1713 Words   |  7 PagesPeninsula (History.com Staff). In the First Punic War, Rome defeated the Carthaginians at sea and Sicily became Rome’s first overseas province (History.com Staff). This First War ended with Rome in control of Sicily and Corsica resulting in the Roman Empire’s rise to a naval power in addition to land power (History.com Staff). While the Carthaginian general Hannibal scored several victories in the Second Punic War, he was defeated by Rome’s Scipio Africanus in 202 B.C. Rome gained control of theRead MoreRoman Empire : The Greatest Social And Political Center Of Western Civilization1478 Words   |  6 PagesAt its height, the Roman Empire was the greatest social and political center in western civilization. The empire survived for about 500 years, from 31 BCE to 476 CE. The land under Roman rule surrounded the Mediterranean Sea; its territory reached from Europe to the western part of the Middle East to the northern part of Africa. As Kathryn Hinds said in The Ancient Romans, â€Å"Ancient Rome has always been famous for its great achievements in architecture and engineering.† Roman architecture eventuallyRead MoreThe Colosseum : Cultural And Cultural Values1305 Words   |  6 Pages‘The Colosseum’ describes the societal and cultural values of Rome. In addition to this, the essay also demonstrates the technical and spatial features of the buildings and illustrates the way through the building is able to develop a language of classical architecture in Rome. The thesis statement of the present essay can be stated as ‘The extent to which the architectural building of ‘The Colosseum’ in Rome depicts the cultural and societal values and principles practiced in Ancient Roman Society’Read MoreThe Greatest Accomplishments of the Pax Romana?1214 Words   |  5 PagesThe Pax Romana A golden age is a period of cultural accomplishments brought on by economic prosperity and relative peace. The Roman empire experienced a golden age after the fall of the Roman Republic, arguably one of the greatest golden ages in history. The Pax Romana began in 27 B.C. and it reigned for 200 years before falling. The Pax Romana was a time of great prosperity with many accomplishments. The Pax Romana was not only significant because of the amount of wealth and power it wieldedRead MoreRoman Architecture1056 Words   |  5 PagesMemorial, all these things have been affected by ancient Roman architecture. This ancient Roman architecture came to be around the time period of the Pax Romana in the Roman Empire. It was a time of great wealth and prosperity for the empire which brought it into a time of a sort of golden age for architecture. This type of architecture was influenced by the ancient Greeks, but it took their ideas and transformed them to better advantage their own empire. These ideas and works are still being used today