The Russian Revolution, 2nd ed., by Sheila Fitzpatrick Essay

The Russian Revolution, 2nd ed., by Sheila Fitzpatrick - Essay Example To prove this statement, firs of all, I need to define the term revolution. Secondly, I need to trace and compare the features of Stalin’s and Lenin’s dictatorships in economic policy, social policy and party policy. So, the first task to be done is to understand how Sheila Fitzpatrick defined the revolution. According to her, revolution â€Å"is coterminous with the period of upheaval and instability between the fall of an old regime and the firm consolidation of a new one† (3). Russian Revolution began with the February 1917 and ended with the Great Purges in 1938. Author distinguished five stages of the revolution: the February and October Revolutions in 1917, Civil War, the interlude of NEP, Stalin’s â€Å"revolution form above† and the Great Purges (4). Each of these stages had its own features and was continuation of the previous one. So, the Russian Revolution lasted about 20 years that had not only changed the regime but also formed the new one. Lenin was a great organizer, ideologist and the inspirer for many Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks seized power during the October revolution only thanks to the Lenin’s strategy. Stalin was the one who deeply consolidated the new regime in the USSR with Lenin’s ideas and radically changed economy, society and party. Russia’s economy in the interwar period went through many extreme things like War Communism, NEP and Five Year Plans (with Collectivization and Industrialization). Each of them had its own aims. The main aim of the War Communism (1918-21) was to save the power, to feed soldiers and workers – it was â€Å"radical policy as answer to desperate situation† (79). But the nationalization of large-scale and small-scale industry, pressure on peasants and merchants, high level of internal resistance, instability at the front – all these forced Lenin and Bolsheviks to calm down the situation and introduce NEP. According to the author, NEP †Å"purpose was to restore the shattered economy and to calm the fears of the non-proletariat population† (96). Bolsheviks needed to consolidate the victories of the revolution. Lenin didn’t want to stop the reforms and the process of building the communism. But, his illness disturbed him and after 1921 he wasn’t actually the one who had real influence in the state. I think NEP was some kind of strategy â€Å"step back - two forward†. And, indeed, less than a decade later, Stalin abandoned most of the NEP policies and initiated a new phase of revolutionary change with the First Five Year Plan (1929-32) Industrialization drive and the Collectivization of peasant agriculture (116). He believed that this was a true Leninist course. War Communism and First Five Year Plan had the same aims: to make communism closer. Both Lenin and Stalin wanted to industrialize the state, because, according to Marx, communism was possible only in developed industrialized countrie s. But Bolsheviks didn’t have enough administrative power in the beginning of 1920s to start Industrialization. In the end of 1920s they had power and plan. The First Five Year Plan was planned to industrialize the USSR by building giant new construction projects (f.e. - Magnitogorsk) focused on iron and steel. But industrialization needed money that could be taken from peasants. That’s why Stalin began Collectivization. Collectivization was undoubtedly a real â€Å"revolution from above†

Gender is not something one is, it is something one dose it is a Essay

Gender is not something one is, it is something one dose it is a sequence of acts, a doing rather then a being - Essay Example Butler (1986) states that the common thinking about how a female becomes a woman is governed by patriarchy and phallogocentric language â€Å"which precedes and determines the subject itself† (Butler, 1986, p. 36). In other words, Butler (1986) believes that the term â€Å"woman† is defined passively, not by the women themselves, but by the patriarchal culture. That said, de Beauvoir (1973) believes that oppression is not inevitable, but, rather, they persist because of cultural reasons. Butler (1990) further states that the concept of a universal patriarchy has come under fire, because patriarchy exists in â€Å"concrete cultural contexts† (Butler, 1990, p. 3). Butler (1990) also states that there is the possibility that women might have a bond through their oppression alone. Connell (1992) further states that gender, in and of itself, is a construction of power and hegemony, which means that the male identity is also influenced by culture and these outside forc es. Connell (1992) believes that masculine identities may be hegemonic or marginalized – some masculine identities are the former, others are the latter. Similarly, there is a difference between masculinity and femininity, and this, too, is contrasted with the terms â€Å"male† and â€Å"female.† Bartky (2003) states the one achieves femininity, whereas one is born female. The same with masculinity – men might achieve masculinity, and be born male, or, alternatively, as with many homosexual men, one may be born male but not achieve masculinity. As with the philosophies of de Beauvoir and Butler, Bartky (2003) states that the concept of masculinity and femininity is dictated by the power structure, which states what the contours are of masculinity and femininity (Bartky, 2003). This article will examine how patriarchy and society has defined both men and women throughout the modern era. Discussion Standards of Beauty As de Beauvoir (1973) states, the femin ine identity, and what it means to be a woman is defined by patriarchy and the male. In no area of a woman’s life is this more apparent than the standards of beauty, which are male-dominated. Women feel that they must conform to these male-dictated beauty standards, or they are somehow less than. The feminine ideal for beauty, therefore, is not only ever-changing, but is dictated by the power structure and patriarchy. Lorber (1993) states that the feminine ideal, at least during the early 1990s, which is when Lorber’s article was written, was slim-slim-hipped, small breasted and virtually emaciated. Women starved themselves for this ideal, and this ideal sold many magazines which promised women a way to become thinner, in order to fit this ideal. While this was the ideal in the early 1990s, and, more or less, continues to be today’s ideal, this was not always so – the feminine body ideal has changed over the years, according to society and culture. Calabr ese et al. (2011) state that the feminine ideal is epitomized by Playboy models, which is similar to the ideal stated by Lorber (1993), in that the women is to be slim-hipped and slender, overall. However, in this ideal, the woman must also have large breasts. Barbie dolls exemplify this ideal, and girls and women increasingly pressured to fit this ideal, to the extent that they require plastic surgery to do so (Calabrese et al.., 2011). Frederick et al. (2007) state that these feminine ideals, as pushed upon society by