Abstract
The essay looks at how factories and brands which dominate the western world can and have exploited others in developed coutries, discussing issues about whether or not people support the violation of human rights through buying such products and focusing their attention on image. The essay also considers the argument that it is people in power who have enforced these values in order to benefit themselves.

From the Paper
"In order to discuss the importance of human rights to people in developed countries, in relation to consumerism, this essay needs to look at human rights and why they are important, what is meant by the term "consumerism" and its impact on human rights in relation to people living in undeveloped countries in the "third world" and whether or not those in developed, western countries, like the US and the UK care about such issues. The essay draws on the work of many writers, including Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx and attempts to analyse the media, the government and academics role in creating an awareness within the population of the western world."

Tags:ethics, exploitation, human, marketing, marxism, media, politics, power, rights, society, western

Abstract
This paper examines Trotsky in terms of his ascension to power, his struggle to retain authority, and his ultimate defeat. Trotsky's role, or his character, and its long-term influence on both Soviet Communism, and socialism as a whole is questioned and he is seen to be important amongst the great revolutionaries. The paper shows that several factors lead to his ultimate demise, and expulsion from the party, such as late entry into the Bolshevik party, remaining politically reclusive (lack of alignment), and as oddly as it may sound, military success.

From the Paper
"After his arrival in Petrograd Trotsky spent weeks on end appearing before large audiences, delivering impassioned speeches denouncing the inadequate attempts of the Provisional Government. He encouraged workers to prepare for the upcoming uprising over the new regime. He also stressed his three commandments: Distrust of the bourgeoisie, Control of our own leaders, and Confidence in our own revolutionary forces (Serge 1975).

Tags:bronstein, communism, lenin, marx, russia, trotsky, ussr

Abstract
This essay discusses the different factors which caused Khrushchev to fail in many of his policies-- his 'quick-fix solutions' and 'hare-brained scheming', internal opposition from powerful vested interests, and international opposition from the United States and China. However, it also argues that there was one underlying problem which prevented him from finding success: the legacy of Stalin.

From the Paper
"Of the leading contenders vying to take over from Stalin as leader of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev was perhaps best suited for the job. He had been less involved in the Purges of the 1930s than Malenkov, Molotov and Beria, and was the only member of the Party Presidium who had any experience in agriculture, which was probably the area of Soviet life most desperately in need of reform. However, it was a formidable task; he had inherited a crippled regime, which had survived to this date only through the terror of Stalin. Any serious attempt at reform would undermine the socialist system itself; all of the Party leadership would be implicated if any criticism was made of the previous decades. Furthermore, although Khrushchev attained enough power to initiate reform, he often found himself unable to implement it successfully, due to pressures from within the Party. Thus, the Khrushchev era was one of half-measures and contradictions, sweeping reforms without the means to carry them out, and, almost inevitably, failure. When Khrushchev was ousted from office in 1964, charged with 'harebrained scheming, hasty conclusions, rash decisions, and actions based on wishful thinking' , there were few aspects of Soviet life in which he could claim significant success. Nevertheless, any criticism has its limits; the Soviet Union was certainly in a better state than when he had inherited it; moreover, the failures of Soviet leaders post-Khrushchev highlight the near impossibility of his task."

Tags:cold, communist, lysenko, maize, missile, russia, soviet, union, ussr

Abstract
An essay which discusses the different causes of the February Revolution. It argues that severe wartime conditions played a major role in the events of 1917, as did the actions of the Tsar himself. However, it also argues that the Russian people were modernizing faster than the regime itself, and suggests that change was necessary, with or without the war.

From the Paper
"Relatively few people in Russia felt that the 'constitution' of 1905 was adequate. Although at the time it had represented a major concession by the Tsar, in practice it did little to appease the Russian people. Stolypin's arbitrary use of Article 87, and the electoral law of 3 June 1907 caused many workers and peasants to lose interest in the Duma, as it no longer seemed to effectively promote their interests. Thus, before war broke out in 1914, workers, peasants, liberals and socialists all still sought political reform, and, as reform seemed unlikely through the Duma, revolution suggested a more viable means. The revolutionary intelligentsia was a lot more organized than it had been in 1905, particularly helped by relaxed censorship laws. An increase in primary education brought Pushkin, Tolstoy and Dostoevskii to the peasantry for the first time, and their ideas on nationhood were no longer restricted to the obshchestvennost, or 'public sphere'. Russian society was showing obvious signs of modernization, while the regime was not. Certainly Russia was not on the brink of revolution in 1914; nevertheless, had war not broken out, it still seems likely that revolution would have happened at some point regardless. What the War provided was the weakening of the Tsarist regime, and thus the encouragement to defy it. The authority of the Tsar was paramount to the survival of the regime; hence, traditionally 'peasants had often responded in an excitable and rebellious way to the authorities' perceived weakness' . This was an echo of 1905, when war with Japan had led to revolution. Furthermore, the War changed the character of the Revolution, as it was no longer solely about political and social reform, but about the survival of the nation. In some respects this delayed the Revolution, as many potential revolutionaries felt that a revolution during wartime could lead to the loss of the War. Others felt that unless the Tsar was overthrown quickly the War would be lost, which added a sense of urgency to the revolutionary movement. Finally, the War introduced a new element among the ranks of the revolutionaries: the army. Soldiers and workers had failed to work together in 1905, and this partly explains why the Tsar managed to survive for a further twelve years. In 1917, however, mutinous troops played a pivotal role, and their involvement empowered the revolutionaries, especially the more radical elements. Hence, although revolution seemed inevitable to many contemporaries, the First World War added new impetus to the revolutionary movement, radicalizing its protagonists, and thus shaping its very outcome."

Tags:bolshevik, communist, duma, germany, lenin, soviet, trotsky, tsar, union, world

Abstract
This essay looks at the benefits Mongolia and the former U.S.S.R. stood to gain from their relationship with each other. The political, ideological, strategic, geographical and industrial perspectives of both countries are considered. Also considered are the feelings of the Mongolian people towards the Chinese, and how these feelings may have been manipulated.

From the Paper
"The relationship between the USSR and the Mongolian People's Republic in the latter half of the 20th century is one that has its roots in a time before the creation of either Communist state. Chinggis Khan's Golden Horde had subjugated areas of Russia many centuries earlier. Russian letters from the mid 19th century proposed preparing a plan to annex Mongolia to Russia should the Manchu overlords ever withdraw into their Manchurian homeland. The Mongols had even appealed to the Russian Tsar for help whilst the Manchu ruled as the Qing dynasty. The crucial point though, is the early 20th century, when the relationship became more one of Elder Brother Younger Brother status, than one with views to colonization. This period formed the basis to a tight bond between the two countries lasting until the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s."

Tags:china, communism, ideology, mao, mongolia, mpr, personality, soviet, trade, union, ussr

Abstract
An analysis of Stalinism, his dictatorship and personal style of leadership. The author examines the dictator's measures of leadership and their consequences on the social world.

From the Paper
"One wonders what would possess a man to such extreme lengths of cruelty and severity. As Adam Ulam observes, "the poverty and harshness of Stalin's early life left indelible imprints on him. Quite early in life he became a crude, unsentimental, and mistrustful person, tormented by an inferiority complex and very ambitious. Always displaying contempt for the traditions of kinship and personal friendship, usually so important to Georgians"( Ulman 20)".

Tags:dictator, russia, soviet, stalin, stalinism, ussr, wwii

Abstract
In this paper the writer puts forward the reasons that account for the growth in Perestroika, such as the economic decline and social despair suffered by the populations of Russia and the countries of Communist Eastern Europe. It also looks at the man who was responsible for the introduction of Perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev and why he wanted to introduce Perestroika.

From the Paper
"The Soviet Union and its satellite countries were on a continual downward spiral from the late 50's and 60's. Ruled from Moscow, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was suffering a very poor economy and social conditions such as housing, welfare and food supply. Leonid Brezhnev, who became Secretary General of the Soviet Communist Party in 1964, reinforced the strict regime of communism. All private ownership in Russia was ended, a mass programme of industrialization was started and the Soviet military strength was significantly enhanced."

Tags:cold war, Eastern Europe, Glasnost, Gorbachev, Perestroika, Russia, Soviet Union

Abstract
A variety of reasons influenced Khrushchev's decision to install missiles into Cuba, including pressures from home, the U.S., Europe, China, and Cuba itself. This essay examines the importance of the different factors, and in doing so challenges the often held theory that Kennedy won, and Khrushchev lost.

From the Paper
"In international opinion, the Soviet Union was largely held to have been defeated in the Cuban Missile Crisis, having been 'successfully rebuffed' by John F. Kennedy, who had displayed 'cool nerve during an extraordinarily dangerous situation' . Such was the nature of the Soviet Union's perceived defeat that it influenced a break in Sino-Soviet relations; the Chinese viewing the Soviet Union's withdrawal of nuclear missiles in response to a U.S. quarantine as a sign of their weak resolve in the face of U.S. strength; thus, the Soviet Union did not warrant her status as the protector of world communism. In the West, the Soviet Union was widely regarded as having been the aggressor, and her placing of missiles in Cuba was an aggressive policy which could have resulted in nuclear war. Khrushchev defended himself, claiming that his sole purpose had been in 'protecting the freedom-loving people of Cuba' , a purpose in which he had been entirely successful as he had stalled imminent U.S. military action against Cuba, and had extracted a promise from the U.S. not to support action against Cuba in the future. However, none of these viewpoints reflected the full picture. Khrushchev had never intended nuclear war, neither had he solely sought to protect Cuba from U.S. aggression. Indeed, Khrushchev can be shown to have had a wide range of aims and objectives, some realized, some failed, but which question the plausibility of his perceived 'defeat'."

Tags:castro, china, communist, cuba, kennedy, khruschev, missile, soviet, united, ussr

Abstract
This paper embarks on an examination of the theories of Marxism and argues that a specific engagement with "The Communist Manifesto" should prove to be fruitful in fulfilling this task. It points out that the theories of Marxism were based on the notion that the degeneration of capitalism would contribute to its eventual downfall, however the antithesis of degeneration has occurred. Hence, one could argue that the theories of Marxism carry no more relevance in an age of global capitalism. Despite this, this paper goes on to contend that to leave ones analysis at this would make it incomplete. One needs to go below the surface and back to "The Communist Manifesto" where amongst the passages one will find Marx and Engels anticipating and providing a vivid account of the global capitalism the world is now experiencing and a number of examples to support this are cited. Further evidence is cited which explains the reasons why the proletariat have not revolted. It concludes by noting that countless changes have occurred in the world since "The Communist Manifesto" was written which may well have led to a decline in the "fashion" and significance of Marxist theories.

From the Paper
"Central to Mar's views on the capitalist system lies his notion of "surplus value" which is the difference between the value of capital at the start of the capitalist production process and the additional value of commodities, which are produced. Surplus value only occurs in capitalist societies. The critical point that Marx makes is that the bourgeoisie or the minority of individuals appropriate surplus value or profit, which is in reality, produced by the rest of society namely the proletariat. Someone else reaps the product of their labor, they have invested their time and efforts in it, yet it is taken away from them. The profits of capitalist depend on the exploitation of the worker."

Tags:bourgeoisie, communism, engels, manifesto, proletariat, revolution

Abstract
This paper examines the strengths of Soviet organization, as well as the weakness of the Whites, who were backed by western intervention. The paper looks at measures taken, such as "War Communism" used to supply food to the army and the ruthless structure of communist forces, which lead to the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War.

From the Paper
"In 1917 Lenin and the Bolsheviks, known as the Communists or Reds, had seized control over Petrograd and Moscow quite easily. However, they controlled only part of Russia and many groups opposed them. Could they hang on to power? The Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and supporters of the Tsar said they had no right to rule. Collectively, these opponents became known as the Whites. The Whites were opposed to the Reds for two main reasons: they seized the land, property and factories of the well off and they attacked religious beliefs. By the end of 1918 civil war had broken out in Russia between the Whites and the Reds. The Whites were supported from abroad by the Allies; Britain, France, the USA and Japan. The Allies opposed Lenin in retaliation for his Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Germany in March 1918. They had also lost capital and property as the Reds refused to repay loans which had been made to the Tsar's government, and had nationalized foreign owned businesses' in Russia without compensation. Yet, despite a large number of anti-Bolshevik groups within Russia, who were backed by the most powerful countries in the world, the Bolsheviks did eventually win the Russian Civil War. But why?"

Tags:civil, communist, lenin, russia, trotsky, war, bolshevik, economic, political, military