Don't mention a historian's school of thought, you don't even have to mention their overall view on things. Historians views' are not a big thing at all, just mention what they thought about the event in question, doc ect. and provide back up quote- I used them mainly as a means of structuring my essay.
Cort, I don't really know why you're thinking about essays this time in the year, unless you've already reached your second revolution..! Don't worry about them yet :-) Unless you're talking about the ten markers.
For the ten marker, just provide a short contextualiser outlining your points and then jump right in. If you are actually talking about essays, outline the question socially, economically and politically.
Here is a ten marker and an essay from last year to model structure, these were done towards the end of the year so should be pretty accurate..
(legit essay)
The Extent To Which Power Was Transferred to an Oppressed proletariat
Notwithstanding a series of social reforms which increased proletarian opportunities for social mobility, in general, power was not transferred to an oppressed proletariat within the new regime. Politically, the political autonomy of the proletariat was actually suppressed with power progressively centralised within a single party dictatorship which did not necessarily represent the interests of the proletariat. Economically, within War Communism, the proletariat did not exercise autonomy within industry. Socially, the urban working class remained the underclass of Russian society.
Politically, despite Lenin’s promise of a ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat’, that is, a state in which sovereign political power was vested within the urban working class and which represented the interests of the proletariat, in his Letters From Afar in March 1917, in reality, both the democratic and insurrectionary influence of the proletariat was suppressed with power centralised within a single party state. The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly on 18 January 1918 marked the subversion of firstly, the democratic means by which the proletariat could determine the government and additionally, demonstrated that political power had not been transferred to the proletariat as the proletariat had never desired a single party dictatorship, as evident in the Kronstadt Manifesto on 1 March 1921 which demanded an end to the single party state. Furthermore, though Lenin maintained that the urban workers received representation within the Soviets, in reality, the autonomy of the Soviets had been suppressed as early as 1917 with a decree on 17 November 1917 allowing Sovnarkom to decree legally binding decrees without soviet approval, rival political factions expelled such as the Right SRs and Mensheviks on 14 June 1918 and the fact that only 68 out of Sovnarkom’s 480 decrees in 1918 had been sanctioned by the Soviet Central Committee demonstrating that ‘All power to the Soviets’ never truly actualized. Nor did the proletariat necessarily exercise political power through insurrection with the 60 000 Red Army troops sent to the Kronstadt Naval Base on 7 March 1921 to suppress the sailors’ demands for political reforms such as the release of leftist political prisoners and re-elections to the Soviets demonstrating that even the ‘reddest of the red’ could not influence the government in the new society. Finally, the emergence of the Workers’ Opposition internal to the Bolshevik Party in March 1921 which sought to reassert representation of worker interests, and its subsequent suppression in the Decree on Party Unity in March 1921, demonstrated that the Bolshevik Party did not even necessarily represent the interests of the proletariat. Furthermore, the Decree On Party Unity, in its banning of rival political parties, institutionalized the single party state and therefore officially ended all means by which the proletariat could exercise political power with the decree itself a demonstration of the proletariat’s lack of political power as it conflicted absolutely with their opposition to a totalitarian regime.
Politically also, the expansion of state forces due to the Civil War between 1918-1920 meant that the proletariat were perpetually subordinated under oppressive state institutions. The extraordinary powers of the Cheka for example, created on 7 December 1917, such as the right to shoot citizens without trial granted within the Socialist Fatherland Is In Danger Decree on 21 February 1917 and the right to establish concentration camps in the Decree On Red Terror on 5 September 1917 allowed the Bolshevik Secret Police to legally impinge on the rights of the proletariat.
Economically, despite the Decree On Worker’s Control in October 1917 which allowed ‘Workers’ Commitees’ to control factories, War Communism between 1928-1921 effectively ended the ability of the proletariat to exercise economic autonomy. Policies such as the Decree on Nationalisation on 28 June 1918 and the Decree Banning All Private Trade on 21 November 1918 placed large enterprise under central government control whilst industrial conscription from May 1918 and the militarization of factories by 1920 ended the urban working class’ ability to control industry. Furthermore, the banning of trade unions by 1920 deprived the proletariat of the ability to negotiate for high wages with strikes in Petrograd and Moscow in February 1921 having resulted in martial law declared. The dire economic conditions in which the proletariat languished during War Communism, with wages in 1920 buying only 1/50 of what they brought in 1913, demonstrating that economic power had not been transferred to the proletariat. Though the New Economic Policy implemented in March 1921, in its reintroduction of capitalist principles such as public markets and the ending of militarized factories marked a return to economic stability with wages doubling between 1921 and 1924, the proletariat still did not necessarily exercise control over industry with the state controlling 85% of enterprise.
Socially, the proletariat remained the underclass of Russian society with wealth concentrated within the NEP and the high ranks of the Bolshevik Party, the apparatchiks. However, it should be noted that the Bolshevik reform of the education system with the Decree on Schools in November 1917 providing free and secular education, provided for increased opportunities for social mobility.
Yet, in general, power was not transferred to an oppressed proletariat. Politically, both the democratic and insurrection means by which the proletariat influenced the government was suppressed, the state did not necessarily represent the interests of the urban workers and the proletariat was subordinated under oppressive state institutions. Economically, the state remained in control of industry. Socially, the urban working class largely remained the underclass of Russian society.
(10 Marker)
The Parlements
The Parlements contributed to a revolutionary situation by eroding the legitimacy of the King’s absolutism, instigating the argument for and ultimately catalyzing political representation within the Estates General, catalyzing dissent against the monarchy from the urban workers and instigating Third Estate demands for political representation. Firstly, with the King’s having already been compromised by the Assembly of Notable’s refusal to accept Calonne’s taxation reforms by 25 May 1787, the Paris Parlement further eroded the King’s absolutism by first, refusing to pass Brienne’s fiscal reforms on 2 July 1787 and additionally, by rendering the King’s absolute power unconstitutional in the rejection of the Lit de Justices on 6 July 1787, 17 November 1787 and 8 May 1788, the Royal Session on 19 November 1787 and by placing the King under the rule of law within the decreeing of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom on 3 May 1788, whose description of ‘freedom of arbitrary arrest’ was an obvious condemnation of the King’s letter de cachet which had been used to exile three magistrates of the Parlement on 19 November 1787. Secondly, the Parlements furthered the argument instigated by the Notables for political representation for the nation by restating that only the nation, represented within an elected estates-general had the right to authorize taxation reform. This also inadvertently undermined the king’s absolutism once more, by suggesting that political legitimacy was rooted in popular sovereignty. Furthermore, not only did the Parlements mere argue for political representation, they ultimately catalyzed it as their refusal to pass Brienne’s taxation reforms on 2 July 1787 deprived the King of means of addressing the 112 million livre deficit that had existed since 1776 resulting which by August 1788 resulted in only 400 000 livres remaining in the French treasury which forced the King to convoke the Estates-General, and therefore, political representation on 8 August 1788. Fourth, the Parlements also catalyzed insurrection from the urban working class as their publication of remonstrances between 1787-1788 and their creation of a political issue which pertained to the entire third estate within the argument that only those who paid taxes had the right to authorize them, an obvious reference to the Third Estate who paid taxes such as the Gabelle, the Vingtieme and the Taille, created a state of political consciousness among the urban workers, allowing them to respond militantly towards political events as evident at the Day of Tiles. Finally, the Parlements ultimately fuelled the Third Estate’s demands for political representation due to their statement on 25 September 1788 that the Estates-General should be convoked as it had been in 1614 with distinctions between estates, which catalyzed demands in the Cahiers in January 1789 for voting by head.
Home
Help
Search
Login
