VCE Stuff > VCE History: Revolutions
VCE History Revolutions Question Thread
K888:
--- Quote from: TheCommando on September 08, 2017, 04:40:11 pm ---'The Bolshevik alternative was to vest both managerial and control powers in the state'
So this was the bolsheviks response to factory commitee leaders attempting to impose their syndical model (where workers union control the means of production). My question is does this mean lenin instead wanted to the industries and factories to be controlled by the government instead of the workers which angered left wing people in his party
--- End quote ---
Yep, so during this time, the Bolsheviks were establishing and running State Capitalism. They'd inherited a country that was essentially in financial ruin - it was crippled. They were fighting a very costly war (like, there were still a million or so soldiers on the Eastern Front at the end of 1917), the industrial sector was basically non-functioning because of strikes, the train/transport network sucked big time, and they were struggling to feed people in the cities.
So, State Capitalism was a bit of a bridging thing between the Bolshevik takeover and implementation of socialist policies. It was designed to turn the economy around and give the Bolsheviks something to work with. As a part of State Capitalism, the Bolsheviks would have control over the major sectors of the economy - heavy industry, mining, finance, factories, that sort of thing.
As an aside, this was a return to Marxist policy by Lenin - as Marx had argued that capitalism had to be developed before socialism can occur.
So, this angered the syndicalists - whose movement had sprung up under the time of the Provisional Government. But the key thing is, Lenin said that syndicalism needed to wait for a later time - what he needed to immediately establish was a strong and stable economy, in order to allow Russia to survive. Unfortunately though, this alienated both the syndicalists and the left-wing of his party - the latter particularly because they saw this as a move away from proper socialism, and believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were compromising their vision, etc.
So, in a nutshell/tl;dr:
- The Bolsheviks inherited a Russia that was unstable, and basically in complete financial ruin. They needed to stabilise the economy if they had any hope of saving the country and their power
- Bolshevik control of the factories/industry was a key part of State Capitalism (which Lenin saw as a transitional phase between them taking power and them moving onto proper socialism, as well as allowing him to stabilise the economy)
- This angered the left wing of his party, because they believed Lenin was compromising socialist values
Want to emphasise how important it is to understand State Capitalism here :)
Hope this helped! Please let me know if you need any clarification.
Mapleflame:
Does anyone have/know where to find a list of practice essay questions?
K888:
--- Quote from: Mapleflame on September 14, 2017, 06:55:07 pm ---Does anyone have/know where to find a list of practice essay questions?
--- End quote ---
Best to ask your teacher, as they should have some resources available to them, or should be able to see if the school can purchase these resources for you.
I believe http://alphahistory.com/ also has some essay questions available, unsure whether they fit the style of the exam essay questions. I think also depending on the textbook you have, the textbook should have some practice questions in it :)
Would really recommend asking your teacher though, because they can also always make up essay questions for you - I got my teacher to do this for me when I did Revs.
All the best! :)
oJL8A99A:
I'm just wondering, for Section A questions 2 and 3 (the 10 markers) do we need to include historians in our responses?
I've heard mixed answers from my teachers, lecturers, and other students and I don't know whether to be safe and include them or save myself time memorising other pieces of evidence.
Thanks :)
K888:
--- Quote from: saraaburns on September 25, 2017, 09:57:44 pm ---I'm just wondering, for Section A questions 2 and 3 (the 10 markers) do we need to include historians in our responses?
I've heard mixed answers from my teachers, lecturers, and other students and I don't know whether to be safe and include them or save myself time memorising other pieces of evidence.
Thanks :)
--- End quote ---
Hi there!
So, these questions are basically the new equivalent of the 3 or 4 pointers from the old study design (when I did Revs)- didn't need historians interpretations in those ones.
However, I just read over the exam report from last year:
--- Quote from: VCAA ---These questions began with the command word ‘explain’ and students should have focused on using primary sources and historical interpretations as evidence to support an argument about the consequences of the Revolution. The highest-scoring answers presented an array of detailed and precise evidence from primary sources and historical interpretations. Answers should always include dates for named legislation or events, and many students placed this in brackets. Some responses included evidence from historical interpretations, but this often disrupted the flow of a tightly controlled argument. The highest-scoring answers began with a one-sentence contention or outline. This helped to focus the response and keep the supporting details focused on the question. High-scoring answers also tended to either use paragraphs or signpost phrases to announce the start of each point and organise the steps in an argument.
--- End quote ---
Even VCAA are giving mixed signals! The example of the high scoring response has some historian viewpoints in there, though. So to me, it seems that including the historians, as long as you're at the point of comfortably writing high scoring responses/know how to integrate the viewpoint(s), can really be helpful.
VCAA's quote about the example:
--- Quote from: VCAA ---Its strength is also the presentation of detailed evidence from primary sources and historical interpretations that is weighed carefully in the construction of the argument.
--- End quote ---
So - if you can do it well, from this, I'd say put it in! Why not maximise your marks? Imo, seems like you could still score a high mark with a well written piece (making sure you're focusing on answering the question, not just explaining events) without a historian viewpoint, but I'd argue that as long as you can fit it in well, it'd enrich your piece. The thing about Revs is that it's so important to nail how you answer questions, so I guess you need to ask yourself whether including the historians is gonna make your answers of better quality, or whether it won't.
I mean like, in the end, it doesn't overtly say you have to include historian viewpoints in there - so, probably repeating myself, but I'd argue that you can score well either way. It's not like it says you have to reference other views (unlike in your c. response in question 1).
What does your teacher say? Is there something said specifically in the study design?
Maybe ask your teacher if they can get in contact with a VCAA marker/the head examiner? My teacher regularly liaised with VCAA History people to make sure my class was doing things the best possible way - and I seriously credit that and his general efforts as the main reason I did well :) HTAV might also be worth contacting.
If anyone else has any opinions or a more clear-cut answer, would be glad to hear it!
I'm gonna go have a look over the study design and resources on the VCAA website to see if I can find out anything further :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version