Industrial revolution - England vs USSR
Ideological differences between Liberalism in England and Leninism in the Soviet Union place the two nations at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The former advocates for the importance of individualism and the ability of the market to regulate itself, whereas the latter prioritizes the state above its citizens, and relies on the omnipotence of the party to command the economy. In this paper, we will first examine a prominent similarity between England and the Soviet Union - the sufferings of the people in the lower classes. Then we will shift the focus to the differences in the two countries, and the ideologies behind their distinguishing paths of development. Specifically, we will analyze their respective forms of governmental control, economic structure, and the results of the regimes' tactics. These points may seem unrelated, however the uniting theme behind these dissimilarities is the basic ideological difference underlying the two nations' political and economic systems. This ideological difference dictates whose in power, how the economy matures, and consequently where the country ends up years later. In England, liberalism puts the large middle class in control. This group of liberal entrepreneurs utilize t
Though suffering of the lower classes is a similarity that both England and the Soviet Union shares, the two countries have many more differences in their paths toward industrialization. Millions perished in hunger as the state dispassionately extracted the last bit of grains produced by the peasants. For example, he literally rewrote history in his autobiography, placing himself at the center stage of the Bolshevik victory. However in the Soviet Union, though the communist was able to establish industrialization quickly, the economy was constantly stumbling from its imbalances, and eventually led to the total collapse of the USSR. This system proved to be horribly inefficient partly due to the massive size of the country. Although this sort of command economy looked perfect on paper, and though it did give Russia a fast rate of industrialization, it did not yield the balanced growth observed in Britain. The final result of this ideological dissimilarity is manifested in the creation of two completely different economic structures. The broad failure of collectivization accompanied by the pressures from forced grain requisitioning led to mass famine. The government was distant and insulated from the lives of its citizens, and could not respond to their needs as in a capitalistic system. If they dared to strike, there were people outside the door eagerly waiting to replace their posts on the factory floor. In England, we saw a slow paced, but balanced growth of national economy, leading to a model of capitalism for the world. And due to the difference in governing methods, our two nations took completely different paths in achieving industrialization, resulting in drastically dissimilar outcomes. Another byproduct of the ideology of the state on the economic structure was manifested in the devastation on the population caused by the act of collectivization of farms. However, the laborers were not so fortunate. Workers in England did not fare much better during the country's early period of industrialization.
Common topics in this essay:
Soviet Union,
Lenin Stalin,
England's Entrepreneurs,
Instead Bourgeoisie,
Martin Amis,
Aristocracy Bourgeoisie,
Capitalism England,
USSR Stalin's,
Moreover Bourgeoisie,
England USSR,
soviet union,
middle class,
economic structure,
communist party,
governmental control,
control economic,
artificially low,
governmental control economic,
balanced growth,
england soviet union,
economic structures,
command economy,
similarity england soviet,
control economic structure,
soviet union communist,
|
Acceptance Essays
