The rulers of the Soviet Union viewed empire and imperialism in ideological terms as ‘the highest and final stage of capitalism’.1 By this Leninist definition, the Soviet Union did not identify itself as an empire, and instead, its leaders vehemently denounced imperialism that was carried out by its enemies and competitors: the capitalist states. Despite its own anguish over being identified as an empire, the Soviet Union indeed was one. While the meaning of ‘empire’ has shifted over time, for the purposes of this paper the definition of empire is in the sense of a great power, a polity, ruling over vast territories and people, leaving a significant impact on the history of world civilizations.2 As the characteristics of the Soviet Union are examined, support for viewing the USSR as an empire grows.
The Soviet Union emerged after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Tsarist Russian Empire’s government was overthrown by the local soviets, led by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks attempted to replace the Russian empire with a communist one, in which socialism would make nationalismobsolete and in place there would be a supra-national imperial ideology.3 Still, coming back to the issue of ‘empire’, the Soviet Union clearly maintained a commanding control over multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic societies that surpassed the extent of the preceding Imperial Russia Empire. A question thus arises: was the USSR a Russian empire? The first aspect to consider is if the USSR was a continuation of Russian imperialist power or if an intrinsic distinction can be made between the two. What is notable to address is what is meant by ‘Russian’ identity and nationality, its formation, and reshaping through time. Once this will be accounted for, this paper will move on with an answer to the question: the USSR was indeed an essentially different empire from the one preceding it, and thus, the USSR was not a Russian empire.
Answer:
The US, the UK, the USSR, and China had not belonged to the League of Nations, and therefore had no interest in the United Nations.
Explanation:
Hope this helped =)
<span>The correct answer is C. it was burned to the ground. What happened was that a cannon misfired and set the wood on fire. Luckily, nobody was hurt but an anecdote exists that a man was caught on fire and then had ale poured over him. It wasn't a very big deal and the theatre was rebuilt the following year.</span>
Pros:
- freedom to choose your profession/work.
- competition between businesses (production of better products).
- work for your own benefit.
- we the people own the factors of production (land,labor, capital, entrepreneurship).
-financial growth.
-promotions.
cons:
-income inequality.
-unequal access to resources.
-no regulation for product safety.
<span>The question is asking who controls the land and money in a situation of an unequal distribution of wealth. The word "unequal" here means: not equal for all the people, where some people have access to something and some not. Typically it's less people who have access to the wealth and the majority remains poor - the answer is A. a small number of people.</span><span />
