The monarchy lasted for hundreds of years in Russia and Stalin's rule was only thirty, there were many different Tsars, cruel ones, enlightened ones, clever ones, pious ones, stupid ones and despotic ones. So I'll compare Stalin to the monarchies of the last two Tsars, Alexander III and Nicholas II.
<span>Similarities: </span>
<span>Life was cheap - the Tsar and Stalin thought nothing of having political rivals exiled, Stalin was crueler and had more executed. </span>
<span>The State played the biggest role in industrialisation. Under Alexander and Nicholas the country was beginning to industrialise, but the industrialisation was for iron and steel for railways and guns, textiles for uniforms and coal to fire the furnaces of industry. </span>
<span>For the peasants movement was limited, there was an internal passport system, so people could not simply move around if they fancied it. </span>
<span>Both had enormous secret police organisation. </span>
<span>Differences: </span>
<span>The Monarchy was bound up with the Orthodox church; Stalin, despite training for the priesthood, was an atheist and hostile to the church. </span>
<span>The Monarchy was fabulously wealthy, as were most of the aristocracy; Stalin lived a modest life, he had no palaces, no court jeweller and no crown jewels. </span>
<span>The poor were exceptionally poor under the Tsars, the peasants were mostly subsistence farmers not wealthy farmers. </span>
<span>Education under the Tsars was very poor - just 5% were literate; Education was very good under Stalin 95% literacy. </span>
<span>Most people lived in the countryside under the Tsars' they were urban dwellers under Stalin. </span>
<span>Only the aristocracy could have political influence under the Tsars; only party members could have political influence under Stalin. </span>
<span>Women could not be educated, begin divorce proceedings, stand for political office, have an abortion or had many career opportunities; they could do all these things under Stalin </span>
<span>Both were cruel despotisms, Stalin was crueller, but, for those who did not fall foul of the regime, life was better in many ways under Stalin.</span>
Answer:
The concept of servant leadership was developed by Robert Greenleaf in 1970. According to him, servant leadership was based on the philosophy that for leaders to be effective, they must have the passion to serve others. He was disturbed by the many instances where leaders wanted to lead or become leaders first so as to serve people.
His argument was that if people and organizations were to put service first, they were able to transform the world and make it a better place to live.
He argued that servant leadership was the key to the realization of a world with justice; a world where people were not driven by their self interests but the desire and passion to stand for those who are oppressed and those who are not able to articulate their feelings in a highly competitive and biased world.
Kurt Lewin outlined three broad categories of leadership namely autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. These types of leadership are distinguished by the characteristics of the leaders and the techniques they use in their leadership.
The autocratic type of leadership is characterized by failure to share power with others. In an organizational context, autocratic leaders are the sole decision makers and they perceive the other employees simply as objects which are not capable of making any decision.
Democratic leadership is the opposite of autocratic leadership. This leadership is sometimes referred to as participative leadership because the leaders lead through bringing everybody on board in decision making with the idea that inclusiveness brings about sustainability as far as realization of organizational goals and objectives is concerned. With this style, all members of the team are involved in identifying essential goals and strategies for attaining those goals.
Servant leadership falls under the category of democratic leadership which is characterized by the inclusion of everybody in making decisions which affect their work and their organizations at large.
The laissez-faire type of leadership is actually not leadership at all because people just do as they wish. This type of leadership lacks a central authority responsible for making decisions. It is rare to find organizations with this type of leadership today.
Tensions had been brewing throughout Europe—especially in the troubled Balkan region of southeast Europe—for years before World War I actually broke out.
I think it only happened about three times, once in 1876 , the second time in the year of 1888, and the third I don't rememeber
