is there a image on the question ?
Answer:
In the first place, it must be said that despite his immense intellectual contributions and his deep analysis of 19th century capitalism, Charles Marx didn´t leave any book or writing outlining how a communist society would look like. He only wrote once that in communism, every person will go from receiving according to their capacity to receiving according to their needs. This is a very vague idea. So, is Cuba true to Marx? It´s hard to say. Paramount leader Fidel Castro built a Communist Party and a communist state following the Soviet model. In orthodox Marxist practice, the government is the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the workers. What we have actually seen in Cuba is a dictatorship of Fidel Castro and his brother Raúl Castro, in which they and a small elite of top party, state and military officials hold power exclusively.
Prosperity in Cuba? Definitely no. The Cuban experiment is a failure after 60 years of communist rule; the Cuban economy is not dynamic, it is dominated by the higly ineffective state-run mammoths, many Cubans live in nearly-poverty, food rationing continues, it is tecnologically backward. No democratic freedoms. Most young people want to emigrate and settle in the US or elsewhere. The traditional Soviet-like economic model, a command economy, is a system that can´t create wealth and can´t lead to prosperity because its ideological foundations are wrong; only an economy based on a free-market and private enterprise can generate and sustain wealth. The American embargo is usually blamed by Cuban leader as the main reason for this situation, but Cuba can import technology from other countries, trade with them and get investments. So, why does it continue to lag behind?
Explanation:
Answer:
Well, first you'll have to identify themes of their rule.
Style of rule -
NII was obviously an autocrat (even though he, in theory anyway, had a representative body of the peoples, the Duma. But he hung onto his absolute rule with the Fundamental Laws (1905)), and Lenin had spoke alot of 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' both pretty absolute.
Repression (secret police, censorship) -
NII had the Okhrana, and tried to continue his father's 'Reaction.' Secret police for the
purpose of preserving the status quo, keeping the Tsars in power.
Lenin's Cheka was far more efficient, and though the total amount of the Cheka's victims in the civil war are officially 12,000 and something(wiki it), historians widely believe this figure to be in excess 500,000. Lenin therefore could be judged as the worse of the two.
Reform -
- NII - Illusory Reform (October Manifesto created the Duma, and as mentioned, this had no real authority),
- Stolypin's land reforms did almost nothing. Lenin issues the Workers Control Decree, and also
- the Bolshevik Land Decree - however these were only very temporary (before a return to a very
- authoritarian economic set-up (strict discipline etc). These therefore could also be judged as illusory.
Similarities-
- Both used concessions/reform in order to maintain control. Nicholas with the October Manifesto and
the creation of the Duma and Lenin with the NEP to appease the SR's and the rightists of the Bolsheviks.
- They both 'backtracked' on the reforms however with Lenin calling the NEP a 'tactical retreat' and would've
- reverted it had he been alive and Nicholas made the 1906 constitution/ Fundamental laws which limited the Duma's powers and maintained his position as an autocrat.
Answer:
1. Japan: Allies
2. Russia: Central Powers
3. Scandinavia: Neutral Nations
4. Spain: Neutral Nations
5. Switzerland: Neutral Nations
6. Turkey: Central Powers
This would be B, Exclusice Jurisdiction. :)
