Lavr kornilov biography of barack obama
•
Back to issue
In his thoughtful consideration of Adam Tooze’s Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World, Cédric Durand salutes the magnitude of Tooze’s achievement—a ‘landmark account’ of the mechanisms precipitating the economic disaster that started to engulf the West in 2008 and of the remedies and ruins that followed. Particularly impressive, he remarks, is the way the book illuminates ‘the technical workings of financial markets and asset-backed commercial paper without losing sight of the political dynamics at stake’:
As Tooze writes: ‘Political choice, ideology and agency are everywhere across the narrative with highly consequential results, not merely as disturbing factors but as vital reactions to the huge volatility and contingency generated by the malfunctioning of the giant “systems” and “machines” and apparatuses of financial engineering.’ Crashed is, indeed, a highly political book.footnote1
At the same time, Durand observes, its narrative
•
The Day That Shook the World
A series to mark the one-hundred-year anniversary of the Russian Revolution.
The story of November 7, 1917 — the day the Bolsheviks changed world history.
Over the course of 1917, the Petrograd Soviet transformed from a body willing to negotiate with capital to one ready for revolution.
The story of the Baku Commune’s leaders, who pursued power democratically and nonviolently, belies many of the myths of the Russian Revolution.
The Bolsheviks' rise to power, one hundred years ago today, revisited.
One hundred years ago, why did the alliance between General Lavr Kornilov and Alexander Kerensky fall apart?
The October Revolution was propelled bygd mass dissatisfaction with the erosion of February’s gains.
The Bolsheviks wanted to avoid the Paris Commune's fate. That’s why they didn’t take power in July 1917.
The revolutionary violence of 1917 paled in comparison to that on the fronts of the Great War.
Antisemiti
•
How the Bolsheviks Won
In my contribution, I want to revisit the main conclusions of my writings on 1917, especially as they relate to the thorny, still deeply politicized question of how the Bolsheviks won out in the struggle for power in 1917 Petrograd. However, let me start with a few words about the views of earlier historians on this issue.
To Soviet historians, the October 1917 revolution was the legitimate expression of the will of the revolutionary Petrograd masses — a popular armed uprising in support of Bolshevik power led by a highly disciplined vanguard party, brilliantly directed by V. I. Lenin. Western historians, on the other hand, have tended to view the Bolsheviks’ success as the consequence of the Provisional Government’s softness toward the radical left; a historical accident or, most frequently, the result of a well-executed military coup, lacking significant popular support, carried out by a small, united, highly authoritarian and conspiratorial organization c