Stalin vs Trotsky

Stalin vs Trotsky The weaknesses and failures of Stalins opponents were not the main reason why Stalin rose to power over Trotsky. However, it did slightly affect the outcome of the power struggle. In some historians point of view, such as E.H Carr and I. Deutscher, they hold the conviction that Trotsky had no talent for leadership among equals.  [1]  On the similar side of the debate, G. Hosking, a Scottish historian, described Stalins opponents to be rather incautious. They were content to leave him to assemble and classify the personnel files, not yet realizing what power were accumulating therein.  [2]  However, I do not totally agree with these historians because Stalins personality is dangerously strong since no one could have possibly stopped him. Deutscher who agreed with this point of view wrote, It seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the willful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background, should be his rival.  [3]  Deutschers work could be interpreted in two ways. He could be saying that Trotsky was foolish enough to not target Stalin as his rival but in a more logical sense, it should be interpreted as Stalins sly personality that made Trotsky not able to his is true intentions. Trotsky was not weak since he commanded the Red Army and Lenin disagreed with the historians point of view because in 1924, Trotsky was recommended and claimed the most capable man in the present Communist Party. In Lenins Testament, he wrote, Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand is distinguished not only by his outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present Central Committee.  [4]  The evidences state that Trotsky was a great intellectual and he was one of the best orators in the Soviet Union and he was able to work crowds to bring them around his point of view. His position as Commissar for War also gave him a strong base in the Politburo. E.H. Carr wrote, He (Trotsky) could not establish his authority among colleagues by the modest arts of persuasion or by sympathetic attention to the views of men of lesser intellectual caliber than himself.  [5]  This analysis is accurate because in the 1900s, most families were from the working class or t hey were peasants whom were mostly illiterate. Trotsky had a great advantage because as commander of the Red Army, he was in a strong position to crush his opposition. However, Trotsky did show some weaknesses and his arrogant manner convinced the Politburo members fears. In Lenins view, He has displayed excessive self-assurance.  [6]  Trotsky had also openly disagreed with Lenin on policies at times and Trotsky bombarded Lenin with long memoranda, explaining why so much was wrong in Soviet Russia and how to correct it.  [7]  His acts did not give Lenin a good impression since he was questioning the decisions themselves. By fate, Trotsky was a former Menshevik and he had a Jewish origin which halted his progressive promotions in the party. The Bolshevik Party was heavily founded on heavy bureaucracy and Trotsky was dull enough to criticize the party for becoming too bureaucratic and less democratic.  [8]  His attack on bureaucratization was a contradiction with the nature of the Bolshevik Party. On the other side, Rob ert Conquest wrote Trotsky had no clear political tactics and E.H Carr added, He had made major mistakes that affected the outcome of the power struggle.  [9]  Both of these points are very logical and clear because in 1925, to reassure his innocence, he relinquished his position as Commissar for Military Affairs. Trotsky could fire masses of men to acclaim and follow him but historian Chris Corin wrote, He had no intention of becoming a dictator and had always been aware of the tendency for a power struggle after the revolution.  [10]  History has shown that Trotsky had not attempted to use the Red Army to secure his position. But Deutscher argued, The truth is that Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure.  [11]  Nevertheless, Trotsky had major flaws in his attitude, argument and his political tactics since he was determined that he would be Lenins successor. Trotsky should have voiced over the debate on censoring the Lenins Testament to prove his innocence. However, we can see that Stalins political skills are overwhelmingly important in the struggle for power. Stalins strategies were powerful and his opponents had no clear thoughts before they acted. The party members were all focusing on defeating Trotsky because he was a commander of the Red Army.  [12]  The Politburo leaders were very incautious because if they had noticed Stalins moves on setting up loyalists in the Central Committee, they would be in an alliance with Trotsky. With the same point of view, G. Hosking said, Most of them, being well read in the history of past revolutions, were obsessed by a very different danger: that of finding the revolutions hijacked by another Bonaparte.  [13]  What G. Hosking said is very true; they have never seen anything like Stalins Administrative Approach in history therefore the significance of Stalins tactics consumed most of the reasons to his uprising. Stalins opponents took the wrong move in the event of Lenins testament. Lenin wrote a testament in December 1922 called Letter to Party Congress and presented to congress in 1924. Lenin wrote, Comrade Stalin has enormous power. I am not sure that he always knows how to exercise that power with sufficient caution.  [14]  In this situation, we can see the weaknesses of his opponents that led to Trotskys downfall. This, Testament was censored because Stalins opponents Zinoviev, Kamenev and the others were criticized and they were afraid that Trotsky would soon become the leader. Lenins testament recognized Trotsky as the most capable man. Lenin wrote, He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C. C. Stalins opponents did not listen to the advice of Lenin because if they did, Stalin would have lost his General Secretary position. Lenin wrote, Stalin is too rude, and this faultà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦becomes unacceptable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore, I propose to the comrades that a way be found to remove Stalin from that post an d replace him with someone else.  [15]  If the letter was to be uncensored by the Politburo members, Stalin would have a harder time succeeding Lenins role over Trotsky. Conclusion After having examined the true factors that led to Trotsky not being able to become the sole leader of Soviet Russia since he was the favorite Candidate, this investigation came to the conclusion that Stalins political skill and ruthlessness was the most important cause of Trotskys downfall because his weaknesses were only limited to his complacency and party views. When Stalin took control of the General Secretary position, it was nearly impossible to stop him from becoming the sole leader of Soviet Russia. Through Stalins administrative approach, he had won his perceived survival game. Trotskys weaknesses were circumstances that existed as a benefit to Stalin but it was ultimately his cunning personality that allowed him to take full advantage of them. It is, evident that the use of Stalins own skills played a major role in the events in Soviet Russia from 1924-1929. Therefore in history, we see that Stalin is ruthless and skilled in his journey for power.

The Unattainability of Perfection: A Critical Analysis of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark”

Perfection is one of the most sought-after qualities in society. People are willing to shell out large sums of money for dieting plans, training regimens, and plastic surgery – all in an attempt to be perfect, whether that means having a slim waist, a defined core, or a more attractive nose. However, nobody is flawless. Even if an individual alters their physical appearance to what they believe to be â€Å"perfect,† they will nonetheless have other, non-physical faults that will limit their ability to attain perfection. Nathaniel Hawthorne, a 19th century American writer, expressed his feelings about the attainability of perfection in his fiction.In particular, in â€Å"The Birthmark,† Hawthorne uses the birthmark as a symbol, the characterization of Georgiana, and the foreshadowing of Georgiana's death to promote the unrealistic nature of perfection; Hawthorne highlights the impracticality of flawlessness so that society, in general, will stop going to great len gths trying to achieve the unachievable and, instead, spend their collective time more productively. To begin with, to endorse the improbability of perfection, Hawthorne establishes Georgiana’s birthmark as a symbol of earthly imperfection.For instance, the birthmark is described as being â€Å"the fatal flaw of humanity which Nature [†¦] stamps ineffaceably on all her productions, either to imply that they are temporary and finite, or that their perfection must be wrought by toil and pain† (Hawthorne 14). From this, it is evident that the birthmark represents, not only the mortality of humans, but that while humans are mortal, perfection is elusive. Hawthorne goes so far as to indicate that the birthmark is â€Å"a symbol of his wife’s liability to sin, sorrow, decay, and death [†¦] [and that it is a] symbol of imperfection [†¦] [of which] the spectral hand [†¦] wrote mortality† (14).Although Georgiana is otherwise a beautiful woman, her birthmark keeps her from being flawless. Hawthorne promotes the unrealistic nature of perfection in that, even though many may be relatively close to achieving perfection, there will always be one small factor that stands in the way – in Georgiana’s case, it is her birthmark. Moreover, Hawthorne’s characterization of Georgiana’s physical attributes, most notably her birthmark, accentuates the unlikelihood of achieving perfection.Specifically, â€Å"in the centre of Georgiana’s left cheek there was a singular mark [†¦] [that] wore a tint of deeper crimson, which imperfectly defined its shape amid the surrounding rosiness† (13). It is interesting to note that, although Georgiana is labeled a gorgeous woman, the only aspect of her physical appearance that Hawthorne describes in detail is that of her birthmark – the symbol of imperfection. Hawthorne does this intentionally to fully emphasize the notion that perfection is unattain able and that it is wrong for people, such as Aylmer, to believe otherwise.Furthermore, Aylmer deems his wife’s birthmark as having â€Å"an almost fearful distinctness [†¦] [whose] shape bore not a little similarity to the human hand† (13). From this, a connection is made between the birthmark and mortality, in that Georgiana’s birthmark is depicted as being in the shape of a human hand and not, for example, the hand belonging to G-d. This serves as a reminder that Georgiana is human and that, so long as that is the case, it is unfeasible to achieve perfection of any kind.Similarly, Hawthorne evokes the unlikelihood of attaining perfection by foreshadowing Georgiana’s death. For instance, Aylmer dreams of â€Å"attempting an operation for the removal of the birthmark, [†¦] [whose] tiny grasp appeared to have caught hold of Georgiana’s heart [†¦]; [Aylmer] was [†¦] resolved to cut [†¦] it away† (15). Even in Aylmerâ €™s dream, it appears difficult to achieve perfection – and the dream world is not reality. As a result, Hawthorne is commenting on the fact that, in the real world, it is virtually impossible to attain flawlessness.Later on, Aylmer insists that Georgiana touch the â€Å"perfect and lovely flower [†¦] [which] no sooner [†¦] suffered a blight, its leaves turning coal-black as if by the agency of fire† (18). From this, Hawthorne makes the point that perfection is unattainable. The moment Georgiana touches the otherwise perfect flower, the plant dies – foreshadowing Aylmer’s impending failure. This failure, in addition, is foreshadowed when Georgiana, reading through her husband’s folio of past experiments, discovers that â€Å"his most splendid successes were almost invariably failures† (20).This example of foreshadowing Georgiana’s death, again, indicates that their intention for perfection is not a fruitful one. To advoc ate the degree of difficulty associated with achieving perfection, Hawthorne, in his short story â€Å"The Birthmark,† employs the birthmark as a symbol of imperfection, characterizes Georgiana’s physical attributes, and foreshadows Georgiana’s death; from this, Hawthorne hopes people will acknowledge the senselessness inherent in trying to be perfect and use their time to accomplish more realistic goals.It is evident that Hawthorne’s outlook on the inability to achieve perfection is sensical. For example, people the world over spend not only time, but their hard-earned money, on various products and endeavors that they believe will bring them closer to perfection. However, no matter how â€Å"close† these people get, they will never be fully capable of obtaining perfection. Instead of getting plastic surgery, a toupee, using steroids, or dieting excessively, people would be better off accepting who they truly are. That is the closest anybody will ever get to achieving perfection. The Unattainability of Perfection: A Critical Analysis of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s â€Å"The Birthmark† Perfection is one of the most sought-after qualities in society. People are willing to shell out large sums of money for dieting plans, training regimens, and plastic surgery – all in an attempt to be perfect, whether that means having a slim waist, a defined core, or a more attractive nose. However, nobody is flawless. Even if an individual alters their physical appearance to what they believe to be â€Å"perfect,† they will nonetheless have other, non-physical faults that will limit their ability to attain perfection. Nathaniel Hawthorne, a 19th century American writer, expressed his feelings about the attainability of perfection in his fiction.In particular, in â€Å"The Birthmark,† Hawthorne uses the birthmark as a symbol, the characterization of Georgiana, and the foreshadowing of Georgiana's death to promote the unrealistic nature of perfection; Hawthorne highlights the impracticality of flawlessness so that society, in general, will stop going to great len gths trying to achieve the unachievable and, instead, spend their collective time more productively. To begin with, to endorse the improbability of perfection, Hawthorne establishes Georgiana’s birthmark as a symbol of earthly imperfection.For instance, the birthmark is described as being â€Å"the fatal flaw of humanity which Nature [†¦] stamps ineffaceably on all her productions, either to imply that they are temporary and finite, or that their perfection must be wrought by toil and pain† (Hawthorne 14). From this, it is evident that the birthmark represents, not only the mortality of humans, but that while humans are mortal, perfection is elusive. Hawthorne goes so far as to indicate that the birthmark is â€Å"a symbol of his wife’s liability to sin, sorrow, decay, and death [†¦] [and that it is a] symbol of imperfection [†¦] [of which] the spectral hand [†¦] wrote mortality† (14).Although Georgiana is otherwise a beautiful woman, her birthmark keeps her from being flawless. Hawthorne promotes the unrealistic nature of perfection in that, even though many may be relatively close to achieving perfection, there will always be one small factor that stands in the way – in Georgiana’s case, it is her birthmark. Moreover, Hawthorne’s characterization of Georgiana’s physical attributes, most notably her birthmark, accentuates the unlikelihood of achieving perfection.Specifically, â€Å"in the centre of Georgiana’s left cheek there was a singular mark [†¦] [that] wore a tint of deeper crimson, which imperfectly defined its shape amid the surrounding rosiness† (13). It is interesting to note that, although Georgiana is labeled a gorgeous woman, the only aspect of her physical appearance that Hawthorne describes in detail is that of her birthmark – the symbol of imperfection. Hawthorne does this intentionally to fully emphasize the notion that perfection is unattain able and that it is wrong for people, such as Aylmer, to believe otherwise.Furthermore, Aylmer deems his wife’s birthmark as having â€Å"an almost fearful distinctness [†¦] [whose] shape bore not a little similarity to the human hand† (13). From this, a connection is made between the birthmark and mortality, in that Georgiana’s birthmark is depicted as being in the shape of a human hand and not, for example, the hand belonging to G-d. This serves as a reminder that Georgiana is human and that, so long as that is the case, it is unfeasible to achieve perfection of any kind.Similarly, Hawthorne evokes the unlikelihood of attaining perfection by foreshadowing Georgiana’s death. For instance, Aylmer dreams of â€Å"attempting an operation for the removal of the birthmark, [†¦] [whose] tiny grasp appeared to have caught hold of Georgiana’s heart [†¦]; [Aylmer] was [†¦] resolved to cut [†¦] it away† (15). Even in Aylmerâ €™s dream, it appears difficult to achieve perfection – and the dream world is not reality. As a result, Hawthorne is commenting on the fact that, in the real world, it is virtually impossible to attain flawlessness.Later on, Aylmer insists that Georgiana touch the â€Å"perfect and lovely flower [†¦] [which] no sooner [†¦] suffered a blight, its leaves turning coal-black as if by the agency of fire† (18). From this, Hawthorne makes the point that perfection is unattainable. The moment Georgiana touches the otherwise perfect flower, the plant dies – foreshadowing Aylmer’s impending failure. This failure, in addition, is foreshadowed when Georgiana, reading through her husband’s folio of past experiments, discovers that â€Å"his most splendid successes were almost invariably failures† (20).This example of foreshadowing Georgiana’s death, again, indicates that their intention for perfection is not a fruitful one. To advoc ate the degree of difficulty associated with achieving perfection, Hawthorne, in his short story â€Å"The Birthmark,† employs the birthmark as a symbol of imperfection, characterizes Georgiana’s physical attributes, and foreshadows Georgiana’s death; from this, Hawthorne hopes people will acknowledge the senselessness inherent in trying to be perfect and use their time to accomplish more realistic goals.It is evident that Hawthorne’s outlook on the inability to achieve perfection is sensical. For example, people the world over spend not only time, but their hard-earned money, on various products and endeavors that they believe will bring them closer to perfection. However, no matter how â€Å"close† these people get, they will never be fully capable of obtaining perfection. Instead of getting plastic surgery, a toupee, using steroids, or dieting excessively, people would be better off accepting who they truly are. That is the closest anybody will ever get to achieving perfection.

Fusion or no Fusion of Equity and the Common Law at a Substantive Level

Since the administrative fusion of the Common Law and Equity Courts after the 1873 and 1875 Acts, there has been a lot of controversy over whether to fuse both equity and common law. There are valid arguments both for and against fusion. Those arguing for the fusion of Equity and Common Law at a substantive level often comment on the inconsistency created by equity’s intervention in law.‘There would sometimes be arbitrary gaps in the common law, that is situations where the common law refused a claim despite allowing claims in other situations which were materially similar.1 With both Common Law and Equity offering different solutions to the same legal issues, it is argued that for justice there must be consistency with judicial rulings.2 The current system means that in certain cases the right to an equitable remedy is more valuable.An example of inconsistencies between case verdicts due to Equity and Common Law having different principles is that of having legal and eq uitable title to property. If a person has the legal beneficial title to a house and the deeds are stolen and sold to a third party they can only claim the value of the house back. Whilst with equitable title the person could use Equity to get the house back. Examples like this reinforce the argument for fusion because everybody would get the same remedies.Some might also argue that rather than the facts of the cases being used to determine the outcome of a case, with Equity the fact that different people made the decisions at different times had an influence on the rulings. Using Equity to bypass the Common Law rather than amending the Common Law. Another reason for fusion is that Equity allows judges to depart from common law and statutes in order to create new law. With Parliament being sovereign the idea of unelected judges creating law is undemocratic.Without the power to use Equity to depart from Common Law judges would be more accountable to parliament. If Equity and Common L aw were both fused then the discrepancies between cases would disappear. A mix of Equity and Common Law principles would be applied and the same conclusion would be found in each case. Although Equity and Common Law have already fused the courts in which they apply the substantive law has not been fused yet. There is a good case against the fusion of the two on a substantive level.Many argue that the purpose of the Judicature Acts was only to fuse the administrative aspects of Equity and Common Law. Those who argue for a substantive merger are often accused of committing a ‘fusion fallacy’.3. Equity has often supplemented Common Law where the interests of justice and of social and economic change arose. Equity’s trust concept and the modern law of mortgages would not exist if it was not for the intervention of equity. Although it may seem that the day of equity establishing legal principles before their time has passed, one day equity may be needed again.However ‘there is a danger that we will have elevated equity to the status of free-standing moral guardian of society’4.If equity is still allowed to have the power of extending the boundaries of the law. This is dangerous because there would be no legislative body to check the power of equity. Despite all this it would be extremely difficult to actually integrate the two, let alone compare them because they are entirely different. ‘Equity accordingly gives the common law a much needed injection of morality.’If Equity was merged with Common Law it wouldn’t be able to express its identity and intervene in cases of unconscionability, due to the rigidness of common law. The two are so ideologically distinct that one of the two would be dominant over the other. They ‘are working in different ways towards the same ends, and it is therefore as wrong to assert the independence of one from the other as it is to assert that there is no difference between them.6 However it would be wrong to say that the two have not mingled. Many believe it is better to view the two as distinct and mutual dependent of each other.With the fusion of Equity and Common Law would come the destruction of equitable concepts; ‘Equitable concepts like trusts, equitable estates and consequent equitable remedies must continue to exist apart, if not in isolation, from common law rules.8 These concepts have been formed in areas where Common Law would not allow suitable solutions to be created. Equity and common law might well be merged one day but the harmonization process required to allow them to integrate with one another would probably change the two so much that they are no longer as they started as.This would mean one would likely become dominant over the other. I believe that the two should be kept distinct and separate from one another, Equity’s sole purpose is to supplement the Common Law where it would operate harshly. If the two became fused tog ether Equity would no longer be able to deviate from the strict rules of law to deliver an equitable solution for those in need. It is said that Equity works on discretion, though some might believe the common law now works on a degree of discretion, and so the need for them to be fused together is not even necessary never mind more desirable.

The Citadel GPA, SAT Scores ACT Scores for Admission