The Experts below are selected from a list of 18129 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Constanza Daniela Bosch Alessio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Vera Zasulich’s Critique of Neo-Populism: Party Organisation and Individual Terrorism in the Russian Revolutionary Movement (1878–1902)
    Historical Materialism, 2015
    Co-Authors: Daniel Gaido, Constanza Daniela Bosch Alessio
    Abstract:

    Vera Zasulich’s shooting of Trepov, a governor of St Petersburg who had ordered the flogging of a political prisoner, in January 1878, catapulted her to international fame as a Revolutionary heroine, a reputation that she put to good use by becoming one of the five ‘founding parents’ of Russian Marxism that created the ‘Group for the Emancipation of Labour’ in 1883. But her act of self-sacrifice also triggered, to her dismay, the institutionalisation of individual-terrorist tactics in the Russian Populist Movement with the creation of the ‘People’s Will’ (Narodnaya Volya) Party in 1879. The organisation went into decline after the killing of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, and Populism itself was increasingly superseded by Marxism as the hegemonic force on the left with the rise of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). But individual-terrorist tactics reappeared with the creation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in 1902, prompting Zasulich to write an article for Die neue Zeit, the theoretical organ of German Social Democracy, in which she both condemned the Neo-Populist tendency as deleterious to the rising labour Movement and supported the organisational plans for the RSDLP sponsored by the Iskra group, developed at length by Lenin in his book What Is to Be Done?, published in March 1902. This article provides the background to Vera Zasulich’s article ‘The Terrorist Tendency in Russia’ (December 1902), setting it against the history of the Russian Revolutionary Movement from 1878 to 1902.

  • vera zasulich s critique of neo populism party organisation and individual terrorism in the russian Revolutionary Movement 1878 1902
    Historical Materialism, 2015
    Co-Authors: Daniel Gaido, Constanza Daniela Bosch Alessio
    Abstract:

    Vera Zasulich’s shooting of Trepov, a governor of St Petersburg who had ordered the flogging of a political prisoner, in January 1878, catapulted her to international fame as a Revolutionary heroine, a reputation that she put to good use by becoming one of the five ‘founding parents’ of Russian Marxism that created the ‘Group for the Emancipation of Labour’ in 1883. But her act of self-sacrifice also triggered, to her dismay, the institutionalisation of individual-terrorist tactics in the Russian Populist Movement with the creation of the ‘People’s Will’ (Narodnaya Volya) Party in 1879. The organisation went into decline after the killing of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, and Populism itself was increasingly superseded by Marxism as the hegemonic force on the left with the rise of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). But individual-terrorist tactics reappeared with the creation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in 1902, prompting Zasulich to write an article for Die neue Zeit, the theoretical organ of German Social Democracy, in which she both condemned the Neo-Populist tendency as deleterious to the rising labour Movement and supported the organisational plans for the RSDLP sponsored by the Iskra group, developed at length by Lenin in his book What Is to Be Done?, published in March 1902. This article provides the background to Vera Zasulich’s article ‘The Terrorist Tendency in Russia’ (December 1902), setting it against the history of the Russian Revolutionary Movement from 1878 to 1902.

Daniel Gaido - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Vera Zasulich’s Critique of Neo-Populism: Party Organisation and Individual Terrorism in the Russian Revolutionary Movement (1878–1902)
    Historical Materialism, 2015
    Co-Authors: Daniel Gaido, Constanza Daniela Bosch Alessio
    Abstract:

    Vera Zasulich’s shooting of Trepov, a governor of St Petersburg who had ordered the flogging of a political prisoner, in January 1878, catapulted her to international fame as a Revolutionary heroine, a reputation that she put to good use by becoming one of the five ‘founding parents’ of Russian Marxism that created the ‘Group for the Emancipation of Labour’ in 1883. But her act of self-sacrifice also triggered, to her dismay, the institutionalisation of individual-terrorist tactics in the Russian Populist Movement with the creation of the ‘People’s Will’ (Narodnaya Volya) Party in 1879. The organisation went into decline after the killing of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, and Populism itself was increasingly superseded by Marxism as the hegemonic force on the left with the rise of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). But individual-terrorist tactics reappeared with the creation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in 1902, prompting Zasulich to write an article for Die neue Zeit, the theoretical organ of German Social Democracy, in which she both condemned the Neo-Populist tendency as deleterious to the rising labour Movement and supported the organisational plans for the RSDLP sponsored by the Iskra group, developed at length by Lenin in his book What Is to Be Done?, published in March 1902. This article provides the background to Vera Zasulich’s article ‘The Terrorist Tendency in Russia’ (December 1902), setting it against the history of the Russian Revolutionary Movement from 1878 to 1902.

  • vera zasulich s critique of neo populism party organisation and individual terrorism in the russian Revolutionary Movement 1878 1902
    Historical Materialism, 2015
    Co-Authors: Daniel Gaido, Constanza Daniela Bosch Alessio
    Abstract:

    Vera Zasulich’s shooting of Trepov, a governor of St Petersburg who had ordered the flogging of a political prisoner, in January 1878, catapulted her to international fame as a Revolutionary heroine, a reputation that she put to good use by becoming one of the five ‘founding parents’ of Russian Marxism that created the ‘Group for the Emancipation of Labour’ in 1883. But her act of self-sacrifice also triggered, to her dismay, the institutionalisation of individual-terrorist tactics in the Russian Populist Movement with the creation of the ‘People’s Will’ (Narodnaya Volya) Party in 1879. The organisation went into decline after the killing of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, and Populism itself was increasingly superseded by Marxism as the hegemonic force on the left with the rise of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). But individual-terrorist tactics reappeared with the creation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in 1902, prompting Zasulich to write an article for Die neue Zeit, the theoretical organ of German Social Democracy, in which she both condemned the Neo-Populist tendency as deleterious to the rising labour Movement and supported the organisational plans for the RSDLP sponsored by the Iskra group, developed at length by Lenin in his book What Is to Be Done?, published in March 1902. This article provides the background to Vera Zasulich’s article ‘The Terrorist Tendency in Russia’ (December 1902), setting it against the history of the Russian Revolutionary Movement from 1878 to 1902.

Charles Kurzman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Historiography of the Iranian Revolutionary Movement, 1977–79
    Iranian Studies, 1995
    Co-Authors: Charles Kurzman
    Abstract:

    MORE THAN FIFTY BOOKS, AND MORE THAN 100 ACADEMIC ARTICLES, HAVE appeared in English alone dealing in significant part with the Iranian Revolutionary Movement. This impressive output, published in just 15 years, does not reflect a similarly copious wealth of source materials. In fact, the study of the Iranian Revolutionary Movement is largely, one might argue, sound and fury, a lot of grand theorizing lacking a solid empirical basis. No work on the Iranian revolution has made systematic use of all forms of primary evidence that are currently available, though some are more thorough than others.' This paper discusses Western historiography of the Iranian Revolutionary Movement of 1977-79, which led to the fall of the Pahlavi regime in February 1979.2 It does not attempt to cover works on the post-Revolutionary period, after the fall of the shah. In addition, it does not deal specifically with individual secondary works on the Iranian revolution. Instead, it examines the available primary sources and the implications of these sources for the study of the Revolutionary Movement. This approach is based on the hypothesis that sources shape our analysis in important ways, and vice versa. For instance, the use of Central Bank data will help support an economic approach to the revolution; the use of U.S. government documents may lead to an international-pressure argument; the use of texts by leading revolutionaries may be conducive to an explanation privileging ideology. The currently available evidence may be divided into two broad categories: contemporaneously produced material and post-hoc material. Within the contemporaneous category there are three primary producers of the historical record: journalists, both Iranian and foreign; government officials, both Iranian and foreign (primarily from the United States); and Iranian oppositionists, who produced a prodigious quantity of pamphlets and other writings during the course of the rev-

  • historiography of the iranian Revolutionary Movement 1977 79
    Iranian Studies, 1995
    Co-Authors: Charles Kurzman
    Abstract:

    MORE THAN FIFTY BOOKS, AND MORE THAN 100 ACADEMIC ARTICLES, HAVE appeared in English alone dealing in significant part with the Iranian Revolutionary Movement. This impressive output, published in just 15 years, does not reflect a similarly copious wealth of source materials. In fact, the study of the Iranian Revolutionary Movement is largely, one might argue, sound and fury, a lot of grand theorizing lacking a solid empirical basis. No work on the Iranian revolution has made systematic use of all forms of primary evidence that are currently available, though some are more thorough than others.' This paper discusses Western historiography of the Iranian Revolutionary Movement of 1977-79, which led to the fall of the Pahlavi regime in February 1979.2 It does not attempt to cover works on the post-Revolutionary period, after the fall of the shah. In addition, it does not deal specifically with individual secondary works on the Iranian revolution. Instead, it examines the available primary sources and the implications of these sources for the study of the Revolutionary Movement. This approach is based on the hypothesis that sources shape our analysis in important ways, and vice versa. For instance, the use of Central Bank data will help support an economic approach to the revolution; the use of U.S. government documents may lead to an international-pressure argument; the use of texts by leading revolutionaries may be conducive to an explanation privileging ideology. The currently available evidence may be divided into two broad categories: contemporaneously produced material and post-hoc material. Within the contemporaneous category there are three primary producers of the historical record: journalists, both Iranian and foreign; government officials, both Iranian and foreign (primarily from the United States); and Iranian oppositionists, who produced a prodigious quantity of pamphlets and other writings during the course of the rev-

Ole Birk Laursen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Katy Turton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Gender and Family in the Russian Revolutionary Movement
    The Palgrave Handbook of Women and Gender in Twentieth-Century Russia and the Soviet Union, 2017
    Co-Authors: Katy Turton
    Abstract:

    Women who became revolutionaries in twentieth-century Russia defied gendered expectations about suitable roles for females. They sought education rather than husbands, trained for careers rather than prepared for motherhood, and they asserted their equality with their male comrades. Yet family responsibilities remained a fact of life for many women and traditional notions of gender roles persisted within the Movement, despite socialists’ theoretical commitment to equality of the sexes. Thus, while women were welcomed into Revolutionary parties, they often found themselves taking on the more mundane tasks of the underground as well as shouldering domestic duties. Despite this, women proved highly resourceful in juggling their private and political lives in order to make a valuable contribution to the Revolutionary Movement.

  • Men, Women and an Integrated History of the Russian Revolutionary Movement
    History Compass, 2011
    Co-Authors: Katy Turton
    Abstract:

    Since its emergence as a discipline in the 1960s, women’s history has had a profound effect on the study of the past. Scholarship on women’s experiences of and contributions to the Russian Revolutionary Movement has increased exponentially since the publication of a number of biographies of Aleksandra Kollontai in the 1970s and 1980s and a comprehensive picture has emerged of women’s involvement in all the major Revolutionary parties, as leading figures as well as rank and file activists. Despite this wealth of historical discovery, remarkably little has found its way into so-called ‘general’ histories of the revolution. An integrated history, which is the ultimate aim of women’s history, has yet to be produced for the Russian Revolutionary Movement, even though recent prosopographical studies of Revolutionary women have made clear the numerous ways in which men and women cooperated and interacted on a daily basis in the underground. This article explores the nature of and reasons for this failure, makes a case for why incorporating women’s experiences into the grand narrative of the Russian revolution is important and discusses how this might be achieved.