The Bolshevik Revolution Of 1917

The Success of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October 1917 The Bolshevik seizure of power or coup de’tat of October 25th, 1917 was a culmination of both internal and external failure to satisfy the needs of an oppressed Russian society. In contrast to the spontaneous revolts earlier in 1917, the Bolshevik revolution was ‘a carefully planned plot carried out by ‘professional’ revolutionaries. ’[1] The victory of the Marxist Lenin’s

From the beginning of my architectural education I have been inspired and influenced by political realities and issues throughout Canada and the wider world. Discussions relating to how architecture participates in political change, conflict, movements, and other events have refined, shaped and sustained my interest in the field. Growing up in suburban Winnipeg I have been continuously struck by the lack of architectural authenticity, consideration and intention found on the fringes of the city. These monotonous architectural landscapes promote and enable political inactivity. Among and in-between the many strip malls, condominiums and stucco-clad houses, there is no space for political activism or protest. In a reality where consumerism

According to the History.com Staff, “The October Revolution began on November 6 and 7, 1917 (or October 24 and 25 on the Julian calendar).” (Russian Revolution”). The October Revolution has also been called the Bolshevik Revolution since the Bolshevik Party played a crucial role in the revolution. The leader of the Bolshevik Party, Vladimir Lenin was a big supporter of Karl Marx. Another Marxist who leads this revolution was Leon Trotsky. In an article by the History.com Staff, “Lenin had created an, almost, bloodless coup d’état against the provisional government.” (“Russian Revolution”). The Bolshevik revolution started when, Alexander Kerensky, rather than follow an order. On October 24th, Kerensky ordered troops that were loyal, to act against the Bolshevik. Encyclopædia Britannica tells us that, “Kerensky was a socialist revolutionary who served as head of the Russian Provisional Government.” (“Aleksandr Kerensky”).

“The good building is not one that hurts the landscape, but one which makes the landscape more beautiful than it was before the building was built” (Frank Lloyd Wright). Throughout the centuries, architecture has fascinated everyone. History is inscribed in buildings and they can express the political and economic power of a nation. Although time has gone by, buildings have not. You can still idolize ancient Egyptian and Greek architecture and see how the events that occurred at that time influenced them.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 did not just suddenly happen overnight, just as there was no main reason why it happened. The Revolution was more like a virus or bad bacteria. At first you barely notice it, even though you know it is there, but soon it starts to multiply and take over your body and before you know it you have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. There are about 4 or 5 significant reasons why there was the revolution of 1917, with the Russian Tsar Nicolas II to be the blame for almost all of them.

Bolsheviks' Seizure of Power in 1917 There are many factors that help explain how and why the Bolsheviks managed to seize power in 1917. It was a combination of long and short term causes that together, created a revolution. The political system itself was long overdue for reform, but with a weak Tsar, the economic and social conditions became worse and worse. In 23 years, Nicholas II dropped from the glorious ‘Little Father of Russia’ to prisoners of his own country, hatred and despised by the majority, for the suffering and unhappiness he had helped create.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

Leon Krier was criticised for publishing a costly monograph on Albert Speer’s architecture (1985)in which, while acknowledging the crimes of the Nazis and the man, Krier nonetheless claimed the book’s only subject and sole justification was “Classical architecture and the passion of building” (cited by Jaskot, ‘Architecture of Oppression’, 2000). Discuss this claim, the controversy and the issues (historical, philosophical and ethical and possibly others) they raise. Can architecture, Classical, Modern or otherwise, be autonomous from politics and valued independently of the circumstances of politics and history that adhere to it?

This book was written by Juhani Pallasmaa with regard to ‘Polemics’, on issues that were part of the architecture discourse of the time, i.e. 1995. It is also an extending of ideas expressed in an essay entitled “Architecture of the seven senses” published in 1994.

Architecture is art in the form of building structures, and can have both practical and symbolic purposes. It is, however, much more than just building or just art. The architecture of a civilization speaks of its people and their story, emphasizes their values, and announces their greatness. A structure whose architect was inspired by other cultures not only tells of its own civilization, history, and character, but that of the other influencing peoples as well. The story of peoples is told by their monuments through the ages, captivating and inspiring those who come later, in future generations and future civilizations. In the long history of human culture and art, perhaps no greater influence on architecture has taken place than that

Michael Speaks would have attributed the lack of ‘new’ in the architecture of Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier’s era to cohesion to general manifestoes produce outside their time period. Architects from later time periods cannot pursue the same manifesto because technological advances in design must be considered. His arguments reveal that following a general manifesto from start to finish will produce an unchanging architecture. Michael Speaks wrote, “I do not believe we need another manifesto in architecture, even of the incomplete, aborted or personal variety. Architecture, it seems has suffered enough from the illusion that manifestoes matter (except insofar as they stifle creativity) and it is time we found other ways of developing experimental practices … Vanguards, with their five points, seven principles and ten theses for a new architecture, draw a line that leads straight from the manifesto to ‘the new.’ And because the completion of this line is best that can be hoped for, there is nothing new about the ‘new.’” If architects followed the same lines to solve the same problems, a new architecture could not be actualized. A separation from the lines between manifesto and solution made way for discovery of design and methods of creating ‘new’ architecture.

Deconstructivism can be characterised as an external design principle developed and evolved from postmodernist architecture. Deriving its philosophy from the works of controversial

As time progresses, the modern day society and cultures are slowly integrating into "a world that is increasingly becoming one global economically and technologically interdependent whole, where universal mobility is taking architects and architecture across borders and through continents at an unprecedented speed." (Tzonis and Lefaivre, 484) The universalizing of culture is in some ways an advancement for humanity, however global integration is threatening to subtly disintegrate the stylistic innovation in architecture as the universal styles and cultures takes over. In order to address the threat of globalization in architecture, it is a imperative to focus on the use of critical regionalism throughout the world. By the integration of

Architecture can be viewed with two different types of properties. Properties that can be seen like shapes, their composition, the spaces they create and, the colours and textures that make up their appearance. These properties are considered to be visual while other properties are considered to be abstract. These properties can only be described using words; the meanings behind the architecture and the stories that can be told about it. The context, its cultural background and its function also affects how we view architecture. The question is, what

A tension has always existed in architectural theories between art, social, and rational notions. The inception of the Bauhaus based mainly on the notion of unifying all the aspects of art under the wing of architecture. This art-driven perspective derived architectural practice to the creation of the international style. Modernism was founded on the unity, the whole, and the progress of humanity, as in Marxism. This was done regardless of the sensibility of social and environmental needs on the local scale. It lost any continuation with the existing social and constructed values. Socially and contextually correspondent architecture were the main driving forces behind the revolute architectural theories that substituted modernism. Art always persists along architectural movements, either as the main driving force or as a guaranteed consequent that is achieved in the background, as is the case for the rational perspective. In the foreground or the background, it comes with different flavors that is affected with or affects the principles of these theories. This existential property of art can be deducted by reviewing the aforementioned architectural theories. The different relations between the art, social, and rational motives would be comprehended better after discovering more urban dimensions by the end of the coming chapter.