Progressivism

Progressivism was a political and socioeconomic movement central to American national politics from the Gilded Age (1890s) to the end of the Roaring Twenties. At its heart, it was a populist, bipartisan reaction to the excesses of the wealthy ‘robber-baron’ classes and the threat of revolution from the disenfranchised working class – many of whom did not share in the dramatic economic growth of the age – accompanied by a distinctly anti-immigrant nativism.

Hell Hound Rogers or The Great Town Benefactor: Who Was Henry Huttleston Rogers?

The Gilded Age was a period in American History from the end of the Civil War lasting until around 1900, known for big business ruling the country. Henry Huttleston Rogers was a prominent figure in the Gilded Age but has seldom been talked about because other figures of the period such as John D Rockefeller have overshadowed him. Rogers was the Vice President of Standard Oil, the most powerful trust in United States history. The lack of scholarship on Rogers and his historical significance created the need for him to be researched. Rogers’ business dealings helped lead to comprehensive legislation that regulated business, particularly President Theodore Roosevelt’s square deal. This research project sought to investigate who Henry Huttleston Rogers was and his role in the Gilded Age. Sources on Rogers either portray him in a positive light and talk about him as The Great Town Benefactor of his native town, Fairhaven, Ma or as a robber baron who cared solely about his own wealth. Primary sources on Rogers include first hand accounts published in book form by Thomas Lawson, letters between Rogers and Mark Twain, which were published, political cartoons and archival research materials that included personal correspondence, newspapers, and building deeds. Secondary sources include a biography on Rogers and various sources published by local writers from the town of Fairhaven. With all of this taken into consideration it became evident that there was a dual personality to Rogers but that he cared about his wealth more than anything else.

Review: The realities of authoritarian media in China

Review of: Stockman, D. (2012). Media Commercialization and Authoritarian Rule in China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-01844-0 China can no longer be called Communist. It is an authoritarian state in which a party that likes to call itself Communist maintains a firm grip on the country. However much the party and the corrupt party princelings enjoy the benefits of capitalism (and let us be frank that it is a distinctively 19th century robber baron style of capitalism), the government usemethods of media control that have not changed since Mao took power in 1959. Censorship has always been part of the regime, but Mao and his direct successors were always clever enough to give the masses a chance to let off steam now and then through such projects as the Hundred Flowers campaign and the Democracy Wall movement.

Russian Nationalists as Georgian Allies

The internet discussions focused on the Russo-Georgian War of 7-12 August 2008 provide the insight into the mood of Russian public, including those ethnic Russians, who espouse nationalistic view. Some of them support the idea of Russian imperialism and punishing Georgia as the proxy of the USA. Still, the majority demonstrated quite different approaches. They had no interest in imperial build up and see in empire liability, which prevents ethnic Russians to live well. Putin’s regime was regarded as the manifestation of the imperialism, and these explain—in their view—why the regime was hostile to ethnic Russians. To understand the image of the war, in the minds of many Russians, requires describing several specifics of the present regime, which are quite crucial from their perspective. First, although Putin came to power with a programme to end the abuses of the Yeltsin era, his regime was actually a continuity of Yeltsin’s rule. Its most important socioeconomic element— robber-baron privatisation—was preserved. A few of the most notorious “oligarchs” either pushed for exile or ended their careers in prison, but most of them continued to prosper. The corrupt and hedonistic aspects of the post-Soviet regime continued to be prominent, yet the basic pro-Western orientation of Putin’s foreign policy remained unchallenged. These features of Putin’s regime made it as alien and hostile to many ethnic Russians, especially provincial people, as the Yeltsin’s regime had been. Its anti-Western actions, and especially proclamations, were not taken seriously; indeed, they were understood as limited in scope and practically sham. The hostility to the regime by many disenfranchised ethnic Russians was also increased by its tolerance of ethnic minorities, especially Jews. Despite its slogans, the regime was reluctant to press the most brazen form of Russian nationalism, its emphasis on the racial/biological aspects of Russianness. However, it did not demonstrate just tolerance to Jews, but even a Judeophilism that had been unknown in Russia since the early Soviet era.