20th Century History Quiz

Lenin's form of Marxism/Communism as applied to the Russian economy backfired. Why? What happened? What went wrong that he and other Marxists/Communists did not anticipate? Of course, Lenin wanted to improve productivity and use this improvement as a means to create and uphold operations of Lenin's version of a Marxist economy. Lenin attempted to take classes of people and improve the economy even though the first World War was causing problems. They tried the War Communism approach.

However, it did not go well because Lenin did not accurately guage the level of Russia's economic problems. In addition, Lenin pushed too hard and two soon into full-fledged Communism and the country was simply not ready for that yet. He also tried the NEP, confiscation of a portion of business products and so forth and that equally failed. Lenin coined the phrase, "Commanding Heights" to describe the system that managed the economy after the overthrow of the Czar by the Bolsheviks.

What did the "Commanding Heights" represent? Why do you believe it was later adopted by India, China, much of Latin America and even Great Britain? In the case of Lenin, it meant that the government as defined by Lenin would have complete command and control over the political process. This, by extension, allowed them to control the banking system, the energy sector and all exports and imports. Of course, India, China, Latin America and Great Britain also did this in their own ways either now or in the past.

Great Britain used to control much of the world and they were extremely dominating and over-regulating of religion and commerce. This in large part led to the United States' formation when they got sick of itjust as one example. Similar upheavals (or at least attempts) have been made against India and China as well. 3) Central planning was the primary platform of a commanding heights type of economy. What are the pros and cons of a centrally planned economy? Would it work in the U.S.

Central planning is when the government controls (or at least tries) the output and production of an economy. Planning for production and such would help control, in theory, employment, GDP and economic growth. However, the cons is that are that it is nearly impossible to truly handle the reins of an economy like that and artificially tinkering with any economy is just a bad idea. It would absolutely not work in the United States because it goes against the ingrained ideas about free enterprise and freedom in general.

Businesses in the United States would (and have) bristle against any government (domestic or foreign) telling them what to produce, when to produce it and when not to do either. 4) Can you relate the "Commanding Heights" form of a managed and planned economy to Keynesian macroeconomics during the Depression and World War II years? Why or why not? Yes and no. The United States economy's recovery post-Depression was largely attributed to the ramp-up for World War II.

The economy had settled out a bit after the Depression in the 1930's and that depression was indeed caused in large part by the lack of a central bank preventing economic calamity through fiscal policy. However, central planning would be an over-correction as it always gets bumpy when it is tried to any high degree. The economy can be patched up by a fiscal and economic policy but it generally cannot have a "boom" without organic growth and activity.

This is why the ramp-up for World War II worked for the U.S.A. because it generated activityand a ton of it. 5) What primary economic and political reasons led to Hitler's rise in power? Hitler was part genius, part opportunist. The Germany economy was in the gutter in large part because of the American collapse that caused the Depression in the late 1920's. Unemployment in Germany was literally in the millions.

Hitler was able to rise to his position through him being a great speaker, he less extreme political forces refused to get alone, he was able to propagate a.