The relationship between party organisation, class consciousness and workers’ struggle has been a basic issue in Marxism since its foundation, and particularly since the rise of revisionism at the end of the last century. To the very limited that a “mainstream” literature on Lenin sought to locate him within the Marxist tradition that tradition was identified with a determinist interpretation of Marx developed by the revisionists and centrists. This approach has been countered by a generally sympathetic view of Lenin’s comments on party organisation, argued by a recent set of “critics” of the “mainstream” view. Yet despite their wish to make a comprehensive critique of the “mainstream”, most of the critics have failed to do so due a residual element of determinism in their understanding of the relation between workers’ struggle and the development of class consciousness.This thesis seeks to complete the critique of the “mainstream” through establishing the role of conscious intervention in realising the material possibilities for workers’ struggle. It does so through a case study of the labour movement in St. Petersburg between the “Emancipation” of 1861 and the “Stolypin Coup” of 3/6/1907. A pivotal point in the development of this movement was “Bloody Sunday” (9/1/1905), and the thesis is structured around that moment to show what changes, as well as what does not change, in the role of conscious intervention in periods of mass struggle relative to times of more limited protest.

Thesis (D.Min.)--South Florida Center for Theological Studies, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis--University of Wisconsin, 1968. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Bibliography: leaves 202-208.

The study of soldier’s experience is important to understanding the effect that wars have on society. In the latter part of the 19th century the experience of warfare changed due to advances in weapons technology. The defensive tactic of trench warfare gained new importance. The most prolific use of trench warfare occured on the Western Front in the First World War, but it was during the siege of Petersburg in the American Civil War that extensive trenches were first used with technologically advanced weapons. By comparing the siege of Petersburg with the Western Front, it is clear that similar conditions elicited similar emotional reactions from soldiers. The most common reactions were fraternization and war neurosis. Fraternization was more prevelant during the siege of Petersburg than at other times during the war. Fraternization was also common on the Western Front. The reasons for this vary, but are all linked to the nature of trench warfare. War neurosis was also caused by the conditions of the trenches. It was a bigger problem at Petersburg and on the Western Front than it was for soldiers in other conflicts. Trench warfare created these emotional reactions. / Master of Arts

No description available.

During June 15-18, 1864, the Federal Army of the Potomac launched a series of attacks against the vital Confederate rail center of Petersburg, Virginia. Union leaders believed that capturing Petersburg would force the abandonment of the Rebel capital at Richmond. The assaults failed, however, and the opposing armies settled into a ten-month siege.This study investigated the opening battles for Petersburg on three levels. First, the strategic dispositions and movements of the Army of the Potomac and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia are discussed prior to and during the battles. Secondly, the study looks carefully at the tactical situation on each of the four days of fighting. Thirdly, the paper reveals the personal side of combat through the use of soldiers' diaries, letters, and regimental histories. The thesis concludes that Federal failure occurred because of poor Union leadership and staff work, a strong Confederate defense, and extreme exhaustion throughout the Northern army. / Master of Arts

In this article I would like to attract attention to the personality of Ludwig Wilhelm Maurer. As a brilliant virtuoso violinist, known in Russia since 1817, conductor of the French theatre in St. Petersburg since 1835, inspector of all Emperor theatres since 1841 and conductor of the Philharmonic and Concert societies, Ludwig Maurer was an advocate of the classic inheritance.

No description available.

Der vorliegende Beitrag ist eine Skizze, die das bereits in der knappen Zeitspanne von 1881 bis etwa 1900 mehrfach wechselnde Verhältnis zwischen russischen und italienischen Operntruppen in Petersburg zu umreißen versucht.

Wenn es sich also bei diesem dritten Jahrhundertviertel auch um keine abgeschlossene Epoche handelt, so verspricht seine Betrachtung doch Aufschluß über die institutionellen Rahmenbedingungen einer entscheidenden musikgeschichtlichen Weichenstellung: Gab es vor 1750 noch kein einziges musikalisches Bühnenwerk in russischer Sprache, so bringt das folgende Vierteljahrhundert nicht nur den ersten russischen Operntypus überhaupt – die russifizierte \"opera seria\" –, sondern auch seine Überwindung zugunsten der russischen komischen Oper, die die Produktion der folgenden Jahrzehnte dominiert und im 19. Jahrhundert zur russischen Nationaloper führt.