I am in no way qualified in politics, economics, or anything else come to that.
But I do have an opinion, and that is that Jeremy Corbin has been unfairly victimised by both some members of the Labour Party and the media.
I have seen so much supposition and misdirected outrage over the political situation in the UK so I thought I'd write a little of my opinion and actual experience of the situation, perhaps then people can stop talking rubbish.
We have all been throught the swamps of pain and suffering...at least at some point. But, do either and/or both HAVE to existe? Is there meaning in pain? Is there motivation somewhere in the darkness?
Answers to these questions and the big one exist...but THE answer is elicited within thy self.
Considering cultural development, its dissemination and assimilation to be fairly extensive discourse, mainly cultures of the ancient world have been a subject of more complicated and thorough research discussions. Exploring those ancient cultures, it becomes very obvious that one of the first spread and strong cultures of Ancient Times was the Roman one. The facts which made this ancient culture very strong and significant for the continent were its power to maintain the huge empire so long, implemented policies and the impacts of the forms of the Roman governance.
The Europeanization of the Russian Empire meant the end of a period of self-isolation of the country (the Muscovy period), and a start of a period of entering into an intensive contact and equal relationship with neighboring foreign powers. Moreover, this was also a process which heavily influenced and contributed to the formation of the Russian identity of 18-19 centuries when the Russian Empire started to be depicted as a pure European state whose nobility and elite got reconstructed under a sense of European model of development (changes in fashion, appearance, architecture, education, culture as well as economy and warfare) and became compatible and identified with European civilization, its principles and ideology.
The science-centric philosophy of the 17th and 18th centuries was aimed at creating a new picture of the world, built entirely on rational grounds and fully filled by empiricism. Therefore, The Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment as a historical period led to a fundamental change of the deep religious understanding of human knowledge, its problems and place in society to the scientifically empirical way of the world perception and the explanation of universal phenomena. it can be assumed that religion and science became two different conflicting subjects, two different ways of perceiving the world and two different criteria of reliability for people, but it can also be inferred that this was their intensive confrontation as well as integration what made religion and science be quite independent and examined by each other.
The fact that Russian literary movements as sentimentalism and realism played a crucial role for the liberation of Russian peasant is less likely to appear in researches, because it has been poorly studied worldwide. What I observed by exploring these literary movements and their representatives is the huge contribution of both movements, with the prevailing role of realism, to the reflection of social concerns of peasants in the Tsarist Russia. Comparing these two movements and their merits, it becomes obvious for me that the literary movement as Russian realism better reflected and represented the Russian peasant than sentimentalism did. Owing to this fact, I aimed this study to find out the reason of the imbalance in reflectivity and contributive powers of Russian sentimentalism and realism. Considering all the above-mentioned, I am going to elaborate on and analyze the general understanding of the condition of Russian peasants, their depiction and comparison in two literary works of two different literary movements.