DOCSLIB.ORG

Smith 1 the Complexities of Proletarian Internationalism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Smith 1 the Complexities of Proletarian Internationalism Smith 1 The Complexities of Proletarian Internationalism: Mexican Communism and the Communist International, 1919-1943 Research Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with research distinction in History in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Nicholas M. Smith The Ohio State University April 2018 Project Advisor: Stephanie Smith, Department of History Smith 2 Introduction Out of chaos, hunger, instability, war, and imperialism, the Bolshevik Party1 of Russia overthrew the Provisional Government and declared the world’s first socialist state in November 7, 1917. From the very beginning, Bolshevik leaders, such as Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Gregory Zinoviev, recognized that they could not achieve their aims in Russia alone. The Russian Revolution was a spark; a spark the Bolsheviks hoped could ignite a fire across the entire world. As “Orthodox Marxists,”2 the Bolsheviks recognized that socialism could not be built in a country without a well-developed capitalist system. Without the material abundance produced by mass industrialization and the centralization of capital, socialism only could mean the socialization of poverty. However, the Bolsheviks, unlike their Menshevik3 rivals, recognized that a socialist revolution in Russia, led by the working class and peasantry, could break the chain of capitalism at its weakest-link: that is, in semi-feudal Russia. Therefore, the immediate task of the Bolshevik Party was to help speed up the revolutionary process throughout the world. To accomplish this task, the Bolsheviks convoked the first congress of the Third, or Communist, International in March of 1919. The Bolsheviks invited all of the anti-war socialist parties, as well as left-wing elements within the Social- Democratic parties and the Syndicalists unions. From its inception, the Communist International (Comintern) argued for the primacy of splitting the Socialist movement: to bring about proletarian revolution in Western Europe, it would be necessary to break from the elements of the 1 The Bolsheviks (literally majority) were a Marxist party in Russia which held that the revolution in Russia would be led by an alliance of the working class and the peasantry. 2 In contrast to revisionists, orthodox Marxists believed that the broad tenets of Marxist ideology still applied to early 20th century capitalism. Orthodox Marxists advocated revolutionary strategy whereas revisionists advocated reformist strategies. 3 The Mensheviks (minority) were a Marxist party in Russia which held that the revolution in Russia would be led by the capitalist class with the support of the working class and the peasantry. Smith 3 socialist movement which clung on to reformism, nationalism, and imperialism. In this vein, the Second Congress of the Communist International drafted a list of “21 Conditions” which would serve as a stringent guideline for admission.4 Included among the 21 conditions were radical planks, including systematic propaganda in the military; practical work against imperialism and colonialism; strong centralization nationally and internationally; and changes in party name to “Communist Party” to reflect the new ideological orientation. Most notably, and controversially, the bulk of the document concerns the need to split with the parties of the Second International. As point 7 reads: “It is the duty of parties wishing to belong to the Communist International to recognize the need for a complete and absolute break with reformism and “Centrist” policy, and to conduct propaganda among the party membership for that break. Without this, a consistent communist policy is impossible.”5 Before 1914, it appeared unthinkable even to the far-left of the socialist movement to break from the Second International. This international organization had recruited millions of working class people, mainly in Europe, to programmatically Marxist organizations. However, a gradual transformation had taken place in these parties over the first decade of the 20th century.6 These transformations came to a head in 1914 when the First World War broke out across Europe. The Second International had predicted the impending war and had put forward various declarations vowing to transform the imperialist war into a class war which would vanquish capitalism once and for all. But to the Left’s surprise, both the Rightists and the Centrists within the Second International lined up, in some instances enthusiastically and other instances 4 “Terms of Admission into Communist International,” Communist International, and Jane Tabrisky Degras, The Communist International, 1919-1943; Documents, Vol. 1, 1919-1922, (London: F. Cass, 1971), 168-172. 5 Ibid. 6 A reformist trend, initially established by the German Marxist, Eduard Bernstein, rejected the concept of socialist revolution and put forth slow, electoral work as the means of transforming the capitalist state into a socialist one. While this theory was roundly rejected by both the Center and the Left of the Second International, verbal denunciation masked larger changes happening within these member parties. Smith 4 begrudgingly, behind their own ruling classes. This abandonment of proletarian internationalism left the whole socialist movement in tatters. Slowly, the Left began to recompose itself, notably at the Zimmerwald conference7, where anti-war socialists met to denounce the war and formulate strategies of resistance. As Leon Trotsky later described in his autobiography, “The thread of history often breaks – then a new knot must be tied. And that is what we were doing in Zimmerwald.”8 The betrayal of the Social-Democratic parties generated significant hostility among these Left elements within the socialist movement. And out of this disillusionment came the base for the new Communist International. While ambitious and risky, the foundation of the Comintern produced the intended groundswell of revolutionary Marxist thought and organization. A number of parties immediately affiliated with the International, and after splitting the Social-Democratic parties, these parties often numbered in the tens or hundreds of thousands of members.9 Simultaneously, in contrast to the Second International, the Comintern immediately began to establish links with militants outside of Europe. Few countries were left untouched by the example of Soviet Russia. From China, Japan and Indo-China, to Cuba and the United States, working-class radicals were inspired by the first instance of the oppressed and exploited taking power into their own hands. The call of the Communist International did not fall on deaf ears in Mexico. In fact, key figures in the Mexican Revolution quickly drew links between their struggles and that of revolutionary Russia. The peasant radical Emiliano Zapata proclaimed that: “We would win much, human justice would win much, if all the peoples of our America and all the nations of old Europe understood that the cause of revolutionary Mexico and the unrepentant cause of Russia, 7 A Congress of left-wing socialists who opposed the Second International’s support of the First World War on nationalist grounds. 8 Leon Trotsky, My Life, (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970), 249. 9 John Riddell, To the Masses: Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 1921, (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2015), 9-14 Smith 5 are and represent the cause of humanity, the supreme interest of all oppressed people.”10 Similarly, the anarchist and leader of the Mexican Liberal Party (Partido Liberal Mexicana), Ricardo Flores Magon, described the Russian Revolution as: “…a movement that has to spark, whether those ingratiated with current system of exploitation and crime like it or not, the great world revolution that is now knocking on the gates of all the peoples; the great world revolution that will introduce important changes in the way in which human beings live with one another.”11 Another set of figures, from the Indian nationalist M.N. Roy, to the U.S. draft dodger Frank Seamen, to Mexican trade-unionists and indigenous radicals, gathered in 1919 at the National Socialist Congress with the aim of drawing a concrete link between Mexico and the nascent Russian Revolution.12 Initiated by the miniscule Mexican Socialist Party, this congress in its majority agreed with the principles of the Communist International and resolved to send a delegate to upcoming Comintern Congress. The Mexican Socialist Party affiliated officially soon thereafter, rebranding itself as the Mexican Communist Party (Partido Comunista Mexicana, PCM.)13 From these humble beginnings, a party emerged in Mexico which has played a significant role in the development of Mexico up until today. Flowing from this context, my aim is to examine the relationship between the Mexican Communist Party and the Communist International from the formation of the PCM in 1919, until the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943. Throughout this period, both the PCM and the Comintern experienced profound transformations in theory and practice. Of particular note is the 10 Alfredo Martínez Verdugo, Historia del Comunismo en México, (Mexico D.F.: Editorial Grijalbo, 1983,) 18. 11 Ibid, 19. 12 John Patrick Haithcox, Communism and Nationalism in India: M.N. Roy and Comintern Policy, 1920-1939, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971,) 6. 13 Barry Carr, Marxism and Communism in Twentieth-Century Mexico, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992,) 25. Smith 6 changing nature of proletarian internationalism,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • War Communism and Bolshevik Ideals" Is Devoted to a Case I N Point: the Dispute Over the Motivation of War Communism (The Name Given T O
    TITLE : WAR COMMUNISM AND BOLSHEVIK IDEAL S AUTHOR : LARS T . LIH THE NATIONAL COUNCI L FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEA N RESEARC H TITLE VIII PROGRA M 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W . Washington, D .C . 20036 PROJECT INFORMATION : ' CONTRACTOR : Wellesley Colleg e PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Lars T. Li h COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 807-1 9 DATE : January 25, 199 4 COPYRIGHT INFORMATIO N Individual researchers retain the copyright on work products derived from research funded b y Council Contract. The Council and the U.S. Government have the right to duplicate written reports and other materials submitted under Council Contract and to distribute such copies within th e Council and U.S. Government for their own use, and to draw upon such reports and materials for their own studies; but the Council and U.S. Government do not have the right to distribute, o r make such reports and materials available, outside the Council or U.S. Government without th e written consent of the authors, except as may be required under the provisions of the Freedom o f information Act 5 U.S. C. 552, or other applicable law. The work leading to this report was supported in part by contract funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research, made available by the U. S. Department of State under Title VIII (th e Soviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983) . The analysis and interpretations contained in th e report are those of the author. NCSEER NOTE This interpretive analysis of War Communism (1918-1921) may be of interest to those wh o anticipate further decline in the Russian economy and contemplate the possible purposes an d policies of a more authoritarian regime .
    [Show full text]
  • From: Handbook of Historical Sociology Edited by Gerard Delanty and Engin Isin Sage: London, 2003
    From: Handbook of Historical Sociology edited by Gerard Delanty and Engin Isin Sage: London, 2003 (Please cite from published version.) 7. Historical Materialist Sociology and Revolutions George C. Comninel One of the fundamental issues of historical sociology since its origins in historical social theory in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been that of a transition between medieval and modern forms of society. There have, indeed, been so many variations on this basic theme that it would scarcely be possible to enumerate them all. What all have in common is the delineation of two contrasting historical social epochs, comprising specific sets of social characteristics as distinctive forms of society, accompanied by some conception of systematic social change from one to the other. The older form of society may not be conceived specifically in relation to the European middle ages, but such a fundamental transition is in every case identified as culminating in, coinciding with, or occurring in the course of a European modern period that opened roughly five hundred years ago. The social forms involved in this transition have been variously described in terms of such as oppositions as ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, ‘feudal’ and ‘capitalist’, ‘agrarian’ and ‘commercial’, ‘simple’ and ‘complex’, and ‘aristocratic’ and ‘bourgeois’. The historical process of change itself has been identified with increased rationalization, desacralization, urbanization, and/or commercialization; development of the division of labour; the rise of a bourgeois class; the growth of capitalism; or some broad amalgam of these and related processes conceived simply as ‘modernization’. This transition has most typically been understood as part of a larger historical process of ‘progress’, a protean concept that has underpinned much social thought during the modern era [Comninel, 1987: 61-74; Wood, 1995: 6-8; Meek, 1976; Butterfield, 1931].
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Theory, Historical Materialism, and the Ostensible End of Marxism: the Poverty of Theory Revisited
    Critical Theory, Historical Materialism, and the Ostensible End of Marxism: The Poverty of Theory Revisited BRYAN D. PALMER Summary: This essay notes the extent to which poststructuralism/postmodernism have generally espoused hostility to historical materialism, surveys some representative examples of historical writing that have gravitated toward the new critical theory in opposition to Marxism, and closes with a discussion of the ironic evolution of a poststructurally inclined, anti-Marxist historiography. Counter to the prevailing ideological consensus that Marxism has been brought to its interpretive knees by a series of analytic challenges and the political collapse of the world's ostensibly "socialist" states, this essay argues that historical materialism has lost neither its power to interpret the past nor its relevance to the contemporary intellectual terrain. It is now a decade-and-one-half since Edward Thompson penned The Poverty of Theory: or an Orrery of Errors, and ten times as many years have passed since the publication of Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy.1 Whatever one may think about the advances in knowledge associated with historical materialism and Marxism, particularly in terms of the practice of historical writing, there is no denying that this sesquicentennial has been a problematic period in the making of communist society; the last fifteen years, moreover, are associated with the bleak end of socialism and the passing of Marxism as an intellectual force. Indeed, it is a curious conjuncture of our times that the
    [Show full text]
  • Colloquium Paper January 12, 1984 STALINISM VERSUS
    Colloquium Paper January 12, 1984 STALINISM VERSUS BOLSHEVISM? A Reconsideration by Robert C. Tucker Princeton University with comment by Peter Reddaway London School of Economics and Political Science Fellows Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Draft paper not for publication or quotation without written permission from the authors. STALINISM VERSUS BOLSHEVISM? A Reconsideration Although not of ten openly debated~ the issue I propose to address is probably the deepest and most divisive in Soviet studies. There is good ground for Stephen Cohen's characterization of it as a "quintessential his­ torical and interpretive question"! because it transcends most of the others and has to do with the whole of Russia's historical development since the Bolshevik Revolution. He formulates it as the question of the relationship "between Bolshevism and Stalinism.'' Since the very existence of something properly called Stalinism is at issue here, I prefer a somewhat different mode of formulation. There are two (and curiously, only two) basically opposed positions on the course of development that Soviet Russia took starting around 1929 when Stalin, having ousted his opponents on the Left and the Right, achieved primacy, although not yet autocratic primacy, within the Soviet regime. The first position, Which may be seen as the orthodox one, sees that course of development as the fulfillment, under new conditions, of Lenin's Bolshevism. All the main actions taken by the Soviet regime under Stalin's leadership were, in other words, the fulfillment of what had been prefigured in Leninism (as Lenin's Bolshevism came to be called after Lenin died).
    [Show full text]
  • A Crisis of Commitment: Socialist Internationalism in British Columbia During the Great War
    A Crisis of Commitment: Socialist Internationalism in British Columbia during the Great War by Dale Michael McCartney B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2004 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the Department of History © Dale Michael McCartney 2010 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2010 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for Fair Dealing. Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. APPROVAL Name: Dale Michael McCartney Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: A Crisis of Commitment: Socialist Internationalism in British Columbia during the Great War Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Emily O‘Brien Assistant Professor of History _____________________________________________ Dr. Mark Leier Senior Supervisor Professor of History _____________________________________________ Dr. Karen Ferguson Supervisor Associate Professor of History _____________________________________________ Dr. Robert A.J. McDonald External Examiner Professor of History University of British Columbia Date Defended/Approved: ________4 March 2010___________________________ ii Declaration of Partial Copyright Licence The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicolai Ivanovich Bukharin 1 888- 1938"
    NICOLAI IVANOVICH BUKHARIN 1 888- 1938" Ken Coates 1978 marks a macabre anniversary. Forty years ago, in March 19 38, there took place in Moscow the last of the great show ~rials.' Previously there had already been two earlier public trials of former Bolshevik leaders, mowing down among others, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Piatakov and ~adek.~ A closed court-martial involving foremost Red Army commanders like Tukhachevsky, Yakir and Kork had also preceded this last trial,3 which was to involve Bukharin, Rykov, Krestinsky, Yagoda, Rakovsky and sixteen others. The third great trial was in one sense the keystone in a horrendous arch: all the charges which were brought in its forerunners were calculated to prove that Trotsky, from exile, was organizing with a selection of foreign powers to bring about the downfall of the Soviet Government, and that the internal opposition was not only disloyal, but criminally implicated in a vast terrorist conspiracy. By extending the web of this plot to implicate Bukharin and Rykov, a final amalgamation was thus charged against former oppositions of both Right and Left, and the effect was to establish that henceforth no "loyal" opposition was in fact possible. The Soviet political structure still manifestly suffers the ill-effects of this tragic decision, which would have been baleful even if the absurdly implausible charges in the trials had all been true, and was simply paralysing in the actual event, that they were all deliberately fabricated. Ryltov was, after all, a former prime minister, and Bukharin had been not only editor of Isvestia, and long-standing politbureau member, but, from 1926 onwards, chairman of the Communist International.
    [Show full text]
  • “For a More Perfect Communist Revolution”: the Rise of the SKWP and the Twilight of “Unitary Socialism”
    UCLA UCLA Historical Journal Title “For a More Perfect Communist Revolution”: The Rise of the SKWP and the Twilight of “Unitary Socialism” Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/87d59236 Journal UCLA Historical Journal, 29(1) ISSN 0276-864X Author Jo, Kyu-Hyun Publication Date 2018 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California ARTICLES “For a More Perfect Communist Revolution”: The Rise of the SKWP and the Twilight of “Unitary Socialism” Kyu-hyun Jo University of Chicago Introduction In stark contrast to meticulous efforts to understand the Korean War as a conflict that involved both halves of the peninsula, very little has been discussed about the complexities of Communist activism in southern Korea. My central thesis is that the roots of the Korean War can be found in southern Korea as an anti- Rightist civil war with the rise of the Southern Korean Workers’ Party (Nahm Jo-suhn Noh-dong Dahng, hereafter shortened as SKWP), the largest Communist organization in southern Korea before the war, especially through the leadership of the party’s fervent Communist leader Pak Hŏnyŏng. In making this argument, I will also suggest that the civil war symbolized a failure of the non-ideological centrist politician Yǒ Un-hyong to realize a unitary non-partisan Korea. Pak, the son of an impoverished farmer and a widow, was active in the Korean Communist movement during the 1920s and was an outspoken critic of Japanese imperialism. By 1946, contrary to American suspicion that Pak’s control of the SKWP was evidence of the Communists “being under complete Russian control,” Pak already had a lengthy résumé as a seasoned theorist and a revo- lutionary.1 Seizing the leadership of a Communist party had always been Pak’s ambition, and as he personally believed, his destiny.2 A precocious polyglot and an avid reader of Marxist theory who called Capital his “Bible,” Pak had built an extensive and deep knowledge of Marxism such that he won all the top honors © 2018 Kyu-hyun Jo.
    [Show full text]
  • Paving the Path for Success: Lenin's Political Theory in Practice, 1902-1917 Kelly Olsen
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2009 Paving the Path for Success: Lenin's Political Theory in Practice, 1902-1917 Kelly Olsen Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES PAVING THE PATH FOR SUCCESS: LENIN’S POLITICAL THEORY IN PRACTICE, 1902-1917 By KELLY OLSEN A Thesis submitted to the Interdisciplinary Program in Russian and East European Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2009 The members of the committee approve the thesis of Kelly Olsen defended on November 3, 2009. ________________________________________ Jonathan Grant Professor Directing Defense ________________________________________ Mark Souva Committee Member ________________________________________ Edward Wynot Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members. ii This Thesis is dedicated to Dr. Art Vanden Houten in an effort to thank him for igniting my passion for political theory and showing me that the influence of a truly great teacher expands much further than the classroom. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jonathan Grant for guiding me through the research and writing process and answering all my questions; big and small. I would also like to acknowledge my father, mother, and sister for encouraging me to always strive for success and for listening to me talk about Lenin for countless hours. Thank you. iv ABSTRACT This thesis presents and evaluates a selection of Lenin’s political writings from 1902-1917 in an effort to illustrate the continuity in his political theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Embattled Political Aesthetics of José Carlos Mariátegui and Amauta
    A Realist Indigenism: The Embattled Political Aesthetics of José Carlos Mariátegui and Amauta BY ERIN MARIA MADARIETA B.A., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2012 THESIS Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Art History in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2019 Chicago, Illinois Defense Committee: Blake Stimson, Art History, Advisor and Chair Andrew Finegold, Art History Nicholas Brown, English Margarita Saona, Hispanic and Italian Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1 BEYOND THE “SECTARIAN DIVIDE”: MARIÁTEGUI’S EXPANSIVE REALISM………..9 TOWARD A REALIST INDIGENISM: PARSING MARXISM, INDIGENISM, AND POPULISM………………………………………………………………………………………33 “THE PROBLEM OF RACE IN LATIN AMERICA”: MARIÁTEGUI AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISTS…………………………………………………………...53 “PAINTING THE PEOPLE” OR DEMYSTIFYING PERUVIAN REALITY?: AMAUTA’S VISUAL CONTENT…………………………………………………………………………….65 CONCLUSION…………………………….…………………………………………………….88 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..92 ii SUMMARY This thesis focuses on José Carlos Mariátegui (1894-1930), a Peruvian critic and Marxist political activist who founded the Peruvian Socialist Party. Mariátegui also edited the journal Amauta, which featured literature, visual art, and theoretical and political texts from 1926 to 1930. This project aims to contribute an original understanding of the thought and editorial practice of this historically significant figure by recuperating his endorsement of realist
    [Show full text]
  • Delegation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist) Returns from Visit to Albania
    Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line Anti-revisionism in Ireland Delegation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist) Returns from Visit to Albania Published: Red Patriot, newspaper of the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist), May 21, 1978.) Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba and Sam Richards Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti- Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above. Recently a Central Committee delegation of the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist) returned from a visit to the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, where it was hosted by the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania. The delegation saw at first hand the great achievements of the Albanian people under the leadership of the great Party of Labor of Albania led by Comrade Enver Hoxha. The Party of Labor of Albania has distinguished itself by its persistent adherence to principle and its refusal to capitulate to any form of revisionism. It opposed the revisionism of Tito right from the outset. It opposed the revisionism of the Khrushchev clique and the Soviet revisionists as soon as it appeared. Today, the Party of Labor of Albania has taken a resolute stand against the new revisionists pushing the reactionary theory of three worlds. The Party of Labor of Albania has played an outstanding role in the struggle against revisionism of all kinds and has won the deepest respect of all genuine Marxist-Leninists and progressive people throughout the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialist Planning
    Socialist Planning Socialist planning played an enormous role in the economic and political history of the twentieth century. Beginning in the USSR it spread round the world. It influenced economic institutions and economic policy in countries as varied as Bulgaria, USA, China, Japan, India, Poland and France. How did it work? What were its weaknesses and strengths? What is its legacy for the twenty-first century? Now in its third edition, this textbook is fully updated to cover the findings of the period since the collapse of the USSR. It provides an overview of socialist planning, explains the underlying theory and its limitations, looks at its implementation in various sectors of the economy, and places developments in their historical context. A new chap- ter analyses how planning worked in the defence–industry complex. This book is an ideal text for undergraduate and graduate students taking courses in comparative economic systems and twentieth-century economic history. michael ellman is Emeritus Professor in the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. He is the author, co- author and editor of numerous books and articles on the Soviet and Russian economies, on transition economics, and on Soviet economic and political history. In 1998, he was awarded the Kondratieff prize for his ‘contributions to the development of the social sciences’. Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 128.122.253.212 on Sat Jan 10 18:08:28 GMT 2015. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9781139871341 Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015 Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 128.122.253.212 on Sat Jan 10 18:08:28 GMT 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Mexico: Notes on Political Opposition John Neagle
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository NotiSur Latin America Digital Beat (LADB) 10-25-1988 Mexico: Notes On Political Opposition John Neagle Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/notisur Recommended Citation Neagle, John. "Mexico: Notes On Political Opposition." (1988). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/notisur/2402 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Latin America Digital Beat (LADB) at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in NotiSur by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LADB Article Id: 074089 ISSN: 1060-4189 Mexico: Notes On Political Opposition by John Neagle Category/Department: General Published: Tuesday, October 25, 1988 Four political parties and dozens of leftist and populist political organizations joined together in the National Democratic Front that was formed to support Cuauhtemoc Cardenas in the July 6 election. Their ideological differences were smoothed over, result of the stature and prestige of Cardenas. The political leader is the son of a revered former president, and led a dissident faction of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), before breaking with the ruling party last year. At present, coalition is seeking to consolidate its election gains, including 137 seats in the 500-member Chamber of Deputies and four in the 64-member Senate, and establish a permanent presence and structure. An example of the ideological diversity of the Cardenas alliance is seen in the differences between the Socialist Party and the Authentic Party of the Mexican Revolution. Until it endorsed Cardenas, the Authentic Party was widely perceived as a "satellite" of the PRI with no program other than nationalism.
    [Show full text]