DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Download

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Download A FUTURE FOR SOCIALISM IN THE USSR? Justin Schwartz The fate of socialism is linked to the crisis in the USSR, the first nation to profess socialism as an ideal. But as the Soviet Union prepares to drop "socialist" from its name, ' it is opportune to inquire whether there is a future for socialism in the USSR. Whether we think so, however, depends in part on whether we think it had a past. "Actually existing socialism" - we need a new term, perhaps "formerly existing socialism" - is not socialism as historically understood, for example, by Marx, involving a democratically controlled economy and a state subordinate to society. The Soviet system is not socialist in this sense but is essentially Stalinist, both in its historical origin and its character, involving a command economy and a dictatorial state. The Stalinist system forfeited its moral authority by repressiveness and lost its economic legitimacy by unsuccessfully competing with the West on the consumerist grounds that favour capitalism instead of the democratic ones that favour socialism. Having delivered neither prosperity nor democracy, it is in disintegration. Socialism in the USSR would thus require not reclaiming a lost revolutionary achieve- ment, for, despite the early aspirations of the Bolsheviks, the USSR was never socialist, but a systematic transformation of society, not a restructuring (perestroika) but a revolutionary reconstruction. In a crisis situation prediction is speculative, but the short-term prospects for a socialist reconstruction of Soviet society, in the classical sense of the term, are slim. Such a project finds support in some sectors of an increasingly organized and mobilized working class, at least in the Slavic republics, but Soviet workers are sharply divided along ethnic and national lines. Moreover, socialism is not on the agenda of the main groups struggling for mastery in the Soviet elite. Gorbachev's programme of perestroika appears to have run its course as he turns to force to maintain the Union against nationalist separatism. The increasingly dominant liberal intelligentsia, rallying around Boris Yeltsin in the Russian Republic, are explicitly pro- capitalist. But the split in interests between the working class and the new middle classes as well as growing centrifugal nationalism 68 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1991 threatens a liberal capitalist reconstitution of Soviet society as much as a socialist one. To many Soviets, political deadlock, civil war, and authoritarian nationalism seem more probable for the present than either a socialist or a liberal outcome. Any happier resolution of the crisis will have to overcome these tendencies. Stalinism versus Socialism Given the current doubts in the USSR and elsewhere about whether "socialism7' has any definite meaning, it is worthwhile to explain why that sense fails to apply to the USSR. Both analytical clarity and the prospects of the left require a sharp distinction between Stalinism and classical or Marxist socialism. This distinction has a long tradition on the non-Stalinist left and is widely echoed in the USSR today. Most of the leading Gorbachev supporters interviewed by Stephen Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel in 1989 agreed that the Soviet system was not socialist.' No society fully lives up to its ideals, but the USSR was at best an authoritarian welfare state. If we say it was "backward" or "deformed7' socialism, we will need a new term for what Marx meant. While noncapitalist because it abolished private property in the means of production, Stalinism is closer to what Marx dismisses as "crude communism", a "levelling down to a preconceived minimum", an "abstract negation of the whole world of culture and ci~ilization".~ The essential features of the Soviet system were constructed by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the 1930~~They involved: (1) a single party dictatorship, in which all public life was dominated by a Party bureaucracy and (2) a command economy, in which decisions about production and investment were made by bureaucratic fiat. Rather than being the expression or result of workers' self-rule, the establishment of the system was due, as Soviet economists Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov argue, to the dominance of the Soviet bureaucracy, a stratum whose interests "directly opposed [the] interests" of the workers and peasants, as shown by the tremendous resistance broken only by forced collectivization and the Great Terror of the 1930s. "The command-administrative system", Shmelev and Popov argue, "was the logical way for the bureaucracy to develop, given the absence of effective control from below".' In an isolated and relatively backward country, lacking strong democratic traditions, and where a militant but extremely small working class had been decimated by civil war, the bureaucracy was able to impose Stalinism as a noncapitalist crash modernization programme. Contrast this to Marx's socialism, not out of deference to the Master's Voice but to undermine the Soviets' claim to Marx's legacy and because the ideal of socialism has, to this day, no more powerful proponent. With respect to politics, Marx gave the party no special 68 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1991 threatens a liberal capitalist reconstitution of Soviet society as much as a socialist one. To many Soviets, political deadlock, civil war, and authoritarian nationalism seem more probable for the present than either a socialist or a liberal outcome. Any happier resolution of the crisis will have to overcome these tendencies. Stalinism versus Socialism Given the current doubts in the USSR and elsewhere about whether "socialism" has any definite meaning, it is worthwhile to explain why that sense fails to apply to the USSR. Both analytical clarity and the prospects of the left require a sharp distinction between Stalinism and classical or Marxist socialism. This distinction has a long tradition on the non-Stalinist left and is widely echoed in the USSR today. Most of the leading Gorbachev supporters interviewed by Stephen Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel in 1989 agreed that the Soviet system was not socialist. No society fully lives up to its ideals, but the USSR was at best an authoritarian welfare state. If we say it was "backward" or "deformed" socialism, we will need a new term for what Marx meant. While noncapitalist because it abolished private property in the means of production, Stalinism is closer to what Marx dismisses as ''crude communism", a "levelling down to a preconceived minimum", an "abstract negation of the whole world of culture and civilization". The essential features of the Soviet system were constructed by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the 1930s. They involved: (1) a single party dictatorship, in which all public life was dominated by a Party bureaucracy and (2) a command economy, in which decisions about production and investment were made by bureaucratic fiat. Rather than being the expression or result of workers' self-rule, the establishment of the system was due, as Soviet economists Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov argue, to the dominance of the Soviet bureaucracy, a stratum whose interests "directly opposed [the] interests" of the workers and peasants, as shown by the tremendous resistance broken only by forced collectivization and the Great Terror of the 1930s. "The command-administrative system", Shmelev and Popov argue, "was the logical way for the bureaucracy to develop, given the absence of effective control from below".' In an isolated and relatively backward country, lacking strong democratic traditions, and where a militant but extremely small working class had been decimated by civil war, the bureaucracy was able to impose Stalinism as a noncapitalist crash modernization programme. Contrast this to Marx's socialism, not out of deference to the Master's Voice but to undermine the Soviets' claim to Marx's legacy and because the ideal of socialism has, to this day, no more powerful proponent. With respect to politics, Marx gave the party no special A FUTURE FOR SOCIALISM IN THE USSR? 69 role (much less a monopoly one) in a socialist society. He was deeply suspicious of state power. He opposed setrtingl the state 'free'. as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it, and even today forms of the state are more or less free to the extent that they restrict the 'freedom of the ~tate'.~ Rather than creating an omnipotent dictatorship, the workers' state, in Marx's account of the Paris Commune, would "amputate" the "merely repressive organs of the old governmental power" [the army and the police], returning its "legitimate functions" to the responsible agents of society, democratically elected and modestly compensated. "Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune to supersede universal suffrage by hierarchic inve~titure,"'~i.e., by the principle of nomenklatura or bureaucratic rule which underpins Stalinist politics. With respect to economics, Marx does suggest wresting "by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie. centraliz[ingl all instruments of production in the hands of the State. ." But given his view of the revolutionary state as "the proletariat organized as ruling class", " the proposal is best read as urging extensive workers' control rather than Stalinist nationalization. Abolition of markets, moreover, is not mentioned in the list of suggested measures in the Manifesto; market relations among worker-controlled enterprises are consistent with Marx's account of "the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Russian Revolutions: the Impact and Limitations of Western Influence
    Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar Faculty and Staff Publications By Year Faculty and Staff Publications 2003 The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence Karl D. Qualls Dickinson College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation Qualls, Karl D., "The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence" (2003). Dickinson College Faculty Publications. Paper 8. https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications/8 This article is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Karl D. Qualls The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence After the collapse of the Soviet Union, historians have again turned their attention to the birth of the first Communist state in hopes of understanding the place of the Soviet period in the longer sweep of Russian history. Was the USSR an aberration from or a consequence of Russian culture? Did the Soviet Union represent a retreat from westernizing trends in Russian history, or was the Bolshevik revolution a product of westernization? These are vexing questions that generate a great deal of debate. Some have argued that in the late nineteenth century Russia was developing a middle class, representative institutions, and an industrial economy that, while although not as advanced as those in Western Europe, were indications of potential movement in the direction of more open government, rule of law, free market capitalism. Only the Bolsheviks, influenced by an ideology imported, paradoxically, from the West, interrupted this path of Russian political and economic westernization.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Vanguardism
    Democratic Vanguardism Modernity, Intervention, and the making of the Bush Doctrine Michael Harland A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Department of History University of Canterbury 2013 For Francine Contents Acknowledgements 1 Abstract 3 Introduction 4 1. America at the Vanguard: Democracy Promotion and the Bush Doctrine 16 2. Assessing History’s End: Thymos and the Post-Historic Life 37 3. The Exceptional Nation: Power, Principle and American Foreign Policy 55 4. The “Crisis” of Liberal Modernity: Neoconservatism, Relativism and Republican Virtue 84 5. An “Intoxicating Moment:” The Rise of Democratic Globalism 123 6. The Perfect Storm: September 11 and the coming of the Bush Doctrine 159 Conclusion 199 Bibliography 221 1 Acknowledgements Over the three years I spent researching and writing this thesis, I have received valuable advice and support from a number of individuals and organisations. My supervisors, Peter Field and Jeremy Moses, were exemplary. As my senior supervisor, Peter provided a model of a consummate historian – lively, probing, and passionate about the past. His detailed reading of my work helped to hone the thesis significantly. Peter also allowed me to use his office while he was on sabbatical in 2009. With a library of over six hundred books, the space proved of great use to an aspiring scholar. Jeremy Moses, meanwhile, served as the co-supervisor for this thesis. His research on the connections between liberal internationalist theory and armed intervention provided much stimulus for this study. Our discussions on the present trajectory of American foreign policy reminded me of the continuing pertinence of my dissertation topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Soviet Political Party Development in Russia: Obstacles to Democratic Consolidation
    POST-SOVIET POLITICAL PARTY DEVELOPMENT IN RUSSIA: OBSTACLES TO DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION Evguenia Lenkevitch Bachelor of Arts (Honours), SFU 2005 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the Department of Political Science O Evguenia Lenkevitch 2007 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY 2007 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Evguenia Lenkevitch Degree: Master of Arts, Department of Political Science Title of Thesis: Post-Soviet Political Party Development in Russia: Obstacles to Democratic Consolidation Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Lynda Erickson, Professor Department of Political Science Dr. Lenard Cohen, Professor Senior Supervisor Department of Political Science Dr. Alexander Moens, Professor Supervisor Department of Political Science Dr. llya Vinkovetsky, Assistant Professor External Examiner Department of History Date DefendedlApproved: August loth,2007 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. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection (currently available to the public at the 'Institutional Repository" link of the SFU Library website <www.lib.sfu.ca> at: <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/112>) and, without changing the content, to translate the thesis/project or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Map of Knowledge And
    Humphry Davy George Grosz Patrick Galvin August Wilhelm von Hofmann Mervyn Gotsman Peter Blake Willa Cather Norman Vincent Peale Hans Holbein the Elder David Bomberg Hans Lewy Mark Ryden Juan Gris Ian Stevenson Charles Coleman (English painter) Mauritz de Haas David Drake Donald E. Westlake John Morton Blum Yehuda Amichai Stephen Smale Bernd and Hilla Becher Vitsentzos Kornaros Maxfield Parrish L. Sprague de Camp Derek Jarman Baron Carl von Rokitansky John LaFarge Richard Francis Burton Jamie Hewlett George Sterling Sergei Winogradsky Federico Halbherr Jean-Léon Gérôme William M. Bass Roy Lichtenstein Jacob Isaakszoon van Ruisdael Tony Cliff Julia Margaret Cameron Arnold Sommerfeld Adrian Willaert Olga Arsenievna Oleinik LeMoine Fitzgerald Christian Krohg Wilfred Thesiger Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant Eva Hesse `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas Him Mark Lai Clark Ashton Smith Clint Eastwood Therkel Mathiassen Bettie Page Frank DuMond Peter Whittle Salvador Espriu Gaetano Fichera William Cubley Jean Tinguely Amado Nervo Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay Ferdinand Hodler Françoise Sagan Dave Meltzer Anton Julius Carlson Bela Cikoš Sesija John Cleese Kan Nyunt Charlotte Lamb Benjamin Silliman Howard Hendricks Jim Russell (cartoonist) Kate Chopin Gary Becker Harvey Kurtzman Michel Tapié John C. Maxwell Stan Pitt Henry Lawson Gustave Boulanger Wayne Shorter Irshad Kamil Joseph Greenberg Dungeons & Dragons Serbian epic poetry Adrian Ludwig Richter Eliseu Visconti Albert Maignan Syed Nazeer Husain Hakushu Kitahara Lim Cheng Hoe David Brin Bernard Ogilvie Dodge Star Wars Karel Capek Hudson River School Alfred Hitchcock Vladimir Colin Robert Kroetsch Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai Stephen Sondheim Robert Ludlum Frank Frazetta Walter Tevis Sax Rohmer Rafael Sabatini Ralph Nader Manon Gropius Aristide Maillol Ed Roth Jonathan Dordick Abdur Razzaq (Professor) John W.
    [Show full text]
  • Winds of Change Are Normally Characterised by the Distinctive Features of a Geographical Area
    Department of Military History Rekkedal et al. Rekkedal The various forms of irregular war today, such as insurgency, counterinsurgency and guerrilla war, Winds of Change are normally characterised by the distinctive features of a geographical area. The so-called wars of national liberation between 1945 and the late On Irregular Warfare 1970s were disproportionately associated with terms like insurgency, guerrilla war and (internal) Nils Marius Rekkedal et al. terrorism. Use of such methods signals revolutionary Publication series 2 | N:o 18 intentions, but the number of local and regional conflict is still relatively high today, almost 40 years after the end of the so-called ‘Colonial period’. In this book, we provide some explanations for the ongoing conflicts. The book also deals, to a lesser extent, with causes that are of importance in many ongoing conflicts – such as ethnicity, religious beliefs, ideology and fighting for control over areas and resources. The book also contains historical examples and presents some of the common thoughts and theories concerning different forms of irregular warfare, insurgencies and terrorism. Included are also a number of presentations of today’s definitions of military terms for the different forms of conflict and the book offer some information on the international military-theoretical debate about military terms. Publication series 2 | N:o 18 ISBN 978 - 951 - 25 - 2271 - 2 Department of Military History ISSN 1456 - 4874 P.O. BOX 7, 00861 Helsinki Suomi – Finland WINDS OF CHANGE ON IRREGULAR WARFARE NILS MARIUS REKKEDAL ET AL. Rekkedal.indd 1 23.5.2012 9:50:13 National Defence University of Finland, Department of Military History 2012 Publication series 2 N:o 18 Cover: A Finnish patrol in Afghanistan.
    [Show full text]
  • Realities of Social-Imperialism Versus Dogmas of Cynical Realism: the Dynamics of the Soviet Capital Formation by Raymond Lotta
    Realities of Social-Imperialism Versus Dogmas of Cynical Realism: The Dynamics of the Soviet Capital Formation by Raymond Lotta I would like to begin my presentation by reading two short poems which I think capture some of what is at stake in this debate and which tell us something about the reversal of socialism in the Soviet Union. They were gathered by Vera Dunham in a recent sur• vey of Soviet literature. The first was written in 1917 by Vladimir Kirillov and is entitled "We": We are the countless, awesome legions of Labor. We have conquered the spaces of ocean and land, With the light of artificial suns we have lit up the cities, Our proud souls burn with the fire of revolt. We are possessed by turbulent, intoxicating passion, Let them shout at us: "you are the executioners of beauty!" In the name of our tomorrow we shall burn Raphael, Destroy museums, trample the flowers of art. Now in 1974 the prestigious Moscow literary anthology, The Day of Poetry, dedicated an entire section to labor by inviting worker-poets to make contributions. The poems were of a decidedly different cast. For instance, the poem T Fear To Be Without Trade": 37 38 I fear to be without trade — Not to know how To cut fabric or sew, To stack hay, To handle a chisel, Or to forge. Not to know how to do anything Is like having no soul.1 This poem is built around the verb umet which means "to know how." It's very telling because we are dealing with a society which puts a premium on professionalization and proficiency, which rein• forces the quest for status with a deadening technocraticism.
    [Show full text]
  • People, Place and Party:: the Social Democratic Federation 1884-1911
    Durham E-Theses People, place and party:: the social democratic federation 1884-1911 Young, David Murray How to cite: Young, David Murray (2003) People, place and party:: the social democratic federation 1884-1911, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3081/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk People, Place and Party: the Social Democratic Federation 1884-1911 David Murray Young A copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Durham Department of Politics August 2003 CONTENTS page Abstract ii Acknowledgements v Abbreviations vi Introduction 1 Chapter 1- SDF Membership in London 16 Chapter 2 -London
    [Show full text]
  • A Precarious Peace 1 Michael Mcfaul Domestic Politics in the Making of Russian Foreign Policy
    A Precarious Peace 1 Michael McFaul Domestic Politics in the Making of Russian Foreign Policy I Throughout the his- tory of the modem world, domestic regime change-be it democratization, automatization, decolonization, decommunization, federal dissolution, coups, or revolutions-has often triggered international conflict and war. When a regime changes, decaying institutions from the ancien regime compete with new rules of the game to shape political competition in ambiguous ways. This uncertain context provides opportunities for political actors, both new and old, to pursue new strategies for achieving their objectives, including belligerent policies against both domestic and international foes. In desperation, losers from regime change may resort to violence to maintain their former privileges. Such internal conflicts become international wars when these interest groups who benefited from the old order call upon their allies to intervene on their behalf or strike out against their enemies as a means to shore up their domestic legitimacy. In the name of democracy, independence, the revolution, or the nation, the beneficiaries of regime change also can resort to violence against both domestic and international opponents to secure their new gains. The protracted regime transformation under way in Russia seems like a probable precipitant of international conflict. Over the last decade, old political institutions have collapsed while new democratic institutions have yet to be consolidated. Concurrently, political figures, organizations, and interest groups that benefited from the old Soviet order have incurred heavy losses in the new Russian polity. The new, ambiguous institutional context also has allowed militant, imperialist political entrepreneurs to assume salient roles in Russian politics.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Socialism in One Country': Komsomol'tsy
    Youthful Internationalism in the Age of ‘Socialism in One Country’: Komsomol’tsy, Pioneers and ‘World Revolution’ in the Interwar Period Matthias Neumann On the 1st of March 1927, two Komsomol members from the Chuvash Republic, located in the centre of European Russia, wrote an emotional letter to Comrade Stalin. Reflecting on the revolutionary upheavals in China, they attacked the inaction of the Komsomol and the party and expressed their sincere determination to self-mobilise and join the proletarian forces in China. ‘We do not need empty slogans such as “The Komsomol is prepared”’, ‘We must not live like this’ they wrote and boasted ‘we guarantee that we are able to mobilise thousands of Komsomol members who have the desire to go to China and fight in the army of the Guomindang.’ This was after all, they forcefully stressed, the purpose for which ‘our party and our Komsomol exist.’1 These youngsters were not alone in their views. As the coverage on the situation in China intensified in the Komsomol press in March, numerous similar individual and collective letters were received by party and Komsomol leaders.2 The young authors, all male as far as they were named, expressed their genuine enthusiasm for the revolution in China. The letters revealed not only a youthful romanticism for the revolutionary fight abroad and the idea of spreading the revolution, but often an underlying sense of disillusionment with the inertia of the revolutionary project at home. A few months earlier, in 1926 during the campaign against the so-called eseninshchina3, a fellow Komsomol member took a quite different view on the prospect of spreading the revolution around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Marxism-Leninism in the History of North Korean Ideology, 1945-1989
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles From Soviet Origins to Chuch’e: Marxism-Leninism in the History of North Korean Ideology, 1945-1989 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Languages and Cultures by Thomas Stock 2018 © Copyright by Thomas Stock 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION From Soviet Origins to Chuch’e: Marxism-Leninism in the History of North Korean Ideology, 1945-1989 by Thomas Stock Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Languages and Cultures University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Namhee Lee, Chair Where lie the origins of North Korean ideology? When, why, and to what extent did North Korea eventually pursue a path of ideological independence from Soviet Marxism- Leninism? Scholars typically answer these interrelated questions by referencing Korea’s historical legacies, such as Chosŏn period Confucianism, colonial subjugation, and Kim Il Sung’s guerrilla experience. The result is a rather localized understanding of North Korean ideology and its development, according to which North Korean ideology was rooted in native soil and, on the basis of this indigenousness, inevitably developed in contradistinction to Marxism-Leninism. Drawing on Eastern European archival materials and North Korean theoretical journals, the present study challenges our conventional views about North Korean ideology. Throughout the Cold War, North Korea was possessed by a world spirit, a Marxist- Leninist world spirit. Marxism-Leninism was North Korean ideology’s Promethean clay. From ii adherence to Soviet ideological leadership in the 1940s and 50s, to declarations of ideological independence in the 1960s, to the emergence of chuch’e philosophy in the 1970s and 80s, North Korea never severed its ties with the Marxist-Leninist tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Reform and Human Rights the Gorbachev Record
    100TH-CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [ 1023 REFORM AND HUMAN RIGHTS THE GORBACHEV RECORD REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE MAY 1988 Printed for the use of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1988 84-979 = For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE STENY H. HOYER, Maryland, Chairman DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona, Cochairman DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts TIMOTHY WIRTH, Colorado BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico WYCHE FOWLER, Georgia EDWARD FEIGHAN, Ohio HARRY REED, Nevada DON RITTER, Pennslyvania ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey JOHN HEINZ, Pennsylvania JACK F. KEMP, New York JAMES McCLURE, Idaho JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming EXECUTIvR BRANCH HON. RICHARD SCHIFIER, Department of State Vacancy, Department of Defense Vacancy, Department of Commerce Samuel G. Wise, Staff Director Mary Sue Hafner, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel Jane S. Fisher, Senior Staff Consultant Michael Amitay, Staff Assistant Catherine Cosman, Staff Assistant Orest Deychakiwsky, Staff Assistant Josh Dorosin, Staff Assistant John Finerty, Staff Assistant Robert Hand, Staff Assistant Gina M. Harner, Administrative Assistant Judy Ingram, Staff Assistant Jesse L. Jacobs, Staff Assistant Judi Kerns, Ofrice Manager Ronald McNamara, Staff Assistant Michael Ochs, Staff Assistant Spencer Oliver, Consultant Erika B. Schlager, Staff Assistant Thomas Warner, Pinting Clerk (11) CONTENTS Page Summary Letter of Transmittal .................... V........................................V Reform and Human Rights: The Gorbachev Record ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Read Book Lenins Tomb: the Last Days of the Soviet Empire
    LENINS TOMB: THE LAST DAYS OF THE SOVIET EMPIRE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK David Remnick | 22 pages | 01 Oct 2001 | Random House USA Inc | 9780679751250 | English | New York, United States Lenins Tomb: the Last Days of the Soviet Empire PDF Book Remnick writes after lunching with Ms. The crowds were so dense and chaotic that some people were trampled underfoot, others rammed against traffic lights, and still others choked to death. Mikhail Kalinin tomb. The body lies in a glass case with dim lights. Khrushchev followed by reading a decree ordering the removal of Stalin's remains. Stalin's own grandson, Yevgeny Djugashvili, asked Mr. It's as if the regime were guilty of two crimes on a massive scale: murder and the unending assault against memory. After years of blind obedience and misery, the Soviet people seem to awaken from a miserable dream in the late s and early s. Konstantin Chernenko tomb. It's an absolutely unprecedented, wacky, counterproductive request. Yet even the brief minute or so that visitors are allotted with Lenin leaves a lasting impression. The bodies of Kim and Mao do not look mach different from Lenin although they were embalmed years later. Here is Nina Andreyeva, the famous Stalinist of Leningrad still unrepentant , whose article in the hard-line newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya, "I Cannot Betray My Principles," seemed a harbinger of a reaction against perestroika. Remnick intrudes a little too much for my taste. Pyongyang is build as a showcase for the North Korean regime, this guide lists many of the giant communist monuments and architecture.
    [Show full text]