Capitalist Crises Vs. Socialist Progress
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Socialism in One Country” Promoting National Identity Based on Class Identification
“Socialism in One Country” Promoting National Identity Based on Class Identification IVAN SZPAKOWSKI The Russian Empire of the Romanovs spanned thousands of miles from the Baltic to the Pacific, with a population of millions drawn from dozens of ethnic groups. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks inherited the problem of holding together such a heterogeneous body. At the same time, they were forced to uphold Marxist ideology demanding worldwide revolution of the proletariat while facing the reality that despite the turmoil following the First World War no such revolution was forthcoming. In 1924 the rising Joseph Stalin, along with Nikolai Bukharin, devised the theory of “Socialism in One Country” which would become the solution to many of these problems facing the Bolsheviks. First of all, it proclaimed the ability of socialism to succeed in the Soviet Union alone, without foreign aid. Additionally, it marked a change from Lenin’s policy of self-determination for the Soviet Union’s constituent nations to Stalin’s policy of a compulsory unitary state. These non-Russian ethnics were systematically and firmly incorporated into the Soviet Union by the promotion of a proletariat class mentality. The development of the theory and policy of “Socialism in One Country” thus served to forge the unitary national identity of the Soviet Union around the concept of common Soviet class identity. The examination of this policy’s role in building a new form of national identity is dependant on a variety of sources, grouped into several subject areas. First, the origin of the term “Socialism in One Country,” its original meaning and its interpretation can be found in the speeches and writings of prominent contemporary communist leaders, chief among them: Stalin and Trotsky. -
How Hitler's and Stalin's Views of Conflict and War
HOW HITLER’S AND STALIN’S VIEWS OF CONFLICT AND WAR IMPACT TODAY’S WORLD A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Studies By Diane R. Tucker, M.S. Georgetown University Washington, D.C. November 29, 2010 HOW HITLER’S AND STALIN’S VIEWS OF CONFLICT AND WAR IMPACT TODAY’S WORLD Diane R. Tucker, M.S. MALS Mentor: Joseph P. Smaldone, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Hitler and Stalin viewed conflict and war as simply an extension of politics. This thesis compares and contrasts the political philosophies and belief systems of Hitler and Stalin relating to the nature and purpose of conflict and war. In developing the thesis, I drew upon literature regarding political philosophy, philosophy and psychology of conflict and war, and the relationship between leaders’ belief systems and conflict behavior. It further discusses how their actions, based on those philosophies and beliefs, impact today’s world. The thesis begins with a description of the political, economic, and social background of Germany and Russia, and how Hitler’s and Stalin’s experiences and personalities contributed to the formation of their basic views on society, conflict and war, and the future. Subsequent chapters provide a detailed comparison of their respective ideologies. Pertinent aspects of the history of Germany and Russia through World War II are explored, revealing how Hitler’s and Stalin’s perspectives evolved because of changing events as the war progressed. -
The Shadow and the Substance of Lenin After 150 Years
134 Мир России. 2020. № 4 The Shadow and the Substance of Lenin after 150 Years A. MARSHALL* *Alex Marshall – DSc in History, Senior Lecturer, University of Glasgow. Address: History, Room 406, 1 University Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] Citation: Marshall A. (2020) The Shadow and the Substance of Lenin after 150 Years. Mir Rossii, vol. 29, no 4, pp. 134–149. DOI: 10.17323/1811-038X-2020-29-4-134-149 150 years since Lenin’s birth marks an anniversary that raises questions around Lenin’s meaning today and his ultimate historical legacy. By distinguishing both Lenin the man, and the cult of commemoration that for 60 years surrounded him, from the core method behind Lenin’s own thought, this article addresses the question of if and why Lenin still matters in Europe today. It does so by arguing for an Ilyenkovian reading of Lenin’s main ideas and contributions. The current condition of European politics is, to a significant degree, still a by-product of the rejection of ‘Leninism’ after 1989, Leninism having evolved after 1924 into a sociological construct designed predominantly to facilitate the accelerated industrialization of backward societies. The rejection of Leninism as an alternate form of modernity led, via a consciously post-modern moment in central and eastern Europe, to the substitution of ‘memory politics’, fostering a more openly competitive political culture focused around race, identity, religious faith, and often radical ethnic nationalism. The dangers of such an outcome were foreshadowed in the concerns of the Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov, who sought in the 1960s and 1970s to counterbalance the rise of neopositivist thinking in his era by revisiting the dialectics of the ideal first explored by Marx and Lenin. -
What Is the Real Marxist Tradition?
What is the Real Marxist Tradition? John Molyneux Originally published in International Socialism 2:20, July 1983 Published in book form, Bookmarks, London, 1985 Originally published in International Socialism 2:20, July 1983 Published in book form in February 1985 by Bookmarks, London Downloaded with thanks from the Marxisme Online Website Transcribed and marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL) Converted to ebook format June 2020 Cover photographs: L-R: Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky Wikimedia Commons At the time of ebook conversion this title was available in hardcopy from Haymarket Books: https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/806-what-is-the-real-marxist- tradition/ Contents Part One: What is Marxism 1. The Class Basis of Marxism 2. The Scientific Status of Marxism 3. From Practice to Theory – The Unity of Marxism Part Two: The Transformations of Marxism 1. Kautskyism 2. Stalinism 3. Third World Nationalism 4. The Authentic Marxist Tradition Part One What is Marxism? As in private life one distinguishes between what a man thinks and says of himself and what he really is and does, still more in historical struggles must one distinguish the phrases and fancies of the parties from their real organism and their real interests, their conception of themselves from their reality. - Karl Marx, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte “All I know,” said Marx, “is that I’m not a Marxist.” What in the 1870s was a neat dialectical joke has since been transformed into a major political problem. The one hundred years since Marx’s death have seen the emergence of innumerable divergent and conflicting “Marxisms”. -
COMMUNIST MODERNITY: Politics and Culture of Soviet Utopia SLA 420 / ANT 420 / COM 424 / RES 420 (EM) (EM) Communism Is Long
Professor: Serguei A. Oushakine Seminar S01: 1:30 pm - 4:20 pm W COMMUNIST MODERNITY: Politics and Culture of Soviet Utopia SLA 420 / ANT 420 / COM 424 / RES 420 (EM) (EM) Communism is long gone but its legacy continues to reverberate. And not only because of Cuba, China or North Korea. Inspired by utopian ideas of equality and universal brotherhood, communism was originally conceived as an ideological, socio-political, economic and cultural alternative to capitalism’s crises. The attempt to build a new utopian world was costly and brutal: equality was quickly transformed into uniformity; brotherhood evolved into the Big Brother. The course provides an in-depth review of these contradictions between utopian motivations and oppressive practices in the Soviet Union. By reading major political texts of the period we will trace the emergence and dissipation of revolutionary ideas. Key cultural documents of the time will introduce us to crucial elements of communist modernist aesthetics that have not lost their relevance even today. Through historical documents, fiction and film, the course will present central players of Soviet Utopia: from Vladimir Lenin to Kazimir Malevich; from Joseph Stalin to Sergei Eisenstein. Requirements: 1. Class participation, one class presentation, and eight weekly position papers – 35% 2. Midterm paper “Representing Soviet Utopia” (~2000 words) – 35% 3. Final Wikipedia project on Communist Modernity – 30% Film screenings are a part of general assignment; films will be digitized and made available through Blackboard (some are available on youtube). Please, have copies of assigned texts with you. To encourage active exchanges in class, I ask you not to use your laptops; they tend to distract and alienate. -
Stalinism and Kimilsungism 135
ASIAN PERSPECTIVE, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2000, pp. 133-161 ST ALINISM AND KIMILSUNGISM: A COMPAR A TIVE ANALYSIS OF IDEOLOGY AND POWER* Seong-Chang Cheong Since the 1970s, North Korean leaders have denied and even tried to eradicate any traces of Stalinist influence in the North Korean political system. Thus, today it is difficult to bring to light the role Stalinism played in the formation of North Korean politics. However, in order to understand fully the present nature of the DPRK socialist system, its indispensable Stalinist roots cannot be ignored. This arti - cle examines the ties between Stalinism, defined as a “radical variant of Leninism,” and Kimilsungism, defined as the ideology and system of power instituted by Kim Il Sung. In doing so, the article analyzes the establishment of a monolithic ideological system; the rehabilitation of state and nation; the interrelations between Stalinism, Maoism, and the idea of juche; personal power; suppression of oligarchy; and the political culture of terror. In t r o d u c t i o n Since the 1970’s, Pyongyang’s leaders have denied and even tried to eradicate any traces of Stalinist influence in the forma- tion of the North Korean political system. Thus, today it is diffi- *The author would like to thank Leonid A. Petrov, Michael A. MacInnis, and Uhm Sookyong for their very helpful suggestions. 134 Seong-Chang Cheong cult to discern the role Stalin’s regime played in the Kim Il Sung regime. Due to certain difficulties related to the lack of available materials that can shed light on this question, research on the peculiarities of the Stalinist system suffers from both quantita- tive and qualitative shortcomings. -
Left Progressive Review Volume 1, Issue 2 (2014)
FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY Left ProgressiveLeft Review Volume 1, Issue 2 (2014) Progressive Review Volume 1, Issue 2 December 2014 0 The Periodical of the Stalin Society Pakistan Left Progressive Review Volume 1, Issue 2 (2014) Left Progressive Review (The Periodical of the Stalin Society Pakistan) Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2014 STALIN SOCIETY PAKISTAN PUBLICATIONS ¤ Lahore ¤ Karachi ¤ Hyderabad ¤ Jacobabad 1 Left Progressive Review Volume 1, Issue 2 (2014) Left Progressive Review The Left Progressive Review is the official periodical of the Stalin Society Pakistan (StSP). Editor-in-Chief Editorial Board Saad Yousaf Aahni, Pakistan Kamran Abbas, Pakistan Shadab Murtaza, Pakistan Editor Usman Iftkhar, Pakistan Yameen Jatoi, Pakistan Advisory Board Layout Editor Vijay Singh, India IT Cell-StSP, Pakistan Zane Carpenter, UK Alfonso Casal, USA Title Cover Image Mushtaq Ali Shan, Pakistan A Portrait of ‘Stalin’ by a thirteen Sajjad Zaheer, Pakistan year old Iraqi girl, Najat Ghanem Shaukat Ali Chaudhry, Pakistan Access the Left Progressive Review online at https://stalinsocietypk.wordpress.com or you may request your copy by writing at [email protected]. To contact the Editor write at [email protected]. The views presented in the Left Progressive Review are those of the respective authors and should not be constructed as the official views of the Stalin Society Pakistan (StSP) or its any constituent body. 2 Left Progressive Review Volume 1, Issue 2 (2014) Table of Contents Speech at 19th Party Congress J. V. Stalin…………………………………………………………………………..……………05 Stalin Pablo Miranda ………..………………………………………………………………………….07 Grover Furr: The Continuing Revolution in Stalin-Era Soviet History LALKAR………………....……………………………………………………………………….14 Mother's memoir reveals sensitive Stalin The Telegraph……………………………………………………………………………………25 Interview: Jacob Jugashvili – Stalin’s Grandson Malayalanatu……………………………………………………………………………….…....26 Socialism and Islam – FAQs Dr. -
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Socialist Realist Science
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Socialist Realist Science: Constructing Knowledge about Rural Life in the Soviet Union, 1943-1958 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Maya Haber 2013 © Copyright by Maya Haber 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Socialist Realist Science: Constructing Knowledge about Rural Life in the Soviet Union, 1943-1958 By Maya Haber Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professor J. Arch Getty, Chair Agriculture was one of the most vexing problems confronting the Soviet state at the end of the war. In 1943, as the Red Army began liberating Nazi occupied territories, and the state had to collectivize the local population anew, social scientists were called upon to study and address the economic and social problems plaguing the collective farm system. After a decade of dormancy, soviet economists, ethnographers, and statisticians regained their legitimacy by reconstructing their disciplines as distinctly socialist and endeavoring to provide the state with much-needed information in order to better govern its kolkhoz population. Critical issues of the kolkhoz economy, social structure and cultural practices had been neglected for nearly two decades. The postwar soviet state lacked knowledge about the impact of its pricing, taxation and procurement policies on the kolkhoz household. Producing this knowledge was not an easy task. A socialist social science had to square the progressive narrative of socialist realism with a realist depiction of social reality. While the latter was necessary to help the state govern, the former rendered the science socialist. -
The Rise of the Stalin Personality Cult
2 The rise of the Stalin personality cult The task of the construction of images of Lenin and Stalin, the geniuses who created Socialism, and their closest comrades, is one of the most responsible creative and ideological tasks that art has ever faced. Aleksandr Gerasimov1 ‘Tell me,’ Sklyansky asked, ‘what is Stalin?’ ‘Stalin,’ I said, ‘is the outstanding mediocrity in the party.’ Lev Davidovich Trotskii2 The personality cult of Stalin draws from a long tradition in which leaders in precarious positions of power sought to strengthen legitimacy and unite their citizens into an entity that identified as a collective whole. This chapter is devoted to examining how a persona was created for Stalin via the mechanism of the cult. The question will be approached from two angles: first, by an overview of artistic production under Stalin; and, second, by outlining some of the devices that were used to construct the symbolic persona encompassed by the name ‘Stalin’. The cult of Stalin was built on the foundations of the Lenin cult, allowing Stalin to gain legitimacy as Lenin’s most appropriate successor, and Stalin was subsequently positioned as 1 Quoted in Igor Golomshtok, Totalitarian art in the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, fascist Italy and the People’s Republic of China, New York, Icon Editions, 1990, p. 226. 2 Leon Trotskii, ‘Lenin’s death and the shift of power’, My life, www.marxists.org/archive/ trotsky/1930/mylife/ch41.htm (accessed 25 May 2012). 87 THE PERSONALITY CUlt OF StaliN IN SOVIET POSTERS, 1929–1953 a great Marxist theoretician and revolutionary thinker, alongside Marx, Engels and Lenin. -
Language, Historiography and Economy in Late- and Post-Soviet Leningrad
Language, Historiography and Economy in late- and post-Soviet Leningrad: “the Entire Soviet People Became the Authentic Creator of the Fundamental Law of their Government.” Xenia A. Cherkaev Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2015 © 2015 Xenia A. Cherkaev All Rights Reserved Abstract: Language, Historiography and Economy in late- and post-Soviet Leningrad: “the Entire Soviet People Became the Authentic Creator of the Fundamental Law of their Government.” Xenia A. Cherkaev This dissertation is about holes. It begins by analyzing the proverbial “hole in the fence” at late-Soviet enterprises: the way that workers pragmatically employed the planned economy's distribution rules by actions that were both morally commendable and questionably legal. It then analyzes the omission of this hole in perestroika economic analysis, which devoted surprisingly little attention to enterprises' central role in providing welfare and exerting social control, or to employees' pragmatic employment of the enterprises' rules. This analytic hole is compounded by a historiographic one: by the omission of the post-1956 omission of Stalin's name from public mention. Framing the perestroika reforms against “Stalinism,” perestroika-era texts typically trace the start of de-Stalinization to Khrushchev's “Cult of Personality” speech, after which Stalin's name disappeared from textbooks; rather than to the post-1953 reforms that fundamentally restructured labor, economic and punitive institutions to create characteristically late-Soviet methods of retaining and motivating labor: including the widespread disciplinary lenience that allowed workers to pragmatically employ enterprise rules. -
Solzhenitsyn's Submissive Sheep of Today: The
LABRIE_PP_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 4/25/2019 4:26 PM Solzhenitsyn’s Submissive Sheep of Today: The United States’ Susceptibility to Dictatorial Takeover and Presidential Overreach Derek LaBrie* ABSTRACT: The expansion of executive power in the United States began in the aftermath of the nation’s involvement in World War II. Slightly earlier, the Soviet Union’s expansion of executive power began in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution. Aside from chronology, there were few differences between the expansion of executive power fostered by both global superpowers early in their nationhood. For example, both countries pride themselves in strong executive power, including primarily the ability to detain perceived enemies, convicts, and war criminals. The United States judiciary has repeatedly given enormous deference to the President on these issues, allowing the President to detain individuals nearly absolutely. Furthermore, the ostensible constraints the Constitution places on presidential power have been weakened by judicial precedent, such that the President can easily evade those constraints. Lastly, without a firm definition of what constitutes war, the President has acquired the authority to exercise wartime prerogatives and commit troops without congressional authorization. This Note posits a hypothetical scenario, mirroring the Stalin regime’s Gulags, against which to test current United States law’s weak constraints. The few limitations that have been placed on the Executive Branch have been inadequate and are in desperate need of repair. In the face of little congressional opposition, Presidents have expanded executive power. One such power is virtually unlimited discretionary detention power. In order to reign in this expansive power, the United States should pass and ratify a new constitutional amendment aimed at limiting executive power. -
453601 1 En Bookbackmatter 187..240
Conclusion We must know whether Stalin took his own publicly avowed doctrines seriously. The evidence is overwhelming that he did (Van Ree 2002a, 118). This book has been an extraordinary journey, for me at least. I began working on the book with a distinctly European focus, coming to the Soviet situation from further west (if one thinks of a Eurasian context). By its end, the Soviet Union had become a north-western phenomenon. How so? By this time, I was ever more deeply ensconced in the context of Chinese Marxism. In some respects, then, this book is as much the beginning of an effort to think through the Chinese situation as the end of an effort to understand western Eurasian Marxism through the lens of theology and religion. Part of this is due to the fact that in the 1930s and 1940s in China, Stalin’sinfluence—including his theoretical work—was larger than many are willing to admit. And partly it is due to the situation of socialism in power. Stalin was the first leader to find the necessity of developing the living—rather than ossified—tradition of Marxism in light of the very different situation of actually exercising power. As I have mentioned earlier, both Lenin and Mao pointed out repeatedly that winning a socialist revolution is relatively easy, but exercising power in the construction of socialism is far, far more complex. And the founders had relatively little to say on this score, since they had never been in this situation. More of all this later, beyond the current book, as part of long project called ‘Socialism in Power’.