DOCSLIB.ORG

453601 1 En Bookbackmatter 187..240

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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’. For now, I seek to draw to a conclusion the forays I have made deep into Stalin’s texts and thought, before dealing with the question of veneration and demonization. Implications for Socialism in Power There is no need to summarise my arguments here, for I have done so in the introduction. Instead, I seek to develop the consequences of the topics I have studied in some detail, with a distinct focus on the situation of socialism in power. I follow the order of the chapters in dealing with the main topics, although they coalesce around the core question of the socialist state. To begin with, the exercise © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 187 R. Boer, Stalin: From Theology to the Philosophy of Socialism in Power, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-6367-1 188 Conclusion in tracking, with some effort, the biblical tenor of Stalin’s thought and mode of expression may be seen for what it is: a comprehensive effort to show how deeply the patterns of biblical, if not theological, expression permeate Russian culture, even in the context of the multi-faith society that the Soviet Union was in reality. Obviously, in other contexts where this tradition does not run deeply or is peripheral, one must begin again with assessing the philosophical and religious background.1 More pertinent to my discussion here is what I called the ‘scriptural dynamic’ of any movement that relies on the interpretation of specific texts written by founders. Rather than simple oppositions between ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘revisionism’ or ‘deviations’, or indeed ‘letter’ and ‘spirit’, Stalin’s approach is to adhere to the letter in light of the spirit. In other words, Marxism is a living tradition, which faces unforeseen and unexpected situations that require new developments and inter- pretations. One might agree or disagree with the nature of certain contribution to the tradition (and many disagree with Stalin, attempting to excise him from the tradi- tion), but this only highlights the ongoing nature of the tradition. Second, one of Stalin’s signal discoveries is the production of diversity out of unity, if not of a totalising approach. This point may have been rediscovered much later in the very different context of the challenge to ‘master narratives’ charac- teristic of postmodern debates, where the liberal celebration of difference and tol- erance led to no position at all, while the determination of a totalising explanation produces whole new levels of diversity (McHale 1992).2 The context for Stalin was quite different, born out of the complex and hectic practice of trying to construct socialism. In this context, he faced significant challenges, whether the expectation of a universal language when global socialism had arrived, or the push from socialist parties (or subsections thereof) for the primacy of cultural-national factors in dealing with the national question, or the tendencies of Great Russian chauvinism in the context of the Soviet Union, or indeed the pressures from Western European socialist parties (especially in Germany) where they had begun to accommodate themselves to the multi-party system of liberal or bourgeois democracy. Stalin’s answers wove a distinct line that held to the dynamic of interpreting the spirit through the letter. Thus, in terms of language, he came gradually to a position that I called Pentecostal—given how the biblical stories of Adam, Babel and Pentecost have shaped in so many ways the linguistic theories emerging from the wider European and indeed Russian scene. In response to the cultural-national focus of different socialist parties, he focused resolutely on the international category of class in seeking a new way to deal with the national question, with the result that the many nationalities of what became the Soviet Union by and large discovered themselves in a way not seen before. This theoretical position led to the first 1For example, as Mao Zedong put it in a very different context, ‘The history of this great nation of ours goes back several thousand years. It has its own laws of development, its own national characteristics, and many precious treasures … From Confucius to Sun Yatsen, we must sum it up critically, and we must constitute ourselves the heirs to this precious legacy’ (Mao 2004, 538). 2McHale’s observation applies directly to Fredric Jameson’s unfashionable—at the time—de- ployment of the master narrative of Marxism to understand postmodernism. Conclusion 189 comprehensive affirmative action program in the Soviet Union, which not only fostered, if not created, minority nationalities, but also had to weave a delicate path in countering Great Russian chauvinism and recognising the Russians too as an important nationality. This affirmative action policy has been followed in other socialist states. Terry Martin (2001a, 18) may argue that ‘no country as yet has approached the vast scale of Soviet Affirmative Action’, but by now it is clear that China has both learnt and surpassed the Soviet Union, especially after the revision of its policy in the 1990s (after the dismantling of the Soviet Union). In this case, the integrity of China’s borders has been strengthened while the minorities policy has become much more robust and far-reaching (Mackerras 2003, 39). Further, the push from other socialist parties to accommodate to a liberal democratic system was firmly resisted in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasants, which entailed that the Communist Party should continue to hold the reins of power. The third main topic concerned the delay of communism, which I sought to interpret in light of a translation with the Christian delay of the Parousia. The main point here is that such a delay was highly productive, leading to an awareness of the need for a strong socialist state (see below), the development of stages of socialism and communism, as well as what I have called proleptic communism. I have nothing further to add here on proleptic communism, so let me focus on the dis- tinction between socialism and communism, which was initially developed by Lenin through the interpretation of a key passage in Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, a distinction that Stalin eventually came to apply. Initially, socialism was seen as a transitional stage, but soon enough the interim became the norm, so much so that socialism itself was divided into stages. Speaking after the 1936 constitution, Stalin delineated a second stage of socialism, after the internal class opponents had by and large been vanquished, and after the massive socialist offensive of the late 1920s and 1930s. In this second stage, peaceful development (reform) continued, while one remained very watchful of international opponents. Once again, I draw a Chinese comparison, where one finds a theory of the stages of socialism as well. Indeed, as I write, China under Xi Jinping is preparing for the shift to a moderately prosperous society in all respects (xiaokang shehui), or a socialistically modernised country (shehuizhuyi xiandaihua guojia) in light of the two centenaries, one of the foundation of the CPC and other of the People’s Republic. This may also be interpreted as preparing for a shift from first or pre- liminary stage of socialism to the next stage. This shift entails many dimensions, such as ensuring that as many as people as possible no longer live in poverty, a whole new level of economic activity with the Belt and Road initiative, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the acceleration of one of the most significant domestic infrastructure projects in recent history, and the development of cultural, social and welfare needs beyond economic issues. The preparation also entails focusing on Party unity and strength (the anti-corruption campaign has this as one of its main aims) so to enact these policies, regular study groups for all Party members for the sake of raising the awareness of members, and regular statements to the press, educational bodies, writers and artists, among others, that they should develop creativity and robust approaches in 190 Conclusion light of socialism with Chinese characteristics (Boer in press-b).
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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”.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalist Crises Vs. Socialist Progress
    We publish the Statement by the International Action Center, which in concrete terms tells what the situation is and asks for world solidarity support for the Palestinian people. This barbarity by Israel, with the backing of US Imperialism produced demonstrations all over the world in such numbers that frightened even Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama alike. Since 1948, the United Nations have adopted scores of resolutions condemning Israel expansionism, killings and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land. Why then is the situation getting worse and no solutions found? The answer is very simple: The Israel expansionist policy fits very well with US expansionist policy, and together with Imperialism they Divide and Rule - for now! URGENT APPEAL TO PROTEST BOMBING AND SIEGE BY ISRAEL OF PALESTINE GAZA For 60 years, Israel has persecuted the Palestinian people with impunity in defiance of the United Nations General Assembly and United Nations Security Council Resolutions, orders of the International Court of Justice, International Law and fundamental human rights. Throughout all these years, Israel has proclaimed itself the victim as it grew richer, more powerful and more violent, while the Palestinians were abused, impoverished, divided and demeaned. A consistent tactic of Israel through all of these years has been to divide and conquer the Palestinians against their most effective leading organizations. Through most of these years Israel had attacked FATAH, Now it is HAMAS that Israel attacks. But there is only one Palestinian
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]