DOCSLIB.ORG

Leon Trotsky: 1905: Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leon Trotsky: 1905: Table of Contents Leon Trotsky: 1905: Table of Contents Leon Trotsky's 1905 Table of Contents Prefaces [To the First Edition, Second Edition and Preface to the German Editions] Part of the First St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers Deputies in 1905 Trotsky is in the middle row, fourth from the left. PART ONE Russia's Social Development and Tsarism Russian Capitalism Russian Capitalism The Peasantry and the Agrarian Question The Driving Forces of the Russian Revolution The Spring January Ninth The Strike in October The Creation of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies October Eighteenth Witte's Ministry The first Days of the "Freedoms" http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1905/index.htm (1 of 3) [06/06/2002 13:41:15] Leon Trotsky: 1905: Table of Contents The Tsar's Men at Work Storming the Censorship Bastilies Opposition and Revolution The November Strike Eight Hours and a Gun The Peasant Riots The Red Fleet On the Threshold of Counter-Revolution The Last Days of the Soviet December Summing Up Annexes The Proletariat and the Russian Revolution Our Differences The Struggle for Power On the Special Features of Russia's Historical Development Instead of a Preface to the Second Part 349 The Trial of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies The Soviet and the Prosecution My Speech Before the Court There Back http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1905/index.htm (2 of 3) [06/06/2002 13:41:15] Leon Trotsky: 1905: Table of Contents http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1905/index.htm (3 of 3) [06/06/2002 13:41:15] Leon Trotsky: 1905: Preface to the First Edition Leon Trotsky's 1905 Preface to the First Edition The events of 1905 formed a majestic prologue to the revolutionary drama of 1917. For a number of years, when the reaction was triumphant, the year 1905 appeared to us as a completed whole, as the Russian revolution. Today it has lost that independent nature, without at the same time forfeiting any of its historical significance. The revolution of 1905 grew directly out of the Russo -- Japanese war, just as the revolution of 1917 was the direct outcome of the great imperialist slaughter. In this way, both in its origins and in its development the prologue carried within it all the elements of the historical drama whose witnesses and participants we are today. But in the prologue these elements appeared in a compressed, not as yet fully developed form. All the forces engaged in the struggle of 1905 are today illuminated more clearly than before by the light cast back on them by the events of 1917. The Red October, as we used to call it even then, grew after twelve years into another, incomparably more powerful and truly victorious October. Our great advantage in 1905 was the fact that even during this phase of revolutionary prologue, we Marxists were already armed with the scientific method of comprehending historical processes. This enabled us to understand those relations which the material process of history revealed only as a series of hints. The chaotic July strikes of 1903 in the south of Russia had sup plied us with material for concluding that a general strike of the proletariat with its subsequent transformation into an armed rising would become the fundamental form of the Russian revolution. The events of January 9, a vivid confirmation of this prognosis, demanded that the question of revolutionary power be raised in concrete fashion. From that moment on, the question of the nature of the Russian revolution and its inner class dynamic became a burning issue among the Russian social democrats of that time. It was precisely in the interval between January 9 and the October strike of 1905 that those views which came to be called the theory of "permanent revolution were formed in the author's mind. This rather high-flown expression defines the thought that the Russian revolution, although directly concerned with bourgeois aims, could not stop short at those aims; the revolution could not solve its immediate, bourgeois tasks except by putting the proletariat into power. And the proletariat, once having power in its hands, would not be able to remain confined within the bourgeois framework of the revolution. On the contrary, precisely in order to guarantee its victory, the proletarian vanguard in the very earliest stages of its rule would have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations. While doing so it would enter into hostile conflict, not only with all those bourgeois groups which had supported it during the first stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasantry, with whose collaboration it -- the proletariat -- had come into power. The contradictions between a workers' government and an overwhelming majority of peasants in a backward country could be resolved only on an international scale, in the arena of a world proletarian revolution. Having, by virtue of historical necessity, burst the narrow bourgeois-democratic confines of the Russian revolution, the victorious proletariat would be compelled also to burst its national and state http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1905/pre.htm (1 of 6) [06/06/2002 13:41:26] Leon Trotsky: 1905: Preface to the First Edition confines, that is to say, it would have to strive consciously for the Russian revolution to become the prologue to a world revolution. Despite an interruption of twelve years, this analysis has been entirely confirmed. The Russian revolution could not culminate in a bourgeois-democratic regime. It had to hand power over to the working class. In 1905, the working class was still too weak to seize power; but subsequent events forced it to gain maturity and strength, not in the environment of a bourgeois-democratic republic, but in the underground of the Tsarism of June 3. The proletariat came to power in 1917 with the help of the experience acquired by its older generation in 1905. That is why young workers today must have complete access to that experience and must, therefore, study the history of 1905. As appendices to the first part of this book I have decided to print two articles, one of which (concerning Cherevanin's book)- was published in Kautsky's journal Neue Zeit in 1908; while the other, devoted to expounding the theory of "permanent revolution" and a polemic against views on this subject which were dominant within Russian social democracy at the time, was published (I believe in 1909) in a Polish party journal whose guiding spirits were Rosa Luxemburg and Leo Jogiches. It seems to me that these articles will not only make it easier for readers to orient themselves in the debate among Russian social democrats during the period directly following the first revolution, but will also shed a reflected light on certain extremely important problems of the present day. The seizure of power in October 1917 was by no means an improvisation as the ordinary citizen was inclined to believe, and the nationalization of factories and plants by the victorious working class was by no means an 'error" of the workers' government which, it is said, failed to give timely heed to the warning voice of the Mensheviks. These matters were discussed, and were solved in principle, over a period of a decade and a half. The debate over the character of the Russian revolution had, even during that period, gone beyond the confines of Russian social democracy and had engaged the attention of the leading elements of world socialism. The Menshevik conception of bourgeois revolution was expounded most conscientiously, that is to say, most badly and candidly, in Cherevanin's book. As soon as it appeared, the German opportunists seized hold of it with glee. At Kautsky's suggestion I wrote an analytical review of Cherevanin's book in Neue Zeit. At the time, Kautsky himself fully identified himself with my views. Like Mehring (now deceased), he adopted the viewpoint of "permanent revolution." Today, Kautsky has retrospectively joined the ranks of the Mensheviks. He wants to reduce his past to the level of his present. But this falsification, which satisfies the claims of an unclear theoretical conscience, is encountering obstacles in the form of printed documents. What Kautsky wrote in the earlier -- the better! -- period of his scientific and literary activity (his reply to the Polish socialist Ljusnia, his studies on Russian and American workers, his reply to Plekhanov's questionnaire concerning the character of the Russian revolution, etc.) was and remains a merciless reaction of Menshevism and a complete theoretical vindication of the subsequent political tactics of the Bolsheviks, whom thick-heads and renegades, with Kautsky today at their head, accuse of adventurism, demagogy, and Bakuninism. As my third appendix I print the article The Struggle for Power, published in 1915 in the Paris newspaper Nashe Slovo, which is a presentation of the idea that those political relations which became clearly outlined in the first revolution must find their culmination and completion in the second. This book lacks clarity on the question of formal democracy, as did the whole movement it describes. And this is not surprising: even ten years later, in 1917, our party was not yet completely clear in its own mind on this question. But this ambiguity, or lack of complete agreement, has nothing to do with matters http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1905/pre.htm (2 of 6) [06/06/2002 13:41:26] Leon Trotsky: 1905: Preface to the First Edition of principle. In 1917 we were infinitely far removed from the mystique of democracy; we envisaged the progress of revolution, not as the putting into operation of certain absolute democratic norms, but as a war between classes which, for their temporary needs, had to make use of the slogans and the institutions of democracy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reichman on Linden, 'Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: a Survey of Critial Theories and Debates Since 1917'
    H-Russia Reichman on Linden, 'Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: A Survey of Critial Theories and Debates since 1917' Review published on Monday, November 10, 2008 Marcel van der Linden. Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: A Survey of Critial Theories and Debates since 1917. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ix + 380 pp. $139.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-90-04-15875-7. Reviewed by Henry Reichman Published on H-Russia (November, 2008) Commissioned by Nellie H. Ohr A Fading Tradition This is a revised, corrected, updated, and expanded version of a work that began as a PhD dissertation and was originally published in Dutch in 1989 and again in German in 1992. Marcel van der Linden, a labor historian at Amsterdam University and executive editor of theInternational Review of Social History, summarizes an extraordinarily broad range of Western Marxist thinkers in an effort to understand how Marxists who were politically independent of the Soviet Union "theoretically interpreted developments in the Soviet Union" (p. 4). Noting that "in the history of ideas Marxist theories have not received the attention they deserve" (p. 2) and that "the 'Russian Question' was an absolutely central problem for Marxism in the twentieth century" (p. 1), van der Linden seeks simultaneously to shed light on both the Soviet experience and "the historical development of Marxist thought" (p. 1), succeeding perhaps more in the latter goal than the former. The book opens with a brief introduction, which postulates that the development of Western Marxist thinking about the Soviet Union was shaped by three "contextual clusters:" 1) "The general theory of the forms of society (modes of production) and their succession" adopted by differing Marxist thinkers; 2) the changing "perception of stability and dynamism of Western capitalism"; and 3) the various ways "in which the stability and dynamism of Soviet society was perceived" (pp.
    [Show full text]
  • When Fear Is Substituted for Reason: European and Western Government Policies Regarding National Security 1789-1919
    WHEN FEAR IS SUBSTITUTED FOR REASON: EUROPEAN AND WESTERN GOVERNMENT POLICIES REGARDING NATIONAL SECURITY 1789-1919 Norma Lisa Flores A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2012 Committee: Dr. Beth Griech-Polelle, Advisor Dr. Mark Simon Graduate Faculty Representative Dr. Michael Brooks Dr. Geoff Howes Dr. Michael Jakobson © 2012 Norma Lisa Flores All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Dr. Beth Griech-Polelle, Advisor Although the twentieth century is perceived as the era of international wars and revolutions, the basis of these proceedings are actually rooted in the events of the nineteenth century. When anything that challenged the authority of the state – concepts based on enlightenment, immigration, or socialism – were deemed to be a threat to the status quo and immediately eliminated by way of legal restrictions. Once the façade of the Old World was completely severed following the Great War, nations in Europe and throughout the West started to revive various nineteenth century laws in an attempt to suppress the outbreak of radicalism that preceded the 1919 revolutions. What this dissertation offers is an extended understanding of how nineteenth century government policies toward radicalism fostered an environment of increased national security during Germany’s 1919 Spartacist Uprising and the 1919/1920 Palmer Raids in the United States. Using the French Revolution as a starting point, this study allows the reader the opportunity to put events like the 1848 revolutions, the rise of the First and Second Internationals, political fallouts, nineteenth century imperialism, nativism, Social Darwinism, and movements for self-government into a broader historical context.
    [Show full text]
  • Leon Trotsky Three Concepts of the Russian Revolution 1
    Leon Trotsky Three Concepts of the Russian Revolution 1 The Revolution of 1905 came to be not only the “general rehearsal” of 1917 but also the laboratory in which all the fundamental groupings of Russian political life were worked out and all the tendencies and shadings inside Russian Marxism were projected. At the core of the arguments and divergences was, needless to say, the question concerning the historical nature of the Russian Revolution and its future course of development. That conflict of concepts and prognoses has no direct bearing on the biography of Stalin, who did not participate in it in his own right. The few propagandist articles he wrote on that subject are utterly devoid of theoretical interest. Scores of Bolsheviks who plied the pen popularised the same thoughts, and did it considerably better. Any critical exposition of Bolshevism’s revolutionary concepts naturally belongs in a biography of Lenin. But theories have their own fate. Although during the period of the First Revolution [1905] and subsequently, as late as 1923, at the time when the revolutionary doctrines were elaborated and applied, Stalin had no independent position whatever, a sudden change occurred in 1924, which opened an epoch of bureaucratic reaction and radical transvaluation of the past. The film of the revolution was unwound in reverse order. Old doctrines were subjected either to a new evaluation or a new interpretation. Thus, rather unexpectedly at first glance, attention was focused on the concept of “permanent revolution” as the prime source of all the fallacies of “Trotskyism”. For many years to come criticism of that concept formed the main content of all the theoretical – sit venio verbo – writings of Stalin and his collaborators.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FIRST PRAVDA and the RUSSIAN MARXIST TRADITION by JAMES D
    THE FIRST PRAVDA AND THE RUSSIAN MARXIST TRADITION By JAMES D. WHITE I THE appearance of the first Pravdal is an episode of the Bolshevik party's history which has never received any systematic treatment either by Western or Soviet scholars. It is an aspect of the I905 revolution which the party historians and memoirists have been for the most part very eager to forget, and since Western investigators have apparently been unaware of its existence they have allowed its consignment to oblivion to take place without comment. That this first Pravda to be connected with the Bolshevik party is not widely known is hardly surprising, because in this case the exclusion from the historical record took place long before the Bolshevik party came to power. For, following the 1905 revolution, Pravda's editor, A. A. Bogdanov, was subjected to the kind of campaign of silence which was a foretaste of those later applied to Trotsky and Stalin. Nevertheless, the journal Pravda and the group of intellectuals associated with it occupy an important place in the history of Bolshevism. Indeed, it is true to say that without reference to this periodical Russian intellectual history would be incomplete and the evolution of Russian Marxism imperfectly understood. Although Pravda would certainly merit a more extended study both as a source and as a historical event in itself, the present paper is limited to a description of the circumstances which attended the appearance of the journal, the group of people who surrounded it, and an attempt to place it in its ideological context.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Bolshevil{S and the Chinese Revolution 1919-1927 Chinese Worlds
    The Bolshevil{s and the Chinese Revolution 1919-1927 Chinese Worlds Chinese Worlds publishes high-quality scholarship, research monographs, and source collections on Chinese history and society from 1900 into the next century. "Worlds" signals the ethnic, cultural, and political multiformity and regional diversity of China, the cycles of unity and division through which China's modern history has passed, and recent research trends toward regional studies and local issues. It also signals that Chineseness is not contained within territorial borders ­ overseas Chinese communities in all countries and regions are also "Chinese worlds". The editors see them as part of a political, economic, social, and cultural continuum that spans the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, South­ East Asia, and the world. The focus of Chinese Worlds is on modern politics and society and history. It includes both history in its broader sweep and specialist monographs on Chinese politics, anthropology, political economy, sociology, education, and the social­ science aspects of culture and religions. The Literary Field of New Fourth Artny Twentieth-Century China Communist Resistance along the Edited by Michel Hockx Yangtze and the Huai, 1938-1941 Gregor Benton Chinese Business in Malaysia Accumulation, Ascendance, A Road is Made Accommodation Communism in Shanghai 1920-1927 Edmund Terence Gomez Steve Smith Internal and International Migration The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Chinese Perspectives Revolution 1919-1927 Edited by Frank N Pieke and Hein Mallee
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginning of the End: the Political Theory of the Gernian Conmunist Party to the Third Period
    THE BEGINNING OF THE END: THE POLITICAL THEORY OF THE GERNIAN CONMUNIST PARTY TO THE THIRD PERIOD By Lea Haro Thesis submitted for degree of PhD Centre for Socialist Theory and Movements Faculty of Law, Business, and Social Science January 2007 Table of Contents Abstract I Acknowledgments iv Methodology i. Why Bother with Marxist Theory? I ii. Outline 5 iii. Sources 9 1. Introduction - The Origins of German Communism: A 14 Historical Narrative of the German Social Democratic Party a. The Gotha Unity 15 b. From the Erjlurt Programme to Bureaucracy 23 c. From War Credits to Republic 30 II. The Theoretical Foundations of German Communism - The 39 Theories of Rosa Luxemburg a. Luxemburg as a Theorist 41 b. Rosa Luxemburg's Contribution to the Debates within the 47 SPD i. Revisionism 48 ii. Mass Strike and the Russian Revolution of 1905 58 c. Polemics with Lenin 66 i. National Question 69 ii. Imperialism 75 iii. Political Organisation 80 Summary 84 Ill. Crisis of Theory in the Comintern 87 a. Creating Uniformity in the Comintern 91 i. Role of Correct Theory 93 ii. Centralism and Strict Discipline 99 iii. Consequencesof the Policy of Uniformity for the 108 KPD b. Comintern's Policy of "Bolshevisation" 116 i. Power Struggle in the CPSU 120 ii. Comintern After Lenin 123 iii. Consequencesof Bolshevisation for KPD 130 iv. Legacy of Luxemburgism 140 c. Consequencesof a New Doctrine 143 i. Socialism in One Country 145 ii. Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the 150 Emergence of the Third Period Summary 159 IV. The Third Period and the Development of the Theory of Social 162 Fascism in Germany a.
    [Show full text]
  • GRADUATE READING LIST for IMPERIAL RUSSIA History Department University of Pennsylvania
    GRADUATE READING LIST FOR IMPERIAL RUSSIA History Department University of Pennsylvania (Spring 2017) ORGANIZATION 1. Overviews and general studies 2. Early Modern and Muscovite Russia 3. Peter the Great 4. XVIII Century 5. Pre-Reform Russia: 1801-1861 6. Post-reform Russia: 1861-1905 7. Revolution and War, 1905-1917 1. Overviews and General Studies of Particular Aspects of Russian History Afiani, V. Iu. Rossiia. Khronika osnovnykh sobytii. IX-XX veka. Moscow: Rosspen, 2002. Anisimov, E. Imperatorskaia Rossiia . Moscow-St. Petersburg: Piter, 2008. Billington, James. The Icon and the Axe. An Interpretive History of Russian Culture . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966. Black, Cyril. Ed. The Transformation of Russian Society . Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Pres, 1967. Brumfield, William. A History of Russian Architecture . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Burbank, Jane. “An Imperial Rights Regime: Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire.” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 7, no. 3 (Summer 2006), 397-432. Cherniavsky, Michael. Ed. The Structure of Russian History . New York: Random House, 1970. Dixon, Simon. The Modernization of Russia . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Dukes, Paul. The Making of Russian Absolutism, 1612-1801 . London: Longmans, 1982. Edie, James, James Scanlan, Mary-Barbara Zeldin. Eds. Russian Philosophy . 3 vols. Knoxville : University of Tennessee Press, 1976. Eroshkin, N. Istoriia gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii . 3rd ed. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1983; many other editions. Fedotov, G. P. The Russian Religious Mind . 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1966. Figes, Orlando. Natasha’s Dance: A Cultural History of Russia. New York: Picador, 2002. Florovsky, George. Puti russkogo bogosloviia .
    [Show full text]
  • Trotsky and the Problem of Soviet Bureaucracy
    TROTSKY AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET BUREAUCRACY by Thomas Marshall Twiss B.A., Mount Union College, 1971 M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1972 M.S., Drexel University, 1997 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2009 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Thomas Marshall Twiss It was defended on April 16, 2009 and approved by William Chase, Professor, Department of History Ronald H. Linden, Professor, Department of Political Science Ilya Prizel, Professor, Department of Political Science Dissertation Advisor: Jonathan Harris, Professor, Department of Political Science ii Copyright © by Thomas Marshall Twiss 2009 iii TROTSKY AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET BUREAUCRACY Thomas Marshall Twiss, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2009 In 1917 the Bolsheviks anticipated, on the basis of the Marxist classics, that the proletarian revolution would put an end to bureaucracy. However, soon after the revolution many within the Bolshevik Party, including Trotsky, were denouncing Soviet bureaucracy as a persistent problem. In fact, for Trotsky the problem of Soviet bureaucracy became the central political and theoretical issue that preoccupied him for the remainder of his life. This study examines the development of Leon Trotsky’s views on that subject from the first years after the Russian Revolution through the completion of his work The Revolution Betrayed in 1936. In his various writings over these years Trotsky expressed three main understandings of the nature of the problem: During the civil war and the first years of NEP he denounced inefficiency in the distribution of supplies to the Red Army and resources throughout the economy as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Trotsky‟S Struggle Against Stalinism
    International Relations and Diplomacy, September 2020, Vol. 8, No. 09, 398-408 doi: 10.17265/2328-2134/2020.09.003 D DAVID PUBLISHING Hero as Pariah: Trotsky‟s Struggle Against Stalinism Dibyajit Mukherjee Prabhat Kumar College, West Bengal, India Leon Trotsky‟s contribution to the Marxist position in philosophy and his role in the Russian Revolution of October 1917 had been politically maneuvered, tampered with, fabricated and covered by a muck heap of Stalinist slander. By Stalinism, I am referring to the narrative which was born from the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union, after the failure of working class to consolidate and capture state power in Hungary, Germany, Italy and other western countries which was materially in an advanced position than early 20th Century Russia. It was also the political ideology which was born as a result of civil far, famine, pandemic and the invasion of the newly formed Russian worker‟s state by more than fifteen foreign countries with colonial objectives. Trotsky‟s role in creating the Red Army, which was a different to that of a standing army and supporters of Trotsky in the Left Opposition were not only vilified and charged with false accusations but violently purged. In this paper I have highlighted how Stalinism marked a revolution against the revolution of 1917 and how Trotsky continuously struggled against the bureaucratic despotism over the working class in post 1917 Russia. Keywords: bureaucracy, Stalinism, privileged caste, permanent revolution, Trotsky Introduction In his reminiscences of Lenin, Maxim Gorky has related a conversation he had with him. When in the course of it, he mentioned the hostility shown by certain Bolshevists to Trotsky, Lenin banged his fist upon the table and said: Show me another man who could have practically created a model army in a year and won the respect of the military specialists as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction 11. I Have Approached This Subject in Greater Detail in J. D
    NOTES Introduction 11. I have approached this subject in greater detail in J. D. White, Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism (Basingstoke and London, 1996). 12. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 180. 13. K. Marx, Grundrisse, translated by M. Nicolaus (Harmondsworth, 1973), p. 408. 14. N. I. Ziber, Teoriia tsennosti i kapitala D. Rikardo v sviazi s pozdneishimi dopolneniiami i raz"iasneniiami. Opyt kritiko-ekonomicheskogo issledovaniia (Kiev, 1871). 15. N. G. Chernyshevskii, ‘Dopolnenie i primechaniia na pervuiu knigu politicheskoi ekonomii Dzhon Stiuarta Millia’, Sochineniia N. Chernyshevskogo, Vol. 3 (Geneva, 1869); ‘Ocherki iz politicheskoi ekonomii (po Milliu)’, Sochineniia N. Chernyshevskogo, Vol. 4 (Geneva, 1870). Reprinted in N. G. Chernyshevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochineniy, Vol. IX (Moscow, 1949). 16. Arkhiv K. Marksa i F. Engel'sa, Vols XI–XVI. 17. M. M. Kovalevskii, Obshchinnoe zemlevladenie, prichiny, khod i posledstviia ego razlozheniia (Moscow, 1879). 18. Marx to the editorial board of Otechestvennye zapiski, November 1877, in Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 196–201. 19. Marx to Zasulich, 8 March 1881, in Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 346–73. 10. It was published in the journal Vestnik Narodnoi Voli, no. 5 (1886). 11. D. Riazanov, ‘V Zasulich i K. Marks’, Arkhiv K. Marksa i F. Engel'sa, Vol. 1 (1924), pp. 269–86. 12. N. F. Daniel'son, ‘Ocherki nashego poreformennogo obshch- estvennogo khoziaistva’, Slovo, no. 10 (October 1880), pp. 77–143. 13. N. F. Daniel'son, Ocherki nashego poreformennogo obshchestvennogo khozi- aistva (St Petersburg, 1893). 14. V. V. Vorontsov, Sud'by kapitalizma v Rossii (St Petersburg, 1882).
    [Show full text]
  • Rosa Luxemburg, the Legacy of Classical German Philosophy and the Fundamental Methodological Questions of Social and Political Theory1
    Rosa Luxemburg, the legacy of classical German philosophy and the 1 fundamental methodological questions of social and political theory By Doğan Göçmen For Narihiko ITO sensei in friendship and respect In the preparation of the 15th International Rosa Luxemburg Conference of 2007 in Tokyo I feel now that there begins a new epoch in Rosa Luxemburg research. This means to us Rosa Luxemburg researchers that we are bound, with our Rosa Luxemburg research, to overcome globalised capitalism and imperialism. Narihiko ITO In this dialectical, as is taken here, and herewith in the grasping of opposition in its unity or of the positive in the negative consists the Speculative. It is the most important side, but for thought power still not trained, not free, the most difficult one. G. W. F. Hegel Introductory Remarks Luxemburg is very popular. She personally enjoys great sympathy among almost all leftwing parties and groups and even among various schools of bourgeois academics. Curious it is, her intellectual and political work occupies however hardly the place in research and debates, 1 This paper draws on my paper presented to the 15th International Rosa Luxemburg Conference in Tokyo (April 1-2, 2007). I thank International Rosa Luxemburg Society very much for giving me the opportunity to present this paper. I owe also many special thanks to Professor Narihiko Ito sensei for his generous support, without which I could hardly appear at the conference. 1 which she deserves. Even among leftwing political movements broadly speaking her name is often reduced to not more than a mere popular symbolism.
    [Show full text]