Sunday, January 26, 2020
Yippie! Pop
What is puzzling and exhilarating in Hoffman's pairing is the political distinction he draws between his two progenitors:"If the country becomes more repressive we must become Castro s. If it becomes more tolerant we must become Warhols."The first half of this prescription is ordinary enough. When times are bad,activists use force. But the second part is mystifying.Warhol-the paragon of indifference and passivity,the celebrity groupie and ambitious art world operator- is held up as a model of politics appropriate for "tolerant times." In this essay I will reflect on this surprising assertion. I will try to understand Hoffman's declaration by sketching out what a Warholian politics might be and why it is particularly well-suited to"tolerant times."Before I turn to Warhol,I need to establish Hoffman's under-standing of media politics. And for this there is no better source than Hoffman himself. Yippie! actions were premised on soliciting and addressing the media through what Daniel Boorstin famously called pseudo-events.
Abbie Hoffman Andy Warhol and Sixties Media Politics
DAVID JOSELIT
In his 1968 manifesto,Revolution for the Hell of lt, Abbie Hoffman wrote:
DAVID JOSELIT
In his 1968 manifesto,Revolution for the Hell of lt, Abbie Hoffman wrote:
Did you ever hear Andy Warhol talk? ...Well,I would like to combine his style and that of Castro's. Warhol understands modern media. Castro has the passion for social change.It's not easy. One's a fag and the other is the epitome of virility. If I were forced to make the choice I would choose Castro,but right now in this period of change in the country the styles of the two can be blended. It's not guerrilla warfare but,well maybe a good term is monkey warfare. If the country becomes more repressive we must become Castros. If it becomes more tolerant we must become Warhols. 1
Castro and Warhol:what strange bedfellows And indeed Hoffman hints at a queer union-why else would he explicitly label Warhol a"fag"?But for Hoffman,the yippie! activist who built a movement by capturing free publicity on TV,the nature of this fantasy is genealogical not erotic.2 In their combination of radical politics and a ruthless understanding of media culture, yippie!s are indeed the legitimate progeny of Castro and Warhol.
What is puzzling and exhilarating in Hoffman's pairing is the political distinction he draws between his two progenitors:"If the country becomes more repressive we must become Castro s. If it becomes more tolerant we must become Warhols."The first half of this prescription is ordinary enough. When times are bad,activists use force. But the second part is mystifying.Warhol-the paragon of indifference and passivity,the celebrity groupie and ambitious art world operator- is held up as a model of politics appropriate for "tolerant times." In this essay I will reflect on this surprising assertion. I will try to understand Hoffman's declaration by sketching out what a Warholian politics might be and why it is particularly well-suited to"tolerant times."Before I turn to Warhol,I need to establish Hoffman's under-standing of media politics. And for this there is no better source than Hoffman himself. Yippie! actions were premised on soliciting and addressing the media through what Daniel Boorstin famously called pseudo-events.
Only the Shadow Knows: Andy Warhol's Art of Self-Invention and the Legacy of Man Ray
Reframing Andy Warhol: Constructing American Myths, Heroes, and Cultural Icons, 1998
As an American artist who transcended his ethnic immigrant roots, Man Ray blazed a trail that Andy Warhol would follow in the next generation. Obsessed with the public perception of his work and his legacy, Man Ray innovatively employed self-portraiture as key to the construction of his persona just as would Warhol decades later. In the great distance between their ethnic roots and the cosmopolitan figures they were to become, the range of self-portraits both artists created played a fundamental role in this transformation. Although Man Ray’s self-portraits are intricately related to the construction of modernism and Warhol’s work in the same vein relates to the process of its deconstruction, their self-portrayals are bound by the same obsessive desire to control and fabricate their public image. As the sons of Eastern European immigrants, neither ever fully shed the sense of himself as outsider, ultimately adopting a notion of marginalized observer as intrinsic to his artistic persona. Whether in the avant-garde Parisian circles between the World Wars or in the celebrity spotlight of the sixties Pop scene, both artists straddled the border between participants and observers in their lives and their art.
Page Numbers: 18-26
Publication Date: 1998
Publication Name: Reframing Andy Warhol: Constructing American Myths, Heroes, and Cultural Icons
Jonathan E. Schroeder (1997) ,"Andy Warhol: Consumer Researcher", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 24, eds. Merrie Brucks and Deborah J. MacInnis, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 476-482 Jonathan Schroeder
Jonathan Schroeder
This paper "breaks out of the box" by discussing the work of the artist Andy Warhol as a form of consumer research. The paper asserts that Warhol’s career- successful artist, experimental filmmaker, prolific writer and diarist, celebrity-offers insights into consumer culture that reinforces, expands, and illuminates aspects of traditional consumer research. Through illustrations, criticism, and interpretation, five specific areas of consumer research that Warhol’s work might contribute to are introduced: brand equity; clothing, fashion and beauty; imagery; packaging; and self-concept. This project joins recent efforts by consumer researchers to include humanities based methods such as literary criticism and semiotics into the consumer researcher’s toolbox.
 |
| Andy Warhol, Campbell’s Soup Can and Dollar Bills, 1962 |
The Divine Simulacrum Of Andy Warhol:Baudrillard's Light On The Pope Of Pop's"Religious Art"
a review of
The Religious Art of Andy Warhol, Jane Daggett Dillenberger. (New York: Continuum,1998); 128 pages, $39.95.
By Benjamin Bennett-Carpenter
From explicitly religious art to art that ‘is, but isn’t’ “religious,” from that which lies beyond art, such as objects of veneration, to a postmodern iconography of simulacra,Andy Warhol contributes significantly to the negotiation of twentieth, and now twenty-first,century culture in America and beyond. His influence on contemporary art, religion and culture is recognized and will continue to increase as thinkers pursue questions about image and reality, representation, originality, visual culture, identity, and sexuality, not to mention technology, spirituality, business, and God. Of Warhol’s multiple contributions, several stand out in particular. Warhol’s explicitly religious art, especially brought to light in Jane Daggett Dillenberger’s recent publication,
The Religious Art of Andy Warhol, reveals a transformation of traditional religious images and themes into lively twentieth century religious art. But beyond his explicitly religious works as highlighted by Daggett Dillenberger’s book, one can see that Warhol’s entire oeuvre has “religious” qualities,producing an art that ‘is, but isn’t,’ religious. Further, Warhol is significant for his part in what Jean Baudrillard calls the ‘disappearance of art,’ a kind of transfiguration of art into objects of veneration. Finally, in line with Baudrillard’s thought regarding the ‘successive phases of the image’ and the ‘disappearance of God’ into simulacra, Warhol produces images like that of Marilyn Monroe that no longer represent reality but offer a simulacra, never-ending play of signs among signs stretching to infinity.
The Religious Art of Andy Warhol
As early as 1964, Warhol received the tag of “Saint Andy.”[1] This title, however, referred more to his immense popularity among the young Pop and independent film crowd, and to the authentically innocent facade of Warhol’s physical appearance than to religious devotion. Not until his death did news of Warhol’s relationship to the spiritual come to serious attention by the public. John Richardson’s eulogy of Warhol at his memorial mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in the spring of 1987 asked his audience to “recall a side of [Warhol’s] character that he hid from all but his closest friends: his spiritual side,”
Andy Warhol's Confession: Love, Faith and AIDS
Andy Warhol: From A to B and Back Again , 2018
Jessica Beck
Jessica Beck
Jessica Beck is the Milton Fine Curator of Art at The Andy Warhol Museum. Beck has curated many projects, including "Andy Warhol: My Perfect Body" and "Devan Shimoyama: Cry, Baby," the artist’s first solo-exhibition, which debuted at The Warhol in the fall of 2018 to great acclaim from The New York Times and The Burlington Contemporary. Beck has published with The Whitney Museum of American Art, The Cantor Center for the Arts, Gagosian Quarterly, and Burlington Magazine. Outside of The Warhol, Beck served as the visiting scholar at Carnegie Mellon School of Art from 2017-2018. She completed her MA with distinction from the Courtauld Institute of Art.
Andy Warhol’s Ancestry: Facts, Myths, and Mysteries
Elaine Rusinko
Associate Professor Emerita
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
January 7, 2019
Andy Warhol is the most famous American of Carpatho-Rusyn descent, but questions about his ethnicity persist. This study explores the Warhola-Zavacky family’s ethnic background and traces Warhol’s ancestry based on archival evidence, uncovering new, unanticipated information.
When asked about his background, Andy Warhol told his associate and biographer Bob Colacello,“I come from nowhere.” Rarely noted is the fact that his uncertain geographical origin was amplified by a genealogical void. He confided to Colacello, “I never had a grandmother. Isn’t that strange?”
To be sure, Andy never knew his grandparents, who lived and died in Europe, but they surely endured in the shadows of memory. His brother Paul recalls, “Mother
often talked about the relatives in Miková. She used to t=ell stories about the grandparents.”
And according to Andy’s brother John, his mother Julia Zavacky was concerned that the history of “where I came from” would be lost after her death, and therefore she told her children “such good stories.”
Unfortunately, those stories were not recorded contemporaneously. Instead, they were handed down in myths and legends, with more or less credibility. Of special interest for Warhol’s genealogy is a family story, told to Colacello by second-generation American Warhol as, that one of Julia’s grandmothers was Jewish. From this, he that the Zavackys’ “Jewish blood” made them “outsiders among outsiders. (Like Andy.)”
While Colacello’s conclusion is contradicted by evidence of an extensive Zavacky
familial and communal network, there is, in fact, some mystery surrounding Julia’s maternal
line. And while it is not unusual for Rusyn-American families to pass down legends of a mysterious Jewish or “Gypsy” member of the family tree,such tales rarely stand up to scrutiny.Although they may contain a kernel of truth, family tales often cloud, rather than clarify, the picture.
Andy Warhol’s Carpatho-Rusyn background
Starting with the ethnic label, Carpatho-Rusyn, a few words of background are in order.Carpatho-Rusyns, also known as Rusyns, Rusnaks, Carpatho-Russians, and Ruthenians, are astateless people whose homeland today straddles the borders of five European countries.
"We Are All Warhol's Children: Andy and the Rusyns"
The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies, 2012
Elaine Rusinko
Andy Warhol is the world’s most famous American of Carpatho-Rusyn ancestry, and the icons of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church were his first exposure to art. His unexpected death in 1987 was followed by the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the rise of the Rusyn movement for identity, which embraced the flamboyant pop artist, filmmaker, and jet setter as their iconic figurehead. From their own idiosyncratic perspective, the traditional, religious, provincial Rusyns have reconstructed the image of Andy Warhol, pointing up aspects of the artist that have gone largely unnoticed. In a reciprocal process, Andy has had a significant impact on the Rusyn movement and on the recognition of Rusyns worldwide. This study establishes Warhol’s Carpatho-Rusyn ethnicity and explores its possible influence on his persona and his art. It also analyzes the Rusyns’ reception of Warhol, with a focus on the history of the Warhol Museum of Modern Art in Slovakia. The author concludes that recognition of the Rusyn Andy contributes to a distinctive perspective on the American Warhol.
Publication Date: 2012
Publication Name: The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies
Y. Nakonechnyi Stolen Name. Why Rusyns Turned into Ukrainians
Natalia Pavliuk
Translation from Ukrainian.
Stolen Name, Why Rusyns Turned into Ukrainians is one of his publications where history studies are combined with linguistic research, which made it possible to provide a complete picture of the Ukrainian history through the life of the name of our nation, starting from the earliest years to the present-day.
The books reveals precise facts from the history of Ukraine and Russia which make it clear, how easily imperial historians falsely interpreted the facts and even rewrote them deliberately for political purposes of the ruling regime.Y. Nakonechnyi's Stolen Name is a book of great power of persuasion, all statements supported by references to authentic materials and scientific research. Being a profound study, it is nonetheless read as an adventure story, full of exciting events and discoveries. Written in 2001, it seems to contain answers to a great number of questions of today, not only for Ukraine and Russia but also for the whole world.
Natalia Pavliuk
Translation from Ukrainian.
Stolen Name, Why Rusyns Turned into Ukrainians is one of his publications where history studies are combined with linguistic research, which made it possible to provide a complete picture of the Ukrainian history through the life of the name of our nation, starting from the earliest years to the present-day.
The books reveals precise facts from the history of Ukraine and Russia which make it clear, how easily imperial historians falsely interpreted the facts and even rewrote them deliberately for political purposes of the ruling regime.Y. Nakonechnyi's Stolen Name is a book of great power of persuasion, all statements supported by references to authentic materials and scientific research. Being a profound study, it is nonetheless read as an adventure story, full of exciting events and discoveries. Written in 2001, it seems to contain answers to a great number of questions of today, not only for Ukraine and Russia but also for the whole world.
N.A. ROZHKOV: HIS BOLSHEVIK YEARS AND THE ORIGIN OF HIS POLEMICS WITH LENIN
Revolutionary Russia Vol 18, No. 1, June 2005, pp. 1–22
John Gonzalez
It is ironic, to say the least, that for a long time now the little known name of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov (1868–1927) has been used to substantiate a range of claims about the world’s most famous revolutionary – Lenin. Despite numerous one-line references, so little has been written about Rozhkov that readers are unable to evaluate the validity of any statement written about him or his relationship to others, including Lenin. This article attempts to begin to address this issue by providing a very brief biography of Rozhkov, with particular reference to his revolutionary work in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and his relationship with Lenin up to 1908.
Painful though it is for Marxists to lose in the person of N. R-kov, a man who, in the years when the movement was on the upgrade served the workers’ party faith-fully and energetically, the cause must take precedence over all personal or factional considerations, and over all recollections, however ‘pleasant’.R-kov is not a phrase-monger; he is a man of deeds and, as such, starts at the begin-ning and goes the whole hog.Lenin on Rozhkov, 1911 While his name appears in numerous footnotes, a serious study of N.A. Rozhkov has yet to be written.
Nevertheless, everything from Lenin’s ‘policeman’s mentality’ to his cruel, misanthropic nature has been illustrated by his relationship to Rozhkov. Rozhkov has even been used to demonstrate Krupskaia’s loyalty to her husband. On 13 December 1922, despite having had two paralytic attacks and being in very poor health, Lenin ignored the advice of doctors and found the strength to summon his secretary Fotieva to his apartment in the Kremlin and dictated three letters to her.One of these was a letter to Stalin for the Central Committee Plenum in which he once again called for Rozhkov’s deportation.
Far from being an ‘arbitrary and wayward’ decision,Lenin’s perseverance to have Rozhkov deported, or at least to have him exiled to Pskov, stemmed not only from his determination to have the Politburo follow his instructions but from knowing Rozhkov and having kept track of his revolutionary work for over 16 years. Rozhkov has been dismissed as a ‘minor Menshevik historian with a Bolshevik past’ or even as just ‘another free-thinker’,
but this is unfair. He was one of V.O. Kliuchevskii’s most gifted disciples and the most influential Russian Marxist historian of the late imperial and early Soviet period of Russia’s history.
Revolutionary Russia Vol 18, No. 1, June 2005, pp. 1–22
John Gonzalez
It is ironic, to say the least, that for a long time now the little known name of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov (1868–1927) has been used to substantiate a range of claims about the world’s most famous revolutionary – Lenin. Despite numerous one-line references, so little has been written about Rozhkov that readers are unable to evaluate the validity of any statement written about him or his relationship to others, including Lenin. This article attempts to begin to address this issue by providing a very brief biography of Rozhkov, with particular reference to his revolutionary work in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and his relationship with Lenin up to 1908.
Painful though it is for Marxists to lose in the person of N. R-kov, a man who, in the years when the movement was on the upgrade served the workers’ party faith-fully and energetically, the cause must take precedence over all personal or factional considerations, and over all recollections, however ‘pleasant’.R-kov is not a phrase-monger; he is a man of deeds and, as such, starts at the begin-ning and goes the whole hog.Lenin on Rozhkov, 1911 While his name appears in numerous footnotes, a serious study of N.A. Rozhkov has yet to be written.
Nevertheless, everything from Lenin’s ‘policeman’s mentality’ to his cruel, misanthropic nature has been illustrated by his relationship to Rozhkov. Rozhkov has even been used to demonstrate Krupskaia’s loyalty to her husband. On 13 December 1922, despite having had two paralytic attacks and being in very poor health, Lenin ignored the advice of doctors and found the strength to summon his secretary Fotieva to his apartment in the Kremlin and dictated three letters to her.One of these was a letter to Stalin for the Central Committee Plenum in which he once again called for Rozhkov’s deportation.
Far from being an ‘arbitrary and wayward’ decision,Lenin’s perseverance to have Rozhkov deported, or at least to have him exiled to Pskov, stemmed not only from his determination to have the Politburo follow his instructions but from knowing Rozhkov and having kept track of his revolutionary work for over 16 years. Rozhkov has been dismissed as a ‘minor Menshevik historian with a Bolshevik past’ or even as just ‘another free-thinker’,
but this is unfair. He was one of V.O. Kliuchevskii’s most gifted disciples and the most influential Russian Marxist historian of the late imperial and early Soviet period of Russia’s history.
Contents ........................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 6
Notes on Names, Texts and Dates ................................................................................... 7
Chapter One: Historiographical and Historical Context ............................................. 8
i) 1899-1903 in the Context of Russian Social-Democratic History and Theory ......... 12
ii) Historiographical Trends in the Study of Lenin and the RSDLP ............................. 23
iii) How the thesis develops previous work ................................................................... 39
A: The Struggle Between Revolutionary Marxism and Economism...............................50
Chapter Two: Autumn 1899-Summer 1900: Ideology ............................................... 51
i) Two Contrasting Programmes ................................................................................... 55
ii) Lenin and Rabochee Delo ......................................................................................... 64
iii) A Secret Alliance is Exposed ................................................................................... 71
iv) Economism ............................................................................................................... 76
v) Some Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 82
Chapter Three: Autumn 1899-Autumn 1901: Organisational Tactics ...................... 84
i) Rabochaia Gazeta ...................................................................................................... 86
ii) The Declarations of the Editorial Board of Iskra ..................................................... 94
iii)Lenin’s ‘reinsertion’ of the Plekhanovites back into the RSDLP ........................... 104
iv) Some Conclusions .................................................................................................. 118
B: The Struggle Between Democratic Centralism and Federalism ...............................120
Chapter Four: November 1901-February 1903: Party Democracy......................... 121
i) Two Contrasting Methods of Organising a Congress ............................................. 126
ii)Revolutionary Marxism and Reformism in the Context of RSDLP Democracy ...... 139
iii) The Reconstitution of the Organising Committee and its Work ............................ 145iv)The Jewish Bund ..................................................................................................... 156
iv) Some conclusions ......................................................160
Chapter Five: December 1902-August 1903: Struggle ............................................ 169
i) The Resistance Campaign of the Bund and the Economists .................................... 173
ii) Historiographical Trends in the Study of Lenin and the RSDLP ............................. 23
iii) How the thesis develops previous work ................................................................... 39
A: The Struggle Between Revolutionary Marxism and Economism...............................50
Chapter Two: Autumn 1899-Summer 1900: Ideology ............................................... 51
i) Two Contrasting Programmes ................................................................................... 55
ii) Lenin and Rabochee Delo ......................................................................................... 64
iii) A Secret Alliance is Exposed ................................................................................... 71
iv) Economism ............................................................................................................... 76
v) Some Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 82
Chapter Three: Autumn 1899-Autumn 1901: Organisational Tactics ...................... 84
i) Rabochaia Gazeta ...................................................................................................... 86
ii) The Declarations of the Editorial Board of Iskra ..................................................... 94
iii)Lenin’s ‘reinsertion’ of the Plekhanovites back into the RSDLP ........................... 104
iv) Some Conclusions .................................................................................................. 118
B: The Struggle Between Democratic Centralism and Federalism ...............................120
Chapter Four: November 1901-February 1903: Party Democracy......................... 121
i) Two Contrasting Methods of Organising a Congress ............................................. 126
ii)Revolutionary Marxism and Reformism in the Context of RSDLP Democracy ...... 139
iii) The Reconstitution of the Organising Committee and its Work ............................ 145iv)The Jewish Bund ..................................................................................................... 156
iv) Some conclusions ......................................................160
Chapter Five: December 1902-August 1903: Struggle ............................................ 169
i) The Resistance Campaign of the Bund and the Economists .................................... 173
ii) Elements within the Iskra Faction Break with Lenin’s Organisational Plan ......... 182
iii) How the Revolutionary Marxists Split at the Second Congress ............................ 193
iv) How Martov changed his stance ........................................................................... 201
v) Some Conclusions ................................................................................................... 210
Chapter Six: Summary and General Conclusions ................................................... 214
Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 229
The Marxist Ideology of G.V. Plekhanov
The Marxist Ideology of G.V. Plekhanov,
Ella Feldman Belfer, Doctoral Dissertation:
Supervised by Michael Confino, Tel Aviv University, 1972
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction: The Paradox.vii
Part I:
Plekhanov the Father of Russian Marxism.1
1.From Narodnichestvo to Marxism- From Zemlia i Voliato Gruppa Osvobozhdenie Truda.
2.Gruppa Osvobozhdenie Truda - Its First Decade.24
A. The Ideological Battles and the Crystallization(towards Maximalism)
3.Gruppa Osvobozhdenie Truda - Its First Decade.56
B.The Growth - from Gruppa to Union.
Part II:
The Gruppa’s Second Decade - Against the "Right". 64
In Defense - Against Revisionism, Economism and the Union. 85
Iskra Zaria - The Collaboration with Lenin. 196
The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. 168
Part Ill:
The Third Decade - Between Bolshevism and Menshevism. 187
FromIskra to the Diary of a Social Democrat.192
The 1905 Revolution. 209
Plekhanov - A Menshevik. In the Avant-guard Against Lenin. 232
From Golos Sotsial-Demokrata to Edinstvo. 269
PartIV:
From Dogmatism to Pragmatism.309
The War.310
Plekhanov and the February and October Revolutions.
The Shepherd without a Flock.347
Conclusion: The Circle Completed 388
Notes
Bibliography
In the first section of my work, I shall discuss Plekhanov's transition to Marxism as a background*to the formulation of his ideology in the years 1800-82; the formation of the Gruppa Osvovozhdenie Truda and a survey of its development; the development of Plekhanov’s ideology in these years; the attempts to disseminate Marxist teachings among the Russian revolutionaries, and the success of the Gruppa in this direction;the broadening of the Gruppa into the Union (1883-94).
The second section covers the ideological struggle against Revisionism(1898) and against Economism, his personal struggle against the Union that ended with the creation of Iskra-Zaria in December 1900, and culminated in the preparations for the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.(1893-1903).
The third section will discuss Plekhanov’s transition from collaboration with Lenin against Economism, to their parting immediately after the Congress of July 1903; from then Plekhanov began his struggle against Lenin’s "left"; his "bourgeois" attitude to the 1905 Revolution as part of his struggle against the left; his role and anti-Bolshevik attitude in the Fourth Congress (the United, April 1906) , and the Fifth,(London, April 1907); from this to a new struggle against the "right"(liquidationism, 1909-12), and during all these years increasing efforts at re-unification of the party (1903-14)
In the fourth section I shall survey Plekhanov's attitude to the First World War, and the revolution of February 1917, prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, and afterwards (1914-17).
All dates are given as recorded in the references — Gregorian in the Russian references, Julian in the Western.
Ella Feldman Belfer, Doctoral Dissertation:
Supervised by Michael Confino, Tel Aviv University, 1972
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction: The Paradox.vii
Part I:
Plekhanov the Father of Russian Marxism.1
1.From Narodnichestvo to Marxism- From Zemlia i Voliato Gruppa Osvobozhdenie Truda.
2.Gruppa Osvobozhdenie Truda - Its First Decade.24
A. The Ideological Battles and the Crystallization(towards Maximalism)
3.Gruppa Osvobozhdenie Truda - Its First Decade.56
B.The Growth - from Gruppa to Union.
Part II:
The Gruppa’s Second Decade - Against the "Right". 64
In Defense - Against Revisionism, Economism and the Union. 85
Iskra Zaria - The Collaboration with Lenin. 196
The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. 168
Part Ill:
The Third Decade - Between Bolshevism and Menshevism. 187
FromIskra to the Diary of a Social Democrat.192
The 1905 Revolution. 209
Plekhanov - A Menshevik. In the Avant-guard Against Lenin. 232
From Golos Sotsial-Demokrata to Edinstvo. 269
PartIV:
From Dogmatism to Pragmatism.309
The War.310
Plekhanov and the February and October Revolutions.
The Shepherd without a Flock.347
Conclusion: The Circle Completed 388
Notes
Bibliography
In the first section of my work, I shall discuss Plekhanov's transition to Marxism as a background*to the formulation of his ideology in the years 1800-82; the formation of the Gruppa Osvovozhdenie Truda and a survey of its development; the development of Plekhanov’s ideology in these years; the attempts to disseminate Marxist teachings among the Russian revolutionaries, and the success of the Gruppa in this direction;the broadening of the Gruppa into the Union (1883-94).
The second section covers the ideological struggle against Revisionism(1898) and against Economism, his personal struggle against the Union that ended with the creation of Iskra-Zaria in December 1900, and culminated in the preparations for the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.(1893-1903).
The third section will discuss Plekhanov’s transition from collaboration with Lenin against Economism, to their parting immediately after the Congress of July 1903; from then Plekhanov began his struggle against Lenin’s "left"; his "bourgeois" attitude to the 1905 Revolution as part of his struggle against the left; his role and anti-Bolshevik attitude in the Fourth Congress (the United, April 1906) , and the Fifth,(London, April 1907); from this to a new struggle against the "right"(liquidationism, 1909-12), and during all these years increasing efforts at re-unification of the party (1903-14)
In the fourth section I shall survey Plekhanov's attitude to the First World War, and the revolution of February 1917, prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, and afterwards (1914-17).
All dates are given as recorded in the references — Gregorian in the Russian references, Julian in the Western.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)