Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Nikolai Vavilov in the years of Stalin's ‘Revolution from Above’ (1929–1932)

Abstract
This paper examines new evidence from Russian archives to argue that Soviet geneticist and plant breeder, Nikolai I. Vavilov's fate was sealed during the ‘Cultural Revolution’ (‘Revolution from Above’) (1929–1932). This was several years before Trofim D. Lysenko, the Soviet agronomist and widely portrayed archenemy and destroyer of Vavilov, became a major force in Soviet science. During the ‘Cultural Revolution’ the Soviet leadership wanted to subordinate science and research to the task of socialist reconstruction. Vavilov, who was head of the Institute of Plant Breeding (VIR) and the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VASKhNIL), came under attack from the younger generation of researchers who were keen to transform biology into a proletarian science. The new evidence shows that it was during this period that Vavilov lost his independence to determine research strategies and manage personnel within his own institute. These changes meant that Lysenko, who had won Stalin's support, was able to gain influence and eventually exert authority over Vavilov. Based on the new evidence, Vavilov's arrest in 1940 after he criticized Lysenko's conception of Non-Mendelian genetics was just the final challenge to his authority. He had already experienced years of harassment that began before Lysenko gained a position of influence. Vavilov died in prison in 1943.
The Reintegration of the Russian Empire and the Bolshevik Views of "Russia": 
The Case of the Moscow Party Organization


Author(s) Ikeda, Yoshiro

After the years of the civil war much of the former imperial territory appeared to be reintegrated by the Bolsheviks. The process of reintegration itself took the form of the conquest of the peripheries.6 But the notion of “Russia” remained ambiguous for the Bolshevik regime. In connection with this we cannot avoid Agurskii’s study on so-called national Bolshevism. According to him, in the years of the NEP, an emigrant ideology of national Bolshevism, which considered the Bolshevik regime as the only real political power able to reintegrate and develop the “one, indivisible Russia” and called on technocrats to support it, found resonance within the party. By tolerating and even promoting currents of Russian nationalism in culture and politics, the leaders of the party, and especially Stalin, caught up and introduced this ideology into the party policy for the consolidation of the legitimacy of the regime. Thus, Agurskii explained the intensive emergence of Russian nationalism in the USSR of the NEP era. The study of Agurskii is pioneering in making clear many aspects of the underground dialogue between the emigrant statist movement of the Change of Landmarks and the Bolshevik regime. However, if he assumes that the Bolshevik government tolerating the Russian nationalist currents in Soviet society, had been seeking reinforcement of the cultural and political hegemony of the Russian ethnicity (and judging from his attention to the writers whose main theme was the Russian peasantry, he seems to do so), then he is not correct. It seems that in 1920s and afterwards the Bolshevik regime had aimed not so much for the hegemony of ethnic Russians, as for the consolidation of a supra-ethnic entity. To make this matter clear, I will turn to the recent studies of the Bolshevik nationality policy in the 1920s and later. These studies had made clear that the 4 Here I depend on the argument of Anthony Smith that “the nation has come to blend two sets of dimensions, the one civic and territorial, the other ethnic and genealogical.” Anthony D. Smith, National Identity (Reno, 1991), p. 15. Especially on the “civic nation,” see, ibid., p. 116. 5 Sanborn, Drafting the Russian Nation, pp. 21-38; David Brandenberger, National Bolshevism: Stalinist Mass Culture and the Formation of Modern Russian National Identity, 1931-1956 (Cambridge, 2002), ch. 1. 
New Revolutionary Agenda: The Interwar Japanese Left on the “Chinese Revolution”
Tatiana Linkhoeva, New York University

Abstract
To achieve socialist revolutions in Asia, the Third Communist International (Comintern)
recommended to Asian revolutionaries the strategy of a united front comprising the
proletariat and the national bourgeoisie, which would prioritize the anti-colonial and
 anti-imperialist struggle. The early Japanese Communist Party (JCP) (1922–1926) resisted this
recommendation, which lumped together colonized India and semi-colonized China with the
only empire in Asia, Japan. The JCP insisted on the priority of the domestic national struggle,
arguing that without toppling the imperial government at home by means of a socialist
revolution, there could be no dismantling of Japanese imperialism and therefore no Chinese
Revolution. After the outbreak of Japanese aggression in China in 1927 (the first Shantung
intervention in May of that year) and the rise of popular nationalist support for the empire at
home, members of the Japanese Left recognized that they had failed to properly engage with
Japanese imperialism in Asia. Based on Comintern archives and the writings of leading
Japanese Communists, this article argues that, as a strategy to rebrand and redeem itself in the
new critical situation in Asia, the Japanese Left began to regard the Chinese Revolution as the
only path to liberation, not only for Asia but for Japan as well.
Keywords: Japanese Communism, Chinese Revolution, Comintern, Japanese imperialism
The Soviet experiment with Pure Communism*
Introduction
In 1957, forty years after the Russian revolution, Michael Polanyi (HE IS THE RIGHT WING NEO CON BROTHER OF KARL POLANYI)  summarized
the state of Soviet studies by pointing out that despite, or because of the fact
that “volume upon volume of excellent scholarship [was] rapidly accumulating
on the history of the Russian Revolution … The Revolution [was] about to be
quietly enshrined under a pyramid of monographs.” This condition continues
to persist even after seventy years of reflection upon one of the most fateful
events in political–economic history. Despite heroic efforts by Paul Craig
Roberts and Laszlo Szamuely  to lift the Revolution from underneath the debris
of wood pulp, confusion still permeates historical discussion of the meaning of
the Soviet experience with Communism.4 “We have forgotten,” as Polyanyi
wrote, “what the Russian Revolution was about: that it set out to establish a
money-less industrial system, free from the chaotic and sordid automation of
the market and directed instead scientifically by one single comprehensive
plan.”5
The grand debate over the Soviet experience from 1918 to 1921 revolves
around whether the Bolsheviks followed policies that were ideological in origin
or were forced upon them by the necessity of civil war. If Bolshevik economics
was ideological, then Marxian socialism must confront the failure of its utopia
to achieve results that are even humane, let alone superior to capitalism. If it
was spawned by an emergency, then the Soviet experience from 1918 to 1921
does not provide any lesson for the economic assessment of socialism. (Some
recent authors wish to argue that the policies now known as “War Communism”
were produced by both ideology and emergency, and, as a result, they
fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the Soviet experience with
socialism.)6 In order to evaluate these opposing interpretations, let me first lay
out points of agreement and conflict among those interpreters of the Soviet
experience with socialism who have established the two poles of the grand
debate......
SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=WAR+COMMUNISM
SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=SOVIET+UNION
SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=STATE+CAPITALISM 
SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=RUSSIAN+REVOLUTION
SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=RUSSIA 
SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=COMMUNISM


by R Dunayevskaya - ‎Cited by 3 - ‎Related articles
general conclusions than State Capitalism and World Revolution. I. In this slim ... The singular Raya DunayevskayaRussian-born intellectual and secretary to ...
Image result for State Capitalism and World Revolution.



"Commitment and Crisis: Jews and American Communism"

Tony Michels

(Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison)

Introduction

During the 1920s, Jews formed the American Communist Party’s most important
base of support. The party’s Jewish Federation, its Yiddish-speaking section, claimed
around 2,000 members or 10% of the party’s overall membership in mid-decade. Yet
that figure hardly conveys the extent of Jewish involvement with Communism during the
1920s. To begin with, a significant number of Jews were members of the party’s
English-, Russian-, Polish-, and Hungarian-speaking units. Moreover, Communism’s
influence among Jews extended far beyond the narrow precincts of party membership.
The Communist Yiddish daily, Di frayhayt, enjoyed a reputation for literary excellence
and reached a readership of 20,000-30,000, a higher circulation than any Communist
newspaper, including the English-language Daily Worker. Jewish Communists built a
network of summer camps, schools for adults and children, cultural societies, theater
groups, choirs, orchestras, and even a housing cooperative in the Bronx that encompassed
tens of thousands of Communist Party members, sympathizers, and their families.
Finally, Communists won a strong following among Jewish workers in the needle trades
and even came close to capturing control of the International Ladies Garment Workers
Union between 1923 and 1926. (A remarkable seventy percent of ILGWU members
belonged to Communist-led locals during those years.) Viewed through the lens of
immigrant Jewry, then, Communism's golden age was not the Great Depression but
rather the preceding decade.

Raya Dunayevskaya Archive

1910–1987

Raya Dunayevskaya Archive
“ Ours is the age that can meet the challenge of the times when we work out so new a relationship of theory to practice that the proof of the unity is in the Subject’s own self-development. Philosophy and revolution will first then liberate the innate talents of men and women who will become whole. Whether or not we recognise that this is the task history has ‘assigned’, to our epoch, it is a task that remains to be done.” New Passions, 1973

The Raya Dunayevskaya Collection - overview and index to Dunayevskaya's works (2.7Mb)
Works:
On the Resolution of the National Youth Committee, March 1934
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society, 1941
An Analysis of Russian Economy, 1942
A Letter on Rosa Luxemburg and Capital Accumulation, 1943
Marxism against pseudo-Marxism, 1943
Introduction to Lenin, Origin of Capitalism in Russia, October 1943
A Restatement of Some Fundamentals of Marxism against ‘pseudo-Marxism’, November 1943
Can the law of value be uprooted?, 1944
A New Revision of Marxian Economics, 1944
Negro Intellectuals in Dilemna, 1944
Roosevelt Whitewashed at FEPC Meeting but Audience Senses Need for More Effective Action, February 1944
Marxism and Black liberation, June 1944
Negroes in the Revolution, 1945
Revision or Reaffirmation of Marxism?, 1945
Marxism and Political Economy, 1945
Harlem and Bilbo’s Party, October 1945
Luxemburg’s Theory of Accumulation. How it Differed with Marx and Lenin, 1946
New Developments in Stalin’s Russia, 1946
The Nature of the Russian Economy, 1946
The Decline in the Rate of Profit and The Theory of Crises, 1947
The fatal defect of capitalist production, 1947
A Letter to Natalia Trotsky on the Theory of State Capitalism, 1947
On Luxemburg’s Theory of Accumulation, April 1947
The Russian Question – A Debate (with Max Shachtman), May 1947
Uprooting capitalism’s law of value, part I, 1948
Uprooting capitalism’s law of value, part II, September 1948
Industrialization of the Negro, 1948
Production Statistics and the Devaluation of the Ruble, 1948
Stalinists Falsify Marxism Anew. Teaching Marxism in the Soviet Union, 1948
Translation of and Introduction to Plekhanov’s The Meaning of Hegel, 1949
A Bureaucrat’s Fate, 1949
The Case of Eugene Varga, 1949
The despotic plan of capital vs. freely associated labor, 1950
The Cooperative Form of Labor Vs. Abstract Labor, 1951
On the economic roots of imperialism: Rudolf Hilferding and ‘the stability of capitalism𔆍, March 1951
The revolt of the workers and the plan of the intellectuals, Part I, June 1951
The revolt of the workers and the plan of the intellectuals, Part II, June 1951
The Beria Purge, 1953
The Evolution of a Social Type, 1953
German workers change face of Europe, 1953
Intellectuals and the Radical Workers, 1953
Malenkov Pledges H-Bomb and Caviar, 1953
Tensions Within The Soviet Union, 1953
The myth of the invincibility of totalitarianism, June 1953
Bert Cochran, Caucus Builder, 1954
The Gang Lawyer, 1954
On Both Sides of the Iron Curtain, 1954
Russia In Economic Crisis, 1954
Russia, More Than Ever Full of Revolutionaries ..., 1954
Russian Regime Cannot Afford a Beria Show Trial, 1954
Socialism or Barbarism, 1954
New Stage of Struggle Against Labor Bureaucracy, 1955
New Turn To The “Popular Front”, 1955
The Revolt In The Slave Labor Camps In Vorkuta, 1955
A response to [Cornelius] Castoriadis’s Socialism or Barbarism, August 1955
Marxism and the U.S. Civil War, November 1955
The Absence of a Mass Labor Party in the U.S., 1956
Death, Freedom and the Disintegration of Communism, 1956
Italian Communist Party Faces Revolt, December 8, 1956
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Hungary, 1956
Where Is Russia Going?, 1956
Where to begin? Theory and practice in a new relationship, 1956
Without a Past And Without a Future, 1956
Djilas’ New Class, 1957
50 years after the revolution – Mao, Hegel, and dialectics in China, 1957
Mao Perverts Lenin, 1957
New Crisis in Russia, 1957
Russia’s Internal Crisis, 1957
Can humanity be free? The new Marxism and Freedom, May 1957
50 years after the revolution – Mao, Hegel, and dialectics in China, June 1957
The philosophic foundation of Marxism, June 1957
The American roots of Marxism, 1958
Colonial Revolts and the Creativity of People, 1958
Unemployment and Organizations to Fight It, 1958
Whither Paris?, 1958
Toward a new concept of organization, June 1958
The African Revolution, I, 1959
Eisenhower-Khrushchev Spectacular, 1959
Khrushchev Talks On And On, 1959
May 1 and the Shorter Work Day, 1959
The Cuban Revolution: The Year After, 1960
The Roots of Anti-Semitism, 1960
State Capitalism and the Bureaucrats, 1960
The World Crisis and the Theoretical Void, 1960
‘Philosophic foundations of the struggles for freedom’, October 1960
Notes on Hegel’s Logic, 1961
Revolutionary Dynamic of Hegel’s Thought (Written as a Letter to Olga Domanski), 1961
Rough Notes on Hegel’s Science of Logic, 1961
The New Russian Communist Manifesto, January 1961
African revolutions revisited, May 1961
Freedom Riders challenge homegrown totalitarianism, July 1961
Nuclear war and state-capitalism, July 1961
Spontaneity of Action and Organization of Thought, September 1961
Tito’s Turnabout, October 1961
If This Isn’t Madness, What Is It?, November 1961
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis tested anti-war Left, October 1962
Historic roots of conflict in South Asia, December 1962
American Civilization on Trial: Black Masses as Vanguard, 1963
Racism and the birth of imperialism, 100 years after the Spanish-American war, 1963
The uniqueness of Marxist-Humanism, 1963
To Fromm on the Dialectic, November 1963
The Theory of Alienation: Marx’s Debt to Hegel, 1964
The Free Speech Movement and the Negro Revolution, 1965
Marx’s Humanism Today, 1965
Ramifications of Watts revolt, September 1965
Marx’s humanism and the mass struggles since World War II, December 1965
Recollections of Leon Trotsky, December 1965
Hegel’s summons: Grasp revolutionary spirit of the age, January 1966
Revisiting ‘Black Power,’ Race and Class, September 1966
Tragedy of China’s Cultural Revolution, October 1966
The double tragedy of Che Guevara, 1967
Revisiting ‘Black Power,’ Race and Class, 1967
Economic reality and dialectics of liberation, 1968
The near-revolution of France, 1968: Why did it fail?, 1968
Murder and war in the uncivilized U.S., May 1968
Practicing Philosophy and Revolution, May 1968
Recollecting the legacy of ‘Socialism with a human face’, August 1968
From Marx to Marxist-Humanism, 1969
From the Black-Red Conference: Dialectics of the freedom movements, January 1969
Marxist-Humanism’s concept of ‘Subject’, 1971
Women’s liberation, then and now, 1971
Praxis and the responsibility of intellectuals, July 1971
On C.L.R. James’ Notes on Dialectics, 1972
The dialectic of Marx’s Grundrisse, 1973
Dialectics and the Black dimension, 1973
A Letter on Marxist-Humanism’s concept of ‘Subject’, 1973
Philosophy & Revolution, 1973
Remembering Allende, 1973, September 1973
Today’s Epigones Who Try to Truncate Marx’s Capital, 1974
Marx’s Grundrisse and women’s liberation, March 1974
Black dimension in women’s liberation, 1975
Practicing Proletarian Reason. On seniority and labor’s emancipation, 1975
Remembering the 1974–75 Portuguese Revolution and its relation to Africa, 1976
Marxist-Humanism’s original contribution, April 1976
Marx’s concept of ‘labor’, May 1976
Dialectics: The Algebra of Revolution, 1978
Global capital’s structural crisis and the need to return to Marx’s Capital, 1978
The philosophic legacy of Karel Kosík, 1978
Grave contradictions of 1979 Iranian Revolution, 1979
Outline of Marx’s Capital, Volume I, 1979
Rosa Luxemburg: revolutionary, feminist, 1979
In celebration of Women’s History Month – Lessons of the Iranian revolution, March 1979
International Women’s Day and Iran, March 1979
The Two Russian Revolutions, and Once Again, on the Theory of Permanent Revolution, October 1979
What is philosophy? What is revolution? What is anti-imperialism?, December 1979
Marxism and ‘the party’, 1980
On the anniversary of the birth of Erich Fromm, 1980
Women and revolution in Iran, 1980
May Day as a birthtime of history, April 1980
Historic Roots of Israel-Palestine conflict, September 1980
Women and revolution in Iran, September 1980
What has happened to the Iranian revolution?, 1981
Revolution and counter-revolution in Iran, June 1981
Marxist-Humanism’s relation to Marx’s Humanism, September 1981
East European revolt and the re-creation of Marx’s Marxism, February 1982
Stop the slaughter of the Palestinians!, September 1982
Marx and the Black World, 1983
Marx’s Unchaining of the Dialectic, 1983
Marx’s unchaining of the dialectic, January 1983
American Civilization on Trial (4th Edition), August 1983
Lévi-Strauss and the battle of ideas, August 1983
Foundations of Marxist-Humanism, August 1983
Lesson of Grenada for today, November 1983
Counter-revolution from within revolution: the problem of our times, April 1984
Dialectics of revolution: American roots and world Humanist concepts, part I, March 1985
Dialectics of revolution: American roots and world Humanist concepts, part II, March 1985
When News & Letters was born, March 1985
Marx’s new moments and those in our age, April 1986
Another look at Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind, June 1986
The Philosophic Moment Marxist-Humanism, January 1987
‘On political divides and philosophic new beginnings’, June 1987
Search of News & Letters Articles

  
With the Exact Phrase:
With at least one of words:
M.I.A. Site Search

  
With the Exact Phrase:
With at least one of words:
Further reading:


Aug 10, 2017 - Revolution to "The Raya Dunayevskaya Collection: Retrospective and ... The analysis of Russian state-capitalism had led, in 1941, to her association with ... link to PDF file: http://rayadunayevskaya.org/ArchivePDFs/49.pdf.



of the Age. - to Section II Revolution and Counter-Revolution: Where do we go from here? ... Volume XIV: The Writing of Raya Dunayevskaya's “Trilogy of Revolution”. 1953-1983- The ... showed that Russia was a. state-capitalist society. The seminal ... t~.on on the relation of fascisiU to the possibility bf proletarian reyolution.


by N Gibson - ‎1988
Consciousness, Marcuse's Reason and Revolution, Korsch's Marxism ... as a "bacillus" for the proletarian revolution. ... Stalinist counter-revolution had destroyed the Russian revolution and transformed it into its opposite-state capitalism. Furthermore, this state capitalism (Dunayevskaya's original analysis of Russia as a.