Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: The biography of Bukharin by Stephen F. Cohen fills a gap and has been much needed; from this point of view the book is very welcome.
The article was carried in by the Bolshevik journal Prosveshchenie.
That thesis has long been laid to rest. I will argue that this analysis is not exhaustive.
The young Stalin was much more preoccupied with the national question than is commonly assumed. His article was only an episode in a series of writings on the subject from to Before the revolution he was violently opposed to any form of nationalism, especially of small nationalities like the Georgians and the Jews.
The centralised multinational state was his alpha and omega. In that period his definition of the nation remained, in fact, an alien element in his own thought. Only after the revolution did it acquire practical relevance.
His responsibilities as a state leader forced him to have a more open eye to the realities of national life. He realised more clearly than before that nations were tenacious things and bound to outlive capitalism.
His theoretical, as opposed to political, thinking on the phenomenon of nations, as it developed from toshould be located in the tradition of Russian organicism. Marxist Lenin bukharin thesis of the Nation When the nineteenth century drew to a close large parts of Central and Eastern Europe were still dominated by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian multinational empires.
The Balkans, experiencing a steady decline of Turkish rule, were a nationalist powder keg. It was Lenin bukharin thesis easy for the Second International founded in to take a clear position on the national question, proceeding as it had to from the naive, internationalist perspective of Marxism.
Marxism had an inherent centralist bias and, consequently, all major tendencies in the International hoped to keep the multinational empires intact. The most radical position was taken by Rosa Luxemburg who was least of all prepared to compromise with nationalism.
But the national aspirations in Central and Eastern Europe had to be appeased. Basically, two approaches were developed. Citizens would register individually according to nationality and form their own institutions to administer and develop cultural affairs. The more orthodox Marxist V.
Lenin, on the other hand, found the prospect of crystallisation of cultural identities abhorrent. He opted for a right of secession for nationally homogeneous territories in the hope that, given that opportunity, nations would prefer remaining within their large, centralised states, gradually merging into one, to developing their own separate cultures.
The early Social-Democrats were not satisfied with developing a political programme to deal with the national question. A fierce debate on the theoretical side of the matter naturally developed. It centred around the question of what nations were, how they had developed and what their future was.
For Marxist thinking on what constituted nations, the work of Karl Kautsky first comes to mind. He was the first, beginning into attempt to fill the vacuum which Marx and Engels left behind.
Perhaps his most revolutionary break with socialist orthodoxy was a positive assessment of the nation. Bauer was more orthodox than Renner in that he thought that historical fate was determined by economics.
A common mode of production induced endogamy, giving rise to common biological characteristics, and — through a community of language — to a common culture. Community of territory was contributive, but not essential, to the formation of national communities.
The former acknowledged that some kind of national unity, overarching class differences, existed in the form of a common language and territory.
But he was very niggardly when it came to providing that with substance. He failed to recognise the existence of cultural and psychological unity among classes in any relevant sense. The latter, on the contrary, approached the matter from the opposite angle. They treated nations generously as self-conscious cultural communities, with a long-term, stable existence and with traditions accounting for a measure of like-mindedness among their respective members.
In their case class conflict lost some of its weight. For instance, inone of its leaders, Vladimir Medem, wrote a forceful essay in favour of cultural autonomy for the Russian Jews.
But the article made no contribution to the theory of nations. His favouring of autonomy for minority nations was a purely tactical matter.
His early works contained only scattered remarks on the subject, such as the Marxist commonplace that the modern nation was the product of the centralising forces of the capitalist economy.
He denied that the Jews were still a nation, whatever their sense of cultural unity might be. His anger was aroused by a conference in Augustwhere his opponents in the party, among them the Bund and many Mensheviks, accepted the principle of cultural autonomy for the nations of the Russian empire.
In December of that year the Bolshevik leader became even more infuriated when the Mensheviks managed to include this demand in a declaration by the Social-Democratic Duma faction, while their Bolshevik colleagues failed to rebuff them.Stephen F.
Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography –, Wildwood House, £ Like most of the other leaders of the Bolshevik revolution, Bukharin has, for the last 40 years, been in the shadows cast by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.
Jewishness Was International Communism -- Vladimir Ilich Lenin "There the great world-progressive features of Jewish culture stand clearly revealed: its internationalism, its identification with the advanced movements of the epoch (the percentage of Jews in the democratic and proletarian movements is everywhere higher than the percentage of .
from the Plekhanov-Lenin-Bukharin-Stalin sequence lessons for today’s Hegelian dialectical materialists. Keywords: Hegel, Plekhanov, Lenin, Bukharin, dialectics, materialism, historical materialist thesis, given historical materialism’s emphases on superstructural phenomena, up to .
'The February revolution was spontaneous; the October revolution was planned.'You may well have heard or read other statements like this about the two Russian revolutions of , but what is the. Aug 15, · ‘A basic question’: Lenin glosses the April Theses.
This thesis, he says, represents Lenin’s sop to his Marxist conscience, Owing to the constraints of the Lenin cult, Bukharin cannot be explicit about Kautsky’s role in the elaboration of the hegemony scenario (see No.
2 in the present series) and therefore over. Read the essential details about the history of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA). The formation of the Communist Party with its emphasis on electoral politics, alienated members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and other militants who believed the road to revolution lay through direct or mass action.