Regrouping: The Liberator Years

2020 ◽  
pp. 193-222
Author(s):  
Amy Aronson

On Lincoln’s Birthday, 1918, Crystal and Max Eastman launched the Liberator: The Journal of Revolutionary Progress. The magazine plainly supported Bolshevism, and also served as watchdog for propaganda and misinformation concerning revolutionary revolts. Eastman’s most important writing was her reporting from inside Communist Hungary in August 1919. However, the lived human experiences of revolution she witnessed put her at odds with the Liberator’s star radical, John Reed, and her brother Max. A pacifist and feminist, as well as a radical, she praised the abolition of private property but deplored the bloodshed and repression under the revolutionary government. The experience brought her to a political impasse. Two elemental goals, once aligned, now appeared to be competing claims: justice or peace? In an era of revolutionary victory, how could she make sense of violence perpetrated to achieve the equality and justice she had long believed was the only recipe for world peace?

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 203
Author(s):  
Lucian M. Ashworth

<p>Today David Mitrany is best known for his work on international functionalism, which influenced the development of European integration and the organisation of United Nations specialised agencies. What is often ignored in the West is his work on South-East Europe. During the inter-war period Mitrany studied both the operation of war government and the subsequent peasant revolution in the Balkans. War government demonstrated that political organisation could bridge the gap between social action and private property, while the peasant social revolution showed that the abstract economics associated with both capitalist and Marxist economics was not applicable outside of urban industrial production. It was through his studies of South-East Europe that Mitrany drew many of the lessons and concepts that were to form the foundations of his international theory.</p>


2007 ◽  
pp. 4-26
Author(s):  
G. Yavlinsky

Results of privatization campaign in 1990’s continue to meet strong opposition from a very considerable part of Russian people and authorities actually refuse to consider the rights of private owners legitimate and not subject to violation. One of the reasons for this, besides historical tradition, is a specific nature of Russian privatization of 1990’s. The article brings to discussion a set of measures aimed at overcoming its negative consequences. While insisting on the need to honor all previous government obligations and commitments, the paper proposes a one-time special tax (windfall tax) to be levied on those who benefited most from privatization deals that were not just and fair, and special rules to be set for the use and sale of economic assets of national importance. The author also considers possible ways to legitimize private property, as well as chances to achieve а broad public consensus on this issue in Russia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-87
Author(s):  
Volodymyr Reznik ◽  
Oleksandr Reznik

This article explores the sources of legitimacy of private property in the means of production in Ukraine. The conceptualization of legitimacy of private property was made by analyzing theoretical approaches to the study of the foundations of private property relations in Western countries. The application of these approaches tests economic utilitarian, psychological, and sociocultural explanations of legitimacy of large and small private enterprises and private land in the process of activation of post-communist transition of Ukrainian society. The basic hypothesis was that the process of legitimation of private property in the means of production proceeds by uniting utilitarian and psychological adaptation with sociocultural agreement of ideological attitudes. This hypothesis was verified with the help of created legitimacy indices by comparison of linear regressions and data of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of Ukraine for 2013 and 2017. The results indicate that the hypothesis has been held true only concerning legitimacy of small private enterprises. They have acquired a moderate extent of legitimacy owing to the fact that besides the factors of adaptation, social recognition has increased at the expense of people who support the multiparty system and the liberal and mixed methods of regulation of the economy. In contrast, the existence of large private enterprises and private land has not acquired the corresponding sociocultural foundation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Christopher Strunk ◽  
Ursula Lang

For the most part, research and policymaking on urban gardening have focused on community gardens, whether in parks, vacant lots, or other public land. This emphasis, while important for many Midwestern cities, can obscure the significance of privately owned land such as front yard and back yard and their crucial connections with gardening on public land. In this case study, we examine how policies and practices related to gardening and the management of green space in two Midwestern cities exceed narrow visions of urban agriculture. The article explores the cultivation of vacant lot gardens and private yards as two modes of property in similar Midwestern contexts and argues that the management of green space is about more than urban agriculture. Instead, we show how urban gardening occurs across public/private property distinctions and involves a broader set of actors than those typically included in sustainability policies. Gardening also provides a key set of connections through which neighbors understand and practice sustainability in Midwestern cities.


2000 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Gunther Kodat

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document