scholarly journals On the Task of Creating a Financial History of the CPSU

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 116-135
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Financial History ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Revolution

The article poses the task of creating a financial history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). The Communist Party existed from 1898 to 1991. Though communists declared commitment to Marxism, which acknowledged the precedence of material factors over ideology and policy, the role of finances in the party’s history received little attention. After 1991, the situation in this field remained practically the same. The lack of scientific history generates mythology. The author demonstrates that one of such myths is the concept that the revolution of 1917 was a success thanks to the Bolsheviks having “German money”. The article analyzes the issue of Germany financing the Bolsheviks from the banking point of view. The existing hypotheses of how exactly the Bolsheviks were receiving money are considered. The main “anti-Bolshevik” version implies that finances were being transferred to the Bolsheviks under the guise of operations of an import/export firm, whose representative in Russia was Evgeniya Sumenson. The author investigates three cases which are of prime importance for all these hypotheses: Alexander Parvus’s money, the telegrams intercepted by the French counterintelligence, and the so-called “Sisson Documents”. Based on the analysis of the works of Russian and foreign historians and also on the published archive materials, the author concludes that all the documents currently available do not support the “anti-Bolshevik” version. Moreover, they prove that money movement was backwards: the proceeds from the sales of goods imported into Russia were transferred to Europe. Operations carried out by Sumeson were of a purely commercial nature and were quite in line with the banking practice of that period. The true financial history of the Bolsheviks and the CPSU as a whole is yet to be written. One of such successful investigations is John Biggart’s article on the Nikolai P. Shmit bequest.

Vanguard of the Revolution

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. James McAdams
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Karl Marx ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Revolution

This book is a sweeping history of one of the most significant political institutions of the modern world. The communist party was a revolutionary idea long before its supporters came to power. The book argues that the rise and fall of communism can be understood only by taking into account the origins and evolution of this compelling idea. It shows how the leaders of parties in countries as diverse as the Soviet Union, China, Germany, Yugoslavia, Cuba, and North Korea adapted the original ideas of revolutionaries like Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin to profoundly different social and cultural settings. The book is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand world communism and the captivating idea that gave it life.

scholarly journals Localization of Marxism in China: History, Theory and the Challenge

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Peng Li
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Marxist Theory ◽  
Communist Party Of China ◽  
Labor Theory ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Governing Principle ◽  
History Of ◽  
Theory Of Value

Marxism is the science of universal standard. The truth, practicality, scientific of Marxism has been proved by history. But with the development of practice, the development of Marxist theory itself is facing a new opportunity, also faced with unprecedented challenges. How to effectively cope with the challenges？Such as: Is communism a utopia? The labor theory of value is effective? Socialist country is democracy? And so on. All these problems are the socialist system and Marxist must think and answer. As a Marxist, how to truly stand in the position of Marxism, using the Marxist method and point of view to observe the social and economic development and the progress of human civilization and world history, is the problem of contemporary Marxists has to think about. Or it will lose vitality, and will be out of date, and possible failure. The most familiar example is the socialist power caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its consequences. As important heritage and development of Marxist theory, the Communist Party of China has always been guided by the Marxism theory, whether in revolution, construction and reform, or the governing principle politics today. Can say, not only accumulated a very valuable historical experience, but also enriched and developed Marxism, the Communist Party of China have a say in the history of Marxist development. So, we need to discuss three questions, the effectiveness of the Marxist theory, and understanding of Marxist trajectory of the Communist Party of China, the challenge for the Marxism theory and how to deal with.

Reliability of the Plot Related to the Conversation with Deng Xiaoping on the Sino-Soviet Territorial Issues in the Memoirs of E. Shevardnadze

2021 ◽  
pp. 135
Author(s):  
Yinan Li
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Deng Xiaoping ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Reliable Source ◽  
History Of ◽  
Territorial Claims

In 2009, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR and President of Georgia E.A. Shevardnadze published his memoirs in Russian, which contain an “explosive” plot: while visiting China in February 1989, during his meeting with Deng Xiaoping, a lengthy dispute over border and territorial issues occurred. At that time, Deng allegedly expressed his point of view that vast lands of the Soviet Union, from three to four million square kilometers, belonged to China. Chinese can wait patiently until someday the lands return to China. This content is cited in scientific works by many historians from different countries as an argument. However, there is no other evidence which can prove this recollection. Many details in it contradict the well known historical facts or are completely illogical. There is a good reason to believe that the plot in the memoirs of Shevardnadze is an incorrect recollection. It could even be considered as a made-up story. Moreover, it is possible that it was fabricated for some reasons. Hence, the plot is not worthy of being quoted as a reliable source. At the Sino-Soviet summit Deng Xiaoping did have expressed the point of view that in the past Russia and then the Soviet Union cut off millions of square kilometers of land from China, but at the same time he promised the leader of the Soviet Union that China would not make territorial claims. Since the mid-1980s Deng Xiaoping actively promoted the settlement of the Sino-Soviet border issues through negotiations, which led to the result that 99% of the border between Russia and China was delimited on a legal basis in the last years of his life. At present, the problems of the Sino-Russian border have been finally resolved long ago. There is no doubt that the scientific research and discussions on issues related to territory and borders in the history of Sino-Soviet relations can be made. However, such research and discussions should be based on reliable sources.

Taranchis, Kashgaris, and the ‘Uyghur Question’ in Soviet Central Asia

Inner Asia ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Brophy
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Standard Account ◽  
Anthropological Perspective ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of ◽  
Formed Part ◽  
Soviet Central Asia ◽  
Eastern Turkestan ◽  
Key Events

AbstractUp till now, the problem of Uyghur identity construction has been studied from an almost exclusively anthropological perspective. Little Western research has been done on the history of the Uyghur community in the Soviet Union during the period of national delimitation, and the process by which a re-invented ‘Uyghur’ identity was fostered among settled Turkicspeakers of East Turkestani origin. In this paper I have set out to trace some of the key events and debates which formed part of that process. In doing so I provide evidence that challenges certain aspects of the standard account of this period, in particular the role of the 1921 Tashkent conference. In 1921 the term ‘Uyghur’ was not used an ethnic designation, but as an umbrella term for various peoples with family roots in Eastern Turkestan. It was not until several years later that the term took its place beside other ethnonyms in the Soviet Union, provoking debate and opposition in the Soviet Uyghur press. This paper is largely based on the recently republished writings of leading Uyghur activists and journalists from the 1920s, and focuses on the role of the Uyghur Communist Abdulla Rozibaqiev. My paper attempts to demonstrate the importance of basing the study of Uyghur history on Uyghur language sources, rather than Russian or Chinese materials alone.

A Concise History of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union

1961 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Gerhart Niemeyer ◽  
John S. Reshetar ◽  
Leonard Schapiro
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of

scholarly journals A Concise History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

1962 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
Herbert J. Ellison ◽  
John S. Reshetar
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of

Purges and Forced Retirements of Soviet Party Elites as Power Tools of Social Mobility

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-345
Author(s):  
Katya Vladimirov
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Social Mobility ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
Central Committee ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Party Elites ◽  
History Of ◽  
Power Tools ◽  
High Social Status

The article presents a tumulus seventy-year history of the top party élite, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CC CPSU), by profiling the anatomy of historical generations that embodied it. Five district generations in power and various political “teams” had been locked in ferocious battle for access to political capital, high social status, coveted positions, ranks, and privileges. Their survival and advancement demanded perseverance, bargaining skills, and ruthless elimination of competitors. Purges and forced retirement were essential power tools used in their generational struggle for power and status. The article discusses these methods of compulsory “exclusion” and offers innovative and revealing perspective on the nature of the Soviet political structure as well as on the techniques of its internal combat.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union

1929 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 956-971 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel N. Harper
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
Salient Feature ◽  
Party Systems ◽  
Bolshevik Revolution ◽  
Political Machine ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Political Center ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Revolution

A salient feature of the Soviet order set up in Russia by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is the provision for a single, mobilized political center, striving to organize all social processes to conform with its particular ideology and program. The Communist party is this political center of the Soviet Union, enjoying a monopoly of legality in respect of organization. Only an outline of the methods by which this political machine exercises its leadership is possible within the limits of the present note. The emphasis will be on the structure which the Communists have given to their party, in order more effectively to carry the responsibility of leadership assumed by them. The word “party” is used, but one has here an organization which differs sharply from political parties of parliamentary systems. Also in its relations to the formal governmental bodies the Communist party presents several features which differentiate it from the party systems of other countries.The special methods of organization adopted and the peculiar position enjoyed by the Communist party in the Soviet Union permit of several theoretical interpretations. One of these is that the Revolution contemplated by the Communists has three distinct stages, of which only the second has as yet been reached. There was the successful seizure of power, finally consolidated after some three years of civil war. Then came the present period of transition, the length of which will depend upon the success of the party in the exercise of its leadership. Only the successful achievement of the present party leadership will bring the final triumph of the Revolution as the third and last period.

Government Rulemaking as a Brake on Perestroika

1990 ◽  
Vol 15 (03) ◽  
pp. 419-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Huskey
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Communist Party ◽  
Economic Reform ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Political System ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Government

The Soviet political system is made up of three major institutions: the Communist Party, the parliament, and the government. Whereas the first two have changed dramatically under perestroika, the government has continued to function in more traditional ways. Most worrying to reformists, the government–the Soviet Union's “executive branch”–has used its broad rulemaking authority to impede the transformation of Soviet politics and society. This essay examines the role of governmental rules in the Soviet political and legal system. It concludes, following the lead of Soviet reformists, that without a fundamental restructuring of government making authority, legal, political, and economic reform in the Soviet Union cannot be institutionalized.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document