scholarly journals Labor Strike in Communist Society: A Comparison between the Soviet Union and Poland

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 293-320
Author(s):  
Kyung Hoon Leem
Author(s):  
Archie Brown

The chapter traces pre-Marxist ideas of a communist society before outlining the main elements of the Communist doctrine of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Particular attention is paid to the theory and practice of Communist parties in power. The Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia developed models which varied both over time and from each other. Nevertheless, six defining characteristics of Communist ideology are identified and elaborated—the monopoly of power of the ruling Communist party; democratic centralism; state ownership of the means of production; centrally planned rather than market economy; membership of an international Communist movement; and the aspiration, in principle, to move eventually to a stateless, classless communist society. During the Soviet perestroika all six of these features were discarded. In contemporary China only the first two of the six remain. Communism no longer exists as a serious ideological and political force.


Author(s):  
Don Filtzer

Like capitalist societies, the Soviet Union and the Soviet-type societies of Eastern Europe showed a high degree of social stratification and inequality. By the 1960s the rapid upward mobility of worker and peasant children in the intelligentsia and Party hierarchy had noticeably slowed, and an inherited class structure emerged. Because privileges in the Soviet Union were only weakly monetarized, and wealth could not be accumulated or inherited, privileged groups perpetuated themselves mainly through the use of internal ‘connections’ and by ensuring their offspring preferential access to higher education through which they would secure elite positions. We also see important differentiations within the workforce: urban vs. rural workers; ‘core’ workers vs. migrants; and men vs. women. China prior to the reform movement displayed a similar overall picture, with, however, some radical differences. Under Mao the gap in living standards between Party officials and ordinary workers was much more narrow than in the USSR, while the Cultural Revolution blunted attempts to ensure the reproduction of social stratification via access to higher education.


Slavic Review ◽  
1971 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Richard Little

It is a settled principle of Soviet constitutional law that the USSR Supreme Soviet is the supreme representative organ, the supreme legislative body, and the supreme executor of the people's sovereignty. The 1936 Constitution subordinates all other organs of government to the Supreme Soviet, and it alone, on the national level, has the right to form governments, pass laws, and amend the Constitution. The Constitution also stipulates, however, that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is “the vanguard of the workers in their struggle for the construction of a communist society and constitutes the guiding core of all workers’ organizations, public as well as governmental.”


1993 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Gregg

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China remains the world's only major communist society. Will China's regime go the way of its Soviet counterpart, or might it survive well into the next century and beyond? I do not undertake to answer this question directly. But my analysis of one sector of contemporary Chinese society—the legal system—suggests that the Communist party is losing its tight control over several major areas of Chinese society. In the long-run the party will be progressively weakened by current trends toward legal modernization. These trends encourage more liberal (because noninstrumentalized) forms of political, and not only legal, organization.


1963 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-157
Author(s):  
Carl Leiden

If delinquency can be thought of as, in part, the violent and unreasoning rejection of authority, then to some degree it is present in every society, democratic or dictatorial. Paradoxically, it may serve some purpose in democratic constitutional develop ment, although it could hardly be encouraged for this purpose. The failure to eradicate delinquency is more significant in a dictatorship than in a democracy. In the democratic community rejection is fragmental and carries few ideological implications. But to the degree that a dictatorial society is totalitarian, the rejection is one of society, of an ideological way of life. Soviet delinquents reject not only the transient authority that bothers them, but the very ideological taproots of communism as well. The authoritarian state possesses instruments of coercion that are hardly acceptable to a democracy. But in spite of the use of such instruments and, in the case of the Soviet Union, in the face of a generation of trial at remolding man to a Marxian image, the delinquent remains the unassimilated antisocial ele ment. The very existence of delinquency there is a measure of the failure of communist society to substitute its will for that of the individual and, in spite of its tragic details, remains a bulwark against totalitarianism.


Red Britain ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 112-161
Author(s):  
Matthew Taunton

Marxist predictions that in a Communist society crime would cease to exist were not borne out in the Soviet Union, leading G. K. Chesterton to quip that ‘the Socialists used to say that “under Socialism” nobody would lose his temper or quarrel with his mother-in-law’. Instead the Communist government presided over a redefinition of the concept of law, inventing categories such as ‘enemy of the people’ and holding trials that simultaneously aped and travestied notions of ‘bourgeois justice’. The question of the law’s supposed objectivity, and the validity of normative theories of justice, were particularly important questions. These were some of the most visible and widely debated features of the Soviet regime, and this chapter explores British intellectuals’ engagements with Soviet justice. Writers discussed include Arthur Koestler, Stephen Spender, D. N. Pritt, and the Duchess of Atholl.


Author(s):  
Viktor Sergeevich Pletnikov

The author discloses details of the work of the Constitutional Commission on the new Constitution of the Soviet Union in the period from 1961 to 1964. The list of members of the Constitutional Commission, persons responsible for the formation of constitutional values at the initial stage of building a communist society, and their reassignment to subcommissions is published for the first time. On the example of the activity of the subcommission on the questions of “Public administration, activities of soviets, and nongovernmental organizations”, the author describes the organizational aspects of its work and the nuances of functionality. Assessment is given to the organizing role of apparatus of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR with regards to elaboration of a number of articles for the new Constitution, through the prism of the form and content. The article leans on the materials preserved in the State Archive of the Russian Federation (Fund 7523. Register 131). The presented material is the result of summary of archival research previously not available to the broad academic community. It allows you to debunk the myths that developed after publication of some works and memoirs on the topic. The article illustrates the contribution of staff members of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and a researchers to the creation of the first constitutional framework of the establishing communist society. The author also lists the actors who made considerable contribution to the development of basic constitutional values.


1969 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 516-516
Author(s):  
Morton Deutsch

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document