Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  LENIN
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Sowiecki system polityczny: transformacja albo degeneracja

100%
Brzeziński Z.
Studia nad Faszyzmem i Zbrodniami Hitlerowskimi
|
2011
|
vol. 33
299–310
EN
In the paper the author recalls his analyses of the character of the Soviet Union highest leadership, published in 1960. In the author’s opinion Lenin was a charismatic leader. In the period of the Stalin’s dictatorial regime the power was larger and larger bureaucratically institutionalized, with the decision-making centralized within his own secretariat. That bureaucratization was the reason why Stalin who did not possess the Lenin’s charisma was able to achieve the authority of the leader of world communism, albeit in fact he was an oriental despot rather than a revolutionary tribune. Nikita Khrushchev as a party leader ceased to be the main ideologist of party and was not a technical, administrative or economic expert. Therefore, the specialization of functions in the party leadership became something natural. After the overthrow of Khrushchev’s power the differentiation of these functions was considered standard, whereas charisma became a source of suspicions. Consequently, so-called apparatchiki attained the power. According to the author, the existence of “clusters of creativity” decides the vitality of political system. The lack of such clusters was the reason why in the Soviet system of leadership under Brezhnev there appeared symptoms of degeneration. The author thinks that today’s China may potentially be faced with the problems concerning the vitality of political system, which were characteristic of the Soviet Union.
2

Wobec ideologii postideologii

86%
Żołnierek J.
Sensus Historiae. Studia interdyscyplinarne
|
2013
|
issue 1(10)
115-130
EN
Some authors think we live in post-ideological times. It’s possible, however, in legacy of Lenin and Marks, to lose this certainty. In preface and afterword of „Revolution at the Gates” Slavoj Žižek argues that Lenin is the most important thinker for the contemporaneity. The most crucial period of his life was between two revolutions, in February and October of 1917. Today — Slovenian intellectual believes — we also live in crucial period. For us, our February was the decline of the Soviet Union. Our October is, however, placed somewhere in the future, and — as such — unknown. In such situation we should be like Lenin between the revolutions. We should follow his pattern and act like he did, fight. The only weapon we have is our pencil. The ammunition we should use in fight for the future are Marx writings. In this paper I try to show the importance of Žižek for our thinking about present times in capitalistic world. Maybe indeed we should change it, or — at least — try to undermine, in our thinking, the present “natural” state of things?
3

‘POLITICAL LIFE IS DYING OUT’: ROSA LUXEMBURG’S CRITIQUE OF BOLSHEVISM AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

86%
Van Duin P. C.
Studia Politica Slovaca: časopis pre politické vedy, najnovšie politické dejiny a medzinárodné vzťahy
|
2018
|
vol. 11
|
issue 1
19 – 33
EN
This article analyses the critical comments of Rosa Luxemburg on Lenin’s model of the Bolshevik vanguard-party with its elite of professional revolutionaries and on the political events in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution. Rosa Luxemburg had a different concept of socialist revolution than Lenin did, for she regarded the revolutionary process as something that was based on the spontaneous actions of the working class and the mass participation of the people. A socialist party could channel and co-ordinate this revolutionary energy, but Rosa Luxemburg attached great importance to democratic freedoms and procedures and rejected the dictatorial tendencies emerging in Bolshevik Russia. She was hoping that the Bolshevik revolution would be the beginning of a European socialist revolution and never believed that Russia could make a socialist transformation on its own. In fact, she foresaw the bureaucratic dictatorship that Lenin’s Russia would in her view inevitably become, if the deformation of the revolution was not halted by international political developments on a higher democratic and socialist level.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.