Revolutionary Origins of Political Regimes and Trajectories of Popular Mobilization in the Late Communist Period

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-561
Author(s):  
Nebojša Vladisavljević
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Political Regimes ◽  
Armed Struggle ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
External Threat ◽  
Revolutionary Movements ◽  
Identity Shifts ◽  
Institutional Legacies ◽  
Popular Contention

AbstractPopular protest, which repeatedly occurred in Communist regimes, turned into massive mobilizational waves in the late Communist period. Why did some protests result in state cooptation and particularist nationalism (Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union), and others in state-society polarization (Poland) and protest containment (China), when these states shared important historical, political, and institutional legacies? Political regimes with origins in indigenous popularly-based revolutionary movements are more resilient to popular protests and other major crises than other authoritarian regimes. Protracted ideological armed struggle largely overlaps with broader patriotic causes, such as liberation wars or struggles against foreign intervention. The revolutionary regimes thus acquire patriotic credentials, while boundaries between partisan and patriotic identities become blurred, which strengthens their elite unity and popular base. Popular protests thus facilitate a complex political game of old and new actors that may result in regime survival or transformation. In other regimes, popular unrest tends to produce state-society polarization and, ultimately, regime delegitimation and breakdown. Popular contention in complex multinational institutional settings, if there is no major external threat, highlights old and triggers new conflicts along these structural and institutional divides and, where dual political identities prevail, facilitates identity shifts in particularist direction.

Georg Lukács in the Labyrinth of Coexistence

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-80
Author(s):  
Cristian Nichitean
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Popular Front ◽  
The Political ◽  
Philosophical Work ◽  
Georg Lukacs ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Political Perspective ◽  
Revolutionary Movements ◽  
Magnum Opus ◽  
Georg Lukács

"This text attempts to trace the evolution of the political and philosophical thought of Georg Lukács, after his magnum opus History and class consciousness, as well as the influence that historical events had on this evolution. Against the dominant consensus that dismisses Lukács’s late work as an effect of his alleged “reconciliation with reality”, I argue that the line of continuity in his thought was the idea of peaceful coexistence, derived from the objective conditions – the isolation of the Soviet Union and the stabilization of Western capitalism. So, rather than explaining his choice to defend coexistence, or “socialism in one country” as a consequence of his reconciliation with, or surrender to Stalinism, one should see his compromise with Stalinism as a consequence of this choice. His commitment to the coexistence thesis shaped his final version of Marxism in a number of ways. From a political perspective, a readjustment of the temporal scale of the transition to socialism in post-revolutionary society constrained him to advocate a more realist strategy that combined revolutionary movements with evolutionary processes – this was reflected in his option for the Popular Front strategy and later in his support for the Western pacifist movements. His late philosophical work also bears the marks of this enduring political choice. Keywords: Coexistence, Marxism, irrationalism, Stalinism, democratization, socialism "

Anti-state political opportunities

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana M. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Social Transformation ◽  
State Repression ◽  
Political Factors ◽  
Political Opportunities ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Revolutionary Movements ◽  
Political Opportunity Theory ◽  
Future Work

The anarchist movement utilizes non-statist and anti-statist strategies for radical social transformation, thus indicating the limits of political opportunity theory and its emphasis upon the state. Using historical narratives from present-day anarchist movement literature, I note various events and phenomena in the last two centuries and their relevance to the mobilization and demobilization of anarchist movements throughout the world (Bolivia, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Japan, and Venezuela). Labor movement allies, failing state socialism, and punk subculture have provided conditions conducive to anarchism, while state repression and Bolshevik triumph in the Soviet Union constrained success. This variation suggests that future work should attend more closely to the role of national context, and the interrelationship of political and non-political factors. Additionally, the key question of what constitutes movement “success” for revolutionary movements that “move forward”, yet do not achieve revolutionary transformation (indeed, who conceive of a final, complete transformation to be theoretically impossible), seems to be a problem faced uniquely by anarchist movements. Instead, thinking of opportunity as being global, non-politically-based, and unattached to “ultimate objectives” like revolution, help to make these ideas more useful for understanding anarchist mobilization.

Corporatism, Totalitarianism, and Transitions to Democracy

1994 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAOHUI ZHANG
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
The Other ◽  
Institutional Conditions ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Transitions To Democracy ◽  
Institutional Legacies

Recent studies of democratization generally emphasize the role of elites and political pacts in transitions to democracy. They usually give little attention to the institutional conditions for elite's successful pact making. This article argues that although choices by elites are important, pact making does require certain institutional conditions. By examining the democratization experiences of Spain, Brazil, the Soviet Union, and China in 1989, this article argues that only some types of authoritarian regimes have the historical possibility of following a pacted transition. Specifically, the author argues that corporatist regimes have unique advantages in following such a path. On the other hand, the totalitarian institutional legacies of once-entrenched communist regimes left democratic oppositions as broadly based social movements and their leaders with strong populist tendencies. These, the author argues, create structural obstacles to democratization through elite's pactmaking for these regimes.

JOSEPH VAREIKIS IN THE 1920S AND EARLY 1930S

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-38
Author(s):  
A.YU. SARAN ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Political Elites ◽  
Formation Processes ◽  
Russian Civil War ◽  
New Economic Policy ◽  
Armed Struggle ◽  
Political Biography ◽  
Central Russia ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Russian Empire

The purpose of the article is to study the peculiarities of the political regional leader formation in 1920-s based on the analysis of J. M. Vareikis’s biography. The research is conducted in the context of studying the process-es of regional political elites of the Soviet Union formation.Vareikis 's formation as a regional leader took place in the conditions of the underground movement in the Russian Empire, armed struggle during the Russian Civil War, as well as the implementation and curtailment of a new economic policy, the beginning of the formation processes of J.V. Stalin’s authoritarian power in the Soviet Union. Vareikis's political biography was also deter-mined by the changes in the administrative-territorial system of the country. Vareikis polemized with V. I. Lenin, took an active part in the struggle against L. D. Trotsky. According to the decisions of the Communist Party leadership, Vareikis worked in Siberia, the Volga region, Ukraine, Central Asia, Transcaucasia, Central Russia and Moscow.

Peaceful Coexistence: Turkey and the Near East in Soviet Foreign Policy

1985 ◽  
Vol 481 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
DUYGU B. SEZER
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Near East ◽  
Political Regimes ◽  
Peaceful Coexistence ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Economic Aid ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy ◽  
Cyprus Conflict

This article focuses on Soviet interests in the Near East, Soviet policy toward Turkey, Soviet-Greek relations, and the Cyprus conflict. The Near East is important to the Soviet Union for geographic, strategic-security, and ideological reasons. Soviet policy can be characterized as one of continuity, stability, and peaceful coexistence—resourceful and responsive at the same time. Moscow has been tolerant of a range of political regimes in Turkey, to which it has offered extensive economic aid, and it has welcomed Greece's new independent foreign policy.

Notes of The Tale of the Rout of Mamai in the Context of the Collective Imagery Concerning the Battle of Kulikovo

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-241
Author(s):  
Kati Parppei
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Illustrative Case ◽  
Collective Identities ◽  
Power Structures ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
External Threat ◽  
Major Turning Point ◽  
Soviet Russia ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Illustrative Case Study

Representations of military exploits are commonly used as “building material” in the post-Soviet reconstruction of collective identities. In the case of medieval battles, the scarcity of sources as well as temporal distance has allowed the production of relatively liberal representations, making them adjustable material for supporting contemporary ideas and power structures. The Battle of Kulikovo provides an illustrative case study. It took place in 1380 between troops commanded by Muscovite Grand Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich and Mongolian Emir Mamai. In Russian national historiography the battle has been considered as a major turning point. One of the most central sources used by national historians has been The Tale of the Rout of Mamai, presumably originally produced at the turn of the 16th century. In this article the text is examined as a reflection of certain contemporary religious-political developments. It can be claimed that the dualistic approach of the text, which emphasizes unified resistance against an external threat, has been applicable in strengthening ideas of internal cohesion in the Grand Duchy of Muscovy, the Russian empire and the Soviet Union, as well as post-Soviet Russia, creating an anachronistically toned basis for the collective imagery concerning the battle.

scholarly journals Russia's Muslim Frontiers

1995 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-120
Author(s):  
M. E. Ahrari
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Former Soviet Union ◽  
Muslim Country ◽  
Armed Struggle ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Central Asian Countries ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Cold War

The sudden independence of five Muslim Central Asian countries-Khazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan-and one Muslim country in the Transcaucasus regionAzerbaijan-has surprised even the international scholarly community.When the former Soviet Union was alive and well, there were "Sovietscholars," a rubric that largely included specialists on Russia, Ukraine,and the Baltic states. Western scholars were almost never inclined tospecialize in, or to give any serious attention to, the Muslim regions ofthe Soviet Union. This neglect was also reflected in their evaluations ofthe problems of this region, as can be seen by the uncritical acceptanceof the Soviet vocabulary. For instance, the Qorabashi armed resistancein Muslim Central Asia was labeled the "Basmachi" (or bandit) movementby the Soviet Union and its scholars. This phrase was also used bywestern scholars.Now there is no more Soviet Union, the cold war has entered history,and there are six new Muslim republics. These developments haveengendered a renewed interest in these republics, as can be seen by thenumber of recently published books that have been devoted to them.Although some of them have been hurriedly compiled, others have beenwritten with a lot of forethought and balanced analysis.Eickelman's present anthology definitely falls into the latter category.In fact, to the best of my knowledge, his anthology is one of thefirst books that raises the question of whether the above-mentionedQorabashi movement was indeed an armed struggle against the Sovietimperial masters or was a "bandit" movement as portrayed by Sovietscholars. This book comprises four parts: "International and RegionalPerspectives," "Central Asia " "Afghanistan and Iran," and "Pakistan."The first two sections formulate the essence of this study. Eickelman'sintroduction, in my estimation, is certainly one of the best chapters. Itis unfortunate that he did not include more of his writing in this book.His review of the literature on modernization theories and orientalismin this chapter will be read by students of Central Asia and the MiddleEast with interest.Other noteworthy contributions are the two essays by RichardCottam and Gregory Kornyenko. It is refreshing to read Cottam's ...

Peaceful Revolutions?

2020 ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
Daniel Chirot
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Political Regimes ◽  
Economic Changes ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Progressive Reforms ◽  
Capitalist Democracies

This chapter offers some counterexamples that show how the most radical outcomes are hardly inevitable and can sometimes be avoided, though moderation itself may be unexpectedly destabilizing in the longer run. In the second half of the nineteenth century, for instance, Germany and Japan went through major changes that turned out to be genuinely revolutionary, but they were guided by socially conservative leaders who understood that progressive reforms were necessary to avoid more dangerous outcomes. The more obviously revolutionary upheavals in the Eastern European communist states in 1989 were even more dramatic examples because they were largely nonviolent and not led by conservatives. Entire economic and political regimes ended abruptly and were replaced by liberal, capitalist democracies. The same seemed to happen to the Soviet Union in 1991. There have also been societies able to accommodate truly revolutionary social, political, and economic changes without revolutions at all.

The Transformation of Capitalism and the Limits of Democracy

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry Harris
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
Working Class ◽  
Structural Adjustment ◽  
The West ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Keynesian Model ◽  
External Threat ◽  
Structural Adjustment Programmes ◽  
Wage Structures

Capitalism has undergone a number of important transformations and challenges. Within the West, capitalism responded to these problems with Keynesian solutions, creating an expanded social contract and growing middle class. But alongside its triumphalism with the fall of the Soviet Union, capitalism was reaching its own limits of expansion within the Keynesian model. Without an external threat, capitalism was free to focus on the wage structures and social benefits that restricted corporate profitability. The middle class had reached their limits and the working class had overreached theirs. Neoliberalism, led by financialisation, transformed capitalism into an updated model of its pre-Keynesian existence. Capitalism was rapidly transforming from a nation-centric system into a global structure of accumulation and power. Austerity in the developed North and structural adjustment programmes in the developing South resulted from a break with industrial-era national capitalism.

Symbiosis and Revolution: The Soviet Encounter with the War in Dhofar

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Philipp Casula
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Press ◽  
Revolutionary Movements ◽  
The Cold War

This article discusses how the Soviet Union perceived and related to Middle Eastern revolutionary movements, using a case study from South Yemen and the War in Dhofar. This specific Soviet encounter will be analysed through selected Soviet material from published and archival sources. The article highlights how Soviet representatives assessed prospects for socialism in Yemen, and how they interacted with their partners on the ground. The article is divided into three parts: the first discusses the theoretical debates in Soviet academia and the press, the second section contrasts these theoretical views with Middle Eastern ‘socialist’ theories during the Cold War and the third shows how a symbiosis developed between Soviet and Yemeni institutions and organisations. The article argues that due to an Orientalist take on South Yemen and Dhofar, the Soviet side could not appreciate the political importance and potential of socialist currents in the region, reducing cooperation to ‘pragmatism’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document