Suchergebnisse

Since its inception, Marxism has showcased the scientific superiority of political economy over economics. This article argues that Mao Zedong played an important role in demonstrating this superiority. In his
A Critique of Soviet Economics, Mao criticised Soviet political economy for its economic focus, which underestimated the importance of politics and ideology. It was essential, Mao argued, to explore how the political and ideological superstructure affects the economic base. Only then can political economy scientifically understand the processes of socio-economic development, most notably the socialist revolution and period of socialist construction. This article argues that Mao's arguments retain key insights for the study and development of Marxist political economy today. They remain especially important in the People's Republic of China. By upholding and enriching Mao's insights into the critical role of politics and ideology under socialism, the Communist Party of China has ensured the successful development of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

According to an old legend, Vladimir Lenin, the founder of Soviet Marxism, overlooked Karl Marx's theory of alienation. For Marxist humanists, this theory underlies the emancipatory thrust of Marx's thought, and since, in their view, Lenin's acolytes ignored alienation, communist regimes failed to empower the workers. Considering these claims, this article challenges the legend that Lenin himself neglected Marx's theory of alienation. It argues that this theory was central to Lenin's Marxism. In fact, Lenin was among the first to discover the concept in Marx's work, although he also analysed the concept independently. Like Marx, Lenin criticised capitalist alienation and defined communism as a non-alienated society. After the October Revolution, however, Lenin struggled to realise this goal. Responding to a failed European socialist revolution, a brutal civil war, a deadly famine and widespread cultural backwardness, Lenin made concessions to alienation. Nevertheless, Lenin's legacy provides an important insight into alienation today.

In his writings and speeches Lenin showed considerable interest in the "Woman Question." He argued, first, that the exploitation of female labor performs a central function in the development of capitalism. He claimed that women are "doubly oppressed," since they lack equality in both the legal–political and domestic spheres. Second, Lenin endorsed the women's rights movement. He called for universal suffrage, criticized prostitution, and supported the struggle for freedom of divorce and abortion. At the same time, he sought to highlight the limits of female liberation under capitalism. Third, Lenin connected the emancipation of women with the construction of socialism and communism. In Soviet Russia he pushed for the equalization of male and female rights. He called for the mass participation of women in politics and economic administration. He planned the socialization of domestic labor and the abolition of household slavery. Under socialism, Lenin argued, women would emancipate themselves.

In the ideological legacy of Friedrich Engels, the critique of "state socialism" has a prominent, if overlooked place. According to this conception, the essence of socialism is that the existing state intervenes in the capitalist economy and society with reforms to benefit the working class. The first section of this article outlines Engels' critique of state socialism. It mentions how left geographers have approached his remarks on the trend, specifically in regard to the housing question, nationalisation, and liberal democracy. The second part highlights the contemporary significance of Engels' conception of proletarian emancipation-as contained in his critique of state socialism. Engels' remarks can help clarify the objective conditions for socialism, conditions that some left geographers continue to ignore.

In his writings and speeches Lenin showed considerable interest in the "Woman Question." He argued, first, that the exploitation of female labor performs a central function in the development of capitalism. He claimed that women are "doubly oppressed," since they lack equality in both the legal-political and domestic spheres. Second, Lenin endorsed the women's rights movement. He called for universal suffrage, criticized prostitution, and supported the struggle for freedom of divorce and abortion. At the same time, he sought to highlight the limits of female liberation under capitalism. Third, Lenin connected the emancipation of women with the construction of socialism and communism. In Soviet Russia he pushed for the equalization of male and female rights. He called for the mass participation of women in politics and economic administration. He planned the socialization of domestic labor and the abolition of household slavery. Under socialism, Lenin argued, women would emancipate themselves.

A longstanding criticism of Lenin is that his epistemological contributions to the theory of scientific socialism prompted the decline of Marxism in dogmatism and despotism in the twentieth century. According to this narrative, Lenin claimed to possess the objective truth, and he therefore refused to tolerate alternative perspectives. This article subjects these claims to a textual analysis, and it argues that they are erroneous. Lenin defends a fallibilist account of science that affirms the uncertainty of knowledge in the natural, philosophical and social sciences. This fallibilism pervades the text that supposedly showcases his intolerance, Materialism and Empirio- Criticism. Lenin's scientific socialism opposes rigid conceptions of socialism, and it encourages an atmosphere of democratic debate. Whilst Lenin's writings have their flaws, they are not the founding documents of Marxist dogmatism that they are often portrayed as being. Lenin is not the narrowminded vulgariser of Marxism that he is routinely taken to be.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, founder of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and leader of the first Socialist State in the world, devoted great attention from the very first days of the soviet power to the education of the people, to organising the work of cultural and educational institutions, libraries and reading rooms. He considered libraries as the most massive and accessible centres of political education for the workers, propagation of knowledge, and the raising of the peoples cultural and technical level. Lenin's works, reports and speeches, notes and draft resolutions of Party and state organisations contained a detailed programme for constructing the Soviet socialist system of library services for the people.

"Public Libraries and Marxism provides a Marxist analytical framework for understanding public libraries and presents a set of proposals for transforming the capitalist libraries of today. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of this Marxist framework, the authors also provide a critical examination of the history, theory and practice of libraries in the Soviet Union and North Korea. Considering what a Marxist library service would look like in the western capitalist countries of today, Pateman and Pateman synthesise the insights provided throughout the book into a set of Marxist proposals that are designed to promote the transformation of contemporary western public librarianship. These proposals suggest how western public libraries can change their organisation and practices - their strategies, structures, systems and culture - in order to best serve those with the most needs, particularly as society evolves in response to new challenges. Public Libraries and Marxism will be relevant for scholars and students of library and information science, history, politics and sociology. Outlining the rudiments of a Marxist library service that should be applicable around the world, the book will also appeal to library practitioners who want to develop libraries in a community-led and needs-based direction"--