Inventory No: Seller Inventory More information about this seller Contact this seller. Add to Basket. Paper edition.
Book Description Springer, Netherlands, Condition: New. Language: English.
Neither of the founders and none of the subsequent leaders of the Communist movement ever wrote a full analysis of what he expected the future society to be. Title: The Communist Millennium The Soviet View. Publisher: Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague. Publication Date: Binding: PAPERBACK. Edition: Paper edition.
Brand new Book. Neither of the founders and none of the subsequent leaders of the Communist movement ever wrote a full analysis of what he expected the future society to be.
Throughout the vast literature of Marxism there is nothing in general or detail which devotes itself to this goal as such. There are several obvious reasons for this: Marxists, having excoriated utopian, Le. The dynamic of this materialism is, consistently, self-restrictive, non-mechanistic, zeitgebunden; it develops the past in terms of actions and counteractions in social time, and sees naturallaw at work in each stage of social-economic organization - Le. It sees the exhaustion of an era in the completion of its logic and the unconscious creation of its successor.
Therefore the discarding of capi- talism as historically depleted and the rise of socialism-communism as the next stage, the next logic and law of economic development, are forecast. This is the given, the premise, the Naturnotwendigkeit of material society, the reason of social efficiency and of course one of the data of capitalism. According to E. Seller Inventory AAV Seller Inventory LIE Book Description Springer, Book Description Springer. Seller Inventory ING Condition: Brand New.
In Stock. Seller Inventory x The Soviet view. The Communist Millennium.
From Anybook Ltd. Lincoln, United Kingdom Seller Rating:.
Medical Law and Moral Rights discusses live issues arising in modern medical practice. Over 10 chapters, the book describes manufacturing methods, surface Simply wearing an amulet now made a person a shaman—and shamans were arrested. To be sure, not everyone in these societies was a loser, which gets at one of the great paradoxes of all socialist systems: the extreme inequality that allows a cabal of party members to control the political and economic power in a country to the exclusion of an overwhelming majority of the citizens. Nationalism of the German kind was certainly destructive; but so was internationalism of the Soviet kind. Food was often fermented walrus or boiled reindeer. The need to affirm national sovereignty, and the need to conform to the universal standards of citizenship are the two great gifts of the European political inheritance.
Hence this unforeseen price of freedom has come as an enormous shock, both politically and psychologically. Paradoxically communism, although established as an international movement and claiming to abolish all sovereign boundaries, helped to preserve the nation state.
For the nation was an enduring reality around which resistance could shape itself and, when combined with the powerful resurgence of Catholic faith in Poland, proved decisive in the overthrow of the communist tyranny. The issue has also been absorbed into the wider conflict between the national and the international perspective, itself reaching back into the past of our continent and into the dark and difficult emotions that tore the continent apart during the 20thcentury.
This conflict has played itself out with increasing anger and confusion in the UK, between the proponents and the opponents of Brexit. For there are two ways of appealing to the people — indirectly, through the institutions that safeguard the liberal voice, and directly, by asking them what they think. Direct appeal to the people is rejected as dangerous.
After all, they do not know what they think, or if they do know, it is because they think the wrong things. Only when guided and tempered by a liberal constitution can the people be trusted — and that means filtering their raw emotions though a fine mesh of liberal hesitations, so that only a harmless stream of sentiment trickles forth.
Both are accused of making too direct an appeal to the sentiments of the people, and in particular to their sentiments of belonging. But ordinary people cling to forms of membership that are local, bounded and difficult to translate into bureaucratic norms. Their values are shaped by religion, family, language and national history, and they do not necessarily recognize the force of transnational obligations, or universal codes of human rights, especially when those codes are in direct conflict with the specific obligations of family and faith.
It seems to me that the conflict between the Left intelligentsia and human nature has shifted from the sphere of socialism versus capitalism to this new sphere, of enlightened liberalism versus residual nationalism. What the liberals condemn as populism is really the attempt to retain old and inherited sentiments of identity and belonging. And what the people condemn as elitism is really the enlightenment conception of a universal and borderless political order, in which conflicts supposedly vanish because their cause — which is the competitive network of national loyalties — has been swept away.
The EU was founded by people moved by that enlightenment idea — and who saw nationalism as the force that had unleashed the century of European wars. Looking back on it, however, it is just as reasonable to see the idea of a universal and borderless form of politics as underlying the imprisonment of East and Central Europe by the communists. Nationalism of the German kind was certainly destructive; but so was internationalism of the Soviet kind. Why not recognize that, in themselves, neither is more destructive than the other, but that each can become destructive, when wound into a totalitarian project, in which dissent is not permitted and the people are no longer allowed to express their views?
The same annihilating rage that was directed against conservatives like myself in the s and s is being directed now against the supposed populists, and — not surprisingly — there is a growing tendency for the populists to give back as good as they get. The resulting rise in temperature is one of the factors behind a loss of confidence in the EU, which seems to have precipitated a conflict that it cannot manage.
And it is a conflict that is revealed in all the rapid changes that our continent is now undergoing. This conflict is particularly important for the post-communist countries, since the one thing they lacked in was a clear idea of what they are, and what unites the people in a body politic. The communists had an agenda, in which the people were conscripted to a cause that was clearly unachievable and in any case hopelessly out of date. They offered no other concept of identity, than the all-comprehending purpose of the communist millennium.
All those factors that might have persuaded people to adhere to that purpose — culture, art, music, religion, history — had been driven underground, and the joyless surface of everyday life contained no promise of a future, other than this one. This was the one thing the EU was unable to provide. It gave them an avenue into the global economy, and a route away from their home, but no new way of belonging where they arrived.
As the disappointments accumulated, it was the hope of belonging that beckoned. Where is home, and who defines it? Global capitalism is no answer, since it merely voids the world of loyalties and puts everything, human relations included, on sale. This surely is what is legitimate in those old Leftist criticisms: that the human heart has no real place in the global economy — the heart that so many of us observed in those who fought the communist tyranny in Eastern Europe and who hoped that, when the mask of dictatorship fell at last, the smiling face of the nation would be revealed beneath it.
My view is that this situation should be seen as an opportunity and not as a crisis.
After 30 years of confusion, the people of Eastern and central Europe are beginning to understand that they are heirs to two great achievements: on the one hand, the nation state as a form of social and political identity; on the other hand the Enlightenment conception of citizenship, in which each assumes the full responsibilities of social membership under a shared rule of law.
The two achievements are forced into conflict with each other, in part because the EU wishes to dampen or even destroy the national idea. But properly understood they are two sides of the same coin. We must recognize that, without national identity and the loyalty that stems from it, there is no way to build a society of citizens. Democracy and the rule of law are realities only if opposing sides can live with each other on terms. The great benefit of democracy is that it makes opposition possible and also legitimate.
But this has the consequence that, in a democracy, more than half the people at any moment might be living under a government that they did not choose, maybe a government that they hate. What makes that possible? Why do democracies not break down, under the pressure of popular dissent?
This higher thing is the nation, the entity to which we all belong, and which defines the first-person plural of democratic politics. It seems to me therefore that the so-called populists are right to emphasise the nation state as the fount of loyalty, and that their enlightened liberal opponents should acknowledge this, and cease to use the European institutions as a way to punish the governments that lean in this direction. And reciprocally those who wish to revive the national ideal, and to affirm the rights of national sovereignty, should listen to the voice of the liberal enlightenment — and accept that national sentiments must always be tempered by the recognition of others out there, who do not and cannot share them.
The need to affirm national sovereignty, and the need to conform to the universal standards of citizenship are the two great gifts of the European political inheritance. They are mutually dependent.
We should stand against those who wish to prize them apart, so as to condemn one or the other of them as an offense against the people. After all, it is the people who have most to lose from any conflict between them, and the job of the politician is not to stir up conflict but to soothe it. It is my hope that we have arrived at the point when this will be possible. Then, at last, the poison administered by the communists will have been flushed from the system.
And has been published in UnHerd.