.....that earned Mr. Weyl a measure of notoriety. Mr. Weyl (pronounced "while") had been active....
It may seem like a waste of time to most others, but I find this important to know as I try to put together as many facts as I can from high to low. Walter While.
Reclaiming Revolution 01: Audiobook Preface
Reclaiming Revolution 02: Setting The Stage
Reclaiming Revolution 05: Early 1990s - The Roots of STORM
Reclaiming Revolution 08: 1994 - Launching STORM & First Steps
Reclaiming Revolution 13: 1995 - Crisis
Reclaiming Revolution 18: 1997 - Re-grounding & Rectification
Reclaiming Revolution 20: 411 - Political Education Committee
Reclaiming Revolution 21: 1998 - Re-emergence
Reclaiming Revolution 26: Workers Organizing to Rid us of Capitalism (WORC)
Reclaiming Revolution 27: 1998-1999 - Rolling
Reclaiming Revolution 28: Theory Development Work Group
Reclaiming Revolution 31: Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM)
Reclaiming Revolution 34: Culture & Propaganda (CPWG)
Reclaiming Revolution 36: 1999-2000 - Clouds Start to Form
Reclaiming Revolution 38: Was STORM Trying to Control Other Organizations and Run the Movement?
Reclaiming Revolution 42: 2001-2003 - Crisis (Part 1)
Reclaiming Revolution 42: 2001-2003 - Crisis (Part 2)
Reclaiming Revolution 51: STORM's Politics - Storm's Approach to Marxism
Reclaiming Revolution 52: Moving from Resistance to Revolution
Reclaiming Revolution 53: Storm's Points of Unity
Reclaiming Revolution 56: Did Storm Think It Was the Vanguard?
Reclaiming Revolution 57: STORM's Structure
Reclaiming Revolution 60: The Politics Behind STORM'S Structure
Reclaiming Revolution 63: Summation of our Experiences - Revolutionary Politics
Reclaiming Revolution 64: Approach to Theory & Ideology
Reclaiming Revolution 66: Revolutionary Strategy
Reclaiming Revolution 69: Cadre Organization
Reclaiming Revolution 72: Leadership Development
Reclaiming Revolution 73: Building the Movement
Reclaiming Revolution 77: Leadership & Democracy
Reclaiming Revolution 80: Nationalism & Internationalism
Reclaiming Revolution 83: Revolutionary Feminism
Reclaiming Revolution 86: Style of Work
Reclaiming Revolution 89: Revolutionary Discipline
Reclaiming Revolution 92: Romantic Relationships between Revolutionaries
Reclaiming Revolution 94: Political Security
Reclaiming Revolution 97: Conclusion - Closing Words to Open the Conversation
http://tinyurl.com/lxhvzgt
The relationship that we seek and that we have worked hard to foster is not about a United States declaration about how and when it will intervene in the affairs of other American states. It’s about all of our countries viewing one another as equals, sharing responsibilities, cooperating on security issues, and adhering not to doctrine, but to the decisions that we make as partners to advance the values and the interests that we share.
With "other American states", Kerry means countries such as those in the Gulf, Central, or South America. So what does the Roosevelt Corollary say? It is laid out in the The President's Annual Message to Congress of 1904. Among other things:
Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.
This is the typical arrogance from progressives that drives me out of my mind. The Monroe Doctrine was generally a defensive declaration, while it is Theodore Roosevelt who lays out a programme of imperialist aggression. Not only has Kerry turned the doctrine on its head, Roosevelt also turned the Monroe Doctrine on its head 100+ years ago.
One thing that progressives will never want people to discover is that "American Imperialism" is a very important ingredient in the mixture of what would become progressivism. They own it, and Theodore Roosevelt is the key to unlocking the door to yet another dismal chapter in the history of progressivism.
http://tinyurl.com/kpxc28y
Secondly, by the policy of collectivizing agriculture.To put an end to our backwardness in agriculture and to provide the country with the largest possible amount of market grain, cotton, and so forth, it was necessary to pass from small peasant farming to large-scale farming, for only large-scale farming can employ modern machinery, utilize all the achievements of agricultural science and provide the largest possible quantity of market produce. But there are two kinds of large-scale farming -- capitalist and collective. The Communist Party could not take the capitalist path of developing agriculture not only on grounds of principle, but also because that path presupposes an exceedingly long process of development and requires the preliminary ruination of the peasants and their transformation into agricultural labourers. The Communist Party therefore took the path of collectivizing agriculture, the path of organizing large farms by uniting the peasant farms into collective farm's. The collective method proved to be an exceedingly progressive method not only because it did not call for the ruination of the peasants, but also, and particularly, because it enabled us in the course of several years to cover the entire country with large collective farms capable of employing modern machinery, of utilizing all the achievements of agricultural science and of providing the country with the largest possible quantity of market produce.
There is no doubt that without the policy of collectivization we would not have been able to put an end to the age-long backwardness of our agriculture in so short a time.
It cannot be said that the Party's policy met with no resistance. Not only backward people, who always shrink from everything new, but even many prominent members of the Party persistently tried to pull our Party back, and by every possible means tried to drag it onto the "ordinary" capitalist path of development. All the anti-Party machinations of the trotskyites and of the Rights, all their "activities" in sabotaging the measures of our Government, pursued the one object of frustrating the Party's policy and of hindering industrialization and collectivization. But the Party yielded neither to the threats of some nor to the howling of others and confidently marched forward in spite of everything. It is to the Party's credit that it did not adjust itself to the backward, that it was not afraid to swim against the stream, and that all the time it held on to its position of the leading force. There can be no doubt that if the Communist Party had not displayed this staunchness and perseverance it would have been unable to uphold the policy of industrializing the country and of collectivizing agriculture.
Everything they do, no matter how many lives it destroys or people it kills, gets labeled as "progress", "forward", or "new ideas". Despite the fact that all of these collective methods are as old as human history. The The Pilgrims gave collectivization a shot. It failed miserably. Other "progressive" ideas such as wealth redistribution are also very old ideas, having been implemented by tyrants for as long as time can remember. The death of truth is an important stage on the road to serfdom.
http://tinyurl.com/l9lglmm
February 9, 1946
Comrades!
Eight years have passed since the last elections to the Supreme Soviet. This has been a period replete with events of a decisive nature. The first four years were years of intense labour on the part of Soviet people in carrying out the Third Five-Year Plan. The second four years covered the events of the war against the German and Japanese aggressors -- the events of the Second World War. Undoubtedly, the war was the main event during the past period.
It would be wrong to think that the Second World War broke out accidentally, or as a result of blunders committed by certain statesmen, although blunders were certainly committed. As a matter of fact, the war broke out as the inevitable result of the development of world economic and political forces on the basis of present-day monopolistic capitalism. Marxists have more than once stated that the capitalist system of world economy contains the elements of a general crisis and military conflicts, that, in view of that, the development of world capitalism in our times does not proceed smoothly and evenly, but through crises and catastrophic wars. The point is that the uneven development of capitalist countries usually leads, in the course of time, to a sharp disturbance of the equilibrium within the world system of capitalism, and that group of capitalist countries regards itself as being less securely provides with raw materials and markets usually attempts to change the situation and to redistribute "spheres of influence" in its own favour -- by employing armed force. As a result of this, the capitalist world is split into two hostile camps, and war breaks out between them.
Perhaps catastrophic wars could be avoided if it were possible periodically to redistribute raw materials and markets among the respective countries in conformity with their economic weight by means of concerted and peaceful decisions. But this is impossible under the present capitalist conditions of world economic development.
Thus, as a result of the first crisis of the capitalist system of world economy, the First World War broke out; and as a result of the second crisis, the Second World War broke out.
This does not mean, of course, that the Second World War was a copy of the first. On the contrary, the Second world differed substantially in character from the first. It must be borne in mind that before attacking the Allied countries the major fascist states -- Germany, Japan and Italy -- destroyed the last remnants of bourgeois-democratic liberties at home and established there a cruel terroristic regime, trampled upon the principle of the sovereignty and free development of small countries, proclaimed as their own the policy of seizing foreign territory, and shouted from the housetops that they were aiming at world domination and the spreading of the fascist regime all over the world; and by seizing Czechoslovakia and the central regions of China, the Axis Powers showed that they were ready to carry out their threat to enslave all the freedom-loving peoples. In new of this, the Second World War against the Axis Powers, unlike the First World War, assumed from the very outset the character of an anti-fascist war, a war of liberation, one of the tasks of which was to restore democratic liberties. The entry of the Soviet Union into the war against the Axis Powers could only augment -- and really did augment -- the anti-fascist and liberating character of the Second World War.
It was on this basis that the anti-fascist coalition of the Soviet Union, the United States of America, Great Britain and other freedom-loving countries came into being and later played the decisive role in defeating the armed forces of the Axis Powers.
That is how it stands with the question of the origin and character of the Second World War.
Everybody, perhaps, now admits that the war was not nor could have been an accident in the lives of the peoples, that it actually became a war of the peoples for their existence, and that for that very reason could not have been a swift or lightning war.
As far as our country is concerned, for her this war was the fiercest and most arduous ever fought in the history of our Motherland.
But the war was not only a curse. It was also a great school which examined and tested all the forces of the people. The war laid bare all facts and events in the rear and at the front, it ruthlessly tore down all the veils and coverings that concealed the actual features of slates, governments and parties, and brought them onto the stage without masks and without make-up, with all their defects and merits. The war was something in the nature of an examination of our Soviet system, of our State, of our Government and of our Communist Party, and it summed up their work and said, as it were: Here they are, your people and organizations, their life and work scrutinize them carefully and treat them according to their deserts.
This is one of the positive sides of the war.
For us, for the voters, this is of immense importance, for it helps us quickly and impartially to appraise the activities of the Party and its men, and to draw correct conclusions. At another time we would have had to study the speeches and reports of the representatives of the Party, analyze them, compare their words with their deeds, sum up the results, and so, forth. This is a complicated and laborious job, and there is no guarantee against mistakes. It is different now, when the war is over, when the war itself has verified the work of our organizations and leaders and has summed it up. It is now much easier for us to examine it, and arrive at correct conclusions.
And so, what is the summation of the war?
There is one principal summation upon which all the others rest. This summation is, that towards the end of the war the enemies sustained defeat and we and our Allies proved to be the victors. We terminated the war with complete victory over our enemies -- this is the principal summation of the war. But this summation is too general, and we cannot put a full stop here. Of course, to defeat the enemies in a war such as the Second World War, the like of which has never been witnessed in the history of mankind before, means achieving a victory of world historical importance. That is true. But still, it is a general summation, and we cannot rest content with it. To appreciate the great historical importance of our victory we must analyze the matter more concretely.
And so, how should our victory over the enemies be interpreted? What can this victory signify from the point of view of the state and the development of the internal forces of our country?
Our victory signifies, first of all, that our Soviet social system was victorious, that the Soviet social system successfully passed the test of fire in the war and proved that it is fully viable.
As we know, the foreign press on more than one occasion asserted that the Soviet social system was a "dangerous experiment" that was doomed to failure, that the Soviet system was a "house of cards" having no foundations in life and imposed upon the people by the Cheka, and that a slight shock from without was sufficient to cause this "house of cards" to collapse.
Now we can say that the war has, refuted all these assertions of the foreign press and has proved them to have been groundless. The war proved that the Soviet social system is a genuinely people's system, which grew up from the ranks of the people and enjoys their powerful| support; that the Soviet social system is fully viable and stable form of organization of society.
More than that. The issue now is not whether the Soviet social system is viable or not, because after the object lessons of the war, no skeptic now dares to express doubt concerning the viability of the Soviet social system. Now the issue is that the Soviet social system has proved to be more viable and stable than the non-Soviet social system, that the Soviet social system is a better form of organization of society than any non-Soviet social system.
Secondly, our victory signifies that our Soviet state system was victorious, that our multinational Soviet state passed all the tests of the war and proved its viability.
As we know, prominent foreign journalists have more than once expressed themselves to the effect that the Soviet multinational state is an "artificial and short-lived structure," that in the event of any complications arising the collapse of the Soviet Union would be inevitable, that the Soviet Union would share the fate of Austria-Hungary.
Now we can say that the war refuted these statements of the foreign press and proved them to have been devoid of all foundation. The war proved that the Soviet multinational state system successfully passed the test, grew stronger than ever during the war, and turned out to be quite a viable state system. These gentlemen failed to realize that the analogy of Austria-Hungary was unsound, because our multinational state grew up not on the bourgeois basis, which stimulates sentiments of national distrust and national enmity, but on the Soviet basis, which, on the contrary, cultivates sentiments of friendship and fraternal cooperation among the peoples of our state.
Incidentally, after the lessons of the war, these gentlemen no longer dare to come out and deny the viability of the Soviet state system. The issue now is no longer the viability of the Soviet state system, because there can be no doubt about its viability. Now the issue is that the Soviet state system has proved to be a model multinational state, that the Soviet state system is a system of state organization in which the national problem and the problem, of the collaboration of nations have found a better solution than in any other multinational state.
Thirdly, our victory signifies that the Soviet Armed Forces, our Red Army, was victorious, that the Red Army heroically withstood all the hardships of the war, utterly routed the armies of our enemies, and emerged from the war the victor. (A voice: "Under Comrade Stalin's leadership!" All rise. Loud and prolonged applause, rising to an ovation.)
Now, everybody, friends and enemies alike, admit that the Red Army proved equal to its tremendous task. But this was not the case six years ago, in the period before the war. As we know, prominent foreign journalists, and many recognized authorities on military affairs abroad, repeatedly stated that the condition of the Red Army roused grave doubts, that the Red Army was poorly armed and lacked a proper commanding staff, that its morale was beneath criticism, that while it might be fit for defence, it was useless for attack, and that, if struck by the German troops, the Red Army would collapse like "a colossus with feet of clay." Such statements were made not only in Germany, but also in France, Great Britain and America.
Now we can say that the war refuted all these statements and proved them to have been groundless and ridiculous. The war proved that the Red Army is not "a colossus with feet of clay," but a first-class modern army, equipped with the most up-to-date armaments, led by most experienced commanders and possessing high morale and fighting qualities. It must not be forgotten that the Red Army is the army which utterly routed the German army, the army which only yesterday struck terror in the hearts of the armies of the European states.
It must be noted that the "critics" of the Red Army are becoming fewer and fewer. More than that. Comments are more and more frequently appearing in the foreign press noting the high qualities of the Red Army, the skill of its men and commanders, and the flawlessness of its strategy and tactics. This is understandable. After the brilliant victories the Red Army achieved at Moscow and Stalingrad, at Kursk and Belgorod, at Kiev and Kirovograd, at Minsk and Bobruisk, at Leningrad and Tallinn, at Jassy and Lvov, on the Vistula and the Niemen, on the Danube and the Oder and at Vienna and Berlin -- after all this, it is impossible not to admit that the Red Army is a first-class army, from which much can be learned.
This is how we concretely understand the victory our country achieved over her enemies.
Such, in the main, is the summation of the war.
It would be wrong to think that such a historical victory could have been achieved without preliminary preparation by the whole country for active defence. It would be no less wrong to assume that such preparation could have been made in a short space of time, in a matter of three or four years. It would be still more wrong to assert that our victory was entirely due to the bravery of our troops. Without bravery it is, of course, impossible to achieve victory. But bravery alone is not enough to overpower an enemy who possesses a vast army, first-class armaments, well-trained officers and fairly well-organized supplies. To withstand the blow of such an enemy, to resist him and then to inflict utter defeat upon him it was necessary to have, in addition to the unexampled bravery of our troops, fully up-to-date armaments, and in sufficient quantities, and well-organized supplies, also in sufficient quantities. But for this it was necessary to have, and in, sufficient quantities, elementary things such as: metals -- for the production of armaments, equipment and industrial machinery; fuel -- to ensure the operation of industry and transport; cotton -- to manufacture army clothing; grain -- to supply the army with food.
Can it be said that before entering the Second World War our country already possessed the necessary minimum of the material potentialities needed to satisfy these main requirements? I think it can. To prepare for this immense task we had to carry out three five year plans of national-economic development. It was these three five-year plans that enabled us to create these material potentialities. At all events, the situation in our country in this respect was ever so much better before the Second World War, in 1940, than it was before the First World War, in 1913.
What were the material potentialities at our country's disposal before the Second World War?
To help you to understand this I will have to make you a brief report on the activities of the Communist Party in the matter of preparing our country for active defence.
If we take the data for 1940 the eve of the Second World War -- and compare it with the data for 1913 -- the eve of the First World War -- we shall get the following picture.
In 1913 there was produced in our country 4,220,000 tons of pig iron, 4,230,000 tons of steel, 29,000,000 tons of coal, 9,000,000 tons of oil, 21,600,000 tons of market grain and 740,000 tons of raw cotton.
Such were the material potentialities of our country when she entered the First World War.
This was the economic basis old Russia could utilize for the purpose of prosecuting the war.
As regards 1940, in that year the following was produced in our country: 15,000,000 tons of pig iron, i.e., nearly four times as much as in 1913; 18,300,000 tons of steel, i.e., four and a half times as much as in 1913; 166,000,000 tons of coal, i.e., five and a half times as much as in 1913; 31,000,000 tons of oil, i.e., three and a half times as much as in 1913; 38,300,000 tons of market grain, i.e., 17,000,000 tons more than in 1913; 2,700,000 tons of raw cotton, i.e., three and a half times as much as in 1913.
Such were the material potentialities of our country when she entered the Second World War.
This was the economic basis the Soviet Union could utilize for the purpose of prosecuting the war.
The difference, as you see, is colossal.
This unprecedented growth of production cannot be regarded as the simple and ordinary development of a country from backwardness to progress. It was a leap by which our Motherland became transformed from a backward country into an advanced country, from an agrarian into an industrial country.
This historic transformation was brought about in the course of three five-year plans, beginning with 1928 with the first year of the First Five-Year Plan. Up to that time we had to restore our ruined industries and heal the wounds inflicted upon us by the First World War and the Civil War. If we take into consideration the fact that the First Five-Year Plan was carried out in four years, and that the execution of the Third Five-Year Plan was interrupted by the war in the fourth year, it works out that the transformation of our country from an agrarian into an industrial country took only about thirteen years.
It cannot but be admitted that thirteen years is an incredibly short period for the execution of such a gigantic task.
It is this that explains the storm of debate that was roused in the foreign press at one time by the publication of these figures. Our friends decided that a "miracle" had happened; those who were ill-disposed towards us proclaimed that the five-year plans were "Bolshevik propaganda" and "tricks of the Cheka." But as miracles do not happen and the Cheka is not so powerful as to be able to annul the laws of social development, "public opinion" abroad was obliged to resign itself to the facts.
By what policy was the Communist Party able to create these material potentialities in so short a time?
First of all by the Soviet policy of industrializing the country.
The Soviet method of industrializing the country differs radically from the capitalist method of industrialization. In capitalist countries, industrialization usually starts with light industry. In view of the fact that light industry requires less investments, that capital turnover is faster, and profits are made more easily than in heavy industry, light industry becomes the first object of industrialization, in those countries. Only after the passage of a long period of time, during which light industry accumulates profits and concentrates them in the banks, only after this, does the turn of heavy industry come and accumulation begin gradually to be transferred to heavy industry for the purpose of creating conditions for its expansion. But this is a long process, which takes a long time, running into several decades, during which you have to wait while the light industry develops and do without heavy industry. Naturally, the Communist Party, could not take this path. The Party knew that war was approaching, that it would be impossible to defend our country without heavy industry, that it was necessary to set to work to develop heavy industry as quickly as possible, and that to be belated in this matter meant courting defeat. The Party remembered what Lenin said about it being impossible to protect the independence of our country without heavy industry, and about the likelihood of the Soviet system perishing without heavy industry. The Communist Party of our country therefore rejected the "ordinary" path of industrialization and commenced the industrialization of the country by developing heavy industry. This was a very difficult task, but one that could be accomplished. It was greatly facilitated by the nationalization of industry and the banks, which made it possible quickly to collect funds and transfer them to heavy industry.
There can be no doubt that without this it would have been impossible to transform our country into an industrial country in so short a time.
Secondly, by the policy of collectivizing agriculture.
To put an end to our backwardness in agriculture and to provide the country with the largest possible amount of market grain, cotton, and so forth, it was necessary to pass from small peasant farming to large-scale farming, for only large-scale farming can employ modern machinery, utilize all the achievements of agricultural science and provide the largest possible quantity of market produce. But there are two kinds of large-scale farming -- capitalist and collective. The Communist Party could not take the capitalist path of developing agriculture not only on grounds of principle, but also because that path presupposes an exceedingly long process of development and requires the preliminary ruination of the peasants and their transformation into agricultural labourers. The Communist Party therefore took the path of collectivizing agriculture, the path of organizing large farms by uniting the peasant farms into collective farm's. The collective method proved to be an exceedingly progressive method not only because it did not call for the ruination of the peasants, but also, and particularly, because it enabled us in the course of several years to cover the entire country with large collective farms capable of employing modern machinery, of utilizing all the achievements of agricultural science and of providing the country with the largest possible quantity of market produce.
There is no doubt that without the policy of collectivization we would not have been able to put an end to the age-long backwardness of our agriculture in so short a time.
It cannot be said that the Party's policy met with no resistance. Not only backward people, who always shrink from everything new, but even many prominent members of the Party persistently tried to pull our Party back, and by every possible means tried to drag it onto the "ordinary" capitalist path of development. All the anti-Party machinations of the trotskyites and of the Rights, all their "activities" in sabotaging the measures of our Government, pursued the one object of frustrating the Party's policy and of hindering industrialization and collectivization. But the Party yielded neither to the threats of some nor to the howling of others and confidently marched forward in spite of everything. It is to the Party's credit that it did not adjust itself to the backward, that it was not afraid to swim against the stream, and that all the time it held on to its position of the leading force. There can be no doubt that if the Communist Party had not displayed this staunchness and perseverance it would have been unable to uphold the policy of industrializing the country and of collectivizing agriculture.
Was the Communist Party able to make proper use of the material potentialities created in this way for the purpose of developing war production and of supplying the Red Army with the armaments it needed?
I think it was, and that it did so with the utmost success.
Leaving out of account the first year of the war, when the evacuation of industry to the East hindered the work of developing war production, we can say that during the three succeeding years of the war the Party achieved such successes as enabled it not only to supply the front with sufficient quantities of artillery, machine guns, rifles, aeroplanes, tanks and ammunition, but also to accumulate reserves. Moreover, as is well known, the quality of our armaments, far from being inferior, was, in general, even superior to the German.
It is well known, that during the last three years of the war our tank industry produced annually an average of over 30,000 tanks, self propelled guns and armoured cars.
It is well known, further, that in the same period our aircraft industry produced annually up to 40,000 aeroplanes.
It is also well known that our artillery industry in the same period produced annually up to 120,000 guns of all calibres, upto 450,000 light and heavy machine guns, over 3,000,000 rifles and about 2,000,000 automatic rifles.
Lastly, it is well known that our mortar industry in the period of 1942-44 produced annually an average of up to 100,000 mortars.
It goes without saying that simultaneously we produced corresponding quantities of artillery shells, mines of various kinds, air bombs, and rifle and machine-gun cartridges.
It is well known, for example, that in 1944 alone we produced over 240,000,000 shells, bombs and mines and 7,400,000,000 cartridges.
Such is the general picture of the way the Red Army was supplied with arms and ammunition.
As you see, it does not resemble the picture of the way our army was supplied during the First World War, when the front suffered a chronic shortage of artillery and shells, when the army fought without tanks and aircraft, and when one rifle was issued for every three men.
As regards supplying the Red Army with food and clothing, it is common knowledge that the front not only felt no shortage whatever in this respect, but even, had the necessary reserves.
This is how the matter stands as regards the activities of the Communist Party of our country in the period up to the beginning of the war and during the war.
Now a few words about the Communist Party's plans of work for the immediate future. As you know, these plans are formulated in the new five-year plan, which is to be adopted in the very near future. The main tasks of the new five-year plan are to rehabilitate the devastated regions of our country, to restore industry and agriculture to the prewar level, and then to exceed that level to a more or less considerable extent. Apart from the fact that the rationing system is to be abolished in the very near future, special attention will be devoted to the expansion of the production of consumers' goods, to raising the standard of living of the working people by steadily reducing the prices of all commodities, and to the extensive organization of scientific research institutes of every kind capable of giving the fullest scope to our scientific forces.
I have no doubt that if we give our scientists proper assistance they will be able in the very near future not only to overtake but even outstrip the achievements of science beyond the borders of our country.
As regards long-term plans, our Party intends to organize another powerful upswing of our national economy that will enable us to raise our industry to a level, say, three times as high as that of prewar industry. We must see to it that our industry shall be able to produce annually up to 50,000,000 tons of pig iron, up to 60,000,000 tons of steel, up to 500,000,000 tons of coal and up to 60,000,000 tons of oil. Only when we succeed in doing that can we be sure that our Motherland will be insured against all contingencies. This will need, perhaps, another three five-year plans, if, not more. But it can be done, and we must do it.
This, then, is my brief report on the activities of the Communist Party during the recent past and on its plans of work for the future.
It is for you to judge to what extent the Party has been and is working on the proper lines, and whether it could not have worked better.
It is said that victors are not judged, that they must not be criticized, that they must not be enquired into. This is not true. Victors may and should be judged, they may and should be criticized and enquired into. This is beneficial not only for the cause, but also for the victors; there will be less swelled-headedness, and there will be more modesty. I regard the election campaign as the voters' judgment the Communist Party of our country as the ruling party. The result of the election will be the voters' verdict. The Communist Party of our country would not be worth much if it feared criticism and investigation. The Communist Party is ready receive the verdict of the voters.
In this election contest the Communist Party does not stand alone. It is going to the polls in a bloc with the non-Party people. In the past Communists were rather distrustful of non-Party people and of non-Partyism. This was due to the fact that various bourgeois groups, who thought it was not to their advantage to come before the voters without a mask, not infrequently used the non-Party flag as a screen. This was the case in the past. Times are different now. Non-Party people are now separated from the bourgeoisie by a barrier called the Soviet social system. But on the other side of the barrier the non-Party people are united with the Communists in one, common, collective body of Soviet people. Within this collective body they fought side by side to consolidate the might of our country, they fought side by side and shed their blood on the various fronts for the sake of the freedom and greatness of our Motherland, and side by side they hammered out and forged our country's victory over her enemies. The only difference between them is that some belong to the Party and some don't. But this difference is only a formal one. The important thing is that all are engaged in one common cause. That is why the bloc of Communists and non-Party people is a natural and vital thing.
In conclusion, permit me to express my thanks for the confidence which you have shown me (loud and prolonged applause. A voice: "Cheers for the great leader of all our victories, Comrade Stalin! ") by nominating me as a candidate for the Supreme Soviet. You need have no doubt that will do my best to justify your confidence. (All rise. Loud and prolonged applause rising to an ovation. Voices in different parts of the hall: "Long live great Stalin, Hurrah!" "Cheers for the great leader of the peoples!" "Glory to great Stalin!" "Long live Comrade Stalin, the candidate of the entire people!" "Glory to the creator of all our victories, Comrade Stalin! ")
I chose Robert B. Reich's 2010 book "The Work of Nations" to serve as my example, because his is a high profile name that's easily recognizable. At the end, I will list some others. On page 29 of "The Work of Nations", the following is written in a footnote:
Beginning in the 1890's, the average British citizen was treated to a series of lurid exposes about the German and American economic onslaught and its baleful consequences for Britain.
This is certainly true, and MacKenzie's book has become a favorite because of this aspect. But it's what else that MacKenzie has to say in the book that's so outstanding. On page 222 you will see the final chapter, titled "The Secret of American Success". Here's what MacKenzie has to say:
THE SECRET OF AMERICAN SUCCESS
Americans are succeeding to-day largely because of their climate, their superior education, their longer working hours, their willingness to receive new ideas, their better plant, and perhaps most of all, because of their freedom from hampering traditions.
It may be noticed that I do not say Americans are succeeding because of the great resources of their country. This I am aware is the common explanation. But although the natural resources of America are one of the great ultimate factors in the contest, it is yet possible to attribute too much importance to them at the present stage. England has magnificent resources, and is placed in a spot which naturally makes her a great centre of the world. Here we have iron, and coal, shipping facilities, and mineral wealth of every kind, and it is not for us to complain of the natural resources of our competitors.
What we must complain about is our bad legislation, our neglected education, our indifference, and excessive optimism. Through our bad legislation we have lost and are losing many trades. The tobacco, printing, and electric industries are instances of this. Once Ireland had flourishing tobacco plantations. These were purposely killed in order that the tobacco industry in our then American colonies might be fostered. Our erstwhile colonies are now a rival nation, but the revenue restrictions still make tobacco growing here practically impossible.
So he wipes the argument of "natural resources" off the table in the beginning of the chapter, while at the same time he lays the blame at the feet of government that is regulating everything out of existence. He continues:
There is no reason, climatic or other, why Ireland to-day should not produce great tobacco crops. A short Act of Parliament fostering the home growth of tobacco by a simplification of the collection of duty, and a rebate - or even temporary remission - of taxes on tobacco grown within the kingdom, would create a new industry in Ireland at a bound.
In other words "The Americans are killing us! We have big government, and they do not!" That's what MacKenzie is saying in this book. That's how he ends the book, that's the message he wants his readers to take home. You could even go so far as to say that MacKenzie is pointing to American Exceptionalism.
He does not just end his book with a message about excessive regulation. He also carries this message in other chapters of the book as well: (page 89)
Again I appeal to the statement of the Committee of the Institute of Electrical Engineers. They reported our backwardness to be largely due to the restrictive character of the legislation governing the initiation and development of electric power and traction enterprises. They recommended that the clauses in certain Acts which enable local authorities indefinitely to block local schemes should be repealed, that the Government departments which control the industry should be properly staffed, that the departmental regulations affecting engineering developments should be revised, and that the excessive time and expense needed to obtain permission to carry out electrical developments should be seen to.
Now, as to other progressive historians who have latched onto this book only for it's aspects of "Americanization", here are a few examples:
Consumer's Imperium, page xvi, the author.
Major Problems in American Popular Culture, page 92, Two authors one and two.
Giants of Enterprise, page 309, the author.
Spreading the American Dream, page 22, the author.
This last one is the best, because it leads to a footnote referencing a cluster of 7 other books which all reference MacKenzie.
A Destiny of Choice?: New Directions in American Consumer History, page 24, the author.
The other thing to note is how every author link I referenced goes to a university, mostly history professors. Now I do not know who any of these people are and contacting any of them would be a complete and utter waste of time, but here's the point.
Uniformity. Uniformity is what you have here. Read the books, and notice how all of them largely contain the same message worded slightly differently? This is the problem and, I think, danger that we face from the academic world of historians who currently are largely unchallenged. They engage in group think and many do not even realize it. They use a book that at it's closing undermines their very arguments, and nobody is even aware of it. Some progressive historian fed them a line of bull as they were in college, and they run with it. Some progressive historian up the chain fed their history professors with bull, and their professors did not question it either. You can follow this right back up the line. The history professor right now who is being indoctrinated into this line will not question it either. So the story continues right on down the road. And all you have to do is read the book.
History is anathema to the progressive crowd, which is why so many of them have engaged in revisionism over the years. But for most modern professors, I would imagine that plenty of them are completely in the dark.
http://tinyurl.com/qjq7jmt
There is an answer to why this mindset exists. In short, journalists view advertising as a hallmark of "yellow journalism". Delos F. Wilcox, Ph. D. gives us the answer we need on page 91 of a book he wrote titled "The American Newspaper: A Study in Social Psychology". Published in 1900, originally in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, (I bring this up because of it's seemingly odd page numbering) there are 18 pages (out of 36) that contain the word "advertisements", that's practically 50% of the book. Starting on page 90:
Newspaper competition is, as we have seen, most severe in the largest cities, and there also the need of a new development of social consciousness is most pressing. Weekly and monthly journals appeal to a more widely scattered constituency, and for that reason do not supply to the city man even imperfect summaries of city news and municipal doings. For such summaries he must depend on himself or on municipal reports. Annual reports for free distribution are usually published by the large cities. Two American cities, New York and Boston, publish a daily or weekly "City Record," containing an account of all municipal business. These two cities also have instituted statistical bureaus for the collection and distribution of what we may call general municipal news. In Cleveland, at least, bulletins of important events are posted daily in the public library. In another direction also government is encroaching upon the field of the newspaper. In the establishment of public employment bureaus under state authority in Chicago and some other cities, we see an entrenchment upon the ''want ad'' columns of the daily newspaper. Is it at all unlikely that, following out these lines of activity, government, particularly in cities, will sooner or later put into the field newspapers to cover at least the news of local business and politics and be available for use in the public schools, the public libraries, the city offices, and elsewhere? If such journals could be kept free from factional control and from the debauching influence of irresponsible newspaper competition, they would be of great service in the education of the "public'' and in the control of private journals. But let no one imagine that government operation is here prescribed as a panacea for the evils of irresponsible journalism. Mr. Hearst has worked like a hero to make the New York Journal the yellowest and most successful journal in the United States. Practically, he "endowed" yellow journalism. The endowment scheme for newspaper reform is not generally accepted as practicable. There is a feeling that journalism should be a business, and that news-gathering and distribution should pay for itself. Those who object to the endowment plan should, however, reflect upon the question whether or not the public has not already been "endowed" by someone when a newspaper can be bought regularly for less than the cost of the paper on which it is printed. Possibly the secret of many newspaper evils lies in the fact that the advertisers and the readers can be played off against each other. In order to get a large circulation with which to catch advertisements, the price of the paper is reduced, its size increased, its headlines made sensational, and illustrations introduced to stimulate the flagging senses of the reader. Then, as advertisements flow in at increased rates, the price of the paper can be further reduced and its attractions multiplied. Under these circumstances advertisements of doubtful character are accepted as a matter of course. Ought not the advertising sheet and the newspaper be separated so that each would have to pay for itself? Advertisements that are really of general interest to the public should, on such a theory, be published as news. At any rate, the chief argument against the endowment of a newspaper seems to rest on a misconception of present conditions, and there is no apparently satisfactory reason why some of our surplus millionaires should not emulate the example of Mr. Hearst, with this difference, that they devote their money, their brains, and their energy to the promotion of public intelligence instead of the stimulation of public passion. In the meantime it may be possible to work toward a better journalism by introducing or strengthening the legal responsibility of newspapers for publishing only reliable news.
It is readily apparent that part of the reason why the author disdains advertising is due to how William Randolph Hearst ran his newspapers, but I'll get to that another day. But here is the answer. The endowment of yellow journalism is advertising. That is, running it like a business. There is a very interesting graph on page 77 which illustrates this:
Notice how he puts nearly all advertisements into the "yellow journalism" category? Despite this book being written in 1900, 113 years ago, I am confident that this view is still widely held. Perhaps even more widespread today than it was back then.
What else does this writer believe which will shed light upon this view? See page 89:
If we blame the "public" solely, there is no apparent remedy; for the newspapers themselves are coming more and more to be the principal organs through which public tastes are formed and appeals to public intelligence made. The tool is master of the man, and, too late, we blame the man. It is certainly probable that a newspaper directly responsible to an intelligent and conscientious public would have to be a good journal in order to succeed. In a perfect democracy the newspaper business would regulate itself. But, unfortunately, the "public" is not altogether intelligent and conscientious, and for that reason the newspaper becomes an organ of dynamic education. It would be treachery to social ideals for schoolteachers to choose and pursue their profession simply as a money-getting enterprise. The same is true of journalism. Responsibility must attach to this public function.
Do you find it interesting how seemingly all of these old progressive-era writings consider the newspaper as a way to control the masses? I know I do.
If the people trusted their chosen governors and were themselves united in their support of the public welfare, they would undoubtedly be willing to put the newspaper business, like education, into government hands, though not as a monopoly. In fact, however, we as a people still regard government as a necessary evil. It is my belief that the salvation of our cities depends on the displacement of this view by the view that government, the co-operative organization of all for the benefit of all, is a necessary good.
This writer does not like the fact that most Americans(in 1900) viewed government as a necessary evil, he would prefer people to love government. But I think this one speaks the loudest, page 86:
The newspaper, which is preeminently a public and not a private institution, the principal organ of society for distributing what we may call working information, ought not to be controlled by irresponsible individuality.
That really sums it all up. First, "irresponsible individuality", that's all progressivism. They're largely collectivists. But further, is this faulty idea that newspapers are public institutions.
All disagreements with the author aside, this is what they believe as journalists. Institutionally, journalism is an activist profession.
http://tinyurl.com/kvhcnhg
