Tag Archives: Lenin

Historical transformations of knowledge in political economy: minimally necessary information

By Fazal Rahman, Ph.D.                  March 1, 2016

Knowledge and understanding of political economy are fundamental to understanding the nature, processes, and developments of any politico-economic and social systems, including capitalism, imperialism, socialism, and communism. After Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the most comprehensive, truthful, and in-depth works on this and related subjects were published by the Soviet political economists and social scientists, who had done thorough studies in these areas and had integrated and incorporated the contemporary data, information, and developments into their publications (see for example, 1, 2, 3, 4). Soviet philosophers and sociologists had also made such contributions in the closely related, intertwined, and important areas of philosophy and sociology (example, 4). After the capitalist counter-revolution and restoration of capitalism in Russia and other former Soviet republics, along with socialism, such works and their authors have also disappeared from the literary and intellectual horizons. Overwhelming majority of American and European “leftists”, “socialists”, and even “Marxists”, were always astoundingly ignorant of such works, and had very limited acquaintance with even the voluminous writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. And yet, they have no hesitation in passing wholesale, contentless, and empty judgments on the nature of the politico-economic system of the former USSR and other former socialist countries, which they brand as “state capitalist”, parroting some of the equally ignoramus and/or biased leftist stars, like Noam Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Howard Zinn, and Stephen Resnick, some of whom have written sharp and accurate empirical and factual critiques of American capitalism and imperialism, but integrated them in erroneous, flawed, biased, ineffective, and solutionless theoretical frameworks (see my critique in this regard, 5).  Criticism and identification of the existing problems, no matter how accurate, are only of limited use at best, if effective and feasible solutions are not proposed.  Solutions of such macro-level politico-economic and social problems also require accurate theoretical framework and foundations.  These and other such writers lack such theoretical framework and foundations, and not only fail to propose any effective and feasible solutions, but preach against those discovered by the founders of Marxism-Leninism-the only effective, necessary, and feasible solutions- the implementation of which had resulted in successful socialist revolutions in Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam and other countries.   Their betrayals and capitalist counterrevolutions in Russia and China-the former giants of socialism-also led to the betrayals and capitalist counterrevolutions in most other former socialist countries.  It is beyond the scope of this brief article to identify and analyze the nature and causes and the transient successes of these betrayals and capitalist counterrevolutions. Continue reading

Advertisements

Transformation of fascism in the Twentieth Century: A comprehensive theory

Fazal Rahman, Ph.D. 

A note on the background of this paper

This paper was presented at the Pacific Northwest Marxist Scholars Conference in Seattle, Washington, on April 11, 1986, under a different title, “Some Aspects of the Developing Dialectic of U. S. Capitalist Democracy and International Imperialism”.  It is being reproduced here without any changes, except in the title.  The paper was type-written and was scanned and transferred to the MS Word with some difficulty.  There was an abstract diagrammatic presentation of the theory in the original paper.  However, its scanned copy could not be pasted in the WordPress word processor.  So, that has been excluded. Continue reading

War on Iraq in perspective: The developing US imperialism and demonocracy

Fazal Rahman, Ph.D.                                     Completed April 17, 2003

Posted on Dandelion Salad and many other sites.  It is being reproduced here unchanged.

Summary

The military invasion and occupation of Iraq is examined within the context of US imperialism.  The dual nature of US politico-economic system is identified as an imperialism-democracy complex, with international imperialism and domestic capitalist democracy being its essential and interacting components.  Some general laws of this imperialism-democracy complex are also proposed and it is shown how imperialism leads to the transformation of democracy into demonocracy, at its higher stages of development, like that of the US.  The specific facts of the great conspiracy of the invasion, occupation, plunder, and robbery of the fabulous oil and other resources of Iraq, are placed and examined within that context.  The most important need for understanding and analyzing various conflicts and invasions, constantly created by the US imperialism, throughout the world-the Iraqi invasion being the latest manifestation of these-in all their complexity and in the dialectical complexity of imperialism and democracy-is identified and explained.  It is self-evident that such colossal and complex problems as US imperialism and its various manifestations need to be understood and analyzed in all their complexity, in as much depth as possible, for the formulation of effective strategies and tactics to counter and resist these.  Fragmented, simplistic, and shallow pseudo-practical approaches to such immensely complex and gigantic problems have led nowhere in the past.  These are unlikely to lead anywhere in the present or future either. Continue reading

A critique of General Leonid Ivashov’s article, “BRICS and the mission of reconfiguring the world: An alternative world order?”.

Fazal Rahman, Ph.D.                                                    Completed on June 16, 2011

First posted on Dandelion Salad 

The recent article of General Leonid Ivashov (1) deals with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) group of countries and its current and future potentials for changing the nature of civilization and the world balance of forces.  In doing so, Ivashov has touched on some of the underlying macro-level historical-intellectual foundations of the developmental historical process.  He cites the famous British philosophical historian, Arnold Toynbee, N.Ya. Danilevsky, and O. Spengler, and attributes to them the theory that distinct civilizations overshadow countries and ethnic groups as the actual players in global politics.  He uses that theory in support of his own conclusions and projections about BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization.  While that theory itself is accurate and is supported by historical and empirical facts, his application of it to BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization is totally erroneous. Continue reading