I don’t have much to add since this chapter mostly speaks for itself, and others already pointed out the main stuff. Quite enjoying the way the author communicates the optimism and positive mindset of communism, not as utopian but something possible through action.

Truly a fascinating chapter.

I'm going to jot down some random thoughts, not a whole lot of coherency, just some notes.

Reading about what membership to the party entailed was very interesting for me: at one point the author uses the word "honor" to qualify membership (in the paragraph about the social worker declining the vote of her peers to become a Communist) which shows how it was perceived then, but it's also very interesting to see how taxing this membership must have been.

It'd be easy to draw parallels to "career" politicians of today, but I don't think that's too valuable; instead, I want to draw a parallel with left-wing, if not straight up socialist/communist activism of today. I've been reading a lot recently about movements that were active in the 1970s in my country of origin that attempted to build a revolutionary party, a workers' party: I don't know if doing it the way Lenin did would have been the right way (probably not, different contexts), but they definitely did have Lenin in mind when they attempted to do it. There were many attempts to "translate" Lenin (his thought, and theory, and praxis) to make him make sense in the society they were living in (and at the same time to clean Lenin from the layers of...idolatry, I guess? that decades of stale "communist" politics contributed to defanging and smoothing him out). They were not successful in their revolutionary aims, but they did manage to contribute a lot of original marxist theory. What I see in this chapter, especially in the first paragraphs, is the description of a (violently?) active entity that is tasked with seizing the power and building the new order. I think that most realities that I know of today lack this conviction, and again I don't believe lifting that formula 1-to-1 and applying it to a country of the imperial block in 2026 would be in any way successful, but I somewhat think that a conviction of the same magnitude must be there.

Stalin: ~~Alexis de Tocqueville~~ Cromwellian Revolution, which I am sure most ~~Americans~~ Brits have read.

Nothing could be more absurd than the two contradictory views of Communists promulgated today by their opponents. They are usually pictured as planless inciters to violence and riot, people who have a crazy desire for chaos, in the hope that something vaguely called communism may somehow ensue. A more sophisticated view, to which no less a person than Sinclair Lewis falls victim in It Can’t Happen Here, portrays them as brainless sheep required to act in blind obedience to the orders of their superiors for the sake of discipline. Neither of these types could possibly lead a successful strike, much less a revolution.

Again, it's astounding how a work from 1936 before the Great Patriotic War could communicate the then and now current day anticommunist myths with ease. Strong's prose is straightforward but doesn't lose its ideological consistency.

The emotional vagueness which is a feature of all capitalist political platforms, and which is indeed desired in order to win wide support without being too definite, is the exact opposite of Communist statement.

This reminds me of the recent proclamations of the moderate fascist Bernie Sanders in his claim to nationalize AI to create a "sovereign wealth fund" for the working class. It sounds great to hear, to kick it to the private venture capitalists that their machines will now be public property, but quickly falls apart in any concrete or specific analysis.

From time to time the Party “cleans out” its membership, and this is always done at open meetings to which all workers of the given institution are invited. Each Communist in the institution must give before this public an extended account of his life and activities, submit to and answer all criticism, and prove before the assembled workers his fitness to remain in the “leading Party.”

Strong points out that "communist purging" was often just officials being compelled to defend their position, something entirely absent in western institutions where the observance of elections as rituals gives its winners the key to the city. The idea of "unelection" is predictably unappealing to a capitalist system where wealth has to constantly be justified with any number of excuses.

Stalin would no more attempt to sway a Communist congress by “force of personality” expressed in brilliant oratory and colorful phrasing, than Edison would have expected to convince a group of American engineers of the reliability of some new formula by emotional words. One such attempt would ruin either an Edison or a Stalin.

But not a Sam Altman .

This chapter highlights the ethos of which the Russian communist party was formed and how leadership in the USSR was formed through democratic discipline rather than force. There's a common refrain that "all states are authoritarian" when responding to anticommunist remarks about socialist states but I don't honestly believe socialist states could be classified as anything close to authoritarian with a "monopoly on violence" in the same vein as capitalist states which rely entirely on the monopoly of violence that gets called fascism in crisis.

Another bangin' chapter, Strong's writing is just chock-full of gems that it's a crime that this book isn't more widely known and quoted in marxist circles.

But Communists must not only be scientific; they must also learn to work with the masses. In this they face a special difficulty; the man who has thought for years in Marxian categories may find it as hard to explain them to simple people as an electrical engineer would find it to explain the theory of turbines to men in a candle-lighted world. This is more serious for the Communist than for the engineer; for the latter can build his turbines without help from the candle-lighted individuals, but the Communist cannot make a revolution without the people.

I love this quote, comparing capitalism with a candle lighted world is a very good metaphor and the quote shows exactly how hard it is to organize a working class that has never known anything but the dreadfulness of a system where everything is decided by the few who own the means of production.

It is the working class which must dictate and not the Party; in 1925 when Zinoviev argued for dictatorship by the Party, Stalin fought against this “narrow point of view,” saying that the confidence between the masses of the people and the Party must not be destroyed by any peculiar Party rights, “because in the first place, the Party might be mistaken, and even if it were not, the masses might take some time to see that it was right.”

If you dig even a little into Soviet history it is so easy to see that Stalin was a very reasonable party leader that respected his people and the love for him is absolutely earned. All of the propaganda against him just shatters instantly with very little effort.

Hillquit called the Russian revolution an “historical accident,” since it occurred in a backward peasant land. Norman Thomas on the contrary holds it occurred just because the Russians were so backward that they would endure a dictatorship such as no other people would stand.

Racist haven't changed at all since then

I think this is the best source I have read so far to explain what a vanguard is and why it's needed, it explains it all in a way that is less formulaic and much more understandable with our everyday experiences. The requirements to be a part of that vanguard seem very daunting when described this way and I honestly don't think I could be like that, at least without the world going to shit first. I also think that parties nowadays are missing some of the disciplined scrapping of members from all levels in a democratic way, having some stuck up people high up in the party shaping a general line that many don't want to follow is a problem that sometimes comes from up top and should be fixed before it affects the rest of the party.

OK I need to write some stuff about these chapters but I havent had the time. So this is a place holder until I have the time!

I've already forgotten the first chapter, but this one is fresh in my mind. I find it equally inspiring and dismaying. Inspiring, maybe I don't need to explain. My dismay stems from my perception of the conditions there/then vs here/now. In a way, they were starting "fresh". They didn't have a century+ of anticommunist propaganda, and (it sounds like) they had a single party! While I can see a lot of the propaganda fraying, it sounds like even then, the bar for party membership was exacting. Here we have a smattering of parties, with (I suspect) less stringent requirements for membership. Is Hexbear the vanguard?

Come! Let's read and discuss This Soviet World.

ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.

Lenin had no illusions; he knew that the mass of exploited men who are squeezed out by the dislocations of capitalism, and who turn in hope or despair towards communism, contains many fools, knaves, fanatics and self-pitying failures as well as men of intelligence and will.

Tag yourself, I'm knaves.

But it is always interesting reading contemporary accounts of Stalin, before the idea of him being an "authoritarian dictator" coalesced in the west.

Stalin would no more attempt to sway a Communist congress by “force of personality” expressed in brilliant oratory and colorful phrasing, than Edison would have expected to convince a group of American engineers of the reliability of some new formula by emotional words. One such attempt would ruin either an Edison or a Stalin.

Very interesting to see rebuttals of claims about him being casually mentioned before those same slanderous claims were ever being made. Anti-communism is so predictable, it really hasn't changed in over a century.

I'm also curious to see how this book would go if I were to organise a reading group with libs I know IRL. It's great for education people about the USSR and has an easy to follow tone, but I'm worried it might be a little too advanced for an introductory text, I'd probably need to share a few other things first to make sure they have a proper understanding, but as far as combating your average westerner's idea of the USSR goes, I think this could be very effective.

Absolutely heartbreaking and inspiring at the same time, much like the first chapter. I feel far more invigorated but also I'm worried I don't have the right skills or devotion to be an effective communist. Makes me really consider the local orgs I know, makes me really want to put in more of an effort, to push them to make more of an effort too, I really appreciate how she differentiates the hard working communist from the "fanatics", it isn't about believing in communism with all your heart or smiting unbelievers, it's always about education and agitation, and showing your willingness to work for others, and work with others as well. It's easy to loudly be a communist and declare yourself a friend of the people to everyone who will listen. It's much better to work towards helping people because it is what you want to do more than anything else.

"I myself can’t build it, but if I work and others work, we’ll build it."

It isn't about always working hard at being the "best" communist, but doing the best I can do to help, and working with others to build communism.

With last week's reading, we got a brief exposition of Marxism. With this week, we get a brief exposition of Leninism, both how he carried Marxism to the era of imperialism, and the strategy and tactics he advanced. Like last week, Anna Louise Strong excels in communicating to the non-Marxists core Marxist concepts.

What I also really loved was the exposition on how the party is not a class, but is made up of the most advanced of the working classes, renewing itself from the broader working classes and casting aside double-dealers and the corrupt. This link between the party and the masses is core to organizing, and without it you run into problems of stagnation.

Looking forward to everyone else's thoughts!

I really like the part where Strong lays out how the propaganda about what communist are is wrong. She so quickly and well lays out how they can neither be the reckless, "planless inciters to violence and riot", nor "brainless sheep required to act in blind obedience," how they must be capable people, daring people, and understand why they are doing it.

unearthly hours like eleven at night or seven in the morning

Certainly late, but "unearthly"?

as ignorant of world affairs as is the average American politician

ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.