Libmonster ID: U.S.-1875
Author(s) of the publication: B. D. KOZENKO

The Decline of Socialism in America , 1 published in late 1967, may perhaps be considered the conclusion of James Weinstein's long - standing research into the history of the socialist movement in the United States in 1912-1925. Weinstein is already familiar to the Soviet reader 2 . Born in New York City in 1925, he studied history at Cornell and Columbia Universities, then worked for liberal and radical publications. Since 1960, he has been one of the editors of Novy Zev's journal Studies on the Left. Weinstein is a well-known publicist, an active participant in the political struggle in the United States. According to his views, he adheres to one of the currents included in the movement of the "new left". It was this circumstance that largely determined his interest in the history of American socialism.

The New Left movement emerged in America in the late 50s and early 60s. Its participants spoke out against the Vietnam War, for the freedom and equality of the Black population, against reaction, militarism and the policy of military adventures. The New Left exposed the falsity and hypocrisy of American democracy, and criticized bourgeois ideology, culture, and morals. But energetic in their practical activities, the new Left turned out to be ideologically and theoretically weak and divided. They do not have a clear class position, which is expressed in the absence of a common positive ideal, a constructive program and a stable social orientation. Among the ideologists and leaders of the movement, incorrect, theoretically immature judgments are common (denial of the antagonistic contradictions inherent in capitalism, lack of understanding of the objective nature of the historical movement towards socialism, declaring the working class to be an integral part of the capitalist structure and hence disbelief in its ability to fight for its overthrow). The new Left sees the main revolutionary force in the "poor", Negroes, students, radical intelligentsia, etc. Some of them are distinguished by distrust of the world socialist system, anti-Sovietism and anti-communism3 . Extremist leftist groups, often using Marxist phraseology as a cover, have left their mark on the new Left. As B. Apteker wrote, already in the late 60s, the "new left" found itself at a crossroads: either go to "ideological barbarism"- anarchism, nihilism, mysticism, etc., or break with petty-bourgeois radicalism and go to the adoption of Marxism-Leninism, to realize the leading role of the working class and its communist party 4 . A significant part of the "new left", not without hesitation and painful reassessment of previous views, shows interest in

1 J Weinstein. The Decline of Socialism in America. 1912 - 1925 (далее - The Decline.). N. Y. 1967.

2 See V. L. Malkov. An attempt to review the past of the Socialist Party of the USA. Voprosy Istorii, 1965, No. 2, pp. 195-196.

3 See B. Aptheker. The Rebellion. "Political Affairs", 1969, March, April; M. Hallinan. "Anti-capitalism": An Anti-Working Class Concept. "Political Affairs", 1969, June etc.

4 See V. Aptheker. Op. cit. "Political Affairs", 1969, April, p. 23.

page 182

Marxist theory, draws closer to the working class, begins to correctly understand the role and significance of the international communist movement and the world socialist system.

Of course, the process of ideological maturation of the most healthy and developed part of the new left movement, which is long and difficult in itself, is still far from over. Their ideological immaturity and mistakes are also reflected in the practical struggle. They are also reflected in a new radical trend in US historiography, which has emerged relatively recently, but is already noticeable and influential. This area is represented by the works of young researchers associated with the new left movement or who have left its ranks. Their interest in US history is not accidental. They seek in it a model of radical thought and action, and try to revive those ideas that can give the movement clarity and unity of purpose. As Professor I. Unger wrote, the "new left" seeks self-affirmation in history and tries to make it "suitable for practical use" .5 Hence the increased interest of the new trend in the radical past of the country, the desire to "rehabilitate" it so that the example of the heroes of the past inspires modern radicals.

Speaking from these positions, the new left challenges the official historiography, which falsifies the history of the democratic and revolutionary movement in the United States. Conservative and reactionary authors, as they say from the threshold, reject the idea of the existence of classes and class struggle, declare all radical teachings and speeches "un-American", "imported", doomed to natural death in the conditions of American "exclusivity", obliterate all evidence of class conflicts, glorifying the alleged eternal domination in the past of the "agreed state". of interest". Historians from the new left, on the other hand, criticize the apologetic approach to the problems of the development of American capitalism. Most of them recognize the existence of classes and class struggle, raise radical democratic movements to the shield, emphasizing their local origin. They expose the expansionist foreign and reactionary domestic policies of the United States. Some of them show a desire to adhere to a materialistic approach to history, and sometimes they refer to the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism. On this basis, bourgeois critics class them as "Marxists."

But, as Soviet historians have already pointed out, the methodology and especially the conclusions of the new radical historians (as a rule, or at least very often) sharply diverge from those generally accepted in Marxist literature. 6 In particular, historians of the "new left" mostly misinterpret the content of the class conflict in the United States, passing by the main antagonism - between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. They essentially ignore the history of the working class, the workers ' and socialist movement. This shortcoming is quite understandable if we take into account the peculiarities of the ideology of a part of the" new left": without recognizing the historical role of the proletariat, they naturally see their predecessors in abolitionists, populists, petty - bourgeois radicals of the late XIX-early XX centuries.and then in anarchists. Only a few historians of the "new left" (L. Litvak, S. Thernstrom) turn to the life and struggle of the workers .7 And they are even less interested in the history of socialism in America.

Among these few is J. R. R. Tolkien. Weinstein, who is actually the only fairly prominent researcher of the socialist movement among the "new left" 8 . Weinstein represents a group in this direction that openly declares its desire to establish a socialist society in the United States.

5 I. Unger. The "New Left" and American History: Some Recent Trends in the Historiography of the United States. "The American Historical Review" 1967, Vol. LXXII N 4, July, pp. 1237 - 1238, 1243 - 1244.

6 See N. N. Bolkhovitinov. Modern American Historiography: new trends and challenges. "New and recent History", 1969, N 6, p. 122.

7 L. Litwасk. The American Labor Movement. Englewood Cliffs. 1962; St. Тhernstrom. Poverty and Progress. Cambridge. 1964.

8 One can also name only B. Cohren's essay, which is close in its orientation and conclusions to the works of Weinstein (B. Cohren. The Achievement of Debs. "American Radicals: Some Problems and Personalities". N. Y. 1957).

page 183

its ideas about socialism differ significantly from those of Marxism. They are based on the idealization of the views and methods of the Socialist Party of America (SNA) "since the time of Eugene Debs" with all their advantages and disadvantages, primarily with a lack of understanding and rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leading role of its revolutionary party. For the theoretical and ideological arming of his supporters, Weinstein seeks to revive and update, as he puts it, the "hidden legacy" of American socialists, to purge it of the "mythology" created by bourgeois historians of socialism in America .9 What is Weinstein looking for in the history of American socialism, and what is he trying to "revive" in it?

The sharp debates that have been and are still being waged in American historiography regarding the "relevance" of socialism in the context of the notorious American "exclusivity"are quite well known. Weinstein has no doubt that socialism in the United States is possible and inevitable. It recognizes the right of the socialist movement to a place in the history of the United States and in the future of this country. Weinstein criticizes the" myth " created by many bourgeois authors (D. Bell, D. Shannon, T. Draper, etc.) that Marxism and the socialist movement allegedly did not take root on American soil, did not fit into its social structure. 10 On the contrary, Weinstein argues, the ideas of socialism were widely spread in various social strata, and the Socialist Party played an important role in the radical movement of the early twentieth century. and left a strong socialist tradition.

Weinstein refutes the thesis put forward by some American researchers-D. Bell, the Trotskyist J. R. R. Tolkien, and others. The American socialists ' success in the 1912 presidential campaign and the Congress of the Soviet Union in the same year were not only the culmination of their achievements, but also a kind of watershed, the boundary that divides the history of the socialist movement in the United States into two sharply different periods: the time of success (the "golden age") and a time of continuous decline that ended in collapse in 191911 . Weinstein argues that, despite external and internal difficulties, the socialist movement remained strong and influential for a long time after 1912. He cites new interesting facts drawn from the documents and press of workers ' and socialist organizations in individual states, cities, and towns, showing that during the First World War, the Party achieved serious results in elections, in the distribution of the press, and so on, primarily due to the anti-war agitation conducted by party members. The Socialist Party, according to Weinstein, successfully survived the difficult time when the United States participated in the World War, withstood a hail of repression during the post-war "red panic" 12 . However, despite all this, in 1919 the party split, after which it was no longer able to restore its strength and influence in the political life of the country.

Here, in fact, the main question of Weinstein's research, and indeed of the entire history of the socialist movement in the United States, arises: about the causes of the split and decline of the SPA. J. Weinstein rejects the explanation of this fact already available in the American literature as a "myth" generated by supposedly narrow party sympathies of communists or their opponents, and puts forward his own a concept of the causes of the split and decline of socialism in America, free, as he claims, from all " mythology." However, a close examination of his concept also reveals many of the "myths" of bourgeois and social - reform historiography, against which Weinstein so resolutely fights. His concept is based on the idea of the" exclusivity " of the development of America and its labor movement. America is not Europe, huh-

9 See J Weinstein. Socialism's Hidden Heritage: Scholarship Reinforces Political Mythology. "Studies on the Left", 1963. Vol. III, N 4, pp. 89 - 90.

10 See, for example, D. Bell. Background and Development of Marxian Socialism in the United States. "Socialism and American Life". Vol. I. Princeton. 1952, pp. 221 - 222.

11 Ibid.; J. P. Cannon. The First Ten Years of American Communism. Report of a Participant. N. Y. 1962; J. Kipnis. The American Socialist Movement 1897 - 1912. N. Y. 1952.

12 J. Weinstein. Anti-War Sentiment and the Socialist Party 1917 - 1918. "Political Science Quarterly", 1959, Vol. LXXIV, June, N 2, pp. 215 - 239; ejusd. The Decline..., pp. 326 - 327.

page 184

the characteristics and framework of the European socialist movement do not fit American conditions, experience, traditions, or psychology in any way, he declares .13 In this way, Weinstein artificially separates the socialist movement in the United States from the international labor movement, withdraws it from the sphere of general laws. For Weinstein, this movement is more a broad joint action of representatives of different classes for "socialism in general" than an expression of the class interests of the proletariat fighting for its liberation. Weinstein does not deny the connection between the fate of socialists and the development of the labor movement in the country, but at the same time ignores the most important thing: the proletarian roots, the nature and goals of the socialist movement. In this connection, he ignores the question of the struggle between revolutionary and opportunist tendencies in the working class and among socialists, and does not address such problems as opportunism, social-chauvinism, and centrism, without which it is impossible to understand the causes and nature of the crisis in Russia.

It is not surprising that the struggle of currents in this party, which is the content of the internal party crisis, is portrayed in a distorted form. In fact, Weinstein denies the ideological crisis of the socialist movement, which prevents him from seeing the objective conditionality of the final outcome of this crisis: the split of the USSR, the separation of a healthy proletarian core, and the formation of the Communist Party of the United States. He declares the struggle of trends, the crisis of the party, and even the existence of fundamental differences in its ranks to be a "myth", an invention of Marxist historians, although such conclusions were "drawn by authors who are very far from Marxism". Weinstein claims that the SPA was united in its organizational and ideological aspects, that it was unanimous on all important issues, that there were no "polar differences" in it, and that there was nothing in its "American experience" that could destroy the party .15 As a refrain, Weinstein's book states that the United States emerged from the World War period even healthier and more united than before .16 However, he does not dare to completely deny the existence of "factionalism" in the party. Immutable facts force him to recognize the existence of a number of trends and trends in SPA.

It is significant that in the monograph, Weinstein significantly softens the categorical judgments that he expressed in his 1963 article. Then he sharply attacked historians who, in his opinion, mistakenly shared the "obsession" about factional disputes in the movement before the split of 1919 and depicted IT divided almost from birth into irreconcilable factions, as well as supporting the "concept of a right and left wing" in the party, similar to the trends that took place in the European social-Democratic movement.- democracy 17 . Weinstein now identifies four main groups: Berger, Hillquit, Debs, and Heywood .18 However, he still avoids describing the ideological positions of these trends, limiting himself to extremely vague and arbitrary statements of differences between them, reducing these differences mainly to geographical and national, and not to class factors. And despite the fact that Weinstein admits the existence and even aggravation of" factionalism " during the war, he still continues to assert that these differences were not fundamental, and the internal party struggle did not have a decisive influence on the fate of the party. It is noteworthy that Weinstein primarily looks for similarities in the positions of the left and right wings, downplaying their differences, and sometimes simply ignoring them. He puts special emphasis on the fact that "the entire" party opposed the war and the participation of the United States in it, and "the entire" party rose up to defend Soviet Russia.

But what was it that ruined the SPA? And Weinstein replies: The" emergence and activity of the Comintern", the" sudden "and" unjustified", as he writes, defection of immigrant workers who have just joined the party to its side, did not lead to the formation of a new Communist Party.

13 J. Weinstein. The Decline..., pp. 193, 202.

14 J. Kipnis. Op. cit.; G. Friedberg. The Socialist Party of America: Decline and Fall 1914 - 1918. "Studies on the Left", 1964, Vol. IV, N 3, pp. 80 - 86.

15 J. Weinstein. Socialism's Hidden Heritage..., pp. 90 - 91, 104.

16 J. Weinstein. The Decline..., pp. 29, 53. 166, 327.

17 J. Weinstein. Socialism's Hidden Heritage..., p. 90.

18 J. Weinstein. The Decline..., pp. 3 - 4, 5 - 15.

page 185

they did not know the American experience and traditions, did not know how to appreciate the "charms" of American democracy and, moreover, were influenced by the Russian revolution. The immigrants took some of the local socialists with them, destroying SPA 19. Weinstein believes that the split of the USSR and the formation of the Communist Party were not only unfounded, but even unnecessary for the American left itself, or, as he puts it, "the national interests of Soviet Russia" and in general it was a "tragic mistake"20 . In the spirit of this statement, he also considers the activities of socialists and communists in 1919-1924. He takes a similar approach to covering the little-studied and interesting question of various workers 'and farmers' parties and organizations, stubbornly emphasizing and exaggerating in every possible way the sectarian mistakes of the Communists, which were expressed in their inability to find the right approach to the masses, in particular to the Lafollette movement .21 However, Weinstein is forced to admit that, despite mistakes and difficulties, the Communist Party took the initiative in the socialist movement, that it continued to live and develop, while the SPA, on the contrary, lost all vitality, strength and influence .22
This is the concept of Dls. Weinstein. It remains to be seen how much it corresponds to the facts, how much it itself is free from myth-making. We have to admit that Weinstein, in fact, is raising a new myth about a once-unified RUSSIA, supposedly destroyed for the sake of interests and goals that are alien and incomprehensible to Americans, 23 that his myth is based on the old, already worn-out inventions of social-reformist and bourgeois literature. The facts strongly contradict Weinstein's conclusions, for example, in the question of the SPA's position on the war and Soviet Russia. It is true that Berger, Hillquit, and Debs were all opposed to war. But Berger and Hillquit took bourgeois-pacifist positions, developed" programs " for peace in general-out of connection with the revolutionary struggle, while Eugene Debs, this, in the words of V. I. Lenin, "American Bebel" 24 , fought against the war from revolutionary positions. Debs and other socialists, V. I. Lenin emphasized in 1916,"...they openly advocate civil war "in case" of an imperialist war, or rather in connection with it. " 25 Berger and Hillquit defended the Soviet country from the standpoint of bourgeois radicals, emphasizing only its anti-war side in the October Revolution, but at the same time warning the workers in every possible way against using "Russian methods". It is no accident that both of these leaders very quickly slipped into openly anti-Soviet positions. The Great October Revolution was viewed differently by the left socialists, who saw it as the embodiment of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, an example for the workers of all countries.

On the other hand, the period of relative unanimity in SPA was very short-lived. This was only a brief episode related to the anti-war resolution of the SPA Congress in San Luis in 1917. Nevertheless, Weinstein assigns 50 out of 57 pages to this event in the chapter on the history of the party during the war, and only seven pages describe the rest of the events of 1914-1916. And this is by no means accidental. After all, the short-lived and fragile unity of the Soviet Union, which lasted from the spring to the autumn of 1917, was preceded by a period of sharp and stormy disagreements over the means of fighting the war (revolutionary agitation or pacifist programs), the collapse of the Second International (condemnation of social - chauvinism or justification of this "weakness"), and the future International (support or reject the call of the Zimmerwald Conference)27 . Particularly sharp contradictions

19 Ibid., pp. 182 - 184.

20 Ibid., p. 332.

21 See A. V. Berezkin. October Revolution and the USA. 1917-1922. Moscow, 1967, pp. 357-361.

22 J. Weinstein. The Decline..., pp. 326 - 327, 332.

23 J. Weinstein. Socialism's Hidden Heritage..., pp. 103 - 104.

24 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 27, p. 234.

25 Ibid., p. 295.

26 By the way, Weinstein interprets the collapse of the Second International as a" failure "of the socialists in their efforts to stop the war, as a "return to nationalism", and so on (J. Weinstein. The Decline..., pp. 119, 326 - 327).

27 For the struggle in SPA around the Zimmerwald manifesto, see A. M. Kollontai's diary and Letters (Historical Archive, 1962, No. 1, pp. 152-155).

page 186

They arose mainly in connection with the militaristic campaign of "readiness for war", which Berger and Hillquit admitted with reservations, hiding behind "Marxist" phrases, and Debs resolutely rejected, contrasting bourgeois militarism with the proletarian slogan "readiness for revolution" 28. The struggle in SPA became so acute that already in December 1916 V. I. Lenin wrote about a de facto split among the American socialists .29 Contrary to Weinstein's assertion, the question of a possible break with the opportunists was discussed in left circles not from the spring of 1919,30 but from the summer of 1914 , and remained acute throughout the war .31
The temporary unanimity in the ranks of the SPA had its origin and explanation also in the internal party struggle, namely, in the strengthening of centrist influence in the party. Weinstein, like many American researchers, passes by the problem of centrism in SPA. The fact is that during the years of the World War, the social composition of the party has changed markedly. Its anti-war stance alienated bourgeois elements and conservative union leaders from the American Federation of Labor. Its former supporters - the farmers, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the intelligentsia-also withdrew from the party. But the SPA has found a foothold in the factory towns and working-class neighborhoods of industrial centers. However, the workers who joined the party did not yet have sufficient political knowledge and experience. For a long time these revolutionary-minded but not yet revolutionary-minded people could not separate the revolutionary words of Hillquit and his associates from their opportunistic actions. All this contributed to the strengthening of centrist sentiments in the party, and, as W. Foster noted, centrism became dominant in the leadership of the SNA already in 1917 .32 It was natural. But the fate of the SPA, which in this connection turned into a centrist party by its political nature, also turned out to be just as natural and natural. It was abandoned by conservative elements, frightened by radical phraseology. The most advanced part of the socialists joined the communist movement, and a significant part, although not yet ripe for such a step, nevertheless ceased to believe in the old leaders and support them. The party collapsed, leaving only a handful of veterans with nothing to say to the masses. Weinstein himself bitterly states that they talked about the old, and "people were waiting for the new" 33 . As far as the immigrant workers were concerned, the rni did maintain links with the traditions of the more developed European revolutionary movement, which helped them to understand more quickly and clearly both the "charms" of American democracy and the true content of the two-dealing policies of the SPA leaders .34 It should be recalled that the thesis about changing the" nature "of the party, its transformation from "native" to "alien", "un-American", about the "malicious" role of socialists from among immigrant workers was put into circulation in the 1920s by the social chauvinist W. Gent and since then has been widely used used by social-reformist and bourgeois historians 35 . In fact, Weinstein supports this old, dilapidated myth.

Most of these facts are widely known. Are they what I give you?" there is a reason for Marxist researchers to draw conclusions about the objective regularity of the events that led to the decline of SPA 36 . Criticism of Weinstein's concept is not accidental

28 See The American Socialist, 18. XII. 1915.

29 See V. I. Lenin, PSS. Vol. 30, pp. 267-268.

30 J. Weinstein. The Decline..., pp. 186, 192.

31 "International Socialist Review", 1914. November, pp. 299-300; see also The American Socialist, 11. III. 1916.

32 W. Z. Foster. History of the Communist Party of the United States. N. Y. 1952, p. 135.

33 J. Weinstein. The Decline..., p. 243.

34 У. З. Фостер. The October Revolution and the United States of America, Moscow, 1958, p. 11.

35 See W. Y. Ghent. Collapse of Socialism in the United States. "Current History", 1926. Vol. XXIV, No. 2, p. 244; see also N. Fine. Labor and Farmer Parties in the United States. 1828 - 1928. N. Y. 1928, pp. 239, 324, 327 - 330.

36 L. Clove. At the origins of the Communist movement in the United States. "The Marxist Historian", 1935, N 5-6; it is the same. Ocherki istorii rabochego dvizheniya v SSHA 1865-1918 gg. [Essays on the History of the Labor movement in the USA in 1865-1918]. Class struggle in the USA and the movement against anti-Soviet intervention, Moscow, 1961; S. A. Hovhannisyan. The Rise of the Labor movement in the USA in 1919-1921, Moscow, 1961; A.V. Berezkin. The October Revolution and the United States

page 187

It was directed primarily against his claims about the alleged unity of the SPA. The bourgeois historian J. R. R. Tolkien Friedberg, very far from having any sympathy for Marxism and the socialist movement, convincingly refuted Weinstein's arguments about the" absence "of a struggle of currents in the SPA . 37 W. S. Pratt also objected to Beinstein, arguing that the collapse of the SPA still" ... probably began during the war. "38 C. Leinenweber also reproaches Weinstein for the "absence" of a struggle of currents in the SPA. "ignoring the basic division" common to all socialist parties on the question of reform or revolution 39 . This unanimity of critics is remarkable. No less remarkable is the fact that D. Shannon, the author of a work on the history of SPA written from an openly reactionary position, gave a generally positive assessment of Weinstein's book, especially noting the "convincing arguments" against the "communist myth" about the reasons for the split of SPA. Referring to this circumstance, Shannon wrote that Weinstein's work allegedly differs little from other (meaning bourgeois) studies 40 . Soviet historians have already criticized Weinstein's concept, emphasizing that while advocating the revival of the socialist tradition, he actually idealizes and defends opportunists and revisionists from the SPA leadership .41
J. Weinstein chose for his research a complex question, but interesting and very relevant. He brought a lot of previously unused materials into scientific circulation and tried to cover the fate of the socialist movement in America in his own way. It is impossible not to note his efforts to move away from the concepts generally accepted in bourgeois and social-reformist literature. His conclusions are markedly different from the ideas of "neoliberals" (for example, A. Schlesinger Jr., G. Nash, A. Link, etc.) about the role of socialists in American history, who consider SPA to be the "left flank" of the bourgeois-reformist movement of the so-called "third parties", 42 and even more so from the statements of reactionary, frankly speaking, socialists. anti-communist authors. In this effort to say a new word, one could see the positive significance of the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. Weinstein. We can welcome the very fact that he turned to the history of socialism, the labor movement in the United States, and tried to find inspiration and strength there to fight against the system that the best of American socialists opposed. However, being separated from the current labor movement, not believing in its revolutionary possibilities, having absorbed the distrust of the Communist party that was widespread during the years of Weinstein's formation as a historian, he could not find in the" legacy " ANYTHING that really deserved to be revived. As a result, both the advantages and disadvantages of the pre-war movement were raised on the shield. By attempting to destroy the old "myths", Weinstein, being in a flawed methodological position, constructed new "myths", which in many respects turned out to be not so far from the reactionary concepts of bourgeois historiography.

1917-1922 Moscow, 1967; B. D. Kozenko. From the history of the birth of the Communist Party of the United States of America. "From the history of modern times". Collection. Saratov, 1967, et al.

37 G. Friedberg. Op. cit., pp. 80 - 86.

38 W. C. Pratt. Downhill for Socialism. "Nation", 12.II.1968, pp. 216 - 217.

39 See the International Socialist Journal (Roma). 1968. Vol. V, N 25. Responding to Leinenweber, Weinstein continued to insist that the split in the SPA was not the result of a prolonged ideological or programmatic division within the old party (Ibid., p. 152).

40 См. "The Journal of American History". 1968. Vol. IV, N 1, pp. 176 - 177.

41 V. L. Malkov. Edict op.

42 A. M. Schlesinger - Jr. Introduction to "Debs E. V. Writings and Speeches of Eugene V. Debs". N. Y. 1948, p. XIII; H. R. Nash. Third Parties in American Politics. Washington. 1959, pp. V-VI, 267 - 272; A. S. Link. Wilson. The New Freedom. Princeton. 1956, p. 242 et al.

page 188


© libmonster.com

Permanent link to this publication:

https://libmonster.com/m/articles/view/N-J-WEINSTEIN-AND-THE-LEGACY-OF-AMERICAN-SOCIALISTS

Similar publications: LUnited States LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Steve RoutContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://libmonster.com/Rout

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

B. D. KOZENKO, N. J. WEINSTEIN AND THE" LEGACY " OF AMERICAN SOCIALISTS // New-York: Libmonster (LIBMONSTER.COM). Updated: 12.01.2025. URL: https://libmonster.com/m/articles/view/N-J-WEINSTEIN-AND-THE-LEGACY-OF-AMERICAN-SOCIALISTS (date of access: 09.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - B. D. KOZENKO:

B. D. KOZENKO → other publications, search: Libmonster USALibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Steve Rout
Chicago, United States
98 views rating
12.01.2025 (28 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Духовно нас не уничтожить!
Catalog: Other 
21 hours ago · From Libmonster Online
PROBLEMS OF SCOTTISH HISTORY IN THE SCOTTISH HISTORICAL REVIEW
Catalog: History 
8 days ago · From John Anderson
НЕ обезболивайте, не отключайте меня от меня
Catalog: Literature study 
10 days ago · From Libmonster Online
G. P. KUROPYATNIK. RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES. ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. 1867-1881
Catalog: History 
10 days ago · From John Anderson
NEW NETHERLANDS
Catalog: History 
10 days ago · From John Anderson
PUSHKIN ON THE UNITED STATES IN "JOHN TANNER"
Catalog: Literature study 
11 days ago · From John Anderson
AMERICAN BOURGEOIS HISTORIOGRAPHY OF A RUSSIAN FEUDAL CITY
Catalog: History 
11 days ago · From John Anderson
A. F. VASILIEV. URAL INDUSTRY DURING THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR 1941-1945
Catalog: History Bibliology 
11 days ago · From John Anderson
A. Y. BORISOV. THE USSR AND THE USA: THE ALLIES DURING THE WAR. 1941-1945
Catalog: History Bibliology 
11 days ago · From John Anderson
DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC SPHRAGISTICS
11 days ago · From John Anderson

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBMONSTER.COM - U.S. Digital Library

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

N. J. WEINSTEIN AND THE" LEGACY " OF AMERICAN SOCIALISTS
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: U.S. LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

U.S. Digital Library ® All rights reserved.
2014-2025, LIBMONSTER.COM is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of the United States of America


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android