Leninism

Voprosy Filosofii", Nº 7 (1968), p. 4049 Evald Vasilíevich Iliénkov Traducción directa del ruso: Víctor Antonio Carrión Arias Un diagnóstico completo de la enfermedad llamada maoísmo, no es cosa sencilla. Ello no puede consistir solo en poner a este fenómeno bajo uno u otro encabezado; sea este "culto a la personalidad" o "distorsión burocrático militar del comunismo", "pragmatismo" o "dogmatismo", "método metafísico de pensar" o "sofistería", "eclecticismo" o "dualismo".

Mostafa Sho‘aiyan (1935–1976) has remained a singular intellectual and activist within twentieth-century Iranian history. Gone are the long years during which he was relegated to oblivion, as well as the short years later during which yellow journalism tried to appropriate his critical stances for its anti-leftist propaganda. Moreover, Sho‘aiyan can no longer be locked up in the prison house of rigid leftist politics and doctrinal ideology. In fact, my in-depth studies of his life and politics, in particular, my book containing a comprehensive intellectual biography of Sho‘aiyan, show that he transcends the very politics and ideology with which he is being identified. Contrary to yesteryear, Sho‘aiyan can no longer be simply ignored or appropriated, as now he stands within the ranks of the critical intellectuals in the twentieth-century Iran due to recent scholarship on his life and thought.
Sho‘aiyan’s writings are voluminous—over 2,300 pages. He researched and wrote on an impressive range of diverse subjects from poetry and fiction to history, policy analysis, and theory. He introduced a maverick tradition of open letters at the time when secrecy was the most valued characteristic of politics in general and underground activism in particular. After experiment-ing with legal and nonviolent methods in the early 1960s as a way of bring-ing about change in the post-1953 Iran, he chose militant and underground activism, all the while he conducted extensive research and functioned as a freelance and self-didact scholar who would engage with international and national equally. He was indeed an overlooked internationalist but also a global thinker.

Ismantoro Dwi Yuwono's LIBRARY 2 perjuangan yang lama ternyata jelas tidak cukup dan tidak berdaya di hadapan kemahakuasaan kapital finans. Adalah perlu memeriksa kembali seluruh pekerjaan Internasionale II, seluruh metode karjannya, dan mencampakkan jauh-jauh filistinisme, kepicikan perdagangan politik, kerenegatan, sosial-sovinisme, sosial-pasifisme. Adalah perlu memeriksa gudang senjata Internasionale II, membuang semua yang karatan dan lapuk, menempa jenis-jenis senjata baru. Tanpa pekerjaan pendahuluan semacam ini tidak ada gunanya berperang melawan kapitalisme. Tanpa pekerjaan ini proletariat akan menanggung risiko berada dalam keadaan tidak cukup dipersenjatai atau bahkan samasekali tak bersenjata di hadapan pertempuran-pertempuran revolusioner yang baru.

In un testo del 1993 (Cultura e imperialismo) lo studioso palestinese Said, nell'indagare la complicità della cultura occidentale con il progetto egemonico imperialista, imputava a Foucault, alla teoria critica della Scuola di Francoforte e in genere il marxismo occidentale di non essersi dimostrati «alleati affidabili della resistenza all'imperialismo», addirittura di fare parte «di quello stesso, offensivo "universalismo" che ha per secoli collegato la cultura all'imperialismo».

This edited collection of essays seeks to answer the following question: what does “Lenin” and “Leninism” signify today? What is the future of Leninism? Why, after thirty years of iconoclasm (that involved the removal of statues of Lenin throughout the former socialist world), in spite of concerted efforts to demote, deconstruct, and discredit Leninist mode of thinking, does the specter of Lenin return to haunt our turbulent political present?

Testifying to the potential for the return of Leninism today are the critiques of the limits of horizontality and spontaneity (Nick Srnicek), the calls to return to the party form in political struggle (Jodi Dean), and the flaring up of imperialist wars and class warfare on previously unimaginable scale. In 2017, Slavoj Zizek (Lenin), Tariq Ali (The Dilemmas of Lenin), China Mieville (October), and Michael Hardt (“October! To Commemorate the Future”) among others, asserted the actuality of Lenin’s thought and the continued importance of the October revolution of 1917. Also in recent years we’ve seen a proliferation of studies of the Black Panther Party, as well as the international links that constituted the anticolonial world of the 20th century, that suggest an anti-imperialist Leninist legacy. Paradoxically, the specter of Lenin now also haunts the Left as a figure adopted by members of the ultra-right, such as Steve Bannon.

To many this return comes as a surprise. In 1989, scholars and cultural commentators largely agreed on what Ken Jowitt, in his eponymously titled essay, called “the Leninist extinction”: the complete and final eradication of Leninism as a political form or a mode of thinking in the post-Cold War world. Leninist regimes and the class-based, party-centered worldview they embodied, Jowitt argued, have been wiped out, like dinosaurs, disappearing almost overnight as a species. He suggested that the paleontological concept of mass extinction was the most applicable in describing this sudden and decisive global shift. How can we engage with and problematize the concept of “Leninist extinctions” today?

V.I. Lenin continues to be a divisive figure for the global Left. Franco Bifo Berardi wrote, in 2011: “I’m convinced that the twentieth century would have been a better century had Lenin not existed” (37). It is impressive that it is not Hitler, Mussolini, or Reagan that Berardi singles out as the 20th century chief culprit. For him, Lenin is a melancholic, exemplifying wounded masculinity confronted in the 20th century with the infinite power of capital, and emerging from that confrontation wounded and insecure. Can we reclaim the image of Lenin as future-oriented, flexible (despite the stereotype of the “rigid” Bolsheviks), as a figure of survival and persistence of the struggle for a just future, rather than a figure of melancholy and extinction?

We are also interested in the question of what Leninism and the Soviet Union mean historiographically after Lenin’s decline and death. For much of Leftist discourse, from “Left communists” to Trotskyists to (some) Maoists, the history of the Soviet Union after 1922-24 is one of absolute erasure. The Left can take no lesson from Leninism after Lenin; in “our” discourse, “Stalinism” is not a tragedy but a collapse into barbarism. This picture was already promulgated by many Trotskyists and anarchists of the 1930s. It was deliberately reinforced and financially supported by bourgeois governments (especially the U.S.) for whom manifesting an “anti-communist Left” was a crucial Cold War weapon.

Aiming to produce an interdisciplinary collection of essays, we invite political theorists, activists, cultural, and literary studies scholars, rhetoric scholars, and historians to assess the relevance of Lenin and his work today. Scholars may choose to engage with specific concepts, such as “spontaneity,” “vanguard,” “revolution,” “negation,” “revolutionary state,” “dual power,” address specific texts, such as “Revolution and State,” “Chto Delat?” etc, or talk about the ways in which Lenin can be adopted, adapted, and re-envisioned for our times.

2017. It seems to me that the propaganda of atheism as an integral part of the broader scientific socialist/Communist movement has become indispensable in today's conditions. The situation of my homeland specifically, India, has become worse under the tyrannical rule of the religious fundamentalist fascists. It remains the duty of us, the revolutionary socialists, to join in the explicit propaganda of atheism against the religious forces and also against the invalid theory of " Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava " (Unity of All Religions) under the garb of secularism as preached by the Indian Constitution. If we really want to materialize our dream of a " republic of reason " , where the diffusion of sympathy to all would become the sole guiding spirit; Then let us redouble our efforts at the present juncture and march ahead without confusion and fear.

The present-day surrogates of the great guiding principles of Marx and Lenin are not the result of a forty years long march forward, but rather the contemptible rehash of two centuries old superstitions, as well as of foolish parroting, if compared to their true greatness in their own historical moment.
Peace, democracy, nationality, an undefinable demo-economism! We allegedly had stood still for forty years while they enriched and updated the tables of Marx and Lenin?! No, for heaven's sake, these scoundrels of today are the most diehard and reactionary collectors of past garbage history has ever seen. They are the most evident symptom of the degenerative and recoiling phase this infamous bourgeois world is going through; they are the main force that has indecently delayed its decline.

Lenin, the pioneer of formar Soviet Russia. He was the founder of
the Russian Communist Party, inspirer and the leader of the Bolshevik
Revolution(1917), and the architect, builder, and the first head of the
Soviet State. He was a Russian revolutionary, politician, and political
theorist. He was the founder of the organization known as Comintern
(Communist International) and the posthumous source of “Leninism,” the
doctrine codified and conjoined with Karl Marx’s works by Lenin’s
successors to form Marxism-Leninism, which became the Communist
worldview. Lenin was also inpired by the French revolutionay philosopher
Georges Sorel. This work will help us to know that who is the teacher of
Lenin? Sorel or Marx?
Keywords: Lenin, Sorel, Marx, Bolshevik Revolution.

"Representations", N. 129, Winter 2015.

The essay analyzes the project of maintaining the body of V. I. Lenin in the Mausoleum in Moscow for the past ninety years, focusing on the unique biological science that developed around this project, and the unexpected political role this body has performed.

Н ачиная с периода поздней перестройки и по сей день судьба тела Ленина, хранящегося на протяжении почти 90 лет в мавзолее на Красной площади, не перестает вызывать яростные споры. В последние годы в попу лярных и академических публикациях это тело все чаще сравнивают с мощами христианских святых. Сравнения эти обычно проводятся в довольно приблизитель ных терминах, поскольку особого знания о том, что из себя представляет материальность этих тел -особенно тела Лени на, -у пишущих нет. Вместо обсуждения конкретных фактов обычно просто высказывается мысль, что советский режим с самого начала подразумевал провести аналогию между те лом Ленина и телами православных святых, поскольку такая аналогия якобы была режиму выгодна с идеологической точки зрения. А далее следует известный, но не слишком подтверж денный фактами аргумент: в малообразованной стране с силь ной православной традицией нетленное тело Ленина должно было автоматически восприниматься населением как тело коммунистического святого. И это якобы добавляло режиму легитимности 1 . Аргументы эти, казалось бы, сами собой на прашиваются, но именно их кажущаяся очевидность вызывает сомнение. Как уже было сказано, эти аргументы не основаны на глубоком знании того, что же из себя в действительности представляет тело Ленина и как именно «режим» пытался его сохранить.

2018. On the occasion of Com. Bhagat Singh's 87th martyrdom anniversary, an article to look into the life and ideas of the socialist revolutionary martyr.
This article presents a Marxist analysis of Bhagat Singh's life and actions, and how they are always related to his firm ideological moorings. 
This article has been officially published on the website of ASIAN MARXIST REVIEW, Pakistan.
The article also has been published in YOUTH KI AWAAZ.

This article is divided into three parts. The first outlines Lenin’s theory and the key ideas necessary to apply it in today’s conditions. The final section applies the Leninist theoretical framework to show that China is not a rising imperialist power, and that even its full development as a capitalist economy is blocked by imperialism. Before looking at China, however, it is necessary to dispense with misunderstandings that prevent Marxists from grasping Lenin’s theory and encourage us to dismiss Lenin as wrong, dated or marginal. There are many distorters of Lenin. Marxist academics, on the whole, are as guilty of this as any party.2 However, ideas held by politically active Marxists have the most important consequences. The International Socialist tendency (IST) is the strongest active Marxist tendency in the English-speaking world today (outside India). Thus the second section focuses on misunderstandings within that tradition and of various writers at one time associated with it.

El documento en cuestión es un TFG [Trabajo de Fin de Grado] ya defendido y calificado en la convocatoria de junio de 2018 en la Universidad de Oviedo (España) que trata la cuestión del papel que jugaron los bolcheviques en la Revolución rusa (1905-1917) sus orígenes, y su evolución posterior una vez se hicieron con el poder a partir de octubre de 1917.
---------------
This document is a TFG [in Spanish university system an "end of degree project"] already defended and passed in the call of June 2018 in the University of Oviedo (Spain) that deals with the question of the role played by the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution (1905-1917) their origins, and their subsequent evolution once they took power from October 1917.

Gli Stati Uniti d'Europa secondo Lenin "La prossima parola d'ordine politica dei socialdemocratici europei deve essere la formazione degli Stati Uniti repubblicani d'Europa; ma a differenza della borghesia, la quale è sempre pronta a promettere tutto ciò che si vuole pur di trascinare il proletariato nella corrente generale dello sciovinismo, i socialdemocratici spiegheranno quanto sia assurda e bugiarda questa parola d'ordine senza l'abbattimento rivoluzionario delle monarchie tedesca, austriaca e russa". Così recita un passo di "La guerra e la socialdemocrazia russa" scritto a fine Settembre 1914 e pubblicato ad inizio Novembre dello stesso anno. Viene attribuito a Lenin, ma è firmato Il Comitato centrale del Partito Operaio socialdemocratico della Russia. Non a caso Lenin ad Agosto del 1915 rammenta in "Sulla parola d'ordine degli Stati Uniti d'Europa" che la Conferenza delle sezioni del partito all'estero (svoltasi a Berna tra Febbraio e Marzo del 1915) aveva deliberato di soprassedere alla questione della parola d'ordine "Stati Uniti d'Europa" finchè non se ne fosse discusso l'aspetto economico. E Lenin ricorda che il manifesto del Comitato Centrale aveva formulato questa parola d'ordine come parola d'ordine politica e aveva sottolineato che essa sarebbe stata bugiarda senza l'abbattimento rivoluzionario delle monarchie tedesca, austriaca e russa. Lenin precisa che opporsi, entro i limiti degli apprezzamenti politici di questa parola d'ordine, mettendosi dal punto di vista che essa offusca o indebolisce, sarebbe del tutto errato. E continua, parlando delle rivoluzioni politiche di tipo democratico intendendole come propedeutiche alla rivoluzione socialista. In questa fase Lenin ha come obiettivo quello di denunciare il tradimento dei partiti socialisti europei che hanno ceduto al nazionalismo e votato i crediti di guerra. Quando egli parla del fatto che non bisogna mettersi dalla prospettiva che la parola d'ordine degli Stati Uniti d'Europa offusca, egli intende che non bisogna mettersi dal punto di vista nazionalistico. Tuttavia è molto plausibile pensare che a Lenin questa parola d'ordine non piacesse affatto e che il suo uso sia stato il frutto di un compromesso nella stesura del manifesto. Infatti egli riprende del manifesto proprio i punti che si può ipotizzare abbia imposto e cioè l'aggettivo "politico" per limitare la portata della parola d'ordine e introdurre l'analisi di tale parola d'ordine dal punto di vista economico. Lenin inoltre sottolinea come nel Manifesto sia scritto che questa parola d'ordine è assurda e bugiarda senza l'abbattimento delle monarchie tedesca, austriaca e russa. La parola d'ordine così diventa uno sfondo lontano e astratto condizionato come'è dai veri obiettivi che Lenin considera fondamentali e cioè l'abbattimento rivoluzionario delle monarchie tedesca, austriaca e russa (e forse non a caso successivamente il tentativo riuscito di Lenin e quelli falliti di Rosa Luxemburg e di Bela Kun si collegano a questi obiettivi politici). Infatti Lenin dice che se la parola d'ordine degli Stati Uniti Repubblicani d'Europa, collegata all'abbattimento rivoluzionario delle monarchie europee più reazionarie, è assolutamente inattaccabile come parola d'ordine politica (notiamo quante volte ripete queste cose?) rimane pur sempre da risolvere (purtroppo…) l'importantisima questione del suo contenuto e significato economico. Lenin insiste dicendo che "Dal punto di vista delle condizioni economiche dell'imperialismo … gli Stati Uniti d'Europa in regime capitalistico sarebbero impossibili o reazionari". Poi spiega in che senso il capitale è divenuto internazionale o monopolistico e continua "In regime capitalistico gli Stati Uniti d'Europa equivalgono ad un accordo per la spartizione delle colonie". E ancora "Certo, tra i capitalisti e tra le potenze sono possibili degli accordi temporanei e in tal senso sono anche possibili gli Stati Uniti d'Europa come accordo tra i capitalisti europei … ma a qual fine?Soltanto al fine di schiacciare tutti insieme il socialismo in Europa e per conservare tutti insieme le colonie accaparrate contro il Giappone e l'America …".

The Peruvian Left has a marked history of the use of revolutionary violence. Six years after the Cuban Revolution, Peruvian revolutionaries intended to ‘copy’ the Cuban experience but failed dramatically. The Peruvian guerrillas of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria, MIR for its acronym in Spanish) and the National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional, ELN for its acronym in Spanish) were defeated in January 1966 after seven months of battle.
In 1980, with the return of democracy after 12 years of military dictatorship, the Communist Party of Peru – Shining Path (Partido Comunista del Perú – Por el luminoso sendero de José Carlos Mariátegui, PCP-SL for its acronym in Spanish) started its guerrilla struggle that lasted, according to the organization, until 1993. In 1982, the Revolutionary Movement Túpac Amaru (Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru, MRTA for its acronym in Spanish) initiated its actions. Although in 1996 the MRTA obtained world fame when it occupied the residence of the Japanese Ambassador in Peru’s capital city Lima, however, in 1992, the organization had already entered a process of demise when its main leader Victor Polay was captured.
The guerrillas of the 1960s and the 1980s mainly based themselves on the theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Castro, Guevara and Mao to justify the use of revolutionary violence. Although the political and economic situation in Peru in the 1960s and at the end of the 1970s or at the beginning of the 1980s cannot be easily compared, it is interesting to observe that the revolutionary armed Left in Peru used, in general terms, the same reasons and the same political and economic categories to justify the use of revolutionary violence. 
This paper has the intention to analyse the legitimation of the use of revolutionary violence by the MIR, the ELN, the PCP-SL and the MRTA. In order to elaborate a complete assessment of the justification of the use of revolutionary violence by the aforementioned organizations, we consider it necessary (i) to delve into the main guerrilla theories that were used to justify the guerrilla struggle and to compare these with the principal documents of the guerrilla organizations; and, (ii) to elaborate on a political, economic and social analysis of the years previous to the guerrilla outbreaks in order to determine if a revolutionary situation existed in the country, as was being argued by these organizations to justify the use of revolutionary violence.
Our analysis contributes to the historiography of revolutionary armed organizations in general and the Peruvian guerrilla organizations that are subject of this study in particular, as it will help to understand the defeat of these organizations on the basis of their own theoretical perspectives. It contributes to a comprehension of the debates on the legitimation and de-legitimation of revolutionary violence as it examines, in the case of Peru, the concrete political, economic and social situation and relates this situation to the Marxist and/or Leninist concepts on the basis of which the decision was taken to initiate the revolutionary armed struggle.

Why, at a certain point in history, did the regulation of human relations acquire jurisdictional status? Why did class rule take the form of an official state power? What, in the complexity of social relationships, did the formal application of norms correspond to? But above all, why did the law, here meant as a system of legal norms, turn out particularly suited to social and economic capitalist developments? From an explicitly Marxist point of view, the author explores Evgenij Bronislavovic Pashukanis's "Theory of Law and Marxism" (1924), which is the first theoretical and organic attempt to define the structural goal of the law, not in terms of pure form, but in those of a system with systematic organization of production, thus revealing that the development of bourgeois law was not at all accidental but indeed essential to the functioning and existence of the capitalist production relationships. Towards this precise direction, “law, as a constituent element of production relations, is no longer defined by the traditional scheme of a mere ideological superstructure, but it is itself the very structure, already inherent in capitalist socialization, which is entirely immanent to society”. This captures the innovative specificity of Pashukanis's heterodoxy, certainly the greatest Marxist jurist of all time.

This essay focuses on a paradoxical transformation that happened within Soviet ideological discourse at the very end of perestroika, around 1990-91. The Party's attempts to revitalize Soviet ideology by returning to the original word of Lenin unexpectedly produced the opposite result. The unquestionable external Truth from which Soviet ideological discourse drew its legitimacy-and that had always been identical with Lenin's wordsuddenly could no longer be known. This shift launched a rapid unraveling of the Soviet communist project. At the center of this unexpected transformation was the search for the true Lenin-a kind of Lenin that Soviet party theorists, bureaucrats, historians, and scientists hoped was still hidden in the midst of his unpublished texts and unknown facts of his biology, life, and death.

1 ดู เก่ งกิ จ กิ ติ เรี ยงลาภ และเควิ น ฮิ ววิ สั น, "บทวิ พากษ์ 'การเมื องภาคประชาชน' ในประเทศไทย: ข้ อจ ากั ดของแนววิ เคราะห์ และยุ ทธศาสตร์ การเมื องแบบ 'ขบวนการเคลื ่ อนไหวทางสั งคมรู ปแบบใหม่ '," ฟ้ าเดี ยวกั น, ปี ที ่ 7 ฉบั บที ่ 2 (เมษายน-มิ ถุ นายน 2552), หน้ า 120-155. และ ดู ข้ อถกเถี ยงระหว่ าง Alex Callinicos กั บ John Holloway รวมถึ งข้ อถกเถี ยงในแวดวงผู ้ ศึ กษาขบวนการเคลื ่ อนไหวทางสั งคมในไทยใน ปิ ยะมิ ตร ลี ลาธรรม, "พรรค รั ฐ และขบวนการเคลื ่ อนไหวทางสั งคม: ข้ อถกเถี ยงว่ าด้ วยยุ ทธศาสตร์ การต่ อสู ้ ในเวที สมั ชชาสั งคมโลก ค.ศ. 2005," ฟ้ าเดี ยวกั น, ปี ที ่ 3 ฉบั บที ่ 2 (เมษายน-มิ ถุ นายน 2548), หน้ า 180-193; "จะเปลี ่ ยนแปลงโลกอย่ างไรดี ?: บทวิ จารณ์ จอนห์ น ฮอล โลเวย์ ," ฟ้ าเดี ยวกั น, ปี ที ่ 3 ฉบั บที ่ 3 (กรฎาคม-กั นยายน 2548), หน้ า 188-208. และดู ข้ อเขี ยนของ ใจ อึ ๊ งภากรณ์ ที ่ วิ จารณ์ Holloway, Hardt และ Negri ว่ าเป็ นพวกอนาธิ ปั ตย์ ที ่ ปฏิ เสธรั ฐและปฏิ เสธการจั ดตั ้งพรรคการเมื อง ใน ใจ อึ ๊ งภากรณ์ , "อิ ทธิ พลของแนวคิ ด อนาธิ ปไตย โพสท์ โมเดิ ร์ น และ 'แนวทางที ่ สาม' ในขบวนการเคลื ่ อนไหวทางสั งคมไทย," ใน ใจ อึ ๊ งภากรณ์ และคณะ, ขบวนการเคลื ่ อนไหวทางสั งคม ในไทย (กรุ งเทพฯ: ประชาธิ ปไตยแรงงาน, 2549), หน้ า 31-71. และดู เพิ ่ มเติ มเกี ่ ยวกั บประเด็ นข้ อถกเถี ยงเกี ่ ยวกั บแนวทางของขบวนการ ต่ อต้ านโลกาภิ วั ตน์ ได้ ใน Dario Azzellini and Marina Sitrin, They Can't

Hace ya más de un siglo, entre los meses de febrero y octubre de 1917 (según el calendario Juliano), en el inmenso territorio que ocupaba el imperio zarista comenzó la Revolución Rusa. Más precisamente, el 23 de Febrero (que pasaría a ser 8 de Marzo al adoptarse elel calendario Gregoriano) estalló una insurrección que en pocos días terminó con 300 años de reinado autocrático de los Romanov. La "Revolución de Febrero" fue en realidad el comienzo de un complejo y prolongado proceso revolucionario que trastocó el viejo orden en Rusia y en las otras naciones y pueblos incorporados al Imperio: pueblos del Cáucaso, etcétera. Un acontecimiento decisivo se produjo ocho meses después, cuando una segunda insurrección (la "Revolución de Octubre") instituyó la República Soviética con el Sóviet de Comisarios del Pueblo (Sovnarkom) como órgano ejecutivo. La Revolución "Rusa" debe ser también considerada como revolución internacional, indisociable de las revoluciones que, con diversa suerte, se desarrollaron en los territorios que habían sido colonizados por Rusia, e indisociable también de la ola revolucionaria que conmovió a Alemania y otros países de Europa hasta 1923, para luego extenderse (con un tempo distinto) hacia Oriente y el mundo colonial o dependiente. Y tuvo también una expresión político-organizativas con la fundación de la Internacional Comunista (o Tercera Internacional), concebida como Partido Mundial de la Revolución Socialista. Un nuevo aniversario del nacimiento (el 22 de abril de 1870) de Vladimir IlitchUlianov, más conocido por el pseudónimo de Lenin, fue el disparador de éste ensayo que trata de "recortar" en el inmenso fresco de aquella revolución al menos algo del inmenso y original el aporte de Lenin y los bolcheviques en 1917. Aldo Casas,abril de 2020.

Eric J. Schmaltz.  “Preface” (in English) in Samuel D. Sinner, The Open Wound:  The Genocide of German Ethnic Minorities in Russia and the Soviet Union, 1915-1949 and Beyond/Der Genozid an Russlanddeutschen 1915-1949.  Additional preface (in German) by Dr. Gerd Stricker.  Fargo, ND:  Germans from Russia Heritage Collection, North Dakota State University Libraries, 2000.  Pp. xi-xxiv.

Related links:

https://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/order/general/sinner.html

https://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/order/general/sinnerreview2.html