International Organization of Communist Parties. Communist Internationals

What happened? Sukharev Tower, destroyed in 1934. The first metro line. Multi-colored and amazing...” Konstantin Yuon. “It happened in Penkov”, Alexander Deineka. Features of the new socialist culture. "New Moscow". "The Pig Farmer and the Shepherd" "Mastering a tractor." S. Kirsanov “Our hands will learn everything.” We will pull out all the riddles by thread. "Lovers". "Red Jew" The walls of China Town. "Storm of the Kremlin in 1917." Talkies.

“USSR in the 20-30s” - Social Policy. Results in the political sphere. The ideological basis of the course is the Stalinist concept of the country's development. Reasons for the collapse of NEPA. Economic transformations. Causes civil war. Approval of the command-administrative model of the economy. Regime of personal power I.V. Stalin. The first Soviet Constitution. Character traits NEPA. Soviet state and society (1917 - late 30s). Reasons for the defeat of anti-Soviet forces.

“Foreign Policy of the USSR in the 20s” - Recognition streak. An attempt to “ignite” the fire of the world revolution. Treaty of Rappal and its significance. Curzon's ultimatum. International situation and foreign policy in the 20s. Comintern. Conference participants. Foreign policy factor. Diplomatic conflicts with the West. Genoa Conference. Directions of foreign policy in the 20s. The first peace treaties. Strip of diplomatic recognition of the USSR. Features of contracts.

“NEP in Siberia” - History of the Russian economy. External labor migration during the NEP period. The New Economic Policy (NEP) had a positive impact. It should be noted that the interpretation of the NEP gradually changed. New economic policy. The country's economy during the NEPA years. NEP: new strategy or new tactics. The working class of Siberia during the period of restoration National economy. NEP in Siberia: lost chances. NEP: gains and losses.

“Culture of the USSR 20-30 years” - Formation of skills to work with additional literature. Ilya Repin. Mass compulsory literacy training. Geneticist N.I. Vavilov. Transition to universal primary education. Outstanding writers. Mandelstam and Akhmatova. Ukrainian hut. Cultural revolution. Reform of Russian spelling. The method of socialist realism. Spiritual life. Sorokin P.A. Introduction of unified artistic canons. Development of exact and natural sciences.

"NEP Policy" - Years of NEP. War communism. Prodrazverstka. Kronstadt rebellion. Party leadership. Volkhovstroy. Private hands. Proletarian culture. Danger. Chervonets. Changes. Ilyich's light bulb. The crisis of the policy of war communism. New economic policy. Food detachment. Construction of the Kashira power plant. Worker control. The Council of People's Commissars is carrying out a complete nationalization of enterprises. The need for a transition to the NEP.

International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations
International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (en) Conferencia Internacional de Partidos y Organizaciones Marxistas–Leninistas (es)
Date of foundation:	August 1994
Organization type:	International Association of Communist Parties
Ideology:
Printing organ:	"Unity and struggle"
Motto:	Workers of all countries, unite!
Website:

International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (“Unity and Struggle”)- free association of communist parties based on Marxist-Leninist ideology. Formed in August 1994 in Quito, Ecuador. Most of the groups included in this association are small in number, condemn, and criticize.

International meetings (“conferences”) are held annually. Meetings at the regional level (in Europe and Latin America) are also held with the same frequency. The printed organ of the Conference is the journal “Unity and Struggle” (English). Unity & Struggle), published in several languages. The frequency of publication is twice a year. Circulation: 3 thousand copies (as of 2010).

Conference participants

From September 3 to 8, 1866, the First Congress of the First International was held in Geneva, in which 60 delegates representing 25 sections and 11 workers' societies of Great Britain, France, Switzerland and Germany took part. During the meetings, it was decided that the trade unions should organize the economic and political struggle of the proletariat against the wage labor system and the power of capital. Among the others decisions made- 8-hour working day, protection of women and prohibition of child labor, free polytechnic education, introduction of workers' militias instead of standing armies.

What is an international?

The International is international organization, uniting socialist, social democratic, as well as some other parties in many countries. It represents the interests of workers and is called upon to fight against the exploitation of the working class by big capital.

How many internationals were there?

1st international emerged on September 28, 1864 in London as the first mass international organization of the working class. He combined cells of 13 European countries and the USA. The union united not only workers, but also many petty-bourgeois revolutionaries. The organization existed until 1876. In 1850, there was a split in the leadership of the union. The German organization advocated an immediate revolution, but it was not possible to organize it out of the blue. This caused a split in the Central Committee of the union and led to repression falling on the disparate cells of the union.

Unofficial symbol of the Third International (1920) Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org

2nd international- an international association of socialist workers' parties, created in 1889. Members of the organization made decisions on the impossibility of an alliance with the bourgeoisie, the inadmissibility of joining bourgeois governments, held protests against militarism and war, etc. Friedrich Engels played an important role in the activities of the International until his death in 1895. During the First World War, the radical elements that were part of the association held a conference in Switzerland in 1915, laying the foundation for the Zimmerwald Association, on the basis of which the Third International (Comintern) emerged.

2½ international- an international workers' association of socialist parties (also known as the "Two-Half International" or the Vienna International). It was founded on February 22-27, 1921 in Vienna (Austria) at a conference of socialists from Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Spain, Poland, Romania, the USA, France, Switzerland and other countries. The 2½ International sought to reunite all three existing internationals in order to ensure the unity of the international labor movement. In May 1923, a single Socialist Workers' International was formed in Hamburg, but the Romanian section refused to join the new association.

3rd International (Comintern)- an international organization that united communist parties of various countries in 1919-1943. The Comintern was founded on March 4, 1919 on the initiative of the RCP (b) and its leader V.I. Lenin to develop and disseminate the ideas of revolutionary international socialism, as opposed to the socialism of the Second International, the final break with which was caused by the difference in positions regarding the First World War and October revolution in Russia. The Comintern was dissolved on May 15, 1943. Joseph Stalin explained this decision that the USSR was no longer making plans to establish pro-Soviet, communist regimes on the territory of European countries. In addition, by the early 1940s, the Nazis had destroyed almost all Comintern cells in continental Europe.

In September 1947, Stalin gathered the socialist parties and created Cominform - the Communist Information Bureau, as a replacement for the Comintern. Cominform ceased to exist in 1956 shortly after the 20th Congress of the CPSU.

4th international- a communist international organization whose task was to implement the world revolution and build socialism. The International was founded in France in 1938 by Trotsky and his supporters, who believed that the Comintern was under the complete control of the Stalinists and was incapable of leading the international working class to gain political power. The Trotskyist movement is represented in the world today by several political internationals. The most influential of them are:

— Reunited Fourth International
— International Socialist Tendency
— Committee for a Workers' International (CWI)
— International Marxist Tendency (IMT)
— International Committee of the Fourth International.

© A.P. Galkin, 2003

POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

AP Galkin

When analyzing the actions of subjects of international relations, the activities of political parties are mentioned very rarely, assigning them a peripheral role not only in relation to national governments and intergovernmental organizations, but also in relation to TNCs and broad social movements. Moreover, a number of theorists, emphasizing the declining role of nation states in structuring international relations on modern stage and the increasing role of non-state actors (media, non-governmental organizations, etc.), political parties actually do not consider:. Ignoring the activities of political parties as subjects of international relations in modern concepts can only be explained by the fact that this activity itself is ambiguous and multidimensional, that its various aspects are in mutual contradiction and, moreover, are bound by the structural limitations of those subsystems of international life where they unfold. The emerging transition of Western societies to the post-industrial phase of development leads to an inevitable transformation of political parties, which significantly complicates the analysis of the activities of the latter due to changes in the generic characteristics of parties (allowing parties to be distinguished from other political associations), which international arena and so were not always clearly manifested.

Political parties were formed in Western countries as self-organizing social systems, aimed at promoting persons with claims to power to elected bodies and (through the latter) to public positions. According to Maurice Duverger, these are parties of parliamentary origin, where winning a seat in political assemblies constitutes the essence of the functioning of the party: “the very reason for its existence and its highest goal

life"2. The parties were cooperations of independent candidates based on genetic ties - a common social origin and its derivatives: similarity of living conditions and social interests. Only with the advent of worker and peasant parties (received names in terms of ideological orientation: social democratic and socialist) did parties acquire features characteristic of industrial society: a permanently operating organized structure (with a clearly defined differentiation of roles), as well as attributive properties: futuristic and mobilization. Two principles dominated the basis of the organizational structure of parties (hence M. Duverger divided them into personnel and mass 3), but in both cases parties ceased to be associations of persons claiming to own political power, acquired an administrative apparatus (however, in cadre parties the apparatus performed not so much managerial as coordinating functions). If there were alternative ways for further social development, parties had to present a generally significant project for the future: achieving or maintaining a model of social structure that would provide a comfortable state for certain social groups.

Activities to implement this project include the mobilization of material (excluded from public consumption and accumulation) and intangible (subordination and organization of disparate social forces, development of doctrines and socio-political technologies, etc.) resources, requiring the replacement of the associative union of individuals with a hierarchical one a system that restricts the freedom of political activity of party members. The alternative paths for further development provide for competition not only

than two global projects of the future, providing for a radically different organization of the entire public life. In the absence of a fundamentally different model of society, which is perceived as realistically achievable, the mobilization of resources becomes very problematic. As rightly noted by V.V. Ilyin and A.S. Panarin, the functions of social representation and global design are absent when there is no politics as a technology for changing group status4. Parties, of course, represent the interests of certain social groups and strata in conditions when the existing organization of social life is the only possible one, but then social groups gain (or lose) little from their activities, and investing resources in parties looks unattractive.

With the disappearance of the “second” world, alternative models of social structure virtually do not exist (with the exception of traditional and religious ones, but due to the harsh influence of social norms on individual behavior, they are not very popular anywhere). Not receiving the necessary resource support from the population, parties are looking for other sources of existence (functionaries are interested in preserving party life), and that’s all higher value has material assistance from competing economic agents, including international ones. At a time when the political organization of international relations is increasingly becoming monocentric, the economic subsystem, although structured from the center to the periphery, has several parallel hierarchies that compete with each other and place bets on certain political forces in different countries. In this area, parties began to seriously compete with traditional lobbying, since, having their representatives in government structures different levels, can provide consistent implementation long-term projects. At the same time, international party associations based on the similarity of ideological doctrines still operate.

The founders of inter-party cooperation based on the similarity of ideological doctrines were the European social democratic parties (International), which were later joined by

parties from other continents. Despite the fact that social democracy had a similar social base in different countries, the basis of cooperation in the international arena was no longer genetic ties, but ties of complementarity (sympathies caused by the similarity of ultimate goals and assessments of current events) and solidarity (including mutual assistance) . Genetically, social groups are more attached to their society and territory than to social groups that have a similar position in other societies. It is no coincidence that during the First World War, almost all social democratic parties supported the governments of their countries. IN Peaceful time parties again began to establish connections among themselves within the framework of international inter-party associations.

Among the inter-party associations, the most influential were the associations of leftist forces - the Socialist International and the Communist International. Associations of right-wing parties (for example, the Liberal International) had fewer members, low intensity of inter-party ties and were largely advisory in nature. Relations within inter-party associations were also structured on the basis of ideological postulates and intra-social practices. Thus, the Communist International had a rigid centralized structure headed by the CPSU, whose resolutions regarding strategy and tactics communist movement should have been accepted as unshakable. Otherwise, serious sanctions could follow (for example, the expulsion of the Polish Communist Party from the Comintern on the eve of World War II). Communist parties from developed capitalist countries (especially Italian and French) managed in practice to maintain their autonomy and act in internal political affairs based on the situation, but they could not exert any significant influence on the decisions of the Comintern.

There was no single center authorities. There stood out the socialist parties of a number of European countries (Germany, France, Sweden, British Labor), which had significantly greater influence than the social parties of less developed countries, even when they were not in power in their societies. They could provide

provide serious resource support to their colleagues, strengthening the latter’s competitiveness in the domestic political arena. The coming to power of the socialists after the formal change of regimes in Portugal (1974) and Spain (1977) was largely due to the “humanitarian” assistance of the “fraternal” parties. CPSU using resources Soviet Union and states of Eastern Europe, also provided support to the Communist parties Western countries and Third World parties that chose the socialist path of development, but demanded political loyalty in return. The socialists did not have a uniform doctrine (the Swedish model was significantly different from the French), a single center of power and did not demand political loyalty in international affairs.

The activities of parties also influenced interstate relations in the system of international relations. Firstly, “the vicissitudes of inter-party conflicts within individual states can lead to the transition of an entire state from one camp to another or from involvement in any of the camps to neutrality”5. Secondly, in addition to material and informational support, parties exerted a certain symbolic influence on the population, which was not always associated with ideological dogmas. Thus, they voted for the socialists in Portugal and Spain, among other things, because they hoped for faster and simplified integration into the system of European relations, since in most European countries at that time socialist parties were in power 6. For material and technical support of the USSR and its allies were counted on by parties proclaiming the socialist path of development. Taken together, this had a significant impact on the configuration of political, economic and cultural relations systems of international relations.

Right-wing parties did not have such a significant direct influence on the system of international relations, and their inter-party associations were rather associative in nature. Westernized liberal democratic parties owe their emergence and functioning in Third World countries not to the Liberal International, but to TNCs and the local comprador bourgeoisie. Later, some of them began to be supported by the right-

governments of economically developed capitalist countries as a way of competing with the states of the socialist camp. However, in interstate relations, governments led by right-wing parties were not ideologically selective and were guided to a greater extent by national and geostrategic interests. Liberal democratic governments of the West supported authoritarian cliques and their leaders to a greater extent (A. Pinochet in Chile, Said Nuri in Iraq, etc.), since their activities are easier to manage and economically they are cheaper.

The material expression of the institutionalization of inter-party associations was the European Parliament - PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe). However, by the time the European Parliament gained the opportunity to influence the state of affairs in Europe, the ideological determinant in the activities of political parties began to fade away. “It is believed that members of the Assembly do not represent governments, but the public of a particular country, and therefore when voting they should be guided not by national, but by party interests”7, in fact, deputies of various factions of the European Parliament in their voting are guided more by the foreign policy line of their countries

The existence of the USSR and its allies gave rise to the possibility of an alternative development of both internal political relations in individual countries and international relations. With the collapse of the socialist camp, as mentioned above, real alternatives virtually disappeared. Mass movements such as environmental and anti-globalization have not yet put forward a project for an alternative social system. They fight not for, but against, and this does not make it possible either to mobilize a sufficient amount of resources or to develop a strategic and tactical line of behavior. History shows that all movements that fought against change without putting forward a project for an alternative path of development (Luddites, suffragettes, anti-war movement, etc.) sooner or later came to naught. It is impossible to stop development; you can direct it along a different path.

At one time, domestic researcher A.B. Zubov noted that in the countries of the East, with the exception of “marginal parties that have ideological overtones, all other parties are actually unions of independent candidates”8. Since a similar phenomenon was observed at one time in Europe, it was interpreted as a cost of growth. However, apparently, the associative structure of the eastern parties was caused by the lack of real alternatives to the paths of internal development. In the foreign policy arena, parties could choose between the first and second worlds or not focus on either of them, but the internal development of eastern states did not provide for a variety of options (with the exception of Islamism): modernization with economic and technological dependence on more developed countries. Ideological labels in the names of Third World parties had a largely symbolic significance, indicating which of the two camps of the world system the party was oriented in foreign policy activities.

This hypothesis is partially confirmed by the direction of reorganization of political parties in Western countries. The parties, as noted by S.N. Pshizov, from cumbersome bureaucratic organizations are once again turning into flexible professional-electoral structures 9. Of course, well-established institutional connections (traditional party orientation of part of the Western population, connections with economic agents providing resource support) and interests (primarily in the preservation of parties as organizations) The party bureaucracy has an inhibitory influence on this process, but is not able to stop it. In parties, temporarily hired specialists (signature collectors, public relations experts, etc.) are beginning to play an increasingly important role, and the party bureaucracy is given the role of concentration and optimal distribution of resources. Even in Sweden (the country where long time identitarian democracy dominates), the Social Democrats began to invite electoral consultants from the United States10, which indicates significant shifts in party life.

The given example regarding the Social Democratic Party highlights another facet of the influence of parties on the system of international

relations: the spatial broadcast of successful patterns of activity began to be accompanied by the involvement of specialists in this activity from other sociocultural systems. In conditions where the coming to power of other political forces does not promise any special changes (and the coming to power of leftist parties in a number of European countries has not led to any significant changes either in the internal or external foreign policy), political activity becomes more personalized and the voter pays attention not so much to party affiliation, but to the personal qualities (more precisely, their presented image) of persons claiming power. However, the Swedish Social Democrats reflected the interests of the largest social group(quantitatively exceeding all others combined) societies (which they actually formed through their activities) and had significantly greater cultural potential than other political forces. In fact, any project of social order alternative to the SDRP doctrine did not meet the interests of the majority of the population, and in this regard, the Swedish path of development seemed to have no options. Traditional forms of work with the electorate with the concentration of resources in the hands of the party bureaucracy have long suited the Swedish political elite, but since the early 90s of the last century, political promotion through modern PR technologies seems more attractive to them. Borrowing successful examples of activity in combination with inviting foreign specialists increasingly makes parties and political elites of various social systems culturally homogeneous, alienating them from the dominant cultures of their societies (with the exception of Western countries), since the rapprochement of the latter proceeds at a much slower pace.

Summarizing the above, it should be noted that the activities of political parties in the international arena unfold mainly in three dimensions, each of which has its own identification within the framework of the cognitive scheme “us - them”. Firstly, this is a political and ideological orientation, where parties define among the subjects of international relations (other parties, movements, national governments, etc.) “unified

Vertsev" based on a common vision of an ideal social order and ways to achieve it. Currently, this aspect is preserved in the form of traditionally developed connections and relationships in institutionalized inter-party associations, but ideological orientation may well be revived if sociocultural and economic determinants are given an ideological coloring (similarity of civilizational and religious attitudes, places in the global division of labor). With the growing cultural gap between the party elite and society, the emergence of counter-elites, culturally closer to their social environment, and their political associations cannot be ruled out. Secondly, the national-state orientation of party leaders, the search for states that could become allies in the international arena within the framework of interstate relations. Essentially, here we are talking about the country’s position in a monocentric hierarchy political life international community, the degree of influence on world politics. Each party has its own ideas about potential allies and competitors, and the difference in ideological attitudes between the ideology of the party and the government of a potential ally can be ignored in favor of geopolitical and macroeconomic strategies. Thirdly, the rise in the cost of election campaigns encourages parties to look for “sponsors” among economic actors in international relations: TNCs, interbank associations, or even simply foreign companies (in most countries the latter is prohibited, but financial flows are difficult to control). The economic and financial orientation of parties on a global scale and the corresponding economic identity (the attachment of certain parties to certain economic agents) begins to take shape, which may not coincide with the political one (the government may provide material assistance to one party, and business to a completely different one).

Thus, in conditions global integration world community under a unipolar party political hierarchy

different countries, on the one hand, become more culturally homogeneous ( similar friend on each other), and on the other hand, losing structure-forming features (a certain social base, ideology), they acquire more and more nominal differences. It is no coincidence that the trend towards a two-party system in a number of countries (Germany, Canada, etc.) has changed to the exact opposite.

If earlier parties in the international arena were integrated various countries into blocks, differentiating the latter on political grounds, then at the present stage of development of international relations, parties, differentiating subjects of international life on a number of grounds, contribute to the unity and integration of a monocentric political organization world community. The latter does not always come from the subjective desire of the parties themselves, but is caused by the need to be competitive in the domestic political arena, which involves the reproduction of certain types of activities that objectively contribute to the growth of the above trends.

NOTES

1 See: Kosolapov N.A. The phenomenon of international relations: current state object of study // World economy and international relations. M., 1998. No. 5. P. 107; International relations: sociological approaches. M., 1998. P. 39.

2 Duverger M. Les partis politiques. Paris, 1976.

4Ilyin V.V., Panarin A.A. Philosophy of politics. M., 1994. P. 229.

5 Aron R. Peace and war between nations. M., 2000. P. 345.

6 Social reforms and workers. M., 1986. P. 296.

7 Rybkin I.P. We are doomed to agree: Speeches, articles, interviews. M., 1994. P. 349.

8 Zubov A.B. Parliamentary democracy and the political tradition of the East. M., 1990. P. 224.

9 Pshizova S.N. Financing the political market: theoretical aspects practical problems// Polis: polit. research M., 2002. No. 1. P. 23.