British Students at the International Lenin School: The Vindication of a Critique

This paper is a response to the rejoinder by Gidon Cohen andKevin Morgan to a critique of their article on British studentsat the International Lenin School (ILS) in Moscow which appearedin a recent issue of Twentieth Century British History. It developsthe criticism of their data and research methods, and the revisedresults and conclusions they derive from them, while takingissue with their approach to historical argument. It demonstratesthat the presence of ILS graduates in leading positions in theCommunist Party of Great Britain and in the apparatus of theparty did not, as they insist, disappear after 1943, but persistedinto the 1950s.     

British Students at the International Lenin School 1926-37: A Reaffirmation of Methods, Results, and Conclusions

Alan Campbell, John McIlroy, Barry McLoughlin, and John Halsteadhave offered a sweeping, if incoherent, criticism of the researchpresented in ‘Stalin's Sausage Machine’, our recentarticle on British students at the International Lenin School.By expanding upon and reaffirming the methods, results, andconclusion of our original article, we address each of the maincriticisms made and show that none can be substantiated. Usingstatistical analysis based on matched samples, we demonstratethat we did not underestimate the school's impact on the apparatusof the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). We also showthat none of the supposed ‘significant deficiencies’in our handling of qualitative analysis has any foundation.We deal briefly with the sole alternative explanation our criticsoffer for the CPGB's internal leadership changes, namely ‘lifeitself’ and natural causes. We suggest that such a de-politicizedinterpretation not only lacks any evidential basis but revealsa profound ignorance as to the internal workings of communistparties and flies in the face of all available literatures onthe subject. We also document the contrast between our critics'methodological pretensions and the ways in which their casedepends for its plausibility on methods of an extremely dubiousnature. Every possible academic rationale for the attack uponus is disposed of. We therefore end with a plea for a less personalizedapproach to the writing of Communist Party history.     

Stalin's Sausage Machine. British Students at the International Lenin School, 1926-37

Between 1926 and 1937 at least 160 British communists attendedthe Communist International's International Lenin School (ILS)in Moscow. The aims of the school were to produce a new stratumof leading communist party cadres, young, proletarian, disciplined,and free of the taint of reformism. Using materials from theComintem archives in Moscow, this article assesses the degreeto which the school was successful in meeting these objectives.It shows that among the difficulties it encountered were thereluctance of the British Communist Party (CPGB) to lose theservices of large numbers of its best activists and the uncertainapplication of the lessons inculcated by the school when studentsreturned to Britain. In the short term, ILS alumni played acrucial role in the leadership of the CPGB at both nationaland district levels, and some were also drawn into work forthe Comintern or Soviet state organs. However, by the late 1930sattendance at the school played a reduced role in appointmentsto key party positions, and as early as 1943 there was onlyone former student on the CPGB's executive committee. Set ina comparative context, it is argued that the school's significancein Britain was largely confined to the ‘long’ ThirdPeriod of 1927–35 and rapidly diminished thereafter.     

从摩尔根到塞维斯:酋邦理论的创立

塞维斯的社会发展理论,是否否定了摩尔根的根本学说?本文检视了摩尔根以后文化人类学的发现直至塞维斯的酋邦理论,认为,不像一些中国学者所担心的那样,塞维斯是摩尔根的敌人;而是,前者对后者的基本理论,进行了十分重要的修正、补充与发展:塞维斯是摩尔根学说优秀的继承者与发展者。     

臭氧层损耗问题与国际社会的回应

国际社会对臭氧层损耗问题做出了积极的回应 ,但在如何建立有效的臭氧层保护机制问题上 ,发达国家与发展中国家之间 ,发达国家内部特别是美欧之间产生了不同程度的分歧。这些分歧从根本上反映了国际经济竞争与国际环境合作需求之间的冲突。臭氧层保护机制的建立是科技界与决策者密切合作的结果 ,同时也是各国妥协和合作的产物。     

The Injustice of Some Attacks: A Response to Stephen Strehle

Abstract

Despite Stephen Strehle's criticisms, the ‘just war’ tradition can be a useful and appropriate way of thinking through the ethical problems of war. If it remains grounded in the memory of human suffering, including the suffering of the enemy, then it is a flexible framework, open to new developments, which can guide ethical reflection. In fact, the just war tradition is a good example of the appropriate relation of religion to politics. Religious traditions must neither dictate political options directly, nor be separated from them entirely, but must engage the political sphere ‘indirectly’, via reasoned argumentation. Four elements of this indirect relation are described.