"VLADIMIR LENIN, ECOSOCIALIST?" ENDNOTES
[1]. Vladimir Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Full collected writings], vol. 41 (1958), 376, quoted in Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography, trans. Harold Shukman (New York: The Free Press, 1994), 345. This line is also quoted in Victor Sebestyen, Lenin the Dictator (New York: Pantheon Books, 2017), 468.
[2]. John Bellamy Foster, "Late Soviet Ecology," Monthly Review 67, no. 2 (2015): https://monthlyreview.org/2015/06/01/late-soviet-ecology-and-the-planetary-crisis/.
[3]. This slogan has even been used as the title of a book authored by ecosocialists: Martin Empson, ed., System Change Not Climate Change: A Revolutionary Response to Environmental Crisis (London: Bookmark Publications, 2019). In her chapter entitled "Hopelessly Devoted to Fossil Fuels," Amy Leather writes, "We need to make real the slogan 'system change not climate change'" (21).
[4]. In the preamble to Löwy's article "Ecosocialism: A Vital Synthesis," he's described as a "pioneer ecosociailist." Michael Löwy, "Ecosocialism: A Vital Synthesis," Climate and Capitalism, December 16, 2020, https://climateandcapitalism.com/2020/12/16/ecosocialism-a-vital-synthesis/.
[5]. Joel Kovel and Michael Löwy, "An Ecosocialist Manifesto," The New Socialist 62 (Fall 2007): 5.
[6]. Chris Williams, Ecology and Socialism (Chicago: Haymarket, 2010), 238–39. Kindle. Several other ecosocialists echo this conviction: "Capitalism needs to be overthrown" (Suzanne Jeffery, "Up Against the Clock: Climate, Social Movements, and Marxism," in Empson, System Change Not Climate Change, 173); "Overthrow capitalism" (Camilla Royle, "Marxism and the Anthropocene," in Empson, System Change Not Climate Change, 50); "The notion of socialism still stands for the supersession of capital. If capital is to be overcome, a task now given the urgency of the survival of civilization itself, the outcome will perforce be 'socialist,' for that is the term which signifies the breakthrough into a post-capitalist society" (Kovel and Löwy, "Ecosocialist Manifesto," 6).
[7]. For example, Chris Williams writes that socialism means that private property "is abolished" (Williams, Ecology and Socialism, 216). A society without private property is, by definition, a society without private enterprise. Williams also describes socialist society as based on "production for use" and not "production for profit" (226). The idea of "production for use" replacing "production for profit" is a concept that has been at the heart of socialism for 150 years. This concept reflects the socialist plan to eliminate private enterprise, which requires profit to function. Michael Löwy writes that ecosocialism means "the collective appropriation of the means of production." This phrase has been a stock way to described the elimination of private enterprise for well over a century. Michael Löwy, "The Ethics of Ecosocialism," The New Socialist 62 (Fall 2007): 8.
[8]. Socialism has long called for the suppression of allegedly "socially useless" jobs, which hundreds of socialists have also called "parasitic" jobs. Making an untold number of jobs illegal and forcing those who currently hold these jobs to perform work approved as "useful" by society is also a central plank of ecosocialism. For example, Chris Williams writes: "Utterly pointless industries producing useless things, advertising, marketing, and much of the packaging industry, along with the military, will be abolished." Williams, Ecology and Socialism, 221. Fred Magdoff asserts that "socially useless, even harmful, products and programs" consume "as great as half of the labor force" and that a democratic socialist society would make these workers perform tasks that have the blessings of socialists instead. Fred Magdoff, "An Ecologically Sound and Socially Just Economy," Monthly Review, September 1, 2014, https://monthlyreview.org/2014/09/01/an-ecologically-sound-and-socially-just-economy/, emphasis added. To learn more, see the RFP paper "The Socialist Obsession: The Central Role of 'Parasites' in Socialist Thought" at parasiteobsessed.org.
[9]. A standard element of socialist philosophy has long been the call to suppress the production of allegedly "useless" products. The ecosocialist plan remains the same. For example, in "Ecosocialism: A Vital Synthesis," Michael Löwy writes, "Many products in contemporary society are socially useless." He says that an ecosocialist society would determine which needs are "authentic" ones. Socialist society would only produce goods and services required to fulfill needs approved as "authentic." Obviously, if some needs are "authentic," the implication is that there are other needs that socialism considers inauthentic. Löwy labels these "artificial or counterproductive needs." Production of these many products that socialists deem "socially useless" because they fill "artificial or counterproductive needs" would become illegal.
[10]. The very starting point of socialism is the imposition of compulsory duty to society, expressed in socialism's 170-year-old axiom of "from each according to their ability." Any number of ecosocialist works call for a society based on this duty. For example, Alejandro Pedregal and Juan Bordera describe ecosocialism as a matter of "rescuing the classic socialist aphorism adopted by Karl Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'" Alejandro Pedregal and Juan Bordera, "Toward an Ecosocialist Degrowth: From the Materially Inevitable to the Socially Desirable," Monthly Review 74, no. 2 (2022). Socialism's duty of "from each according to their ability" is both anti-liberal and extremely dangerous. This duty overrides our liberal right to use our abilities as we choose and turns our time and talents into society's property to control. But that's not the half of it. By placing duty above individual rights, socialism empowers those running socialist society to control our lives and to use us as the means to their ends. It gives them the power to judge whether we're performing our new socialist duties to their satisfaction and to punish us if they feel we're not. These realities played a key role in one socialist society after another ending up a totalitarian state. And they guarantee that any future socialist experiment will be an authoritarian accident waiting to happen. To learn more about socialism's duty of "from each according to their ability" and how it overrides our liberal rights, see the RFP papers "The Ripple Effects of Socialist Duty" (at redflagspress.org/ripple) and "Our 'So-Called' Rights" (at socalledrights.org).
[11]. Kohei Saito, "Karl Marx's Idea of Ecosocialism in the 21st Century," in Empson, System Change Not Climate Change, 70.
[12]. Two proponents of market socialism, Saul Estrin and Julian Le Grand, explain in their book Market Socialism, "We hope to show that markets can be used to socialist ends. The use of markets in this way is what we mean by market socialism." Saul Estrin and Julian Le Grand, eds., Market Socialism (Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks, 1989), 1. Estrin and Le Grand explain what drove the creation of the "market socialist" concept: "The experience of central planning in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as a means of attaining socialist ends does not inspire confidence in the ability of such planning to eliminate waste or encourage efficiency" (12). But they also admit that, for a great many socialists, the problem is that "market socialism is not socialist" (22). Hillel Ticktin describes "market socialism" as an oxymoron, labeling it the equivalent of "fried ice." He also explains the origin of market socialism: "The situation has changed in the period since the USSR began to disintegrate in that many in the West who looked to the Soviet Union as a model of some kind have been disillusioned in socialism itself. They've concluded that socialism as conceived by Marxists cannot work and that the market must be retained." Hillel Ticktin, "The Problem Is Market Socialism," in Market Socialism: The Debate among Socialists, ed. Bertrand Ollman (New York: Routledge, 1998), 57.
[13]. Ecosocialism rejects the market—not only the market economy of capitalism but also so-called "market" socialism (see n. 12). It calls instead for a society based on Marx's concept of a "planned" economy in which production decisions result from a prearranged plan, not from the independent decisions of individuals and organizations. For example, in "Ecosocialism: A Vital Synthesis," Michael Löwy writes that "the core of ecosocialism is the concept of democratic ecological planning, wherein the population itself, not 'the market' or a Politburo, make the main decisions about the economy." Today's socialists unsurprisingly say that their vision of socialist planning is not the central planning associated with Stalin's USSR or Mao's People's Republic of China. Rather, they call it "democratic" planning. But never do ecosocialists provide more than the vaguest outline of how democratic planning would be carried out—a process that would have to happen worldwide for tens of thousands of products. In the few instances when socialists have attempted to think through the implications of the democratic planning concept, its absurdity soon becomes clear. For example, noted socialist Ernest Mandel calculates that carrying out democratic planning would require each socialist citizen to work on this task for four hours each workday. Ernest Mandel, Power and Money: A Marxist Theory of Bureaucracy (New York: Verso, 1992), 202. (To learn more, see the RFP paper "Four Hours Every Workday" at redflagspress.org/fourhours.) Suzanne Jeffery calls for a socialist system that "replaces the anarchic and destructive market with democratic planning." Suzanne Jeffery, "Up Against the Clock," 173. This means doing away with private enterprise. Hundreds of socialist thinkers have used the term "anarchic" or "anarchy of production" as their primary description of the capitalist economy. What makes capitalism "anarchic" in socialist theory is that independent individuals and businesses make separate decisions about what to produce, when to produce it, and so on. The socialist plan is to eliminate this "anarchy" by eliminating private enterprise and replacing it with a "planned" economy. (To learn more about socialism's focus on the "anarchy" of capitalism, see the RFP paper "Why Socialism Says Craftwork Is 'Idiocy'" at craftidiocy.org.)
[14]. John Bellamy Foster, The Ecological Revolution (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2009), 154.
[15]. Foster, Ecological Revolution, 192.
[16]. John Bellamy Foster, "Ecology and the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism," Monthly Review 60, no. 8 (2008).
[17]. Foster, "Late Soviet Ecology."
[18]. Williams, Ecology and Socialism, 182–86.
[19]. Williams, Ecology and Socialism, 186, emphasis added.
[20]. Ben Stahnke, "Lenin, Ecology and Revolutionary Russia," Peace, Land, and Bread 1 (Spring 2020): 2.
[21]. Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution, 2nd ed. (London: Laurence and Wishart, 1943), 112.
[22]. For a detailed look at how socialists claim their philosophy would mean worldwide free everything forever, see the RFP paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism" at secretsauceofsocialism.org.
[23]. One example of the many instances in which socialists have used the term "superabundance" to describe their expectation of what socialism would produce comes from Leo Huberman: "With the discovery of atomic power and its ownership and planned development by a socialist society, the ultimate goal of satisfying the wants of all with a minimum of monotonous and burdensome labor need no longer be relegated to the distant future. Where formerly it was wise to estimate our ability to create a super-abundance in terms of centuries, now it is perhaps not over-optimistic to think in terms of years." Leo Huberman, The Truth about Socialism (New York: Lear Publishing, 1950), 198n, emphasis added. Note that Huberman says socialism will fulfill not only the needs of all worldwide but even the "wants."
[24]. Two examples of socialists speaking in terms of "limitless abundance" come from Fidel Castro and noted Marxist theorist G. A. Cohen: Castro said, "Anyone can understand that this [increased productivity] is the only way to develop the wealth of our country, its natural resources, to a maximum and that it is the only way to enable our people to benefit from a limitless abundance of the necessities of life." Fidel Castro, "Fidel Castro Speaks to Graduation Tractor Operators [October 2, 1968]," Castro Speech Database, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1968/19681002.html, emphasis added. Cohen describes Marx's expectations that socialism would create "limitless conflicts-dissolving abundance"—an abundance so limitless that it would end all human conflict. G. A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 131.
[25]. The expression "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" came into use by socialists in the 1840s, but what turned it into socialism's best known saying and defining promise was Marx's use of the phrase. He wrote that socialist society would eventually "inscribe on its banners, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'" Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert Tucker (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1972), 383. Any number of today's socialists state that the goal of socialism remains creating a society based on this axiom. For example, Michael Harrington, the founder of the Democratic Socialists of America, writes, "The goal of socialism, clearly, is to overcome greed and act on the basis of 'to each according to his/her need, from each according to his/her ability.'" Michael Harrington, "What Socialists Would Do in America—If They Could," Dissent, Fall 1978, 445.
[26]. Lenin, State and Revolution,113.
[27]. As Karl Marx explains, the fact that there's a large quantity of a product available (even millions or billions of a given item) does not mean it's "abundant" by socialist standards. By Marx's definition, a product only becomes "abundant" when the supply available is greater than demand—in other words, when there's a supply in excess of demand, an oversupply. Marx writes: "Take a product that is more than scarce, unique of its kind if you will: this unique product will be more than abundant, it will be superfluous, if there is no demand for it. On the other hand, take a product multiplied into millions, it will always be scarce if it does not satisfy the demand, that is, if there is too great a demand." By Marx's definition, the only way for a product to be "abundant" is for the quantity available to be greater than demand—that is, for there to be an excess, an oversupply. Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956), 37. Moreover, Marx explains (see n. 29) that socialist abundance requires a cushion for unforeseen interruptions in production (like those that might be caused by a pandemic). There must be a supply that exceeds current demand plus more to account for the unexpected. There must in fact be an over-oversupply.
[28]. Karl Marx writes that "considered from the standpoint of the whole society, there must be a constant over-production, i.e., production on a greater scale than is needed for the simple replacement and reproduction of the existing wealth—quite apart from any increase in population—for the society to have at its disposal the means of production needed to make good unusual destruction caused by accidents and natural forces." Karl Marx, Capital, trans. Ben Fowkes and David Fernbach, 3 vols. (London: Penguin Classics, 1978–1981), 3:256–57.
[29]. Paul Mattick Jr., Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory (London: Merlin Press, 1981), 108.
[30]. Edgar Hardcastle, "Profits, Riches and Poverty" (lecture, Marchmont Street, London, August 9, 1986), https://libcom.org/library/marxian-economics-1986-lecture-2.
[31]. "If abundance is not possible, then neither is socialism, and there's no reformulation that can avoid that fact." Michael Harrington, Socialism (New York: Saturday Review Press, 1970), 347.
[32]. To learn more, see the RFP paper "Why Socialism Says Craftwork Is 'Idiocy'" at craftidiocy.org.
[33]. Lenin, State and Revolution, 118.
[34]. Vladimir Lenin, "Third Congress of the Communist International," in Lenin: Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1973–78), 32:492, emphasis added.
[35]. For details, see the RFP paper "Why Socialism Says Craftwork Is 'Idiocy'" at craftidiocy.org.
[36]. Vladimir Lenin, "Petty Production in Agriculture," Rabochaya Pravda, July 18, 1913, trans. George Hanna, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jul/18b.htm.
[37]. To learn how socialism's duty of "from each according to their ability" morphs our time into what socialism treats as society's property to control, see the RFP paper "The Ripple Effects of Socialist Duty" at redflagspress.org/ripple.
[38]. Vladimir Lenin, "Speech at a Meeting of Delegates from the Poor Peasants' Committees of Central Gubernias," in Lenin: Collected Works, 28:175.
[39]. For example, Fidel Castro says of "the slacker," "This person is a thief, a thief!" Fidel Castro, "Castro Addresses Plenum of Basic Industry Workers, Havana Domestic Radio and Television Services in Spanish 8 Dec 1970," Departamento de Versiones Taquigraficas del Gobierno Revolucionario, accessed December 4, 2020, http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1970/esp/f071270e.html. See dozens of socialist thinkers attacking slackers, as well as over two dozen examples of Castro doing so, at slackingistheft.org.
[40]. Vladimir Lenin, "How to Organize Competition," in Lenin: Collected Works, 26:414.
[41]. Vladimir Lenin, "On Equality," in Voices of Revolt, vol. 8, Speeches of V. I. Lenin (New York: International Publishers, 1928), 62.
[42]. Lenin, "How to Organize Competition," 414.
[43]. Vladimir Lenin, "The Importance of Gold Now and after the Complete Victory of Socialism," Pravda, November 6–7, 1921, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/nov/05.htm.
[44]. Socialist's have long claimed that one result of their philosophy would be "a world without money." (This phrase is the title of Italian socialist Amadeo Bordiga's most famous work). As Fidel Castro explains, the socialist view is that "the day will come when a man will produce and turn in his potato crop and get nothing for it. Then he will go and get in return for it coffee, rice, sugar, clothes, shoes, and everything he needs. Then we shall suppress that vile intermediary which is money" (Fidel Castro, "Castro Speech to the Third ANAP Congress [May 19, 1967]," http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1967/19670519.html, emphasis added). When will money be eliminated? When socialism makes it possible for someone to take "everything he needs" for free. We can find the same assertion in British socialist and Marxist economist Edgar Hardcastle ("Profits, Riches and Poverty"). This lengthy passage (a portion of which has already been quoted in the body of this paper) is worth a read for how it ties various aspects of socialist theory together: "In Socialist society, there will be no wages, no profits, no rent, no interest, in short, there will be no money income. There will be no people having unearned incomes from rent, interest and profit, because they will not own property. There will be no buying and selling, therefore no money system, and no price system. As nobody will have any money income, it will not be possible for anybody to be richer or poorer than anybody else. And remember the basis of socialist society will be that people will have free access [to all needed goods and services]. "You are entitled to say how can you have free access? Where will the goods and services come from, into existence, so that the population can have free access to them, the food, clothing, shelter and all the rest of their requirements? Well, the whole of the population will get them by taking them out of the communal store. "And how will they get there? They will get there because members of society will cooperate together to produce them. And as I say, emphasis will be on the basis of free access. People will take what they need and they will not have either pay for them, or give anything else in return for them. "However, this is not an easy task. Far from it. To set up conditions of free access will be the greatest problem socialist society will have to face. "Karl Marx wrote long ago, that the first task of a socialist society, will be to increase production, as much, and as quickly as possible, and it is still true as Marx [sic, still as true today], as it was when Marx said it. "Now some people have fallen into the elementary error that under capitalism, enough is already produced, for socialist society to operate. It's a dangerous illusion."
[45]. You can read any number of books and articles preaching ecosocialism today without finding one word about socialism's requirement for a world of abundance, which, as socialists define it, is a world in which all goods are produced in such numbers as to be free for the taking worldwide forever. For example, consider the eleven papers in Empson, System Change Not Climate Change. They espouse traditional Marxist plans for the overthrow of capitalism, for the market economy to be replaced by a planned economy, and for the suppression of supposedly "useless" jobs and products, but they don't say one word about socialism's requirement for abundance and constant overproduction. Worse yet, socialists not only duck explaining socialism's need for worldwide free everything by means of constant overproduction, but they still make sales claims that without question hinge on such a world. For example, ecosocialists claim their philosophy would create a world based on the axiom "to each according to their need." Socialists have long defined such a world as one in which all goods are freely available—that is, a world of overflowing abundance resulting from constant overproduction. Moreover, today's socialists fail to offer the warning that any socialist society not based on abundance is exceedingly like to be an authoritarian one, if not totalitarian (as history has so vividly demonstrated). It is this world of overflowing abundance that Marx and other key socialist thinkers assumed would neuter the threat of authoritarianism present in socialism's foundation on compulsory duty to society.
[46]. When it isn't possible for ecosocialists to avoid discussing socialism's requirement for abundance, they employ a different strategy. They exploit the fact that a world of overflowing abundance now seems farfetched, and they argue that Marx and company never really expected this in the first place. In a similar fashion, one might argue that the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe is so ludicrous that early astronomers could not really have believed it. But they did. Despite being intelligent individuals, the erroneous assumptions of these scientists led to a conclusion that we now realize is preposterous. This is precisely what happened in the case of socialist theory. Despite their clear intellect, Marx and Engels created a system based on a faulty premise. They thought wrongly that socialism would radically boost production, creating an overflowing abundance. This fact can be proven in multiple ways. First, there's what Marx and Engels say themselves. For example, Marx envisions socialist overproduction being so easily achieved and so massive in scope that it permits excess overproduction—over-overproduction—as insurance against unexpected disasters (see n. 28). Second, that Marx and his disciples expected socialism to create an overflowing abundance is demonstrated by the analysis of any number of socialism's most noted thinkers. There's obviously the example of Lenin reviewed in this paper, stating that socialism would create a world of such abundance that all could take goods freely, with society making no effort to control how much anyone took. Among the numerous additional examples, celebrated democratic socialist Eugene Debs promises socialism will mean an "abundance to satisfy all human wants" (Eugene V. Debs, "The Issue: Speech at Girard, Kas., May 23, 1908," in Debs: His Life, Writings and Speeches [Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1908], 489). And leading Marxist philosopher G. A. Cohen writes that Marx's thinking is premised on a "limitless conflicts-dissolving abundance" (G. A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995], 131). Third, only an overflowing abundance could deliver a society with the features that socialists have long promised: no human conflict, no crime, no war, government "withered away." These are promises that hundreds of socialist thinkers have made and still do make. A fake abundance based on rationing would not end human conflict; it would drive it sky-high. For additional examples of Marx, Engels, and numerous other celebrated socialists promising socialism would mean an overflowing abundance, see the RFP paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism" at secretsauceofsocialism.org.
[47]. Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 155. See also James Ryan, Lenin's Terror: The Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State Violence (New York: Routledge, 2012), 89–90.
[48]. Pipes, Concise History,160.
[49]. The Havigurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies summarizes Lenin's moves against the press in this way: "The Bolsheviks curtailed freedom of speech and press in Russia from the very beginning. One of the most important initial decrees passed by the Soviet of People's Commissars and signed by Vladimir Lenin October 27, 1917 was the Decree on the Press. This Decree essentially outlawed newspapers that published views opposed to the October Revolution. Claiming such papers to be tsarist reactionaries, the communists closed 319 newspapers from 1917-1918 …. Additional measures soon followed. A tribunal was established in 1917 to investigate and suppress bourgeois newspapers. Later in 1917, a state monopoly on advertising was instituted, depriving most papers of revenue." "The History of Russian Journalism," Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies, https://miamioh.edu/cas/centers-institutes/havighurst-center/additional-resources/havighurst-special-programming/journalism-under-fire/index.html.
[50]. Lenin's wife, Krupskaia, played a direct role in determining what categories of works should be purged from Russian libraries following the socialist revolution. A. Robert Rogers, "Censorship and Libraries in the Soviet Union," Journal of Library History, Philosophy, and Comparative Librarianship 8, no. 1 (January 1973): 24.
[51]. Rogers, "Censorship and Libraries," 24.
[52]. Victor Sebestyen, Lenin the Dictator, 394–95.
[53]. Volkogonov, Lenin, 345.
[54]. Volkogonov, Lenin, 374-375.
[55]. Sebestyen, Lenin the Dictator, 470-471; see Volkogonov, Lenin, 374.
[56]. Volkogonov, Lenin, 379; Sebestyen, Lenin the Dictator, 475.
[57]. Volkogonov, Lenin, 355–72; Ryan, Lenin's Terror, 172–76.
[58]. Volkogonov, Lenin, 238–39.
[59]. Anne Applebaum, Gulag (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 59, 61. Kindle. Applebaum quotes Lenin calling for those he deemed to be enemies of the socialist state to be "locked up in a concentration camp outside town" and for their "isolation in concentration camps."
[60]. Volkogonov, Lenin, 363; Ryan, Lenin's Terror, 159.
[61]. Vladimir Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 41:380, quoted in Volkogonov, Lenin, 237.
[62]. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 41:236, quoted in Volkogonov, Lenin, 236. See also Sebestyen, Lenin the Dictator, 468.
[63]. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 41:383, quoted in Volkogonov, Lenin, 237.
[64]. Vladimir Lenin, "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government," in V. I. Lenin: Selected Works, vol. 7, After the Seizure of Power (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1937), 342.
[65]. Quoted in Volkogonov, Lenin, 379.
[66].Vladimir Lenin, "How to Organize Competition," 411.
[67]. Lenin's so-called "Hanging Order" is available online through the US Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/trans-ad2kulak.html.
[68]. Lenin, "How to Organize Competition," 411.
[69]. Laurence Gronlund, The Cooperative Commonwealth: An Exposition of Modern Socialism (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1884), 109. The emphasis is Gronlund's own.
[70]. Karl Marx's son-in-law Edward Aveling wrote a favorable review of Gronlund's The Cooperative Commonwealth. His only complaint was that, since Gronlund didn't credit Marx, the book would give readers the impression that "Gronlund was the Christ of the new creed, rather than one of its apostles." Edward Aveling, "Review of The Co-Operative Commonwealth," Supplement to the Commonwealth 1, no. 8 (September 1885): 89.
[71]. Foster, Return of Nature, 88.
[72]. Foster, Return of Nature, 141.
[73]. Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 84.
[74]. Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 85.
[75] Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 109.
[76]. Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 103.
[77]. Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 106.
[78]. Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 152–53.
[79]. Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 232–33.
[80]. Foster, Return of Nature, 89.
[81]. To learn more, see the RFP paper "Artist, Visionary, Authoritarian: Learning Socialism from William Morris" at craftidiocy.org/morris.
[82]. Morris was a founder of the British Socialist League and editor of the League's paper, The Commonwealth, in which he recommended Gronlund's work.
[83]. Volkogonov, Lenin, 237.
[84]. Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 84.