2008/01/01 by Norman LaPorte, Kevin Morgan · 3 citations
Social Sciences · #Art #Centralized government #Communism #Cult #Epistemology #European history and politics #History #Law #Literature #Narrative #Nothing #Philosophy #Political Theology and Sovereignty #Political science #Politics #Weber, Simmel, Sociological Theory
paper · open access · doi:10.1057/9780230227583_7
published in Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks, 124-145 (Palgrave Macmillan)
openalex publication_date 2008/01/01 · openalex created_date 2016/08/23 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
The cogency and distinctiveness of Weber’s original concept of Stalinization lay in its precision. At a general level, several defining features of the Stalinized communist parties could already be regarded as axiomatic. Disciplined and centralized, according to the precepts of democratic centralism, through the projection of these characteristics internationally these parties always accepted the ultimate authority of the Communist International (Comintern) and explicitly prioritized the interests of the Soviet Union. Few now question that there is more to the history of communism than this. Nevertheless, as a description of its organizational modus operandi these issues are no more the subject of serious contention than the dates — ever sparser — of Comintern congresses or the location of its headquarters in Moscow. The problem with much historical literature on communist parties, even in quite sophisticated variants, is how much of it fails to get beyond such description and its thickening into narrative. Stalinism, conceived as this relationship of centralization and subordination, continues to be seen as providing both description and explanation — which means, in the last analysis, that nothing is explained. Easy exposition leads to easy refutation, and debates within the literature not infrequently have a ritualistic character.