By LUIZ BERNARDO PERICAS*
Caio Prado Júnior's book about the USSR is a hybrid, which mixes testimonies with a broader and more direct description of the social and economic aspects of that country
Since the triumph of the October Revolution in 1917, Western public interest in Soviet Russia has grown steadily over the years, with readers eager for more information and details about the characteristics and particularities of the political and economic system established by the Bolsheviks in that part of the world. Classics such as Ten days that shook the world[I],by John Reed, Six months in red Russia[ii], by Louise Bryant, and Through the Russian Revolution [Through the Russian Revolution][iii], by Albert Rhys Williams are just some pioneering examples of this type of bibliography, which spread across all continents[iv]. The desire to learn about the developments of the revolutionary process and its specificities was undoubtedly immense, as was the desire to get to know its main figures, such as Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev and, later, Stalin, among others. For this reason, it was not only American and European correspondents who flocked to the “homeland of socialism”. Many Latin Americans would also go there from the 1920s onwards. Journalists, writers and politicians would see the reality of the Soviet Union (formed in December 1922) up close and, after returning to their respective countries, would write books and articles about what they had witnessed. on site.
The reports are abundant, compelling and emblematic. Julio Antonio Mella, César Vallejo, José Penelón, Rodolfo Ghioldi, León Rudnitzky, Elías Castelnuovo and Alfredo Varela are some of the names that can be remembered here.
Brazilians, of course, would not be left behind. From activists and leaders of the Communist Party of Brazil (PCB), such as Astrojildo Pereira, Heitor Ferreira Lima and Leôncio Basbaum, to artists, intellectuals, technicians and journalists, including Maurício de Medeiros[v], Osorio Cesar[vi], Gondin da Fonseca[vii] and Claudio Edmundo[viii], there were several compatriots who traveled to Lenin's land and later produced narratives about their experiences (both throughout the 1930s and in future decades). Not to mention the compatriots who continued to flock to the USSR (and the people's democracies of Eastern Europe) in the following decades, from novelists, short story writers and editors, such as Jorge Amado[ix], Graciliano Ramos[X], Nestor from Holland[xi], Marques Rebelo[xii], Alfonso Schmidt[xiii] and Enio Silveira[xiv], to activists, trade unionists and members of official delegations and committees (in addition, of course, to authors who published books that were quite critical of the “homeland of socialism”, pejorative, stereotypical and biased texts that could also be found in the national publishing market). Titles such as A Brazilian in the Soviet Union: travel impressions[xv],by José Campos;the collective work Workers from São Paulo in the Soviet Union[xvi], of the metalworkers Constantino Stoiano, José Pedro Pinto and João Sanches, of the weaver Antônio Chamorro and of the port worker Lázaro Moreira; Current view of Russia: observations of a Brazilian journalist[xvii], by Freitas Nobre; Soviet Union: hell or paradise?[xviii], by Rubens do Amaral; Brazilian judges behind the Iron Curtain[xx],by Osny Duarte Pereira; Moscow, round trip[xx], by journalist Edmar Morél; Four weeks in the Soviet Union[xxx],by Jurema Yari Finamour; Moscow, Warsaw, Berlin: people in the streets[xxiii],by José Guilherme Mendes; Trip to the Soviet Union[xxiii],by Branca Fialho; Views of Russia and the Communist World[xxv], by Silveira Bueno; A Brazilian engineer in Russia[xxiv],by John R. Cotrim; The shadow of the Kremlin[xxv], by Orlando Loureiro; and USSR, the great warning[xxviii], by João Pinheiro Neto, are just a few that can be mentioned here.
It is in this broader context, therefore, that Caio Prado Júnior’s two books about that country should be included. At a time when readers were seeking out a variety of sources about the USSR and, at the same time, it was possible to find a series of publications that harshly attacked Moscow’s policies (from newspaper articles to literary works full of prejudices against “communism”), progressive intellectuals often took it upon themselves to share their travel experiences and talk about that country as a way of countering the attacks it was suffering from the press and authorities of the time. Caio Prado Júnior, therefore, would be yet another person to fulfill the role of disseminating that experience that he so admired.
The young intellectual from São Paulo, who had shortly before joined the PCB[xxviii], decided to go to the Soviet Union[xxix] for the first time in February 1933 (the same year he published Brazil's political evolution)[xxx], aged just 26, making his trip between May and June, accompanied by his wife Hermínia Ferreira Cerquinho da Silva Prado (better known as Baby). The couple entered the USSR by train through the Polish border and went straight to Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg). Afterwards, they would visit Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov, Yalta, Kazan, Kislovodsk, Saratov, Rostov-on-Don, as well as other places in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and the North Caucasus, accompanied by foreign guides and visitors.[xxxii]. Although later, in his book, he stated that the journey had lasted two months,[xxxi] the visit actually lasted a little less than this, around a month and a half.[xxxii] It is worth noting that the routes, in general, were previously prepared by the Soviets (in 1933, Intourist, the local travel agency, established in 1929, had 36 itineraries across the country).[xxxv]
During his stay, Caio saw street demonstrations; talked to workers (with the help of interpreters); visited the Kremlin, the Winter Palace, Sverdlov Square and Gorky Park; visited collective farms; sailed on the Volga; witnessed a trial and a religious ceremony in St. Sophia Cathedral; went to museums (such as the anti-religious museum in Leningrad, housed in the former St. Isaac's Cathedral), a railway club, a prophylactorium from prostitutes in the capital, to the Livadia Palace (in Crimea), to the commune Seattle, to the Selmachstroi agricultural machine-building plant, to the statehoodVerblud and the Grand Théâtre (Bolshoi), as well as factories, bookstores and popular libraries[xxxiv]. An experience, without a doubt, very rich, which would yield dozens of photographs, in addition to descriptions of that reality in letters to family members,[xxxiv] public presentations and a book.
Upon returning to São Paulo, in September 1933, the young man would give two packed lectures at the Clube dos Artistas Modernos (CAM), founded in November of the previous year in the capital of São Paulo by names such as Antônio Gomide, Di Cavalcanti, Flávio de Carvalho and Carlos Prado, among others. It is worth remembering that the hall of the entity could fit around 120 individuals, but apparently 600 people would have been crammed outside, as there was not enough space in the facilities.[xxxviii] (on this day, Tarsila do Amaral, Osório César and Orestes Ristori were present in the audience, while the second lecture, which was supposedly attended by five hundred people, was attended by Flávio de Carvalho, Jaime Adour da Câmara, Mário Pedrosa, Hermínio Saccheta and Octávio Barbosa, among other well-known personalities).[xxxviii] Your conference[xxxix] would be the basis of his book USSR, a new world, published in 1934.
On September 9, 1933, the director of Companhia Editora Nacional (a company headed by Octalles and Themistocles Marcondes Ferreira) wrote to Caio saying that he was interested in publishing a book containing his impressions of Russia and asking if he would be willing to prepare such an account. He also asked what the author's conditions would be.[xl]. The next day, the historian would respond that he had already thought about it, but that he could not state any position at the moment. Even so, he would be “more than happy to deal with the case in due course.”[xi]. Shortly thereafter, Caio agreed to publish the work. The proposal was a print run of 3 copies, which were to be sold for Rs. 6, with a payment of Rs. 000 on the date of publication of the book.[xliii]. The director, then, in a new letter dated January 17, 1934, confirmed to the interlocutor that he would make an edition with the agreed characteristics.[xiii]. The book was finished that same month, in January, and was released in March. In April, the first deposits of royalties would be made into the historian's account.[xiv].
Companhia Editora Nacional was founded in 1925 by Octalles (its general director), together with the writer Monteiro Lobato, who left the company in 1929, selling his share to his partner's brother, Themistocles, who would act as the company's CEO until the mid-1960s. The author of Urupes, even so, he would continue to collaborate with his former colleague, editing books and preparing translations (Octalles, in 1932, acquired the publishing house Civilização Brasileira, founded a few years earlier, which he later transferred to his son-in-law Ênio Silveira)[xlv]. In 1933 (when Caio traveled to the Soviet Union), “among the 1.192.000 copies produced that year, 467 were educational titles, 429,5 were children's books (among them, 90 were by Lobato) and 107 were popular literature”[xlv]. The publisher's main objective, therefore, was to bring to the market textbooks and literature for young audiences, with significant print runs and at prices that were affordable for readers. In this sense, emblematic collections were created, such as the Brazilian Pedagogical Library, from 1931 onwards (directed by Fernando de Azevedo), with different series, which included children's literature books, popular teaching works, “scientific initiation” and a “Brazilian” series, composed of works by intellectuals from different areas of knowledge who discussed the country's problems.[xlv]. The Companhia Editora Nacional, therefore, was a renowned company, which could undoubtedly make Caio's work reach many readers, thus helping to spread his impressions of the country of the Soviets (by the way, one cannot fail to remember, as Edgard Carone points out, that the overwhelming majority of the books written by Caio were published with his own resources; in this case, USSR, a new world deviates from the standard, having been the only one in his catalogue published by a publisher that was not owned by him and that was also not financed by him)[xlviii].
There were several reasons why Caio Prado Júnior decided to produce this volume. First, he was constantly receiving requests for new lectures. Knowing that the number of people who could attend the events was limited and not wanting to constantly repeat himself, he thought that a book could solve the problem, as well as significantly expand his audience. In addition, he frequently received letters from admirers asking him to edit a work in that sense. And finally, the proposal from the CEN, a concrete fact that encouraged the preparation of a work about his journey through Soviet territory.
That would be, in his words, an “impartial testimony” about what he had observed during his stay in Lenin’s land. Released as volume 3 of the Travels collection (which already had America, by Monteiro Lobato, and Shanghai, by Nelson Tabajara de Oliveira), the work (composed and printed in the workshops of the graphic company of Courts Magazine, in São Paulo) received several reviews (mostly favorable) in the press. Reviews of the book were published in magazines and newspapers such as The Tribune, Correio da Manhã, Bahia, Popular Gazette, The newspaper, night leaf, In the afternoon, The Sower, phon-phon e The Radical, written by names such as Álvaro Augusto Lopes and Heitor Moniz (among the critics, however, Benjamin Lima stood out, from the father,and the Trotskyist Lívio Xavier)[xlix]. The demand for the report, therefore, was great, especially among young people. In it, the author discussed the political organization, the economy, the industrial sector, agriculture, collectivization, commerce, the family, the role of women, religion, education, culture, social relations, institutions and other unique characteristics of that historical experience still little known to Brazilian readers of his time.
Written in a sober and largely objective style, the text nevertheless shows a position quite favorable to the Soviet Union, described by him as a country promoting “democracy par excellence, the democracy of the masses”[l] (always contrasted, throughout its pages, with tsarism or the “bourgeois regime”). After all, for him,
Soviet democracy is not limited to the people's right to periodically elect representatives who, once in Parliament, completely separate themselves from their voters and are only remembered in the event of new elections. Soviet democracy ensures the effective participation of the proletariat and other workers in the political leadership of the country.[li]
Although it mentions some moments of his visit and describes certain personal experiences in the USSR, the book is not stricto sensu a travel narrative like many similar works (including those written by colleagues), but a hybrid, which mixes testimonies with a broader and more direct description of the social and economic aspects of that country, interspersed with opinions on various topics (as he himself says, “I did not give it the form of a travel book solely because I wanted to write more methodically, which, I believe, will contribute to the clarity of the exposition”).[liiii]
Still, Caio avoids getting into controversial discussions about domestic politics, refraining from commenting in greater depth on the clashes between different groups, individuals and projects for power. Although he speaks of a “purging” of the party’s cadres (in a favorable way), he never uses the word “purges.” This is despite the fact that, since at least the end of the previous decade, it was possible to perceive a clear intensification of disputes within the USSR and worldwide, as well as the expulsion of many important figures from their respective communist parties (including in Brazil).[iii] and the Soviet Union itself, which was the scene of a conflict that resulted in the defenestration of hundreds of communist militants from the ranks of the CPSU (while respected leaders would lose their positions in the country's administration or be placed in less prominent positions). A short time later, the situation would get worse, with a wave of false accusations, fabricated trials, forced labor in gulag, arrests and executions of leaders and intellectuals[book]. The years 1930 to 1933 would be, in the words of Roi Medvedev, “one of the most dramatic periods in its history, comparable in many respects to the period of the civil war”,[lv] while the interregnum between 1933 and 1935, according to Antonio Carlos Mazzeo, “is the turning point in the Soviet Union, when the CPSU strengthens itself to promote 'socialism in one country' and unleashes a fierce internal struggle within its ranks that will culminate in the Stalinist dictatorship in the party and in Soviet society”[lv] (although, as Pierre Broué recalls, “from 1930 onwards, Stalin began to dominate the political scene alone, becoming the master of the party”)[lviii]. It is difficult not to be aware of everything that was happening at that time… The book, however, does not mention “persecutions”, nor is there a detailed discussion of the points of view and opinions of the different sectors involved in the internal debates of the time. In this sense, he only briefly mentions that
When the Soviet state faced the task of liquidating agrarian capitalism and collectivizing its agriculture, the difficulties seemed almost insurmountable. Even within the Communist Party there was no lack of those who openly proclaimed this. In this, oppositionists of all shades were at odds, from the left led by Trotsky to the right led by Bukharin (one of the greatest theoreticians of Marxism). Nevertheless, the results of the policy adopted were most satisfactory.[lviii]
Thus, in relation to agrarian collectivization, he will state that it “covers today, as I have already mentioned, about 70% of the country’s cultivated area. And it should not be thought that this was achieved, as is sometimes alleged, by the use of coercion. There were abuses, it is true, but they always met with the most formal disapproval of the Soviet leaders and the Communist Party, who, whenever possible, denounced such processes with energy. Collectivization must find the support and the most open sympathy of the peasants; it should only be carried out when the peasants recognize its advantages: this is the true orientation of the party.”[lix]. An opinion that does not correspond to what had actually happened up until then.[lx]...
Furthermore, after quoting Robert Michels, who recalled the dangers of bureaucratization and the control of workers by a political minority, Caio comments: “This argument is all the more interesting at the present time since this entire dissident wing of the Third International, led by Trotsky, discovers in the Soviet regime the seeds of this differentiation, the constitution of a ruling oligarchy: the bureaucracy.”[lxi]. But then he adds:
The question is complicated and would not fit into this book, in which I do not seek to discuss doctrinal points of view, but merely to describe the current situation in the Soviet Union, as seen through my personal and direct observation. I will therefore limit myself to a few considerations on a problem that seems to me fundamental and, moreover, of great practical interest at the moment, because it involves, as I have already said, the question of the possibility or otherwise of a socialist society.[lxii]
To try to answer this question, however, he uses an excerpt from Bukharin's work Treatise on Historical Materialism[lxiii](by the way, the only book that Caio translated)[lxiv], which, according to the historian from São Paulo, “puts the problem in its proper terms”[lxv]. That is, according to the Russian leader, when the working class triumphed at a time when it had not yet formed a group homogeneous, in a context of decline of productive forces and insecurity of the “masses”, there could be a tendency towards “degeneration”, that is, towards the separation of a ruling class (like an “embryo” of a class). Even so, according to the Bolshevik leader’s meaning (and corroborated by Caio), it would be “paralyzed” by two opposing tendencies: on the one hand, growth of productive forces and on the other hand the suppression of monopoly of education. Therefore, the large-scale production of technicians and organizers in general, coming from the working class itself, would eliminate the possibility of a new class in power. Therefore, the outcome of the struggle would depend only on knowing which of these tendencies would prove to be stronger throughout that process.[lxvi]. It is worth remembering, however, as a counterpoint, other interventions on the subject by Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin himself, who would have anticipated by several decades the postulates of Milovan Djilas about a new class in power (the elite and bureaucracy of the party itself)[lxv], something that Caio apparently did not foresee at that moment (after all, for the historian from São Paulo, “the Soviet regime is the organization of the proletariat into a ruling class; it is not, therefore, the dictatorship of a party”)[lxviii]. Furthermore, he will say that
Socialism should not be understood as a stable form, a defined type of organization. It is rather a process, a system in transformation. It consists of a replacement of the capitalist economy, based on private ownership of the means of production – land, subsoil, factories, etc. – and characterized by private forms of economic activity, by an economy based on collective ownership and, as a rule, collective economic activity. This is what socialism is all about. Its phases, therefore, are multiple. The replacement of one system by another goes through successive stages in which we will find, side by side, in varying proportions, characteristics of both: those of the primitive, in the process of disappearing, those of the new, continually developing. The total disappearance of capitalist forms will coincide with communism.[lxix]
The only time Caio uses the word “hunger” in his work is to describe the situation in the country in 1921, at the end of the civil war. But he makes no mention, for example, of the dramatic situation of the “holodomor” in Ukraine (and other regions of the Soviet Union), which resulted in millions of lives lost between 1932 and 1933 (exactly the time when he visited the Soviet Union), despite all the evidence and known reports, such as the widely circulated articles in the press at the time, such as those written by the Welsh journalist Gareth Jones[lxx] (even though many of the articles in question on the subject were contested at the time). The fact is that USSR, a new world It was released precisely in the year that, according to Ralph Miliband, “the first phase of the Stalinist revolution” ended.[lxxi], a very difficult time in several aspects (political and human), despite the favorable numbers in broader economic terms. Among the few references cited as sources of data, statistics and general information about the Soviet Union, the balance of the first five-year plan (report presented to the joint plenary session of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the CPSU in 1933), the entry “Russia” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and data taken from the Statesman's Year Book,of the same year.
Caio Prado Júnior ends the book by reminding us that “the most important question is not socialism itself. It is the path that leads there.”[lxxiii]. And that
This is the first international lesson of the revolution in the Soviet Union: socialism will only be achieved by the party that follows in the footsteps of the Bolsheviks, that is, by armed insurrection, by the violent seizure of power, as happened in Russia, and not by the peaceful path of winning a parliamentary majority, as social democracy and socialist parties around the world want. I do not believe that there is a point of view in history that is more supported by the evidence of the facts than this one.[lxxiii]
USSR, a new world had a second edition printed in August 1935, a year of intense activity of the National Liberation Alliance and the Communist Uprising (it is worth remembering here that, in that year, Caio Prado Júnior was the regional president of the ANL in São Paulo). The work, however, would be confiscated and withdrawn from circulation by order of the Vargas government, something that, by the way, was not uncommon at the time[lxxiv] (a copy of this second edition can be found and consulted in Caio Prado Júnior's private library, at IEB/USP). Since then, it has never been republished by him.
The world of socialism, in turn, was prepared after another trip to the USSR and China, in this case, with his second wife, Helena Maria Magalhães Nioac (Nena), between July and September 1960, a trip made shortly after he helped found the Brazil-Soviet Union Cultural Union (also referred to by some as the “Brazil-USSR Society”), in São Paulo, together with Sérgio Milliet, Afonso Schmidt, Florestan Fernandes, João Belline Burza, Elias Chaves Neto, Mário Schenberg and Eduardo Guarnieri, among others[lxxv]. At the time, Caio was 53 years old, in full intellectual maturity. Since the previous year, the historian had been thinking about returning to the USSR, but was having difficulties due to minor bureaucratic issues. For this reason, he would receive support from his friend Jacob Bazarian, who had been living in that country since 1950 (where he worked as a scientific researcher at the Institute of Philosophy of the ACU) and had good contacts among the local authorities.[lxxvi] (Bazarian would return to Brazil in 1966 and later, disillusioned with the Soviet regime, would publish a book critical of the USSR)[lxxvii]. Everything would be resolved. And your trip would be confirmed.
At that time, the USSR, the largest country in the world, with a territory of 22 million square kilometers that stretched across two continents and included fifteen republics, had approximately 215 million inhabitants. It was, without a doubt, a military, technological and nuclear superpower, although the quality of its consumer goods still left much to be desired when compared to that of Western countries.[lxxviii]. When the author of Brazil's economic history When he went to the Soviet Union, the CPSU had around 8.239.000 members and had Nikita Khrushchev as its first secretary, who also held the positions of leader of the Presidium of the Central Committee and chairman of the Council of Ministers. At the 1956th Congress of the CPSU in XNUMX, Khrushchev was responsible for leading the denunciation of Stalin's crimes and attacking the cult of personality. Over the years, he implemented a series of cultural and economic reforms (often controversial), beginning a more “liberal” and supposedly flexible period, which also included the defense of a policy of peaceful coexistence in the international arena.[lxxix]. It was during this new period that the USSR was going through (which would also have repercussions on the tourism sector)[lxxx] that Caio Prado Júnior arrived in the country.
In Moscow, he and his wife stayed at the renowned Hotel Ukraine, a 34-story, 198-meter-high building that, according to João Pinheiro Neto, was “the largest and most modern” in the capital, one of “the few new buildings in the city”, with poor service, “no internal organization of restaurants” and full of American tourists.[lxxxi]. With Nena, the historian from São Paulo would visit collective farms, He visited daycare centers, the Lenin football stadium (with a capacity for 100 people) and the ACU Philosophy Institute, where he had conversations with several professors (who, in this case, would not have left a good impression on him). Otherwise, he loved everything he saw and thought that the Soviet Union was on the right track. In a letter dated July 27, 1960, sent to his youngest son, Roberto, he commented: “I am learning a lot and, above all, that the political and social regime of this country is truly the future of all humanity.”[lxxxii].
From the Soviet Union, the couple traveled to China. They visited Beijing, Wuhan, Shanghai and other cities in the south of that country. During the trip, they went to the Peking Opera, watched an acrobat show, went to the theater, visited a dam, a steel foundry and a Buddhist temple in Hang Tcheu, as well as visiting factories, communes and monuments, always accompanied by a local guide. From Wuhan (where, according to Caio, “we haven’t stopped, we’ve visited a thousand things, in a constant state of hustle and bustle”),[lxxxiii] he would send a letter, dated August 21, once again to his youngest son, in which he said that
Here in China, one can clearly see the advantages of socialism, because capitalist China has left nothing, and only the modern and recent, which is socialism, represents progress and future prospects. When you come to China (and I am sure you will come someday), you will have the opportunity to see the wonderful country that is being built here, for a happy life for everyone.[lxxxiv]
The tour continued, and the favorable impression of the country only grew. In new correspondence to Roberto, this time written in Beijing, on 1º September, Caio would say he was
seeing and understanding this enormous world of 650 million people, dominated and exploited until a few years ago by European imperialists and a handful of large landowners, and who are now building a rich and powerful country that will ensure the well-being of all its inhabitants (more than a fifth of humanity). There is still much to be done, but there can be no doubt that the work is being carried out: in ten years at the most, China will be the first country in the world.[lxxxv]
Upon returning to Brazil, he gave a lecture on November 7, 1960, at the Municipal Library of São Paulo, entitled “Current Affairs and Perspectives of Socialism”, and wrote the article “Peaceful Coexistence” for the Brasiliense Magazine and began to prepare his next book. It is worth mentioning that his trip reaffirmed his conviction in official Soviet policy. He considered that capitalism was clearly in decline, while it was possible to verify a “dazzling” and “accelerated” advance of socialism. Peaceful coexistence between nation states would be fundamental. In his text for the Brasiliense Magazine he would say:
The Moscow Declaration that we are analyzing reaffirms this explicitly and unambiguously when it states that “the socialist revolution does not matter and cannot be imposed from outside. It is the result of the internal development of each country, of the extreme sharpening of social contradictions. Inspired by the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, the communist parties have always been opposed to the export of the revolution.” Such a peremptory statement (which expresses a directive that no communist, under penalty of no longer being considered one, can avoid), and a statement that reinforces consecrated theoretical principles and a traditional line of political conduct, clearly shows the great distance, and even absolute contrast, between the opposition of imperialist capitalism to socialism, and that of socialism to capitalism.[lxxxvi]
He continues:
But if the socialist revolution cannot be exported, neither can the export of counterrevolution be tolerated. The Moscow Declaration states that the communists “fight energetically against the imperialist export of counterrevolution. The communist parties consider it their internationalist duty to urge the peoples of all countries to unite, to mobilize their internal forces, to act energetically and, relying on the power of the world socialist system, to prevent or give an energetic response to the interference of the imperialists in the affairs of any people who have embarked on the revolution.” This is a necessary condition for peaceful coexistence, because among the internal affairs of any people or country is the choice of the form of its social and economic institutions and the most convenient way to achieve them, and no one from outside has the right to intervene in the matter.[lxxxvii]
And complete:
Between capitalism and socialism there is today, on the international level, only one admissible form of conflict: peaceful competition. Let each of the two systems be given the opportunity to demonstrate its respective merits and its capacity to face the distressing economic, social, moral and cultural problems that arise in the current situation and phase of the historical evolution of humanity. And let this humanity be given the right to judge, that is, to decide, without resorting to the forcible imposition of one people over another, which of the two systems it prefers.[lxxxviii]
As can be seen, on this issue, Caio's position was the same as that of the PCB at the time. It is worth remembering that, between 1962 and 1963, several compilations of speeches, reports and interviews by Khrushchev were released in Brazil (mainly by Editorial Vitória), such as General and complete disarmament, guarantee of peace and security of peoples[lxxxix], Preventing war is the fundamental task[xc], Imperialism, enemy of the people, enemy of peace[xci], Report on the activities of the Central Committee[xcii], The national liberation movement[xciii]e The revolutionary workers' and communist movement[xciv]. Thus, Caio Prado Júnior's texts fit into the same climate of the time and were within the same logic defended by his communist co-religionists. If there were divergences from the author of Outline of the foundations of economic theory with the PCB in relation to the historical formation of Brazil and its interpretation of the country's situation at different times (in particular with regard to the agrarian issue and political struggle strategies), he was in full agreement with the acronym when it came to defending the USSR, its economic system and its foreign policy.
Em The world of socialism, published in 1962 by Brasiliense, printed at the Urupês printing house and dedicated to his children Danda, Caio Graco and Roberto, the intellectual from São Paulo will discuss the issue of freedom, the State (bourgeois and socialist), the press, work, religion, the soviets, the “people’s police”, the “comrades’ courts” and the Communist Party. This time, he would be more explicit in his intentions and would make a point of taking a position in relation to his object:
Without being a simple travelogue – because I risk some “theorizing” – this book still has no pretensions other than to reflect the impressions and conclusions of a traveler. Impressions of a communist, which will immediately make them “suspicious” for many. Books about socialist countries are usually summarily divided into two categories: for and against. And, of course, the book by a communist will fall into the latter category.[xcv]
Despite this, he added that
I did not visit the socialist countries to “judge” them, but rather to analyze the solutions given in those countries to the problems of the socialist revolution, that is, of the socialist transformation of the world. I am convinced of this transformation and that all humanity is marching towards it. […] It is the experience accumulated in the socialist countries, the guiding experience of the socialist transformation, which, in my opinion, all peoples and we Brazilians included, will sooner or later undergo, that interested me. And that is, therefore, what I seek to bring to these pages, so that the much or little that I have learned (a lot, in my opinion; readers can judge whether it really means anything) does not remain just for me and may, eventually, also be useful to others.[xcvi]
This one cannot be placed, strictly speaking, exclusively within the category of travel literature, although, as in his first work of this genre, he also mentions at times some of his experiences abroad. Friends, such as Mario Fiorani and Moisés Gicovate, praised the text.[xcvii]. Equal enthusiasm could be found in Álvaro Augusto Lopes' review of The Tribune,saying that
There is nothing more interesting than following the author in this masterful lesson on socialism applied in foreign lands visited in the light of the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx, Engels and Lenin (p. 114), verifying that its scientific elaboration has already been achieved in a satisfactory manner. Postulates such as “to each according to his needs” are gradually gaining immediate expression in the Soviet Union and in the People's Republic of China, thanks to the efforts of extraordinary men with first-rate moral and spiritual qualities, as this book demonstrates.[xcviii]
Also communist Elias Chaves Neto (who held the position of director-in-charge of Brasiliense Magazine) would say that his cousin and best friend, “interested in the incipient achievements of the socialist world,” had visited the Soviet Union in the 1930s and later published USSR, a new world.In The world of socialism, however, he would have “confirmed” his predictions from many years before[xcix]. Edgard Carone, in turn, stated that The world of socialism It was one of two works that continued to “mark” Caio’s “love” for his “militant socialism”[c] (the other would be the brazilian revolution).
The book had two editions in 1962 and a third in 1967, without changes to the text (in the last edition there was the inclusion of a short biography of Caio prepared by Elias Chaves Neto), but all with a different cover (the format of the third edition would also be smaller than that of the previous editions).
This was also a relatively successful work, with significant sales, at least in the first year of its publication. Even so, since 1967, when it had its third printing during the military dictatorship, the book has not received new editions in its complete form.
In this work, Caio will defend the abolition of free economic initiative and private control over the productive forces of society.[ci]. For him,
what is invariable in socialism, and which constitutes its essence, is the replacement of economic freedom, which characterizes capitalism and which implies antagonism between men, each one oriented towards the particularist and exclusivist satisfaction of their interests, by the ordering and coordination of economic action in function of the collective interest.[cii]
Additionally, we bring
Socialism, contrary to what is widely believed, is not and is far from being egalitarian. Socialism (true socialism, of course, because today there is no shortage of the most absurd fantasies under the socialist label) recognizes inequality and does not seek to eliminate or ignore the inequalities that are part of human nature.[ciii]
Caio also thought that the criticisms of a supposed “searching” and “police” socialist state were unfounded. In a preliminary phase of the construction of socialism (the revolutionary period and period of violent transformation) the regime had shown itself to be quite severe, which could not be otherwise. After all,
To defend itself in this serious situation, the regime had to resort to procedures that were in keeping with the opposition it was facing and the arduous struggle for survival in which it was engaged. And such procedures often led, as they could not fail to do, to violent repression. But this was not, and is not, the essence of socialism; quite the contrary, this phase has completely passed in most socialist countries, starting especially with the Soviet Union. And it never existed in People's China.[civ]
According to the author, at the time he was writing,
The socialist countries have now completely consolidated and stabilized their lives, and the special apparatus of internal repression has completely disappeared. They have complete freedom of movement, and there is no sign of any restrictions other than the ordinary and normal ones that are found everywhere.[cv]
In this sense, he comments:
I traveled extensively throughout the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, visiting the most varied and remote regions, and I noticed nothing, absolutely nothing that indicated even appreciable police surveillance. Certainly much less than in any capitalist country. Apart from customs agents and guards at the airports entering and leaving the country (because in the others I didn't even notice that), I saw nothing in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China other than traffic inspectors. In China, these inspectors are often young and harmless women. I always moved freely and without the slightest embarrassment everywhere, and not even my unmistakable presence as a foreigner was ever particularly noticed.[cvi]
Caio also made a point of remembering the total freedom of thought and expression and the great importance he attributed to the role played by the press in those countries, with “millions of amateur correspondents” collaborating effectively and regularly with periodicals, magazines, radio and television, in addition to “thousands” of “wall” newspapers published every week or every ten or fifteen days, pasted on the walls of workshops, offices of agricultural cooperatives, schools, hospitals and companies.[cvii]. Thus, in socialist countries there would be “broad collective discussion of all matters of general interest”, which would be “an essential part of the functioning of institutions, and publicity in writing or through radio and television is actively encouraged with the aim of obtaining the participation of an ever-increasing number of citizens”[cviii].
In the matter of work, in turn, “the Soviet citizen has the job that most pleases and suits him”[cix]. According to Caio, in the socialist system,
The incentives for this work are progressively enriched with new ethical content. The worker will make his effort not only for the financial advantage that comes from it, but also progressively because he becomes aware of the role he plays as a worker and of the responsibility that arises from his position in society.[cx]
And in the case of the State, its objective and great task was “the realization of socialism”, with the suppression of classes and, consequently, of class rule.[cxi]. Therefore,
The socialist state is a political expression and organization and an association of workers, and its activity constitutes one of the forms, the main and supreme, of cooperation of all individuals that make up the collective in the realization of the socialist ideal of human improvement and the harmonious coexistence of men.[cxii]
The socialist revolution and transformation would develop from “the integration of the individual into a new ethic that makes the physical and intellectual effort with which he contributes to the realization of activities that are necessary and useful to society a natural and spontaneous function that no one would normally think or even wish to avoid”[cxiii].
It is worth remembering that Caio always supported the Soviet Union, until his last moments of lucidity, even when the country was undergoing a profound process of bureaucratization and lack of economic dynamism. Despite having been very critical of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops in 1968 (Caio even wrote a telegram expressing his “indignant repulsion” to the then Soviet ambassador to Brazil, Sergei Mikhailov, denouncing the incident as an “unspeakable procedure” that represented a “revolting betrayal” of “socialist ideals” and “principles”, in addition to being an “insult” to the memory of Marx, Engels and Lenin, “leaving all honest socialists perplexed in the face of a gesture of such nature)[cxiv], at the time when Leonid Brezhnev was already in power, he would continue reading about the “homeland of socialism”, taking an interest in what was happening there and giving his support to the USSR in general (Mikhailov himself, who said he was an “attentive reader” of Caio, invited him to participate, in 1966, in the celebrations of the anniversary of the October Revolution at the Embassy of his country and even requested, in 1968, that he give a lecture at the same legation “on the topic that Your Excellency considers of mutual interest”).[cxv] Not even the liberal reforms and the application of economic calculation in the USSR and in popular democracies (implemented in the 1960s, with a dynamic that brought those practices of financial and administrative self-management, with an emphasis on the profitability of companies, closer to capitalist tendencies), so criticized by other Marxist intellectuals of the time, seem to have influenced or affected Caio's opinion, who did not include comments on the subject in the 1967 edition nor did he point out possible problems in that system which, for him, on the contrary, was heading in the right direction (Che Guevara, for example, with a different opinion, would make several criticisms of that model).[cxvi] The Brazilian historian, in turn, believed at that time that “the first symptoms of the evolution towards communism and the disappearance of the State” could already be seen in the Soviet Union.[cxvii]. For him,
It is not a question of abolishing the State by a predetermined and decisive action. It is in the very development of socialist institutions, and by virtue of their natural and spontaneous dynamics, that the gradual and progressive disappearance of the State apparatus will occur, which will lose its reason for being.[cxviii]
and “it is in this march, the march towards communism, that the socialist world finds itself engaged”[cxix].
The fact is that Caio Prado Júnior has always been on the side of the Soviet Union, even at seemingly disparate moments in its history. He praised the country during the Stalinist period and, later, supported and extolled its political, economic and cultural achievements after the 1956th Congress of the CPSU, at the height of de-Stalinization, in the middle of the Khrushchev era, when the context at the time was quite different from that described in the previous book (in XNUMX, for example, he is said to have said “that without Stalin’s dictatorship, socialism would have made faster progress”).[cxx]. The most important thing for the author of Introductory notes to dialectical logic, probably, was the defense of socialism and of a historical experience that opposed capitalism and Western imperialism (especially North American), regardless of who was in charge of the CPSU and the political dynamics of the period in which he wrote.
In his private library, one can find at least eighty books about the Soviet Union (by various authors, such as Nikolai Bukharin, Osório César, Claudio Edmundo, Lazar Kaganovich, Carlos Santos, Joseph Stalin, John R. Cotrim, Joseph E. Davies, Isaac Deutscher, A. Ezhov, I. A. Evenko, Jean Fonteyne, Rodolfo Ghioldi, G. Grinko, Nestor de Holanda, Alexei Kosiguin, V. I. Lenin, Emil Ludwig, Mauricio de Medeiros, N. N. Mikhailov, Freitas Nobre, A. Pacherstnik, Émile Schreiber, K. Sevrikov, Aleksandr Ivanovich Sizonenko, Stanislas Stroumiline, Donald W. Treadgold, Leon Trotsky, B. Vassiliev, I. Verjovtsev and George Vernadsky), as well as a collection of communist magazines and newspapers, which he subscribed to and read over the years. On China, he had works by Gregorio Bermann, Alain Bouc, Chi-ming Tung, Chou En-lai, Jurema Yari Finamour, TJ Hughes, Liu Shao-Chi, Mao Tse-tung, Colette Modiano, Alan Winnington and many official texts published by the CCP and the government of that country.
Finally, it is worth indicating the place where they are located. USSR, a new world e The world of socialism in the larger framework of Caiopradian work. These are certainly not the most important books of his production. Despite this, both show a portrait (albeit partial) of the Soviet Union in very different decades, presenting the characteristics of the country at different moments in its history.
Furthermore, it is interesting to point out the fact that two relatively short trips abroad became books, something unusual in his bibliography. Caio traveled to many places throughout his life, but this was not reflected in works such as the two in question. It is true that a trip to Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1949, for example, yielded a two-part article published in 1950 by the magazine Fundamentals[cxxi]. But even in this case, the experience did not become a book. The historian from São Paulo undoubtedly valued travel – his trips around Brazil (including in a Volkswagen Beetle) to get to know the country’s reality up close are well-known. This dynamic left its mark on his works. But a “book” based on travels abroad was not something common. From his youth until the 1970s, he traveled to many nations in the Americas, North Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, and Western and Eastern Europe (as well as various parts of Brazil itself). He took notes, wrote letters, gave lectures, and photographed every place he visited… But even so, these specific experiences (such as a trip he took to Cuba, for example) did not become “books”, which shows the emphasis he wanted to place on promoting and supporting the Soviet Union and its political system.[cxxii].
USSR, a new world e The world of socialism can also be placed in the context of travel works by Latin Americans and, specifically, Brazilians to the Soviet Union (and, in the second case, also to China), with all the reservations made regarding the “hybrid” and heterogeneous characteristics of these works. Both volumes equally represent a snapshot of the author himself in the early 1930s and early 1960s. After all, in them it is possible to find his ideas and positions in relation to various subjects, such as communism, fascism, the State, revolution, freedom, the party, work and the many philosophical, legal, cultural, political and economic aspects of the “world of socialism” discussed by the progressive sectors of his time.
For all these reasons, reading this double edition, composed of books long out of print, helps to understand lesser-known aspects of Caio Prado Júnior's life and work and is essential to broaden and complete the general picture of his political and economic ideas, representing unique and very interesting material for all those who study his thought.[cxxiii]
* Luiz Bernardo Pericas He is a professor in the Department of History at USP. Author, among other books, of Caio Prado Júnior: a political biography (boitempo). [https://amzn.to/48drY1q]
Reference
Gaius Prado Junior. USSR, a new world and The world of socialism. New York: Routledge, 2023. [https://amzn.to/4eOYMSj]
Notes
[I] John Reed, Ten Days That Shook the World (New York, Boni and Liveright, 1919) [ed. bras.: Ten days that shook the world, translated by Bernardo Ajzenberg, 7th ed., New York, Penguin, 2010].
[ii] Louise Bryant, Six Red Months in Russia (New York, George H. Doran, 1918) [ed. bras.: Six months in red Russia, translated by Alexandre Barbosa de Souza, New York, LavraPalavra, 2022].
[iii] Albert Rhys Williams, Through the Russian Revolution (London, Labour, 1923).
[iv] See, for example, Fernand Corcos, A visit to New Russia (Rio de Janeiro, Americana, 1931); Paul Marion, The Muscovite Paradise (Rio de Janeiro, National Publishing Company, 1931); Henri Béraud, What I saw in Moscow (Porto Alegre, Globo, 1931); Álvarez del Vayo, the new russia (Sao Paulo, Pax, 1931); and Diego Hidalgo, Impressions of Moscow (São Paulo, Pax, 1931), among others.
[v] Mauricio of Medeiros, Russia (Rio de Janeiro, Calvino Filho, sd). According to Edgard Carone, this book had six consecutive editions in a few months. See Edgard Carone, Marxism in Brazil: from its origins to 1964 (Rio de Janeiro, Two Points, 1986), p. 66.
[vi] Osorio Cesar, Where the proletariat leads: overview of the USSR (Sao Paulo, Brazilian, 1932).
[vii] Gondin da Fonseca, Bolshevism (Rio de Janeiro, Author's Edition, 1935).
[viii] Claudio Edmund, A Brazilian engineer in Russia (Rio de Janeiro, Calvino Filho, 1934). In the preface, signed by “HN” and finished in July 1933, Edmundo is indicated as being the son of the journalist Luiz Edmundo, who had worked for the Morning mail. See Ibid, p. ix. Many of these books ended up having some influence on their readers. Victor Márcio Konder, for example, comments: “I know of a very remarkable fact. My brother Alexandre, it must have been in 1935, or even before, lent her [Konder’s mother] a book written by a son of Luís Edmundo, the historian Luís Edmundo. I believe his name was Claudio Edmundo. He had been in the Soviet Union, where he worked in some way on those urbanization and city-building plans. I don’t know if in Odessa, I believe in Odessa. He wrote a small, unpretentious book, but it had a great influence on certain minds who were completely unprepared for such things. […] This book was entitled A Brazilian engineer in Russia. He painted a schematic picture of the Soviet Union, emphasizing that everyone there was equal. People received equal pay. Stalin himself earned as much as a worker. Everyone was equal. Everyone worked fraternally. In short, an egalitarian system. […] I only remember that my mother read it, passed it on to me and I read it. It was one of the first serious books I ever read in my life. And my mother said to me: 'That's fair!' That judgment from my mother was enough for me. It was decisive.” See Victor Márcio Konder, Militancy (São Paulo, Arx, 2002), p. 32-3). The same occurred with the leader João Amazonas, who became interested in the communist cause after reading that same book; see Lincoln Secco, The Battle of the Books: Formation of the Left in Brazil (Cotia, Ateliê Editorial, 2017), p. 74. In her doctoral thesis, Raquel Mundim Tôrres, in turn, questions the authorship of this book, stating that Claudio Edmundo may have been a fictitious author, that is, an invented name. See Raquel Mundim Tôrres, Crossing the Iron Curtain: travel reports from Brazilians to the Soviet Union during the Cold War (1951-1963), doctoral thesis, History Department, USP, São Paulo, 2018, p. 45.
[ix] Jorge Amado, The World of Peace: Soviet Union and People's Democracies (4th ed., London, England, 1953 [1951]).
[X] Graciliano Ramos, Travel (Czechoslovakia-USSR) (Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo, Record, 1980 [1954]).
[xi] Nestor of Holland, Brazil-USSR Dialogue (Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian Civilization, 1960) and The Red World: Notes of a Reporter in the USSR (Rio de Janeiro, Pongetti Brothers, 1962).
[xii] Marques Rebelo, Iron curtain (Rio de Janeiro, José Olympio, 2014 [São Paulo, Martins Publishing House, 1956]). Trip made in 1954.
[xiii] Alfonso Schmidt, Zamir (journey to the world of peace) (São Paulo, Brasiliense, 1956).
[xiv] Ênio Silveira, “The USSR today: towards the cosmos and personal comfort”, Brazilian Civilization Magazine,special notebook: The Russian Revolution: Fifty Years of History, year 3, no. 1, nov. 1967, p. vii-xviii.
[xv] Jose Campo, A Brazilian in the Soviet Union: travel impressions (Sao Paulo, Martins Bookstore, 1953).
[xvi] Constantine Stoiano, Antonio Chamorro, Jose Pedro Pinto, Joao Sanches and Lazaro Moreira, Workers from São Paulo in the Soviet Union (Sao Paulo, Fundamentals, 1952).
[xvii] Freitas Nobre, Current view of Russia: observations of a Brazilian journalist (New York, 1957).
[xviii] Rubens do Amaral, Soviet Union: hell or paradise? (São Paulo, Livraria Martins, 1953). The book was finished in August 1952.
[xx] Osny Duarte Pereira, Brazilian judges behind the Iron Curtain (Rio de Janeiro, José Konfino, sd). The book was finished in March 1952.
[xx] Edmar Morel, Moscow, round trip (Rio de Janeiro, Pongetti Brothers, 1953[1952]).
[xxx] Jurema Yari Finamour, 4 weeks in the Soviet Union (Rio de Janeiro, Contemporary Editions, sd [1954]).
[xxiii] Jose Guilherme Mendes, Moscow, Warsaw, Berlin: people in the streets (Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian Civilization, 1956).
[xxiii] Branca Fialho, Trip to the Soviet Union (Rio de Janeiro, Vitoria, 1952).
[xxv] Silveira Bueno, Views of Russia and the Communist World (New York, 1961).
[xxiv] John R. Cotrim, A Brazilian engineer in Russia (Rio de Janeiro, if, 1962).
[xxv] Orlando Loureiro, The shadow of the Kremlin (Porto Alegre, Globo, 1954).
[xxviii] John Pinheiro Neto, USSR, the great warning (Rio de Janeiro, Pongetti Brothers, 1961).
[xxviii] Even though in an interview by letter Caio Prado Júnior stated that he joined the PCB in 1931, all documentary evidence indicates that he joined the party in the first half of 1932. See Luiz Bernardo Pericás, Caio Prado Júnior: a political biography (New York, New York, 2016, p. 29-48). See also Edgard Carone, “Caio Prado Junior”, Magazine of the Institute of Brazilian Studies, n. 32, 31 Sep. 1991, p. 214; available online.
[xxix] Caio Prado Júnior expressed his decision to go to the USSR for the first time in a letter to his brother Carlos. See letter from Caio Prado Júnior to Carlos Prado, São Paulo, February 15, 1933, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-CA014.
[xxx] Caio Prado Junior, Political evolution of Brazil: essay on materialist interpretation of Brazilian history (São Paulo, Revista dos Tribunais, 1933). The second edition of that work, from 1947, would gain the title Political evolution of Brazil: an essay on the dialectical interpretation of Brazilian history, considered by him to be exhausted. In 1953, he would publish Political evolution of Brazil and other studies (“first” edition), that is, as a new book, including other essays.
[xxxii] Luiz Bernardo Pericás, Caio Prado Junior, cit., p. 82.
[xxxi] See Caio Prado Junior, USSR, a new world (New York, 1934), p. 7.
[xxxii] See letter from Caio Prado Junior to Antonieta Penteado da Silva Prado and Caio da Silva Prado, Paris, June 23, 1933, Caio Prado Junior Collection, IEB/USP, CPJ-AAP207.
[xxxv] See Raquel Mundim Torres, Crossing the Iron Curtain: travel reports from Brazilians to the Soviet Union during the Cold War (1951-1963), doctoral thesis, History Department, USP, São Paulo, 2018, p. 128.
[xxxiv] Ibidem, p. 83.
[xxxiv] See, for example, letter from Caio Prado Junior to Antonieta Penteado da Silva Prado and Caio da Silva Prado, Paris, June 23, 1933, Caio Prado Junior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-AAP207; and letter from Caio Prado Junior to Antonieta Penteado da Silva Prado and Caio da Silva Prado, Paris, July 1, 1933, Caio Prado Junior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-AAP208.
[xxxviii] See “Russia Today”, Night Diary, São Paulo, September 15, 1933.
[xxxviii] See Graziela Naclério Forte, CAM and SPAM: art, politics and sociability in modern São Paulo, early 1930s, Master's dissertation in Social History, USP, 2008, p. 117-118.
[xxxix] According to some sources, it is reported that the title of the lecture would be “Russia and the World of Socialism”, and that the conference would be 32 pages long. See Ibidem, p. 115. The title that appears in the conference text itself, however, is “Russia Today” and is 45 pages long. See Caio Prado Júnior, “Russia Today”, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-URSS-008.
[xl] See letter from the director of the National Publishing Company to Caio Prado Júnior, São Paulo, September 9, 1933, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-URSS-001.
[xi] See letter from Caio Prado Júnior to the directors of the National Publishing Company, São Paulo, September 10, 1933, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-URSS-002.
[xliii] See letter from Caio Prado Júnior to the directors of the National Publishing Company, undated, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-URSS-003.
[xiii] See letter from the director of the National Publishing Company to Caio Prado Júnior, São Paulo, January 17, 1934, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-URSS-005.
[xiv] See letter from the director of the Editorial Department of the National Publishing Company to Caio Prado Júnior, São Paulo, April 4, 1934, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-URSS-006.
[xlv] Look, n. 236, March 14, 1973, “Datas”, p. 11; available online; and Ana Lúcia Merege Correia, “Octalles Marcondes Ferreira, the Big Boss”; available online.
[xlv] “Octalles Marcondes Ferreira (1900-1973), general director of the National Publishing Company”, The Explorer, 23 Sep 2010; available online.
[xlv] Ana Lucia Merege Correia, “Octalles Marcondes Ferreira, the Big Boss”, cit.
[xlviii] Edgard Carone remembers that Political evolution of Brazil, published at the author's expense, it did not have the name of the publisher, only that of the printing house where it was printed, the “Revista dos Tribunais”. Formation of contemporary Brazil, in turn, received the “endorsement” of Livraria Martins, but was, in fact, financed by Caio. And the subsequent works were all published by Editora Brasiliense, owned by the historian. Carone is referring, of course, to the Brazilian editions. See Edgard Carone, cit., p. 216; available online.
[xlix] Benjamin Lima would say that Caio Prado Júnior’s book was “the most determined apology ever made in Portuguese for the work conceived and initiated by Lenin. Mr. Caio Prado Júnior […] reveals himself to be orthodox, a fanatic of Marxism.” Benjamin Lima, “São Paulo and Technocracy,” the father,Rio de Janeiro, July 10, 1934. Lívio Xavier, in turn, although he sometimes praises the book (especially in the parts about economic organization, family and religion), is quite harsh in relation to other aspects. For him, “the fundamental defect of Mr. Caio Prado Júnior’s book is isolating the USSR, making it a watertight compartment in the world economy, and completely abstracting the existence of the class struggle within it. Thus, for example, when he characterizes the bureaucracy (p. 36) as a survival of the old regime, he goes further and draws the ultimate conclusions from the Bukharinian right-wing theory, according to which the very existence of the Soviet Union is a sufficient guarantee against any deformation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which politically limits the development of all anti-proletarian tendencies. […] But Mr. Caio Prado Júnior, for whom only the rigid and undeformable categories of the State and public power exist, goes beyond the class struggle and its dialectics to the plane of political idealism. This way of thinking is as far from revolutionary Marxism as Bukharin's theoretical conceptions (see Lenin's Testament). Only, on air, CPJ, which, on p. 121, feels obliged to recall that Bukharin is one of the greatest theoreticians of Marxism, assumes the character of a legal dogma. So much the better, because it better highlights its reactionary character. […] In the theoretical field, the bureaucratic explanation (and in this particular the center makes common cause with the right) of the functioning of the cadres of the Soviet State, is debated in an insoluble contradiction within Marxism, namely, the development of political forces (soviets, party, union) is in inverse proportion to the success of the construction of socialism and the liquidation of classes, according to Marx, Engels and Lenin, precisely contrary to the tendency of increasing administrative pressure on the masses, existing in the USSR. […] The chapter on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is extremely unfortunate… The author does not want to know whether the ruling party, due to its capacity for collective elaboration of its program and Marxist foresight, continues to be the revolutionary force that directs the economic and political course of the USSR, whether its masses have been stripped of all political initiative or not, whether a false theory has been imposed on them or not, whether the state apparatus stifles the autonomous development of party cadres.” Lívio Xavier, “URSS, um novo mundo”, in Paulo Henrique Martinez. The dynamics of critical thinking: Caio Prado Jr. (1928-1935) (New York, 2008), p. 309-12.
[l] Caio Prado Junior, USSR, a new world (New York, 1934), p. 24.
[li] Ibidem, p. 28.
[liiii] Ibidem, p. 7.
[iii] Since the second half of the 1920s (and even more so from 1928 onwards), pressure on the “Trotskyists” and “Bukharinists” had intensified in the USSR and other countries (including within the PCB). In the case of Brazil, in January 1930, Astrojildo Pereira was attacked and forced to make a self-criticism, as were Octavio Brandão, Minervino de Oliveira and Leôncio Basbaum. In January 1932, in turn, the plenary session of the PCB Central Committee expelled Astrojildo Pereira, Cristiano Cordeiro, José Casini, Minervino de Oliveira, Everardo Dias, Carlos Villanova, João Freire de Oliveira and Odilon Machado, while in 1934 (therefore, only two years later), it would be the turn of the exclusion of names such as Mário Grazzini, Heitor Ferreira Lima and Corifeu de Azevedo Marques, that is, those accused of “Bukharinism” or “Astrojildism” (in the latter case, a supposed national variant of “Bukharinism”, that is, a “right-wing” tendency within the party). See Lincoln Secco, The Battle of the Books: Formation of the Left in Brazil (Cotia, Ateliê Editorial, 2017), pp. 93-5. This same phenomenon occurred in several other countries.
[book] According to historian Lincoln Secco, “in 1933, 18% of the members were purged,” while in the previous three years there had been a “significant increase” in arrests and executions. Furthermore, “in 1937 alone, there were 300 denunciations.” Still, according to him, “fear and terror were combined with material incentives. A rupture can also be found in economic policy. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was replaced by “forced collectivization in the countryside.” According to some sources, between 1937 and 1938, 1.372.392 people were arrested (681.692 of whom were executed). The Khrushchev Report stated that there were 1,5 million arrests and 68.692 executions. The forced labor camps received 1,2 million prisoners during the period. Secco also reports that “the total number of convicts was approximately 4 million people” (with 800 thousand sentenced to death). For him, “the moments of sudden increase in sentences occurred in 1930-1932, at the time of the expulsion of the Mensheviks”, and then, with a “new increase in 1937-1938, years of the infamous Moscow trials”. Lincoln Secco, History of the Soviet Union: an introduction (New York, New York, 2020), p.
[lv] See King A. Medvedev, “Socialism in One Country,” in Eric J. Hobsbawm. History of Marxism: Marxism in the era of the Third International, the USSR from the construction of socialism to Stalinism (Rio de Janeiro: Peace and Land, 1986), p. 70.
[lv] See Antonio Carlos Mazzeo, Unfinished Symphony: The Politics of Communists in Brazil (São Paulo, Boitempo, 2022), p. 69. He recalls that “in February 1933, the XVIII Congress of the Bolshevik Party was held – the 'Congress of the Winners', that is, the congress of the consolidation of the faction commanded by Stalin – and soon after the Moscow Trials began; this is when the theory of socialism in one country also became an 'absolute truth', together with the single model of building socialism”. See Ibid.
[lviii] See Pierre Broué, The Bolshevik Party (New York, 2014), p. 287.
[lviii] See Caio Prado Junior, USSR, a new world, cit.,p. 121.
[lix] See Caio Prado Junior, USSR, a new world, cit., p. 115.
[lx] For a discussion of the characteristics and results of forced collectivization, see Alec Nove, “Soviet Economy and Marxism: Which Socialist Model?”, in Eric J. Hobsbawm. History of Marxism: Marxism in the era of the Third International, the USSR from the construction of socialism to Stalinism (Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1986), p. 123-130; Robert McNeal, “The Institutions of Stalin’s Russia”, Ibid, p. 251-256; and Fabio Bettanin. Land collectivization in the USSR: Stalin and the revolution from above (1929-1933) (Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Civilization, 1981).
[lxi] Ibidem, p. 235. According to Caio Prado Júnior, “the bureaucracy still exists in the Soviet Union and continues to do much of the country’s administrative work. Its complete suppression naturally depends on a political and administrative education of the working masses that could not be achieved in the relatively short period of the revolution. […] Even so, however, the anti-bureaucratic system of the Soviet administration remains in essence. Firstly, because the existing bureaucratic apparatus is, by nature, precarious. It is not based, as is the case in countries with a bourgeois organization, on the needs of a regime that cannot count on the effective and favorable collaboration of the majority of the population. On the contrary, it is based on temporary contingencies, on circumstances that tend to disappear with the gradual development of popular education. On the other hand, this same education finds the most efficient impulse in the soviets. The soviets constitute the best school of public administration. Through them, Soviet workers are in permanent contact with the country's administration and, through daily practice, acquire the experience and training that they lack. Lenin's words, 'every cook must learn to run the State', find the greatest possibility of realization in the soviets. It is through daily contact with public affairs that Soviet workers will learn to deal with them”. Ibid., pp. 36-8. In fact, the phenomenon of bureaucratization, which could be identified since the first half of the 1920s (that is, more than ten years before Caio's visit), would only increase over the years. According to Robert McNeal, "in the early 1930s, however, the real base of the Party began to become less and less proletarian, partly because of the insertion of proletarians into administrative and technical positions, partly because of the recruitment of an increasing number of people who occupied positions of some responsibility in the economic sphere". See Robert McNeal, “The Institutions of Stalin’s Russia,” in Eric J. Hobsbawm. History of Marxism: Marxism in the era of the Third International, the USSR from the construction of socialism to Stalinism (Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1986), p. 250. On the question of bureaucratization in the USSR, see, for example, Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (New York, Pathfinder, 1970); Alex Callinicos, Trotskyism (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1990); Vladimir I. Lenin, Against bureaucracy/Diary of Lenin's secretariats (Buenos Aires, Pasado y Presente, 1974); and Tamás Krausz, Reconstructing Lenin: An Intellectual Biography (New York, Monthly Review, 2015), pp. 338-45. See also, in Brazil, Maurício Tragtenberg, “Evolution of the Russian Revolution from 1917 to today”, in Maurício Tragtenberg, Libertarian theory and action (São Paulo, Editora Unesp, 2011), p. 374-85; and Maurício Tragtenberg, “From Lenin to State Capitalism (Part II)”, in Maurício Tragtenberg, The bankruptcy of politics (New York, New York: Routledge, 2009), p. 154-9.
[lxii] Caio Prado Junior, USSR, a new world, cit., p. 235-6.
[lxiii] Nikolai Bukharin, Treatise on Historical Materialism (São Paulo, Caramurú Edition, 1933 and 1934, 4 v.). It is worth noting that, on the title page of the book, on the inside, the title is different: The theory of historical materialism: a popular handbook of Marxist sociology. And the name of the publisher itself is written differently: “Edições Caramurú”. Those were popular books, in pocket format, quite cheap and without much editorial care.
[lxiv] Edgard Carone, Marxism in Brazil: from its origins to 1964, cit., p. 68 and 88; and Edgard Carone, “Caio Prado Júnior”, cit., p. 214; available online.
[lxv] Caio Prado Junior, USSR, a new world, p. 236.
[lxvi] See Caio Prado Junior, USSR, a new world, cit., p. 236-7.
[lxv] See Stephen Cohen, Bukharin: A Political Biography (Rio de Janeiro, Peace and Land, 1990), p. 168-9; and Milovan Djilas, The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System (Rio de Janeiro, Livraria Agir, 1958). Bukharin even commented, in the 1920s, that “in the pores of our gigantic apparatus, elements of bureaucratic degeneration have lodged themselves, absolutely indifferent to the needs of the masses, to their life and their material and cultural interests… The officials are ready to draw up any kind of plan”. See Pierre Broué, The Bolshevik Party (São Paulo, Sundermann, 2014), p. 270. According to Pierre Broué, Bukharin believed that any attempt to create economic resources (whether voluntarily or through “militarization”) could only generate a state-building that was foreign to the spirit of socialism, and this was the main factor in the degeneration that the party had been experiencing since 1918. See Ibid, p. 271. Thus, according to that Bolshevik leader, “mass participation must be a fundamental guarantee against a possible bureaucratization of a group of cadres.” See Ibid. For Trotsky, on the other hand, according to Brian Pearce, the bureaucracy in power is not seen as a “new class” but as a parasitic excrescence, and Soviet society is not seen as “state capitalism” but as a “degenerate workers’ state.” See Brian Pearce, “Trotsky,” in Tom Bottomore, Laurence Harris, V. G. Kiernan and Ralph Miliband (eds.). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 490; and Pierre Broué, The Bolshevik Party (New York, 2014), p. 301.
[lxviii] See Caio Prado Junior, USSR, a new world, cit., p. 41.
[lxix] Ibid., p. 62-3.
[lxx] See, for example, Ray Gamache, Gareth Jones: Eyewitness to the Holodomor (Welsh Academic Press, 2018); and Gareth Jones, Tell Them We Are Starving: The 1933 Soviet Diaries of Gareth Jones (Kashtan Press, 2015). Gareth Jones' articles can be found at https://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/soviet_articles.htm.
[lxxi] According to Ralph Miliband, “In its early phase, from 1929 to 1933, Stalinism represented what Stalin himself called a ‘revolution from above’, designed to lay the basis for the transformation of the Soviet Union into an industrialized country.” See Ralph Miliband, “Stalinism,” in Tom Bottomore, Laurence Harris, V. G. Kiernan, and Ralph Miliband (eds.). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 462.
[lxxiii] Ibidem, p. 229.
[lxxiii] Ibid., p. 230-1.
[lxxiv] In the appendix of Julio Álvarez del Vayo's book, The new Russia, the publishers report: “Having the Garroux house, in whose workshops this work was printed, informed the publisher Pax that the Delegation of Political and Social Order had ordered the seizure of its originals, as well as the exhibition and sale of the work Impressions of Moscow, edited by us, not being satisfied with this measure, we requested the honorable judge of the 2nd Civil Court of São Paulo for a prohibitory injunction, which was published in the press… On the 23rd of this month, the police of this capital, represented by the Delegate of Political and Social Order, summoned the manager and the head of the workshops of the Garraux publishing house [to appear at] the police station, in order to give statements about the works that were being printed in the printing workshops of that house, having been informed by them that they were there, in those conditions, among others, and by order of the petitioner, the work entitled the new russia, by Julio Álvarez del Vayo, current ambassador of the Spanish Republic in Mexico. […] That authority then ordered the immediate suspension of the printing work, also demanding that the proofs of the aforementioned work be taken to the aforementioned police station and deposited there. In addition, he further ordered that the sale of all works that made any references to Russia be suspended, ordering them to be removed from the displays in the shop windows.” Julio Álvarez del Vayo, the new russia (São Paulo, Pax, 1931), p. 153-4. According to Edgard Carone, “from 1931 it is the Pax publishing house, located in São Paulo. According to information from Astrojildo Pereira, it seems that Luiz Carlos Prestes, exiled in Uruguay, was one of its financiers. Its line of publishing is restricted to travel books and novels, being the first in Brazil to publish some of the already classic proletarian novels: Michael Gold, Lebedinski, Vierassaief, Larissa Reisner, Kurt Klaber. From its editorial line, in addition to the travelers, we have the first edition of Kollontai, a book with numerous subsequent editions. It closed with the revolution of 1932”. Edgard Carone Marxism in Brazil: from its origins to 1964 (Rio de Janeiro, Dois Pontos, 1986), p. 67. In this sense, Lincoln Secco reports: “In 1924, the Rio de Janeiro police burned a thousand copies of communist program quality Scientific communism by Bukharin (the circulation was 2). In the same year, part of the first edition of proletarian Russia and hundreds of copies of the first Brazilian edition of Communist Manifesto were destroyed in Porto Alegre. Much of the second edition (São Paulo, Unitas, 1931) was seized by the police, which makes the first and second editions of The Manifest rarities of Marxist bibliophiles. […] The case of Amadeo Bordiga’s book is more tragic. There are no references to him at the time. His work Fascism, with a circulation of 2 thousand copies, may have been almost completely destroyed by the police”. Lincoln Secco, The Battle of the Books, cit., p. 85. In the case of Caio’s book, this probably occurred “due to the government’s coercive measures at the end of 1935, when it closed publishers, seized their stocks and prosecuted them”. See Edgard Carone, Marxism in Brazil, cit., p. 69.
[lxxv] See “Establishment of the Brazil-USSR Society”, The State of São Paulo, June 25, 1960, p. 11.
[lxxvi] See, for example, letter from Jacob Bazarian to Caio Prado Júnior, Moscow, September 22, 1959, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-CP-BAZ006.
[lxxvii] Jacob Bazarian, Myth and Reality about the Soviet Union: An Unbiased Analysis of the Soviet Regime by a Former Communist Party Member (Sao Paulo, SE, 1970).
[lxxviii] João Pinheiro Neto comments that “to this day, no traces of superfluity can be found. People’s clothing is modest. Housing is precarious. There are no private cars. […] But all this sacrifice had to produce something. And it did. The pace of industrial growth is astonishing. Scientific achievements are known to all. […] In 1918, 97% of the population was illiterate. Today, only 3% are illiterate. Three million new books are published every day in Russia. Today, the circulation of Balzac, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Anatole France and Maupassant is greater in Russian than in any other language. […] At Moscow University, 25 thousand students study without spending a penny, with scholarships that vary according to each student’s performance. […] It is a blunt reality that corresponds to the hopes of the afflicted, helpless and astonished man of our days. It needs to be understood, analyzed and meditated upon”. João Pinheiro Neto, USSR, the great warning (Rio de Janeiro, Pongetti, 1961), p. 14-5.
[lxxix] See Josef Wilczynski. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism and Communism (London: The Macmillan Press, 1981), p. 284-285.
[lxxx] According to Raquel Mundim Tôrres, “In 1957, Intourist began to receive five times the number of annual visitors than in the pre-World War II period. Although small compared to the traffic to the major European tourist centers, this number doubled again to one million between 1957 and 1965. In 1959, Soviet advertising declared that the USSR was open to visitors from all countries. New relationships with foreign tourist firms were negotiated, there was a reorganization of banking structures in the early 1960s, and public statements by Nikita Khrushchev increasingly pointed to this change. […] Intourist employees were also encouraged to reduce their costs. It was suggested, for example, that guides who failed to get tour groups to their flights on time should be penalized. If they successfully fulfilled their goals, employees would also receive bonuses./ With the end of VOKS and the significant increase in trade in the 1960s, Intourist increasingly began to provide tourism aimed at profiting from bourgeois consumerism: from 1964 onwards, 50% of its revenue came from the sale of souvenirs and food to travelers. Goods began to be sold in all areas visited by foreigners.” See Raquel Mundim Tôrres, Crossing the Iron Curtain, cit., p. 156-157.
[lxxxi] John Pinheiro Neto, USSR, the great warning, cit., p. 12.
[lxxxii] Card from Caio Prado Junior to Roberto Nioac Prado, Moscow, July 27, 1960, Caio Prado Junior Collection, IEB/USP, CPJ-RNP120.
[lxxxiii] See Letter from Caio Prado Junior to Roberto Nioac Prado, Wuhan, August 21, 1960, Caio Prado Junior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-RNP130.
[lxxxiv] Idem.
[lxxxv] Letter from Caio Prado Júnior to Roberto Nioac Prado, Beijing, 1º set. 1960, Caio Prado Junior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-RNP133.
[lxxxvi] Caio Prado Júnior, “Peaceful coexistence”, Brasiliense Magazine, n. 33, Jan.-Feb. 1961, p. 5-6.
[lxxxvii] Idem.
[lxxxviii] Idem.
[lxxxix] Nikita Khrushchev, General and complete disarmament, guarantee of peace and security of peoples: speech delivered on July 10, 1962, at the World Congress of the General Department and for Peace, held in Moscow (Rio de Janeiro, Alliance of Brazil, 1962).
[xc] Same, Preventing war is the fundamental task: excerpts from interviews, reports and speeches given in the years 1956-1963 (Rio de Janeiro, Vitoria, 1963).
[xci] Same, Imperialism, enemy of the people, enemy of peace: excerpts from interviews, reports and speeches given in the years 1956-1963 (Rio de Janeiro, Vitoria, 1963).
[xcii] Same, Report on the activities of the Central Committee: Closing speech at the XXII CPSU Conference (Rio de Janeiro, Vitoria, 1962).
[xciii] Same, The national liberation movement: excerpts from interviews, reports and speeches given in the years 1956-1963 (Rio de Janeiro, Vitoria, 1963).
[xciv] Same, The revolutionary workers' and communist movement: excerpts from interviews, reports and speeches given in the years 1956-1963 (Rio de Janeiro, Vitoria, 1963).
[xcv] Caio Prado Junior, The world of socialism (New York, 1962), p. 1.
[xcvi] Ibid., p. 2-3.
[xcvii] See letter from Mario Fiorani to Caio Prado Junior, Santa Elza Farm, Santa Cruz das Palmeiras, São Paulo, March 24, 1962, Caio Prado Junior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-CP-FIO003; and letter from Moisés Gicovate to Caio Prado Junior, São Paulo, May 2, 1962, Caio Prado Junior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-CP-GIC001.
[xcviii] Álvaro Augusto Lopes, “The world of socialism”, The Tribune, 25 Mar. 1962.
[xcix] Elias Chaves Neto, “Biography of the author”, in Caio Prado Júnior, The world of socialism (New York, 1967), p. 185.
[c] Edgard Carone, “Caio Prado Júnior”, cit., p. 215; available online.
[ci] Caio Prado Junior, The world of socialism, cit., p. 26.
[cii] Ibidem, p. 27.
[ciii] Ibidem, p. 35-6. He further states: “Egalitarian conceptions continue to be, as they have always been in the past, strongly criticized and combated in the theory and practice of the socialist regime and placed in the list of petty-bourgeois utopias that have no place in Marxism. It is not by the path of egalitarianism, that is, by indiscriminately forcing the standards of all individuals to identical levels, that we march towards true equality, that is, towards communism.” Ibidem, p. 145.
[civ] Ibidem, p. 58.
[cv] Ibidem, p. 59.
[cvi] Ibid., p. 59-60.
[cvii] Ibidem, p. 63.
[cviii] Ibidem, p. 65. Caio Prado Júnior would state that “for the new generations, educated and formed in socialism, which in the Soviet Union already constitute the vast majority today, the notion of private ownership of the means of production is something entirely strange, bizarre, inconceivable in modern times, as much as the provision of paid services to individuals, the capitalist wage system. […] No one could seriously and honestly defend them in our days and plead for their return. Ibidem, p. 66-7.
[cix] Ibidem, p. 71.
[cx] Ibidem, p. 139.
[cxi] Ibidem, p. 93.
[cxii] Ibidem, p. 107.
[cxiii] Ibid., p. 148-9.
[cxiv] See Luiz Bernardo Pericás, “Caio Prado Júnior: letter to PCB co-religionists (1932) and telegram to the Embassy of the Soviet Union (1968)”, Left margin,New York, New York, n. 20, March 2013, p. 111-7.
[cxv] See letter from Sergei Mikhailov to Caio Prado Junior, 1966, Caio Prado Junior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-CP-EURSS001; and letter from Sergei Mikhailov to Caio Prado Junior, Rio de Janeiro, April 30, 1968, Caio Prado Junior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-CP-MIK001.
[cxvi] See Luiz Bernardo Pericás, Che Guevara and the economic debate in Cuba (New York, New York, 2018); and Che Guevara, Critical points of political economy (Havana, Ocean South, 2006).
[cxvii] Caio Prado Junior, The world of socialism,cit., p. 57.
[cxviii] Ibidem, p. 168.
[cxix] Ibidem, p. 169. Caio would praise the 1961nd Congress of the CPSU, in October XNUMX, and the party's new program for communism. For more information on the preparatory discussions prior to this congress, see George Paloczi Horvath. Khrushchev: his path leads to power (Buenos Aires: Plaza & Janes, 1963), pp. 225-231. And for a discussion of the congress itself and the new party program, see Wolfgang Leonhard. The Future of Soviet Communism (Rio de Janeiro: Nordica, 1977), p. 78-98.
[cxx] See “Report Topic No. 239, April 5, 1956, SOG, SS,” Sops.
[cxxi] Caio Prado Júnior, “Through popular democracies: Czechoslovakia and Poland”, Fundamentals, n. 11, São Paulo, Jan. 1950, p. 4-13 and “Through the People’s Democracies: Czechoslovakia and Poland”, Fundamentals, n. 12, Sao Paulo, Feb. 1950, p. 31-6.
[cxxii] See, for example, letter from Caio Prado Júnior to Roberto Nioac Prado, Havana, January 3, 1962, Caio Prado Júnior Fund, IEB/USP, CPJ-RNP138. In Brazil, Caio gave lectures and participated in events in solidarity with Cuba. On July 26, 1962, he gave the lecture “The Revolution and the Reality of Cuba” at the headquarters of the Metalworkers Union in São Paulo, and on September 1 of the same year, he gave the lecture “Agrarian Reform in Cuba and Latin America”. On March 8, 1963, Caio presided over the public event at the headquarters of the Union of Workers in the Civil Construction Industry of São Paulo, in preparation for the National Meeting and the Continental Congress of Solidarity with Cuba, which would take place that same month. Cuba would also be mentioned in his articles and books. See Caio Prado Júnior, “The Statute of the Rural Worker”, Brasiliense Magazine, No. 47, May and June 1963, and reproduced in Caio Prado Júnior. The agrarian question in Brazil (New York: Routledge, 1979), p. 153-154. See also Caio Prado Junior. the brazilian revolution (New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 20-21.
[cxxiii] Originally published as “Presentation”. In: Caio Prado Júnior. USSR, a new world and The world of socialism. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2023.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
