Several of Lenin's basic theoretical essays on nationalism and the right of nations to self-determination are brought together in this volume. They analyze the national question specifically and historically in Russia, Europe and Ireland and discuss national oppression, colonialism, great power chauvinism and opportunism in the national question. The book underlines the relationship of nationalism to imperialism and shows how the struggle for democracy and national liberation is integrated with the fight for socialism.

This book explores the idea of socialism from three angles and raises the questions if socialism is possible, inevitable, and desirable. Socialism as an economic and societal system was possible based on the two most important pillars of Marxian political economy: State ownership in the means of production and mandatory central planning (command economy). Nevertheless, these two characteristics are compatible only with dictatorship. On this basis, socialism is neither inevitable nor desirable, because it excludes competition, freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. The three questions are analyzed through the academic work of five towering figures: Joseph A. Schumpeter, Karl Polanyi, Friedrich A. Hayek, Karl Popper, and Hannah Arendt. The theoretical findings and inferences resulting from this analysis are compared with the reality of socialism as it existed rather than an imaginary uncontroversial blueprint of socialism. The book discusses the evolution of Soviet communism and its attempts with market reforms to solve its inherent contradictions. It concludes that totalitarian regimes tend to fail in reforms because market freedom is inconsistent with totalitarian control. The author makes a strong case against dictatorship, also in the context of the spreading of nationalist populism around the globe. This book is a must-read for everybody interested in a better understanding of the ideas of socialism, totalitarianism, and populism.

Socialism is the watchword and the catchword of our day. The socialist idea dominates the modem spirit. The masses approve of it. It expresses the thoughts and feelings of all; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter “The Epoch of Socialism.” As yet, it is true, Socialism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a gradual realization of Socialism.17 In recent years the movement has grown noticeably in vigour and tenacity. Some nations have sought to achieve Socialism, in its fullest sense, at a single stroke. Before our eyes Russian Bolshevism has already accomplished something which, whatever we believe to be its significance, must by the very magnitude of its design be regarded as one of the most remarkable achievements known to world history. Elsewhere no one has yet achieved so much. But with other peoples only the inner contradictions of Socialism itself and the fact that it cannot be completely realized have frustrated socialist triumph. They also have gone as far as they could under the given circumstances. Opposition in principle to Socialism there is none. Today no influential party would dare openly to advocate Private Property in the Means of Production. The word “Capitalism” expresses, for our age, the sum of all evil. Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas. In seeking to combat Socialism from the standpoint of their special class interest these opponents—the parties which particularly call themselves “bourgeois” or “peasant”—admit indirectly the validity of all the essentials of socialist thought. For if it is only possible to argue against the socialist programme that it endangers the particular interests of one part of humanity, one has really affirmed Socialism. If one complains that the system of economic and social organization which is based on private property in the means of production does not sufficiently consider the interests of the community, that it serves only the purposes of single strata, and that it limits productivity; and if therefore one demands with the supporters of the various “social-political” and “social-reform” movements, state interference in all fields of economic life, then one has fundamentally accepted the principle of the socialist programme. Or again, if one can only argue against socialism that the imperfections of human nature make its realization impossible, or that it is inexpedient under existing economic conditions to proceed at once to socialization, then one merely confesses that one has capitulated to socialist ideas. The nationalist, too, affirms socialism, and objects only to its Internationalism. He wishes to combine Socialism with the ideas of Imperialism and the struggle against foreign nations. He is a national, not an international socialist; but he, also, approves of the essential principles of Socialism.

Ever since its first publication in 1992, The End of History and the Last Man has provoked controversy and debate. Francis Fukuyama's prescient analysis of religious fundamentalism, politics, scientific progress, ethical codes, and war is as essential for a world fighting fundamentalist terrorists as it was for the end of the Cold War. Now updated with a new afterword, The End of History and the Last Man is a modern classic.