#politburo standing committee

[th34tr3-k1d]

imma do one by one (not every day but anyways!)

Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev was born in 1931 in the small village of Privolnoye Neda Deco from Stavropol. His parents were simple peasants. In his youth, Gorbachev himself worked on a collective farm on a combine harvester and was even awarded the Order of the Red Banner. He distinguished himself and was able to enter the law faculty of Moscow University without exams, the right to do this was given by an award. After graduating from university, he returned to Stavropol, but did not pursue a career as a lawyer, but instead began to rise through the party ranks. And this growth was truly impressive.Already at the age of 35, Gorbachev became the first secretary of the Stavropol City Committee of the CPSU, in modern terms, the mayor of Stavropol, and after another 4 years he headed the entire Stavropol Territory. He stood out for his youth and talent, and was in good standing with senior management. The fact that the Stavropol region was one of thefavorite resting places for the party elite. In 1978, Gorbachev moved to work in Moscow. He was appointed secretaryCPSU Central Committee on Agriculture. It should be noted here that at this moment the average age of a Politburo member was 67 years, and a Union minister was 64 years old. Gorbachev was only 47.The state of affairs in the Soviet economy in the 1970s was difficult. This was especially true for agriculture. Therefore, the position of Secretary of the Central Committee. responsible for the harvest, meat procurement, food, was not the most enviable. Of course, even in the system of that time, even the most talented leader would not have been able to improve the situation in agriculture separately. And most of the problems were completely unsolvablein a planned economy and the absence of market mechanisms. What distinguished Gorbachev from other members of the Politburo in this post was his ability to speak openly about the fact that problems existed. This was recalled, in particular, by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, with whom Gorbachev met in London even before he became Secretary General. After the meeting, Thatcher told her advisers that she was surprised at how adequately Gorbachev assessed the state of affairs in the USSR, and that it was possible to do business with him. Gorbachev stood out favorably against the background of elderly Soviet leaders.The beginning of the 80s was remembered by residents of the USSR, among other things, for the so-called “thin on hearses.” In just over 2 years, three general secretaries died: firstBrezhnev, then Andropov, and in March 1985 Chernenko. Even the conservative leadership of the party understood that this could not continue, and the country needed a new leader, younger and more energetic than his predecessors. And now, the very next day after Chernenko’s death, March 11, 1985, 54-year-old Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and the de facto leader of the USSR. (The translation)

[mariacallous]

Just after Christmas, the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly authoritarian leader-for-life Xi Jinping celebrated Mao Zedong’s 130th birthday. Xi led the Politburo’s Standing Committee in a requiem in the Great Hall of the People for the infamous Red Emperor, the greatest mass murderer in modern if not all human history. The members thrice bowed before the grand killer’s statue and remembered his “achievements.”

Mao’s thoughts are a “spiritual treasure” and would “guide our actions in the long term,” Xi said. The Chinese people must “work to enable our party to adhere to its original mission … maintain vitality and vigor, and ensure that our party never degenerates, never changes its color, and never loses its flavor.” Under Mao, Xi said earlier last year, the Chinese Communist Party developed a “brand new form of human civilization.”

Ironically, by strengthening his arbitrary rule, Xi is actually making an eventual counterreaction more likely. Ever-tightening repression poisons the entire system. Fear exiles honesty and accountability in policymaking, leading to more and bigger mistakes, including at the top. State centralization and politicization are reversing the very forces that spurred economic growth. The determination to indoctrinate as well as regulate already has spawned antagonistic youth movements that challenge authority. Political stability is likely to be only temporary; when Xi passes from the scene, the succession fight is likely to be more bitter and fraught.

Not everyone agrees with Xi. On a recent trip to China, I met an academic colleague who expressed profound pessimism, which he said many intellectuals and others shared. In the past, he observed, they at least could look forward to some change every five or 10 years, when a new party general secretary (and president) was chosen.

But no longer. Not only is Xi president for life, but the party is also rapidly reverting back to the habits of the Maoist era.

Yet Xi was not alone in reveling in the supposed achievements of the Great Helmsman. Mao’s birthplace in the southern Hunan province, which I’ve visited, has long been a major tourist destination. Today, it may be the one place in China where a dissident can covertly promote revolution. As a Nikkei report on the anniversary observance noted, “The younger attendees on Tuesday seemed particularly inclined to chant slogans considered more extreme in their rhetoric. Those included such slogans adopted by China’s Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution as ‘No crime in revolution!’ and ‘To rebel is justified!’”

However, as Xi concentrates his power, I wonder who these young visitors think they’re rebelling against.

Right now, Xi’s power seems unshakeable. But so did Mao’s during his lifetime. Almost immediately after he died, policies began to change—and had shifted on the ground even beforehand. Within a decade or two, the country was almost unrecognizable.

Some of the devotion to Mao was real, and he retains some fervent fans. When I visited his impressive mausoleum in Tiananmen Square a few years ago, the lines were long. Many people bought flowers from vendors before entering to set before Mao’s massive bronze statue in the entryway. Some visitors seemed genuinely overcome with emotion. However, capitalism ultimately triumphed: On exiting, everyone passed by stalls marketing overpriced Mao tchotchke.

That the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to cling to Mao to maintain its revolutionary credentials is embarrassing, but hardly surprising. Mao remains one of China’s most recognizable symbols. His portrait hangs on the Gate of Heavenly Peace on Tiananmen Square’s northern edge. His mausoleum dominates the space and is much more impressive than Vladimir Lenin’s dark and dank resting place. And Mao’s face adorns China’s currency.

All this was built on a pile of corpses. The CCP consolidated power with campaigns against so-called counterrevolutionaries, landlords, and other enemies, killing 5 million or so Chinese. In 1950, Mao made the decision to enter the Korean War to save North Korean leader Kim Il Sung. Some 200,000 Chinese soldiers died, along with untold thousands killed by them in a war prolonged by two-and-a-half years. In 1956, Mao initiated the Hundred Flowers Campaign or Movement, in which he encouraged the people to speak freely. Apparently shocked after receiving criticisms rather than encomiums, he responded with the Anti-Rightest Movement, in which millions were killed.

In 1958, Mao’s fertile mind came up with his worst idea yet: the so-called Great Leap Forward, simultaneously collectivizing farming and decentralizing manufacturing. Estimates of total deaths vary widely, but perhaps the most comprehensive account came from a party member and Xinhua reporter. Yang Jisheng figured: “[T]he Great Famine brought about 36 million unnatural deaths, and a shortfall of 40 million births.”

Mao’s final flight into pure madness was the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The murderous mix of party purge, civil war, and social collapse may have caused as many as 2 million deaths.

Mao’s death was almost as consequential as his life. Pragmatic revolutionary Deng Xiaoping won the resulting power struggle and moved China down the course of economic reform. However, Deng, like Mao, rejected political liberalization and orchestrated the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, which was followed by purging millions of party members.

The CCP recognized that Mao had made mistakes, but it was unable to let go of the legacy of the national founding father altogether. Mao was still 70 percent right, the official verdict decided. (Contrast the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev, who was able to take Joseph Stalin’s legacy down entirely, in part because Lenin provided a convenient alternative state founder.)

Even after Tiananmen, China remained far freer than under Mao. However, that was then. In almost every way, Xi has shoved his nation backward.

Independent journalists and human rights lawyers are gone. Internet controls are tighter. Repression of churches is more intense. Academic exchanges are more limited. Controls over Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Hong Kongers have metastasized. Companies host party cells. Business is being made to serve the CCP.

And Xi has greatly strengthened party and personal control and uses both propaganda and coercion to insist that everyone thinks like him. He has tried to control history, presenting an idyllic version of the party’s bloody past. There is a burgeoning personality cult, though it seems perfunctory, lacking the ardor and intensity that more often surrounded Mao, at least during the latter’s life.

An important problem with Xi’s retreat to Maoism is the absence of Mao. Give the latter his due: Charismatic and driven from the start, he took a weak and divided movement from defeat to triumph and cast off centuries of Western and Japanese imperialism. In contrast, Xi is a colorless apparatchik who carefully ascended a party structure created by others. He wants Mao’s control without having earned, brutally and bloodily, Mao’s power.

Opposition exists but is futile. Wall Street Journal reporter Lingling Wei reported on a meeting at which a forlorn liberal administrator who had worked on stock market reform “signaled me to a corner of the venue. … ‘The whole thing about getting listed companies to set up party committees,’ he said, ‘is a reversal of what we had tried to do.’ Then he walked away without saying anything else.”

Indeed, China may be slipping back toward the Soviet Union in terms of political sentiment, if not economic achievement. People are still much better off than before, but a sense of ennui, even despair, afflicts those who desire personal freedom to enjoy their material bounty and personal opportunity to shape the social order around them. Xi, like Leonid Brezhnev, insists that soulless apparatchiks are the center of society.

It appears to be the fate of every nation that the worst will get on top, sometimes. However, as Friedrich Hayek predicted, they will do so more often in communist systems.

China is proving the rule. There was Mao. Now there is Xi. With Xi celebrating Mao, hopefully there won’t be another.

[theculturedmarxist]

China’s path to reducing carbon emissions should be determined by China and not controlled by anyone else, President Xi Jinping told dozens of officials, at the same time as US climate envoy John Kerry is in Beijing seeking consensus on global warming.

Xi was speaking at a two-day national conference on ecological and environmental protection that started on Monday, Chinese state broadcaster CCTV reported on Tuesday night.

“China’s commitments are unswerving, but the path towards the goals as well as the manner, pace and intensity of efforts to achieve them should and must be determined by the country itself, rather than swayed by others,” he said.

“[We should] actively and steadily work toward carbon peaking and carbon neutrality, foster a clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient energy system, accelerate the formation of a new power system and strengthen the country’s capability of guaranteeing oil and gas security.”

Xi also urged the country to safeguard ecological security and nuclear and radiation safety to “ensure that the natural environment and conditions, which are the foundation of survival and development, are not threatened or damaged”.

He asked for a concerted legal, market, technological and policy effort to achieve his goals.

The conference was attended by all seven members of the Politburo Standing Committee, the pinnacle of the party’s decision-making apparatus, as well as a wide range of party and government bodies.

Kerry, whose four-day visit concludes on Wednesday, has met Premier Li Qiang and top diplomat Wang Yi, as he seeks consensus on the fight against climate change.

There are also hopes his trip will add positive momentum to US-China relations, in their worst shape in decades.

Kerry tweeted on Tuesday that he appreciated the opportunity to have “an important discussion” with Li on how the US and China can work together to keep the pledge to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius about pre-industrial levels – a commitment of the 2015 Paris agreement – alive.

Li called for both sides to stick to climate commitments made in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.

Xi promised in September 2020 that China’s carbon emissions would peak by 2030 and become carbon neutral by 2060. In 2021, he said China would tightly control coal consumption and gradually reduce it after 2025.

China has repeatedly emphasised the need to secure its energy security and deliver on its climate commitments.

The most recent government work report to address the issue – submitted to the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature, in March by the previous premier Li Keqiang – said research and development of clean energy was a priority for 2023.

In April, the National Energy Administration announced plans to add 160 million kilowatts of installed wind and solar capacity by the end of this year, boosting the share of wind and solar electricity to 15.3 per cent of society’s energy use.

“Three years after making its carbon-reduction pledge, China’s energy and industrial transitions are still far from complete,” said Ma Jun, director of the Institute for Public and Environmental Affairs, a non-profit environmental research firm.

While China’s renewable energy is increasing, China has approved more coal projects recently, noted Ma. “Due to complex geopolitical changes, China has shifted its focus to energy security,” he said.

A major stumbling block to an agreement between the US and China on climate issues is China’s use of coal power. Washington wants China to reduce its domestic reliance on coal to cut more methane emissions. But Xi has reiterated many times that it is a matter of “energy security”.

There has been a significant increase in approvals for coal power projects within China since last summer’s extreme heatwave, which led to power supply crunches in several southern provinces. The rise in domestic approvals has sparked international concern about China’s ability to deliver on its climate promise.

On Kerry’s last visit to China in August 2021, he asked Beijing to stop funding coal power projects outside its borders. A month later, at the UN General Assembly, Xi announced that China would no longer build new coal power overseas.

Regarding China and US’s differences in climate issues and carbon reduction, Ma said, “What we have to see is what kind of cooperation the two sides are going to go for, and whether they can achieve a win-win situation on what each side is good at.”

[revolutionary-marxism]

"I am reminded of the lengthy remarks and corrections that Shelepin constantly made to the texts of the speeches sent out by Brezhnev. They all went in the same direction: to sharpen the class approach to problems, to strengthen discipline, to stand firmer against the intrigues of imperialism, to put an end to the relapses of "Khrushchevism", to which he attributed the course towards strengthening peaceful coexistence in foreign policy, to resume mutual understanding with the leadership of China (and after all it was the time of the "cultural revolution" in Beijing). Brezhnev read these remarks, but generally ignored [them]."

- A. M. Aleksandrov-Agentov, assistant to Brezhnev, recalling the adversarial relationship between General Secretary Brezhnev and Secretary of the Central Committee and Politburo member Alexander Shelepin during their power struggle in the mid-1960s, from his book; From Kollontai to Gorbachev: Memoirs of a diplomat.

[bulgariastreets]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[hotbulgaria]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[blgrll]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[melnikbg]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[bulgariazagora]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[communistbulgaria]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[bulgariaifos]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[turbulgaria]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[mariacallous]

In the past few weeks, widespread protests have swept across China, from Guangzhou to Xinjiang and from Apple’s largest iPhone factory in Zhengzhou to elite university campuses in Beijing and Shanghai. Protesters have been chanting “We want freedom, no more lockdown!” and “Down with Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party!” The sizes of the protests have varied widely—mostly in the hundreds, though considerably larger in Xinjiang and Wuhan—but their pervasiveness across multiple localities is unprecedented since the 1989 Tiananmen crisis.

Only a month ago, Xi Jinping was anointed as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for a third term. He filled the CCP’s upper echelons of power—the Politburo Standing Committee, the Politburo, and the Central Committee—with his loyal followers. His predecessor, Hu Jintao, was publicly removed from the Party Congress under the gaze of international media, likely as a staged performance of Xi’s unparalleled power. A few weeks later, Xi traveled to Bali, Indonesia, where he greeted U.S. President Joe Biden and other world leaders at the G-20 summit with exuberant confidence, building on what seemed like consolidated domestic political power.

Why has Xi’s seemingly unprecedented strong grip on power been met with social resistance of unparalleled scale throughout China? How has Chinese society reached this boiling point?

These events were not completely unforeseen. They’ve arisen out of China’s own long-term system for maintaining “social stability” and its intersection with zero-COVID policies. Since the student demonstrations in 1989, the CCP has invested tremendously in designing a stability maintenance system (weiwen tizhi)—which others might call a system of repression—so that it can preempt social discontent on a nationwide scale. The annual expenditures on stability maintenance, ranging from hiring temporary “security guards” to more high-tech control measures, far exceed national defense spending. The intrinsic advantage of China’s weiwen system is to allow the CCP to nip all social discontent in the bud—so that, in the vast majority of situations, it need not deploy the military or the formal coercive apparatus as it did in 1989. Sending the People’s Liberation Army to repress and kill the people would inherently hurt the party’s legitimacy.

One core part of the governance model is to mobilize trusted social actors, such as neighborhood aunties and uncles, as state proxies to implement quotidian state policies, ranging from housing demolition in urbanization projects to zero-COVID, building a system of everyday repression that allows the party to impose its will on society.

As I demonstrate in my recent book, Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China, trusted local figures draw on their social capital to persuade their fellow citizens to give consent to state policies. Oftentimes, this involves coaxing, giving some “carrots” such as bonuses for early compliance, while pulling the strings of social and neighborly relations. Other times, it imposes immense psychological pressure, making it a coercive strategy that falls short of violence. This strategy augments the everyday state power, penetrating society and implementing challenging routine policies through social actors embedded within the community.

These dynamics are amply demonstrated in the implementation of zero-COVID policies. For two and a half years, since the beginning of the pandemic until resistance became more endemic, the mundane tasks of temperature tracking, monitoring people’s movements, and ordering and delivering food supplies have fallen on the shoulders of these state-mobilized volunteers. At the grassroots level, residents’ committees—non-civil servants who serve as the state’s nerve tips—are regularly overwhelmed by the sheer number of tasks they need to perform.

At the beginning of the pandemic, these committees mobilized unpaid community volunteers, civil servants, and party cadres who live in the neighborhoods to perform burdensome COVID-related duties. The people in white-and-blue hazmat suits—who have become avatars of China’s style of pandemic control when it was met with high compliance—were at first largely state-mobilized volunteers and faithful implementers of the party’s zero-COVID policy. The implementation of coercive zero-COVID policies was essentially outsourced to trusted social actors locally.

In Maoist times, the party similarly mobilized activists and volunteers to carry out important state-building projects, such as the land reform in the early 1950s that violently redistributed land, lifting the party’s popularity among the peasantry. Mao’s fatally ambitious projects, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, similarly relied on activists and volunteers to mobilize the masses. This strategy of mobilizing the masses is an essential component of the Chinese governing model, giving rise to its “everyday state power” under the CCP’s rule.

So, what went wrong with this strategy with zero-COVID? The success of mobilizing residents’ committees and trusted social proxies to do the state’s bidding is contingent on their belief that they are contributing to the community. In Maoist times, party cadres mobilized activists by firing up their enthusiasm for Communist ideals that emphasized “sacrificing oneself for the good of the larger self.” This intrinsic belief is also pertinent to how their actions are being received by the citizens and if it results in acquiescence or resistance.

Furthermore, as lockdowns became more widespread across the country over time, the workload for residents’ committees increased manyfold. They resorted to hiring temporary workers, including so-called security guards—ruffians and street hooligans—to control people’s movements and maintain social order. Some of these temporary workers have been caught on camera using violent measures against recalcitrant residents, including kicking them and beating them with rods. In some respects, these temporary workers are no different from the thugs mobilized to manhandle petitioners and protesters, such as against bank protesters in Zhengzhou recently.

Still, zero-COVID was initially met with largely high community buy-in throughout the country until the new wave of lockdowns sparked by the omicron variant in 2022 and in the early summer in Shanghai, where mishandling of quarantine created food shortages and online resistance. There, the prolonged lockdown, especially as the rest of the world was opening up, tested the community’s patience to extreme limits. Grassroots implementers of party policy and state-mobilized volunteers had to increasingly deploy unreasonable and extreme measures to extract compliance from citizens, which invited further backlash. When the implementers of party policy lock families up and demand that they hand over the keys to their apartments, when they send people into mandatory quarantine despite negative test results, and when people die because they cannot gain access to hospital treatment, the implementers and masses alike start questioning the policies—and disobeying them. Citizens are resisting and rebelling.

This backlash has emerged from the factory dorms in Zhengzhou where Apple workers fled to escape quarantine to ordinary citizens staging protests in the streets of Guangzhou and Shanghai. Worse still, when people trapped in an apartment block in Urumqi died from fires because of COVID-19 restrictions, any remaining trust quickly evaporated, and impatience turned into rage against the state. China’s earlier success in compliance with zero-COVID has turned into widespread resistance—not only against the policy but also against the CCP in general.

The protests are no longer single-issue but have evolved into anti-system and anti-regime protests, as evidenced in such slogans as “Down with Xi Jinping and the CCP!” and “We want freedom!” It remains highly unlikely that they will bring down the regime at this point, but they signal the end of the governance model that has served China so well for decades.

The abandonment of repression by mobilizing the masses—or the governance model of reliance on trusted social actors in general—has obvious consequences. At the very minimum, the regime will have to rely on outright coercive measures, if not brute force, to crack down on dissent. To be sure, there has been overt coercion in rural areas and in Xinjiang, but likely widespread use of violent coercion to put down protesters in major cities will come at a cost—to the regime and the citizenry. Xi’s intransigent belief in zero-COVID has not only irked the citizenry; it has also eroded trust in the system that the CCP has so painstakingly built. It defies common sense, but dictators often do things that make no sense—in part because nobody is willing to tell them what they’re doing wrong. As Xi’s third term proceeds, we should expect more policy measures that defy common sense and at the increasing expense of social stability—the very objective that Xi’s regime has prioritized.

[burgasbulgaria]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[bansko]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.

[bulgariastreets]

The Struggle Against "Hooligans" in Bulgaria

New Decisions by the Politburo

On January 21, 1958, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party made a significant decision to intensify the fight against so-called “hooligans” and “profligate looters.” This decision involved interning these individuals in labour camps. The term “hooligans” referred not only to those committing minor offenses but also included young boys and girls who expressed their individuality through Western fashion, hairstyles, and music. This crackdown targeted anyone who listened to or performed Western music and those who tuned into Western radio stations.

The Reality of Labour Camps

Peter Gogov, the chief of the Lovech labour camp, later revealed during an interrogation after the fall of the communist regime in 1989 that between 1945 and 1962, approximately 44 labour camps operated in Bulgaria. However, other sources, including books and personal memoirs, suggest that the actual number of labour camps was much higher—around 83. These camps varied in location and operated for different lengths of time during the period from 1944 to 1962 Bulgaria Private Tours Kazanlak.

Life in the Camps

The labour camps in Bulgaria were notorious for their harsh conditions. Inmates faced forced labor, poor living standards, and a lack of basic necessities. Many were subjected to severe punishment for minor offenses or for simply expressing views that contradicted the communist ideology. The camps served as a means of control and repression, silencing dissent and instilling fear in the population.

The government’s definition of “hooliganism” was broad and often arbitrary, allowing for the imprisonment of anyone who did not conform to the strict societal norms imposed by the regime. Young people, in particular, found themselves targeted for expressing themselves through music, fashion, or any form of Western influence. This reflected the government’s anxiety about Western culture and its potential to undermine communist ideals.

Impact on Society

The decision to intern “hooligans” in labour camps had a profound impact on Bulgarian society. Families were torn apart as young people were sent to these camps for expressing themselves. The stigma attached to being labeled a “hooligan” often lasted a lifetime, affecting job opportunities and social standing even after release.

The experience of living in a labour camp left lasting scars on many individuals. Survivors often faced psychological trauma and struggled to reintegrate into society. The repression of youth culture during this period also stifled creativity and expression, creating a climate of fear and conformity.

The crackdown on “hooligans” in Bulgaria during the late 1950s illustrates the lengths to which the communist regime went to maintain control over its citizens. By interning individuals for their personal choices, the government sought to suppress any potential dissent. Understanding this dark chapter in Bulgarian history is essential for recognizing the importance of freedom of expression and the consequences of authoritarianism.