Also found in: Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
Related to Bukharin: Zinoviev


 (bo͞o-kär′ĭn, -KHär′-), Nikolai Ivanovich 1888-1938.
Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet politician who advocated gradual agricultural collectivization. He was executed for treason after the last of the Moscow "show trials" of the 1930s.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.


(Russian buˈxarin)
(Biography) Nikolai Ivanovich (nikaˈlaj iˈvanəvitʃ). 1888–1938, Soviet Bolshevik leader: executed in one of Stalin's purges
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014


(buˈxɑr ɪn)

Nikolai Ivanovich, 1888–1938, Russian editor, writer, and Communist leader.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.Bukharin - Bolshevik leader in Russia who advocated gradual collectivism of the farms; was executed in a purge by Stalin (1888-1938)
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
References in periodicals archive ?
Here, despite the repeated theoretical affirmations of such thinkers as Mao Zedong, Le Duan and Nicolai Bukharin that heavy industrialization, the ultimate goal of any socialist economy, should be founded on the development of light industry and agriculture whether concurrently or in different stages, the leaders of the DRV chose to emphasize the development of heavy industry in a country that lacked the material and financial means to carry out such a process.
1-2, Gibarti to Bukharin, 28 April 1927 lists members of the General and Executive committees.
He points to the influence of Bukharin and the NEP on Gorbachev: "The indelible mark of Bukharin's prescriptions over the above Stalinist programs represent a promising movement toward democratization of Soviet society and liberalization of the Soviet economy."(1)
Bukharin began to favor more planning and less freedom for entrepreneurs, and Stalin's much more extreme animus toward Nepmen carried the party by 1929 (but not completely until then).
It was all depressingly familiar, recalling as it did the pathetic confessions of Nikolai Bukharin, the editor of the Communist Party newspaper Pravda, and others during Stalin's purges.
Vladimir Lenin disagreed with Lev Trotskii and Nikolai Bukharin about trade unions.
Thus, in Italy--as Boothman's volume reveals--the continuing commitment to United Front tactics by certain key players at the centre (especially Bukharin) and the sense that the threat to the Comintern leadership (increasingly dominated by Bukharin and Stalin) was from a Trotskyite leaning 'Left' faction (Bordiga and his allies) created conditions in which Gramsci as party leader could continue to pursue United Front tactics up until his imprisonment in late 1926, when in other countries it was being rapidly superseded by Bolshevization.
Lenin and Bukharin hotly debated the question of national self-determination and independence for countries like Ireland during World War One precisely because there was no Bolshevik line on questions of this sort.
Pollard offers a very important understanding of the role of the state in capitalist development through an approving quotation from Francis Castles, who suggests that "the very process of industrialization through which societies became more affluent produced problems which forced them to devote even greater proportions of national income to the provision of collective goods." (3) This is a useful observation, very much in line with the writings of Bukharin, Lenin, Hilferding, and Engels on the evolving role of the state in European capitalism.
Bukharin reminds his readers that Marx knew that capital invested in the colonies procured a 'surplus profit' (1915: 86); and in his critique of Luxemburg emphasises that colonial labour was above all cheaper labour (1924: 249).