{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015033947623666343, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007759456838021339, 'mean_word_length': 5.426791277258567, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
University of Michigan Project on International Communism

It is surprising, given the recent flourishing of research on individual Communist parties and the interest sparked by both the national and international dimensions of Eurocommunism in the 1970s, that we remain so ignorant about the international dimensions of the Communist tradition. This is especially true of the Communist International itself. For a reliable guide to the basic political and organizational history of the Comintern we are still dependent on E. H. Carr's volumes and a handful of more specialized works. This paucity of serious scholarship has partly to do with the difficulties of gaining access to essential sources, because the Comintern archive, where individual Communist parties were also supposed to deposit their official Comintern-related documentation, remains closed in Moscow. But research on the various CPs has already turned up an impressive amount of relevant material (either from the parties' own archives, or from private collections, or from government records of surveillance), and it is striking how reluctantly historians have turned from the national back to the international dimensions of Communist history. After a period in the 1950s and 1960s when the cold war and its legacies encouraged a simplistic conspiratorial view of the Comintern as the instrument for imposing Soviet policies on the affiliated CPs, we seem to have gone to an opposite extreme, in which the coherence and constructive contribution of the Comintern has dissolved in the intensive exploration of individual parties' autonomies. Motivated partly by anti-Stalinism, partly by embarrassment over the evidence of Comintern subservience to Soviet foreign policy, particularly after 1928, recent historians have basically conceded the ground to the cold war interpretation and have retreated into the safer refuge of national Communist party history. The recent emphasis in such research has been on the national roots of individual CPs, on the popular legitimacy of their grass-roots