Re: The Soviet Union
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2023 2:54 pm
(The material discussed in this post can be found here: http://www.thebellforum.net/forums/view ... ?f=3&t=254)
A note on the problem of leftists studying the collapse of the USSR
No. 9/85.IX.2023
Everyone agrees that it is necessary to learn from the history of the birth, development and death of the USSR. However, there are obvious problems with understanding this experience. It can be stated that so far not a single group of leftists claiming to be communists has been able to present a deep analysis of the victories and failures of the Soviet period, and most importantly, to explore the reason for the inglorious death of the world's first proletarian state. Only we, the breakthroughists, made such an attempt and quite successfully. A significant part of the left generally refuses full-blooded research, contenting itself with vague generalizations and abstract declarations. What's the matter?
Although recently, at the instigation of individual figures, Menshevik ideas about the “prematureness of the revolution” have received a renaissance, most of the “orthodox” leftists recognize that the reasons for the death of the USSR lie in the area of degradation of the CPSU. But, unfortunately, these guesses do not lead left-wing researchers to the right train of thought. There are several fundamental theoretical flaws in their methodology.
First , following the formal, descriptive method. The left believes that with the help of a diligent description of the political, economic and social processes in the USSR they will be able to reveal the essence of these processes from the point of view of their development, degradation and subsequent counter-revolution.
Without mastery of dialectical materialism, they do not understand what reason is. They are guided not by the Marxist, but by the dictionary definition of “cause” as a circumstance that serves as the basis for another phenomenon. Identification of the cause in the infinite variety of facts is a mandatory, but only the very initial stage of research. It must be understood that the relationship between cause and effect cannot be simply a direct development of the second from the first; cause must be considered in unity and struggle with its opposite; It is precisely the negation of this very opposite that is the moment of transformation of cause into effect. And the emergence of an effect from a cause is not a chronological phenomenon that occurs on its own, but the development of matter, albeit occurring in time. Some people think that everything past is the cause of everything present. And that any historical fragment can be correlated with any fragment of the more distant past and thus identify causes and consequences. In fact, the cause-and-effect chain is always strictly defined, strictly specific.
Consequently, in Marxism, the category “cause” is adopted to designate not just a historical fact that precedes an event, but a factor that has reached the necessary degree of maturity in unity and struggle with its opposite, in its negation. In other words, cause is the rate of development of opposing factors, drawn by historical circumstances into unity and struggle, into the process of negation of negation . Negation itself (i.e. the moment of the leap) is unthinkable without the accumulation of quantitative changes leading to a qualitative leap. The consequence, therefore, is a new stable state that arose as a result of the development or degradation of the previous state.
Thus, rummaging through individual facts and facts of Soviet history, trying to arbitrarily arrange them into some kind of logical chain is not yet a search for the reason for the restoration of capitalism.
Secondly , left-wing researchers focus all their attention on the economic processes of the Union, believing that it was they who determined the policy of the CPSU, guided by the principle “the base is primary, the superstructure is secondary.” They forget Lenin's words:
“Politics cannot but take precedence over economics. To argue otherwise means to forget the ABCs of Marxism” (“Once again about trade unions, about the current moment and about the mistakes of Comrades Trotsky and Bukharin”).
We should also remember Engels’s quote from a letter to Schmidt:
“Why then are we fighting for the political dictatorship of the proletariat if political power is economically powerless? Violence (that is, state power) is also an economic force!”
The problem, as usual, is the vulgar understanding of the theory of Marxism.
To begin with, we must distinguish basis and dominant relations of production. The basis is always multi-structured; it contains remnants of old production relations: patriarchal-family, small-peasant, communal production and even slavery. For example, in the Russian Federation, according to inaccurate data, there are about a million slaves, i.e. people illegally deprived of their freedom and forced to work under fear. There were also many structures in the Soviet Union: the communist structure (public sector), collective-farm (with varying degrees of generalization of the means of production: from communes, where the entire economy was common, to TOZs, where only the land was common), collective-craft, private ownership ( existing legally during the NEP period and later blossoming in the form of the so-called “shadow sector”). Plus everyone, even the tallest ones,
Further, contrary to popular opinion, not the entire spiritual life of society directly grows from the base , but only the superstructure corresponding to the prevailing relations of production - the state and its legal system, ideology, etc. The remaining elements of social consciousness are only mediated by the basis, but can be either preserved from past eras or new, revolutionary.
In an exploitative formation, i.e. in the synthesis of the basis and the corresponding superstructure, the main and main preserving element is precisely the superstructure, and not the entire social consciousness, which contains both reactionary and progressive aspects. The prevailing relations of production are gradually becoming overripe and are themselves ready to move into a new state, to give way to new relations. The peculiarity of capitalism as the last exploitative formation, its difference from feudalism and slavery, is that more progressive and complex relations of production (communism) do not spontaneously developin its depths. Therefore, the socialist revolution cannot rely on any ready-made economic ties; it relies only on people - on the proletariat, who have realized the need for a revolutionary breakdown of the “old world”.
Under communism, the superstructure presupposes the free and dynamic development of the base as an organic side of social production, and the base provides scope for the development of the superstructure. In this sense, the formation “communism” is not the opposite of the formation “capitalism,” but of all class formations together. This is why the arguments of various leftist theorists about the contradictions of socialist production with social relations are deeply erroneous. It is correct to talk about the struggle between the old exploitative ways of life and the new communist way of life.
Since in an exploitative society socio-economic processes for the most part occur spontaneously, production anarchy reigns, then in the base-superstructure pair the leading role remains with the base, and the superstructure is, as it were, a reflection of the demands of the dominant relations of the base. In a communist society, it is the superstructure, in the form of the politics of the party and the state, that becomes the leader, and the base the slave. This is a very important point that the left does not understand. That is why Lenin argued that it was enough for the working class in alliance with the peasantry to take power and on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat the basis of communism could be rebuilt. That is why the statements of certain well-known figures in left-wing circles that the USSR allegedly died because Russia was too economically backward are anti-Marxist. For them, the great Stalinist industrialization is not the construction of communism, but just a bourgeois modernization of the economy, the elimination of the industrial backlog. They don’t want to see that under Stalin they not only built many plants and factories, creating entire industries from scratch, but built precisely new communist relations.
So, since under communism the dominant production relations of the base are built consciously with the help of the policies of the Marxist party, the rate of withering away of bourgeois remnants in the economy and the psyche of people, the transition of society from the lower (immature) phase of communism to the higher (mature) phase is determined mainly by the quality of Marxist personnel and the party leadership .
After the death of Stalin, there was not a single savvy Marxist capable of leading the party, Khrushchev’s Trotskyist coup took place and the CPSU chose the opposite path from communism. The ideological degeneration of the party leadership is the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. First, the Khrushchevites replaced the program for the development of communism with economism, the desire to “catch up and gobble up” the United States and discredited Marxism with their demagoguery about the “cult of personality,” plowing up the public consciousness, and then the Gorbachevites finished off communism with market reforms and rabid anti-Stalinist and anti-communist propaganda. And all this happened against the backdrop of the consistent ideological and theoretical degradation of the Soviet people.
You need to understand that in the Bolshevik Party, from the very moment of its founding until the seizure of power, there was a fierce class struggle in ideological and organizational forms. In the 30s, this struggle intensified to the limit in connection with the development of ways and means for the further development of the country and from an ideological and organizational one it turned into a terrorist, sabotage and conspiratorial form, when the Trotskyists killed Bolshevik leaders and intellectuals who sympathized with them (the poisoning of M. Gorky), They staged explosions in mines, derailed trains, sabotaged local party decisions, and planned a military putsch. The Khrushchev coup is one of the episodes of the class struggle within the party after the death of Stalin. And the removal of Khrushchev in 1965 is also an act of class struggle.
The question may arise: who fought whom? Communists with opportunists. Communists objectively fought in accordance with the requirements of building communism, and opportunists (regardless of personal motives) fought for the interests of the world bourgeoisie, including also the petty-bourgeois part of the working people, who thought that the weakening of communism promised them many benefits.
They may ask: why didn’t I write that communists are fighting for the interests of the proletariat? Because the interests of the proletariat cannot be identified with the tasks of building communism. There is no such interest in “building communism.” What is interest? This is an unlimited animal instinct on a “higher” socio-psychological plane. What is the interest of the proletarian? It is profitable to sell your labor. Yes, under socialism (which is the lowest phase of communism) there is no labor market, so the Soviet worker does not sell his labor power to the socialist state, but proletarian psychology does not disappear anywhere. By the way, after the revolution, the Bolsheviks were faced with the problem of a strong drop in labor productivity: the workers were simply lazy, did not work well, or even skipped work. Because the motivating stick of fear of being fired was no longer hanging over their heads. And at first there were not so many conscientious workers who understood that they were now working not for their uncle, but for the benefit of the whole society. Therefore, the Bolsheviks had to compromise with the proletarian (essentially merchant) consciousness of the masses: introduce cost accounting in enterprises, hitting irresponsible managers, forcing them to find ways to increase labor productivity, use resources economically, and stimulate labor with cash bonuses. And also introduce strict labor discipline, up to an article for willfully leaving the workplace. Therefore, the Bolsheviks had to compromise with the proletarian (essentially merchant) consciousness of the masses: introduce cost accounting in enterprises, hitting irresponsible managers, forcing them to find ways to increase labor productivity, use resources economically, and stimulate labor with cash bonuses. And also introduce strict labor discipline, up to an article for willfully leaving the workplace. Therefore, the Bolsheviks had to compromise with the proletarian (essentially merchant) consciousness of the masses: introduce cost accounting in enterprises, hitting irresponsible managers, forcing them to find ways to increase labor productivity, use resources economically, and stimulate labor with cash bonuses. And also introduce strict labor discipline, up to an article for willfully leaving the workplace.
That is why communists fight, contrary to the belief of the left, precisely for communism, and not for the interests of the proletarian masses or even the working class. Although the first does not exclude the use of the second.
Let me summarize. It is necessary to study the history of the USSR and the cause of its death from the standpoint of dialectical materialism (diamatics). Under communism, the superstructure is the leader, and the base, within certain limits, is the slave; all historical processes should be viewed primarily through the prism of party decisions. It was the decisions of the leadership, especially the leaders, that determined the path of the USSR either towards communism, or (after the death of the last leader, Stalin) towards the restoration of capitalism. The degradation and subsequent degeneration of the CPSU is due to the fact that its ranks were littered with opportunists, careerists, opportunists and simply ignorant people.
In the brochure “ Reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR ” comrade. Redin writes:
“After Stalin’s death, the CPSU forgot what opportunism is, they forgot the objective law of the revolutionary struggle about the irreconcilability of ideologies. Factionalism was thus considered to be some insignificant discrepancy in the understanding of Marxism, an originality of views.
And the CPSU forgot about opportunism solely because the CPSU itself went with its ears into the swamp of this very opportunism.
The propaganda apparatus of the CPSU (b) and the quality of personnel were always not up to par. Lenin wrote that “there is no real ‘Soviet, socialist’ cultural apparatus, or rather, the elements of such an apparatus are ridiculously few, and we must remember that to create it... we must spend many, many, many years.”
Lenin pointed out that at least half of the communists do not know how to fight, and many simply interfere with the struggle for communism.
Stalin said that the party activists do not know the theory of Marxism, they are trying to solve the problems facing the country in a directive manner, to take them on the run and with agility.”
Without mastery of the theory of building communism, the CPSU objectively lost the letter “K”, turning into a large bureaucratic apparatus that held on as if spontaneously, out of habit, due to the colossal reserve of the Stalin era. But why did this happen, why in the end there were no Marxists in the multimillion-dollar party? The reason for this is the organizational principle of the party, democratic centralism, when opportunists, voting for each other and taking advantage of the ignorance of the party masses, subjugate all commanding heights. Stalin did not have time to build an effectively working system for training party personnel, and those developments that were there were swept away by Khrushchev, flooding the party with illiterate personnel, including rehabilitated Trotskyists.
All this is described in detail in the brochure by Comrade. Redin, which, in turn, is based on the developments of V. Podguzov. If the left were diligent enough in studying Marxism, mastered dialectical materialism (diamatics), then they would, when studying the history of the USSR, come to similar conclusions. But alas, for now they prefer to just TALKabout diamatics on the next stream, and in historical questions they are guided by objectivism and positivism (including determining the scientific nature of the work by designing the text and the presence of links to “authoritative sources”). Diamatics for them is nothing more than a set of dead schemes and dogmas, such as the fact that “matter is primary”, but they do not understand what to do with this primacy. In addition, the left is under the strong influence of bourgeois ideology and willingly repeats liberal theses about “Soviet authoritarianism” and other nonsense, not understanding how deeply such views contradict Marxism.
Separately, we can only note the concepts of Popov and Balaev, who found the courage to consistently and clearly present their views on the causes of the death of the CPSU and the USSR. However, both of them suffer from serious shortcomings, which is why they cannot be considered wealthy. The fallacy of their conclusions smoothly flows into the fallacy of the lessons that need to be learned from the degradation of the CPSU, therefore they prefer to build their organizations on the principles of democracy, and by building communism they understand something that has nothing to do with the essence of communism.
R. Ogienko
09/25/2023
https://prorivists.org/85_lefts/
Google Translator
A note on the problem of leftists studying the collapse of the USSR
No. 9/85.IX.2023
Everyone agrees that it is necessary to learn from the history of the birth, development and death of the USSR. However, there are obvious problems with understanding this experience. It can be stated that so far not a single group of leftists claiming to be communists has been able to present a deep analysis of the victories and failures of the Soviet period, and most importantly, to explore the reason for the inglorious death of the world's first proletarian state. Only we, the breakthroughists, made such an attempt and quite successfully. A significant part of the left generally refuses full-blooded research, contenting itself with vague generalizations and abstract declarations. What's the matter?
Although recently, at the instigation of individual figures, Menshevik ideas about the “prematureness of the revolution” have received a renaissance, most of the “orthodox” leftists recognize that the reasons for the death of the USSR lie in the area of degradation of the CPSU. But, unfortunately, these guesses do not lead left-wing researchers to the right train of thought. There are several fundamental theoretical flaws in their methodology.
First , following the formal, descriptive method. The left believes that with the help of a diligent description of the political, economic and social processes in the USSR they will be able to reveal the essence of these processes from the point of view of their development, degradation and subsequent counter-revolution.
Without mastery of dialectical materialism, they do not understand what reason is. They are guided not by the Marxist, but by the dictionary definition of “cause” as a circumstance that serves as the basis for another phenomenon. Identification of the cause in the infinite variety of facts is a mandatory, but only the very initial stage of research. It must be understood that the relationship between cause and effect cannot be simply a direct development of the second from the first; cause must be considered in unity and struggle with its opposite; It is precisely the negation of this very opposite that is the moment of transformation of cause into effect. And the emergence of an effect from a cause is not a chronological phenomenon that occurs on its own, but the development of matter, albeit occurring in time. Some people think that everything past is the cause of everything present. And that any historical fragment can be correlated with any fragment of the more distant past and thus identify causes and consequences. In fact, the cause-and-effect chain is always strictly defined, strictly specific.
Consequently, in Marxism, the category “cause” is adopted to designate not just a historical fact that precedes an event, but a factor that has reached the necessary degree of maturity in unity and struggle with its opposite, in its negation. In other words, cause is the rate of development of opposing factors, drawn by historical circumstances into unity and struggle, into the process of negation of negation . Negation itself (i.e. the moment of the leap) is unthinkable without the accumulation of quantitative changes leading to a qualitative leap. The consequence, therefore, is a new stable state that arose as a result of the development or degradation of the previous state.
Thus, rummaging through individual facts and facts of Soviet history, trying to arbitrarily arrange them into some kind of logical chain is not yet a search for the reason for the restoration of capitalism.
Secondly , left-wing researchers focus all their attention on the economic processes of the Union, believing that it was they who determined the policy of the CPSU, guided by the principle “the base is primary, the superstructure is secondary.” They forget Lenin's words:
“Politics cannot but take precedence over economics. To argue otherwise means to forget the ABCs of Marxism” (“Once again about trade unions, about the current moment and about the mistakes of Comrades Trotsky and Bukharin”).
We should also remember Engels’s quote from a letter to Schmidt:
“Why then are we fighting for the political dictatorship of the proletariat if political power is economically powerless? Violence (that is, state power) is also an economic force!”
The problem, as usual, is the vulgar understanding of the theory of Marxism.
To begin with, we must distinguish basis and dominant relations of production. The basis is always multi-structured; it contains remnants of old production relations: patriarchal-family, small-peasant, communal production and even slavery. For example, in the Russian Federation, according to inaccurate data, there are about a million slaves, i.e. people illegally deprived of their freedom and forced to work under fear. There were also many structures in the Soviet Union: the communist structure (public sector), collective-farm (with varying degrees of generalization of the means of production: from communes, where the entire economy was common, to TOZs, where only the land was common), collective-craft, private ownership ( existing legally during the NEP period and later blossoming in the form of the so-called “shadow sector”). Plus everyone, even the tallest ones,
Further, contrary to popular opinion, not the entire spiritual life of society directly grows from the base , but only the superstructure corresponding to the prevailing relations of production - the state and its legal system, ideology, etc. The remaining elements of social consciousness are only mediated by the basis, but can be either preserved from past eras or new, revolutionary.
In an exploitative formation, i.e. in the synthesis of the basis and the corresponding superstructure, the main and main preserving element is precisely the superstructure, and not the entire social consciousness, which contains both reactionary and progressive aspects. The prevailing relations of production are gradually becoming overripe and are themselves ready to move into a new state, to give way to new relations. The peculiarity of capitalism as the last exploitative formation, its difference from feudalism and slavery, is that more progressive and complex relations of production (communism) do not spontaneously developin its depths. Therefore, the socialist revolution cannot rely on any ready-made economic ties; it relies only on people - on the proletariat, who have realized the need for a revolutionary breakdown of the “old world”.
Under communism, the superstructure presupposes the free and dynamic development of the base as an organic side of social production, and the base provides scope for the development of the superstructure. In this sense, the formation “communism” is not the opposite of the formation “capitalism,” but of all class formations together. This is why the arguments of various leftist theorists about the contradictions of socialist production with social relations are deeply erroneous. It is correct to talk about the struggle between the old exploitative ways of life and the new communist way of life.
Since in an exploitative society socio-economic processes for the most part occur spontaneously, production anarchy reigns, then in the base-superstructure pair the leading role remains with the base, and the superstructure is, as it were, a reflection of the demands of the dominant relations of the base. In a communist society, it is the superstructure, in the form of the politics of the party and the state, that becomes the leader, and the base the slave. This is a very important point that the left does not understand. That is why Lenin argued that it was enough for the working class in alliance with the peasantry to take power and on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat the basis of communism could be rebuilt. That is why the statements of certain well-known figures in left-wing circles that the USSR allegedly died because Russia was too economically backward are anti-Marxist. For them, the great Stalinist industrialization is not the construction of communism, but just a bourgeois modernization of the economy, the elimination of the industrial backlog. They don’t want to see that under Stalin they not only built many plants and factories, creating entire industries from scratch, but built precisely new communist relations.
So, since under communism the dominant production relations of the base are built consciously with the help of the policies of the Marxist party, the rate of withering away of bourgeois remnants in the economy and the psyche of people, the transition of society from the lower (immature) phase of communism to the higher (mature) phase is determined mainly by the quality of Marxist personnel and the party leadership .
After the death of Stalin, there was not a single savvy Marxist capable of leading the party, Khrushchev’s Trotskyist coup took place and the CPSU chose the opposite path from communism. The ideological degeneration of the party leadership is the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. First, the Khrushchevites replaced the program for the development of communism with economism, the desire to “catch up and gobble up” the United States and discredited Marxism with their demagoguery about the “cult of personality,” plowing up the public consciousness, and then the Gorbachevites finished off communism with market reforms and rabid anti-Stalinist and anti-communist propaganda. And all this happened against the backdrop of the consistent ideological and theoretical degradation of the Soviet people.
You need to understand that in the Bolshevik Party, from the very moment of its founding until the seizure of power, there was a fierce class struggle in ideological and organizational forms. In the 30s, this struggle intensified to the limit in connection with the development of ways and means for the further development of the country and from an ideological and organizational one it turned into a terrorist, sabotage and conspiratorial form, when the Trotskyists killed Bolshevik leaders and intellectuals who sympathized with them (the poisoning of M. Gorky), They staged explosions in mines, derailed trains, sabotaged local party decisions, and planned a military putsch. The Khrushchev coup is one of the episodes of the class struggle within the party after the death of Stalin. And the removal of Khrushchev in 1965 is also an act of class struggle.
The question may arise: who fought whom? Communists with opportunists. Communists objectively fought in accordance with the requirements of building communism, and opportunists (regardless of personal motives) fought for the interests of the world bourgeoisie, including also the petty-bourgeois part of the working people, who thought that the weakening of communism promised them many benefits.
They may ask: why didn’t I write that communists are fighting for the interests of the proletariat? Because the interests of the proletariat cannot be identified with the tasks of building communism. There is no such interest in “building communism.” What is interest? This is an unlimited animal instinct on a “higher” socio-psychological plane. What is the interest of the proletarian? It is profitable to sell your labor. Yes, under socialism (which is the lowest phase of communism) there is no labor market, so the Soviet worker does not sell his labor power to the socialist state, but proletarian psychology does not disappear anywhere. By the way, after the revolution, the Bolsheviks were faced with the problem of a strong drop in labor productivity: the workers were simply lazy, did not work well, or even skipped work. Because the motivating stick of fear of being fired was no longer hanging over their heads. And at first there were not so many conscientious workers who understood that they were now working not for their uncle, but for the benefit of the whole society. Therefore, the Bolsheviks had to compromise with the proletarian (essentially merchant) consciousness of the masses: introduce cost accounting in enterprises, hitting irresponsible managers, forcing them to find ways to increase labor productivity, use resources economically, and stimulate labor with cash bonuses. And also introduce strict labor discipline, up to an article for willfully leaving the workplace. Therefore, the Bolsheviks had to compromise with the proletarian (essentially merchant) consciousness of the masses: introduce cost accounting in enterprises, hitting irresponsible managers, forcing them to find ways to increase labor productivity, use resources economically, and stimulate labor with cash bonuses. And also introduce strict labor discipline, up to an article for willfully leaving the workplace. Therefore, the Bolsheviks had to compromise with the proletarian (essentially merchant) consciousness of the masses: introduce cost accounting in enterprises, hitting irresponsible managers, forcing them to find ways to increase labor productivity, use resources economically, and stimulate labor with cash bonuses. And also introduce strict labor discipline, up to an article for willfully leaving the workplace.
That is why communists fight, contrary to the belief of the left, precisely for communism, and not for the interests of the proletarian masses or even the working class. Although the first does not exclude the use of the second.
Let me summarize. It is necessary to study the history of the USSR and the cause of its death from the standpoint of dialectical materialism (diamatics). Under communism, the superstructure is the leader, and the base, within certain limits, is the slave; all historical processes should be viewed primarily through the prism of party decisions. It was the decisions of the leadership, especially the leaders, that determined the path of the USSR either towards communism, or (after the death of the last leader, Stalin) towards the restoration of capitalism. The degradation and subsequent degeneration of the CPSU is due to the fact that its ranks were littered with opportunists, careerists, opportunists and simply ignorant people.
In the brochure “ Reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR ” comrade. Redin writes:
“After Stalin’s death, the CPSU forgot what opportunism is, they forgot the objective law of the revolutionary struggle about the irreconcilability of ideologies. Factionalism was thus considered to be some insignificant discrepancy in the understanding of Marxism, an originality of views.
And the CPSU forgot about opportunism solely because the CPSU itself went with its ears into the swamp of this very opportunism.
The propaganda apparatus of the CPSU (b) and the quality of personnel were always not up to par. Lenin wrote that “there is no real ‘Soviet, socialist’ cultural apparatus, or rather, the elements of such an apparatus are ridiculously few, and we must remember that to create it... we must spend many, many, many years.”
Lenin pointed out that at least half of the communists do not know how to fight, and many simply interfere with the struggle for communism.
Stalin said that the party activists do not know the theory of Marxism, they are trying to solve the problems facing the country in a directive manner, to take them on the run and with agility.”
Without mastery of the theory of building communism, the CPSU objectively lost the letter “K”, turning into a large bureaucratic apparatus that held on as if spontaneously, out of habit, due to the colossal reserve of the Stalin era. But why did this happen, why in the end there were no Marxists in the multimillion-dollar party? The reason for this is the organizational principle of the party, democratic centralism, when opportunists, voting for each other and taking advantage of the ignorance of the party masses, subjugate all commanding heights. Stalin did not have time to build an effectively working system for training party personnel, and those developments that were there were swept away by Khrushchev, flooding the party with illiterate personnel, including rehabilitated Trotskyists.
All this is described in detail in the brochure by Comrade. Redin, which, in turn, is based on the developments of V. Podguzov. If the left were diligent enough in studying Marxism, mastered dialectical materialism (diamatics), then they would, when studying the history of the USSR, come to similar conclusions. But alas, for now they prefer to just TALKabout diamatics on the next stream, and in historical questions they are guided by objectivism and positivism (including determining the scientific nature of the work by designing the text and the presence of links to “authoritative sources”). Diamatics for them is nothing more than a set of dead schemes and dogmas, such as the fact that “matter is primary”, but they do not understand what to do with this primacy. In addition, the left is under the strong influence of bourgeois ideology and willingly repeats liberal theses about “Soviet authoritarianism” and other nonsense, not understanding how deeply such views contradict Marxism.
Separately, we can only note the concepts of Popov and Balaev, who found the courage to consistently and clearly present their views on the causes of the death of the CPSU and the USSR. However, both of them suffer from serious shortcomings, which is why they cannot be considered wealthy. The fallacy of their conclusions smoothly flows into the fallacy of the lessons that need to be learned from the degradation of the CPSU, therefore they prefer to build their organizations on the principles of democracy, and by building communism they understand something that has nothing to do with the essence of communism.
R. Ogienko
09/25/2023
https://prorivists.org/85_lefts/
Google Translator