Russia today

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:33 pm

This is a very long piece and I shall post it in daily installments.
The New Cold War and the Tasks of Communism
No. 11/63, XI.2021

Thirty years later, the term "cold war" is again full of newspapers and on monitor screens. In 1991, the first communist state in the history of mankind was destroyed, and the forces of world reaction in the form of the collective West hoped to strangle the remaining communist countries one by one. But the imperialists never succeeded in doing this. And since 2014, thanks to its stable growth, China began to actively increase its economic influence abroad, including pushing the positions of American and European corporations. And this competition within the framework of the principle of peaceful coexistence is increasingly reducing the potential of imperialism.

China, with the help of its economic projects, is also expanding its political influence throughout the world, which is perceived by the West as an "expansion" that must be stopped by all possible means, and the strengthening of the People's Liberation Army of China is called a threat to the so-called "international security". Of course, the growth of China's political influence should not be considered the growth of the influence of communism, as long as we are talking only about the influence and authority of China as a world power. However, already today bourgeois governments are forced to somehow respond at least to the CCP’s successes in overcoming poverty and stopping the pandemic, which means that the bourgeoisie is afraid that the proletarian masses, looking at the example of China, may think about the class nature of their own governments.

The US declaration of a cold war against China, like for the first time in relation to the USSR, is defensive in nature. Imperialism was afraid of the USSR, and today it is afraid of China and, not being able to inflict a military defeat on the enemy, seeks to restrain the growth of its influence by preventive measures. But there are also differences between the new Cold War and the old one. The rapid development of China creates conditions for the unification of forces around it, aimed at changing the world dictate of the collective West. This formula is one step below the formation of a camp of peace and progress from the countries of socialism and people's democracies, but it may turn out to be more stable in the current conditions.

Now, more than ever, it is clear that the "great powers" of the West, representing an insignificant minority of countries, are trying by inertia to dictate their will to the rest of the world, not wanting to take into account the fact that the international situation has changed. And here their reactionary essence is maximally manifested - restraining the development of the rest of the world, planting the most obscurantist forms of worldviews and decaying examples of bourgeois culture.

After the collapse of the USSR, the United States and its NATO allies, under the guise of fighting international terrorism and establishing Western-style democracies, found a new pretext to fight against movements that set themselves the goal of achieving national liberation. And now that China has become the largest partner of African countries, the West is talking about the need to sharply intensify the fight against international terrorism on the "dark continent". Similar processes are taking place in Latin America, where the United States is trying with all its might to prevent the implementation of China's joint projects with all countries that resist Washington's dictates. Not to mention the pressure on the countries of Southeast Asia, where the West is trying to organize a civil war in Myanmar, as well as set India, Japan, and the Philippines against China, using the Taiwan factor. Now the fight against China is turning into a fight against many countries. The goal is still the same - to divide the world into parts and restore the hegemony of the Euro-American oligarchy. Behind the slogans of freedom and human rights one can feel the vile smell of Hitlerism.

At the moment, communist China is becoming an alternative force to Western imperialism. China declares its interest in the development of other peoples and countries. Will the rise of China's influence help spread Marxism and fight for communism?

Introduction
Comrade Stalin in his report to the activists of the Moscow organization of the RCP(b) pointed out:

“After the victory of October, we entered the third strategic period, the third stage of the revolution, aimed at overcoming the bourgeoisie on a world scale. How long this period will last is hard to say. It is certain, at any rate, that it will be long, just as it is certain that it will have its ebb and flow. The world revolutionary movement has now entered a period of ebb of revolution, and this ebb, for a number of reasons, which I will discuss below, must be replaced by a tide that may end in the victory of the proletariat, but may not end in victory, but be replaced by a new ebb, which, in turn, must be replaced by a new tide of revolution. The liquidators of the current period say that the lull that has come is the end of the world revolution. But they're wrong, just like they've been wrong before

Such are the fluctuations within each stage of the revolution, within each strategic period.

What do these fluctuations say? Do they say that Lenin's thesis about a new epoch of the world revolution has lost or may lose its significance? Of course not! They only say that the revolution usually develops not along a straight ascending line, in the order of an uninterrupted growth of upsurge, but by zigzags, by way of advances and retreats, by way of ebb and flow, tempering the strength of the revolution in the course of development and preparing its final victory.

These words were spoken by Stalin in 1925, after the end of the First World War and the Civil War. But this does not prevent us from assessing the situation in our time, guided by the theoretical provisions outlined in this report.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, we can state the ebb of the revolutionary movement and the stabilization of capitalism in favor of the forces of world reaction, which managed to temporarily get rid of its main enemy and delay its death. At the same time, the destruction of the USSR and the socialist camp did not at all lead to the complete destruction of the world revolution camp. What remains are the PRC, the DPRK, the SRV, the Lao PDR and Cuba, whose existence and development not only irritates world imperialism, but also threatens it.

It is important to clarify what is meant by stabilization. Stalin writes:

“But what is stabilization? Is this not stagnation, and if stabilization is stagnation, can it be applied to the Soviet system? No. Stabilization is not stagnation. Stabilization is the consolidation of this position and further development. World capitalism has not only entrenched itself on the basis of this provision. He goes further and develops forward, expanding his sphere of influence and multiplying his wealth. It is not true that capitalism cannot develop, that the theory of the decay of capitalism put forward by Lenin in his Imperialism precludes, as it were, the development of capitalism. Lenin fully proved in his pamphlet on Imperialism that the growth of capitalism does not abolish, but presupposes and prepares for the progressive decay of capitalism.

We thus have two stabilizations. At one pole, capitalism is stabilizing, consolidating the position it has achieved and developing further. At the other extreme, the Soviet system is stabilizing, securing the positions it has won and moving forward along the path to victory.

Who wins - that's the whole point."

After the destruction of the USSR and the socialist camp, a new stage began in the history of Western neo-colonialism and the struggle against countries that turned out to be defenseless against aggressors. All this time, since 1991, the United States and NATO countries have been organizing military incursions, coups d'état, and overthrowing objectionable governments. Those who put up fierce resistance found themselves under the most severe economic sanctions, trade blockade, and political pressure. Without understanding this general picture, it is impossible to understand the logic of confrontation in any country in the world, taking into account its specific specifics.

As Stalin pointed out:

“Stabilization under capitalism, temporarily strengthening capital, at the same time inevitably leads to an aggravation of the contradictions of capitalism: a) between the imperialist groups of different countries; b) between the workers and capitalists of each country; c) between imperialism and the colonial peoples of all countries.

Of the signs listed by Stalin, two can be distinguished at the moment.

First, objectively, there is an increase in contradictions both between the main Western imperialists in the person of the United States, the European Union, England on the one hand, as well as the Russian Federation, Turkey, Iran as the imperialists of the "second echelon".

Secondly, there are objective contradictions between the proletariat and the capitalists. But, in the absence of a communist activist capable of bringing an element of consciousness into the element of discontent, this confrontation does not go beyond economic demands, and therefore is not dangerous for the bourgeoisie.

As for the third sign - the contradiction between imperialism and colonial peoples - due to the fact that the international agenda has changed significantly since 1926, today there are no colonies in their old sense and they are formally declared "independent countries". But this does not mean at all that colonialism has disappeared, it has also changed in accordance with the spirit of the times. This colonialism in a new guise can be seen in Africa and Latin America, where Western corporations exploit poor countries. Of course, Western "human rights activists" do not see any of this, and if they do, then for show and by the way.

In the current conditions, it should be pointed out that in every communist country a class struggle is taking place under the conditions of both specific internal circumstances and external imperialist pressure. Of course, on the one hand, this strengthens the ties between the peoples of these countries, since without efforts in this direction, imperialism will have the opportunity to split their relations. But on the other hand, the communist countries do not have support among the proletariat in the West, since the local broad masses are under the influence of the oligarchy, which is trying with all its might to cultivate chauvinism and anti-communist sentiments. Due to these circumstances, the communist countries have to strengthen contacts with anti-Western regimes, which strengthens the positions of both sides. For example,

Based on the foregoing, we can conditionally divide the world map into several parts:

1. Communist countries, since the power in all these countries is exercised by the communist party. Within each of these countries there is an internal struggle between progressive forces advocating an uncompromising struggle against capitalism and reactionary forces aimed at ending this struggle. At the moment, these countries are not so much working on building communism as they are busy with the task of surviving in the face of economic and political pressure from the West.

2. The camp of reaction is the countries of the collective West led by the USA. Thanks to the actions of China, this camp also lacks unity, but is still united by the desire to maintain its dominance at any cost.

3. Anti-Western regimes occupy an intermediate position. On the one hand, they are partners with the PRC and other communist countries solely because of the existing contradictions with the countries of the West, since the local bourgeoisie is interested in maintaining their power, and hence capitalism, with all the ensuing consequences. On the other hand, they can successfully trade with Europe and the United States and at the same time have little or no political contacts with them.

The bourgeoisie of these regimes is naturally split into conditional "patriots" who strive to maintain power on the basis of an oligarchic consensus under the established state monopoly, and "Westerners" who rely on oligarchs completely controlled by the West.

Some of these regimes, like those in Venezuela or Syria, are left-wing, semi-socialist. Others, like the Russian Federation, are openly hostile to communism and are only engaged in the policy of pacifying the proletariat and shaping its imperialist thinking. There are also those, like the IRI, who resist Western imperialism, but at the same time are absolutely reactionary by nature due to the dominance of religion. Thus, despite all the differences, these regimes are united in resisting Western imperialism, maintaining capitalism in their countries and cooperating with communist countries.

Speaking more broadly, the participants in the global world political agenda can be divided into two camps:

1. Western. It includes all the countries of the collective West and their satellites around the world. Despite internal political fragmentation, its main striking force is still the NATO bloc. But the increasingly pronounced centrifugal tendencies in the European Union itself, as well as the accumulation of contradictions between the United States, Britain and the European Union, indicate that NATO, despite statements about unity, will not last long in the historical perspective. At the same time, for the survival of the West, it is necessary to destroy the existing system of international relations, since within its framework it is not able to maintain its positions on an equal footing and objectively loses to China.

2. Anti-Western. China plays the main role here as the main economic, political and military force interested in eliminating Western hegemony. Other communist countries are also interested in this, as well as auxiliary forces in the form of bourgeois regimes of an anti-Western orientation. Both the former and the latter are interested in their survival, but the class goals differ dramatically. Before the parties of the communist countries, new tasks arose - to survive in the new cold war and not allow the destruction of the gained gains. Bourgeois anti-Western regimes, by their very nature, are interested in preserving capitalism and at this historical moment are situational partners of the PRC.

Now we are faced with the task of characterizing the current world agenda in a Marxist way and pointing out where history is heading.

Based on the ongoing processes in world politics, one can characterize the current historical moment:

1. The intensive development of China, the growth of its economic and political influence has put Western capitalism in front of a serious threat of being squeezed out of world markets, losing profits, and hence economic and political influence.

2. China, by investing in the development of the countries of Asia, Africa and South America, as well as expanding cooperation with them in the economy and politics, strengthens its influence and thereby removes them from the western zone of influence. Of course, Beijing's policy in some way "binds" these countries to itself. But under the circumstances, it cannot be otherwise.

3. Under such conditions, there is no question of a revolutionary process, but the actions of the PRC, the Russian Federation, the IRI and the DPRK, as well as other anti-Western regimes in the fight against American imperialism, narrow its capabilities and “food base”, which serves the cause of peace.

It is from this point that we should begin consideration of the international agenda and the new Cold War aimed at slowing down the development of China, which, having successfully carried out the exit of its capital abroad with the global Belt and Road project, has stood in the way of the US imperialist agenda and is gathering around itself more supporters. But the new cold war that the United States has declared to China is only a prologue to a new world war, which will be significantly different from the previous two. And full-scale preparation for which it is already impossible to hide.




New confrontation
Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's July 23, 2020 speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, which identified the CCP as the main threat to US national security, should not be taken as a declaration of war on communism. At the moment we are talking about the confrontation between the two world powers. Moreover, the PRC does not set as its goal the spread of communism, although it was precisely this that Pompeo intimidated the entire “free world”. At the same time, the confrontation between communism and decaying imperialism has been the general line of world history since 1917. But at the moment the question has been raised of reducing the potential of the main forces of world reaction, which should create more favorable conditions for the struggle for communism in the future.

As I already wrote in an article on the international position of the PRC on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CPC , Pompeo's speech

“in fact, it is not only a declaration of the Cold War, but also an acknowledgment of the defeat of the US ruling circles in an attempt to achieve the degeneration of the Chinese regime through the “soft power” of market relations and the introduction of bourgeois values. The growing economic, military and political power of China frankly frightens the American oligarchy, which is no longer able to compete in the world market with Chinese corporations. Partly out of impotence, it unleashed the Cold War, which began with the initiation of a series of Maidan coups in pro-Chinese countries and the pressure of those countries that actively trade with China.

The next clear signals that the West sees China as the main adversary were the G7 summit in Cornwall from June 11 to 13 and the NATO summit on June 14, 2021 in Brussels during the European tour of US President Joseph Biden. Thus, the G7 expressed its intention to restrain China's economic development, which "undermines the fair and transparent functioning of the world economy", that is, the economic domination of Western imperialism. Is it worth saying that this statement is a logical continuation of Pompeo's speech? The assessment of the PRC as a "systemic challenge" was developed in the Strategic Concept at the NATO summit:

“China's industrial policy, as well as its strategy to merge the military and civilian sectors, are key components of its systemic challenges. China's ambitions and offensive stance constitute a systemic challenge to the generally accepted international order, as well as to areas related to the security of the alliance."

As reported in the media:

“It notes that the modernization of the Chinese armed forces, covering its nuclear capabilities, naval forces and missile forces, “poses new risks and a potential threat to NATO’s strategic stability.” “China poses serious risks in telecommunications, aerospace and cyberspace.”

In short, in order not to pose a “threat” to the G7 and NATO, China simply has to give up development.

The NATO Secretary General also made another batch of accusations:

“In recent years, we have seen a significant build-up of military power. China is investing heavily in developing its potential, including nuclear, in modern weapons systems. China does not share our values, oppresses the democratic processes in Hong Kong and minorities within the country, uses modern technology, social networks, facial recognition systems to spy on the population on an unprecedented scale. China's actions are increasingly affecting the interests of the members of the alliance."

As reported in the media:

“According to him, “China is approaching us, we see it in cyberspace, in Africa, in the Arctic, China is investing heavily in critical infrastructure on the territory of our countries, trying to control it.” The Secretary General added that we are talking, in particular, about 5G systems. “Therefore, the NATO 2030 agenda is very important for stability, investment in new technologies, security in cyberspace.”

The summits in Cornwall and Brussels outlined the direction of the policy of the imperialist Western bourgeoisie until 2030. The decisive word on the future of NATO should be the strategic concept of the Alliance, which will be presented next year in Madrid. But subsequent events called into question the unity in the ranks of the West, which, of course, will affect the strategic concept of NATO.

The indiscriminate flight from Afghanistan only showed that behind the external image of unity there are numerous contradictions between the United States, Britain and the European Union. In the bottom line, Stoltenberg was forced to state that the alliance needs to investigate the causes of what happened. But the investigation will in no way stop the objective process of his crisis. The collapse in Afghanistan showed that the collective West still imagines itself to be the master of the entire planet, but in fact it is no longer such. And therefore will do everything to prove the opposite. The quarrel with France over the formation of the anti-Chinese bloc AUKUS further aggravated the situation within NATO. The so-called "summit of democracies" convened by the United States, of course, also made its contribution.

Although the role of imperialism in the decay and self-destruction of the CPSU should not be exaggerated, the previous Cold War ended with the destruction of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, as a result of which world reaction, led by the United States, took a course towards building a global "new world order". The court philosopher of American imperialism, Francis Fukuyama, declared the so-called “end of history”, when liberalism will conquer the whole world and soon the last pockets of resistance of the American empire will fall. But the Fukuyamas come and go, and history continues on its way, and no imperialist is able to stop the movement of mankind towards progress and communism, even by killing millions of people. Now, faced with China 30 years later, the United States, through Biden, again rants about the moral right to shepherd the peoples,

“Call it mysticism if you like, but I always believed that there was some divine plan according to which America was located between the oceans, and it was searched for and found by extremely courageous people who love freedom without limit,” these are the words of Ronald Reagan.

“Whether we like it or not, we must recognize that our victory has placed on the American people the burden of responsibility for the future leadership of the world,” and this is Harry Truman.

“Fate has given our country the responsibility of leading the free world,” and this is Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.

“What we are trying to do is maintain the order based on international rules in which our countries have invested so much for so many decades for the sake of, I would argue, not only our citizens, but people all over the world, including, by the way, China” , - and these are the words of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, said during a press conference with British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on May 4 this year.

As you can see, the Americans still believe that they can think for the whole world and decide for all the peoples and nations what is bad for them and what is good.

And here is what the president of the board of the National Industrial Association, Virgil Jordan, said at a conference of the Association of Investor Banks of America in 1940:

“Whatever the outcome of the war, the United States has firmly embarked on the path of imperialism both in international affairs and in all other areas of its life, with all the opportunities, responsibilities and dangers that follow from this ... Post-war England will, at best, become a junior partner of the new Anglo-Saxon imperialism in which the power of the United States will become the center of gravity. In other words, the economic power, the prestige, the scepter of the empire will go to the USA. We can be frightened by an unfamiliar and forbidden word - imperialism, which applies to everything we do. Therefore, in the spirit of the new fashion, we will cover this word with a vague phrase, like “protection of the hemisphere.”

I think it would be wrong to write about the current confrontation between the PRC and the United States without devoting a few paragraphs to the anti-communist doctrines of the American reaction during the confrontation with the Soviet Union. Therefore, I will quote a short excerpt from O. Feofanov's book "Aggression of Lies" to refresh the memory, to which the reaction is ready to go in order to destroy communism:

“After the Second World War, when the Soviet Union proved its might, its moral and political unity, American imperialism, relying on a temporary monopoly of possession of atomic weapons, came out in 1947 with the Truman Doctrine, known as the “doctrine of containing communism.” And soon after, in March 1948, top secret Memorandum No. 7 of the National Security Council of the United States stated: “The defeat of the forces of world communism, led by the Soviets, is vital to the security of the United States. This goal cannot be achieved with a defensive policy. Therefore, the United States must take the lead in organizing a worldwide counter-offensive to mobilize and strengthen our own forces and the anti-communist forces of the non-Soviet world, as well as to undermine the power of the communist forces.

In the early 1950s, Eisenhower's Secretary of State, J. F. Dulles, formulated the "doctrine of the rollback of communism" or "the liberation of Eastern Europe." These were the years when the USA began to organize and support counter-revolutionary demonstrations in the socialist countries of Europe.

The globalist tendencies of US foreign policy were reflected in 1979 in the Carter Doctrine, or "the doctrine of the protection of vital interests." This doctrine openly formulated the method of reprisal against communism - nuclear war. Declaring that communism is a kind of "deviation", "an abnormal way of life for a person," Carter signed the directive of the National Security Council No. 59 in the fall of 1980, which has since been the military-political doctrine of the Pentagon. The strategic goal of the United States in relation to the USSR is formulated in it unambiguously: it is the destruction of socialism as a socio-political system, and the means of achieving this goal are declared to be the first to use nuclear weapons, to achieve superiority over the USSR in a nuclear war and to end it on favorable terms for the United States ...

It is known that, speaking in the British Parliament in the summer of 1982, Ronald Reagan proclaimed a "crusade" against communism.

In April 1984, the President of the United States signed National Security Council Directive 138, authorizing the legality of so-called "preemptive strikes" abroad, ostensibly to "fight terrorism." This directive became known as the Reagan Doctrine, "the doctrine of neo-globalism." It combines anti-Soviet propaganda with slanderous attacks on the forces of national liberation. Based on this doctrine, local military confrontations are provoked. This is done in the name of realizing the hegemonic, global aspirations of US imperialism.

The essence of the doctrine was clearly defined by Business Week commentator John Pearson:

"Reagan wants to be the first president to achieve what Secretary of State John Foster Dulles proclaimed, but failed to achieve in the 1950s: 'roll back communism on a global scale'."

To better understand what is happening now, it is necessary to characterize the confrontation between the USSR and the USA from 1945 to 1991. So the difference between the cold wars of different eras will be clear.

After the end of the Great Patriotic War and World War II, the world revolution camp gained a strategic advantage, as the victory over fascism made the ideas of communism even more popular all over the world. Consequently, in such a situation, the Soviet Union had to go over to supporting revolutionary movements aimed at fighting world imperialism. But instead, after the death of Stalin, the foreign policy of the USSR ceased to be offensive.

To what class changes in politics did the vulgar understanding of the principle of peaceful coexistence lead - this is the denial of the struggle for the destruction of classes both within the USSR and throughout the world. The foreign policy of the CPSU, being a product of revisionism in theory, inevitably led to the betrayal of the interests of the working class and the world revolution in practice. Although it was filed in the manner of following the Leninist theory.

The article "The Proletarian Revolution and Khrushchev's Revisionism ", published in the People's Daily on March 31, 1964, gave an apt description of the idea of ​​Khrushchev's peaceful coexistence:

“In the period from the 20th to the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev’s revisionism with its line on the so-called “peaceful transition”, “peaceful coexistence” and “peaceful competition” took shape in a complete system. Considering his good as a "new creativity", Khrushchev slips it everywhere and everywhere. But in fact, there is nothing new here, it is just a compilation of Browder revisionism, the theory of "structural reforms" and Titoite revisionism, which have undergone some reshaping and embellishment, and nothing more. Internationally, Khrushchev's revisionism manifests itself in capitulation to US imperialism; in the imperialist and capitalist countries, in capitulation to the reactionary ruling classes; and in the socialist countries - in encouraging the development of capitalist forces.

If the CPSU had not been reborn after Stalin's death, there is no doubt that the camp of the world revolution would have preserved its integrity and the struggle against capitalism would have continued. The Soviet Union defeated fascism in the Great Patriotic War and acquired unprecedented international prestige in the eyes of all peoples. But having embarked on the path of revisionism and concessions to capitalism in domestic and foreign policy, the CPSU split the forces of communism, after which it itself went into oblivion. In such conditions, solving the problems of survival, the CCP agreed to cooperate with the United States. The CPC hoped to use this to reduce its own technological gap by increasing the means of production, while the United States hoped to achieve the rebirth of the PRC through market relations. As a result, in 2020 the United States had to admit that they failed to achieve the desired result and declare a new cold war.

old question
In 1917, humanity entered the era of world revolution, which will last until communism is victorious in all countries. At the moment, there is a temporary ebb of the world revolution, and it may seem to some, not very perceptive individuals, that there is no struggle between communism and capitalism. But it is not. The ebb does not mean the end of the struggle. Vice versa. It is during the ebb tide that the forces accumulate that later will produce an “assault”, during which communism will regain its lost positions and go on the offensive against capitalism.

The confrontation continues, but in a different form than before. The American State Department is well aware that it is about confronting communism, and they hope to defeat the PRC in the same way as the USSR. But the circumstances in which China finds itself are fundamentally different from the circumstances in which the Soviet Union found itself. As you can see, the American oligarchy is acting against the Chinese people in exactly the same way as it worked against the Soviet people, but this work has not yet yielded real results.

While China takes a passive position, but the "great rift" that UN Secretary General António Guterres spoke about earlier will happen sooner or later, since the American bourgeoisie still sees itself exclusively as the world's chief sheriff and wants to get rid of the international organizations that hamper its actions, created after World War II. And this rupture cannot occur except through war and the destruction of previously existing international organizations. Therefore, the question of WHAT is the fight for is obvious to us. But this is not so obvious to our opponents.

After the term "cold war" returned to the pages of the world and, in particular, the Russian press, it began to be actively used to characterize the rather chilled Russian-American relations. Thus, the mass consumer of Russian media information did not notice the substitution. Since 1917 there has been a struggle between the dying but still strong capitalism and the young forces of communism. At the same time, in modern popular Russian literature and the media, one can come across an approach according to which the period of the first Cold War between the USSR and the USA is presented as a confrontation between the USA and abstract Russia, which is a lie. But the fact is that the current cold war is inextricably linked with the previous one. Therefore, in the context of this work, it is important to show their relationship and the real reasons.

The Cold War from 1945 to 1991 is an organic consequence of the results of the Great Patriotic War and, more broadly, the Second World War, since German fascism, nurtured with the money of American and European capitalists, failed to liquidate the Soviet Union by military means. Of course, modern Russian historiography is not satisfied with the Marxist formulations and assessments of those events, so its representatives are working on alternative interpretations. As an example of how the public is misinformed about the background of the war of German fascism against the Soviet people, one can cite a fragment of a lecture by the famous historian Alexei Isaev. In an introductory video about the Nuremberg trials on YouTube, Isaev said the following:

“Rosenberg, one of the ideologists of Nazism and one of Hitler's closest associates, received the right to govern the occupied territories. He entered into this work with enthusiasm, producing the very papers that would later become the accusations at Nuremberg. Rosenberg's secret memorandum is dated October 25, 1942: "In the East, Germany is waging a war for the realization of three goals - a war to destroy Bolshevism, a war to destroy the Great Russian Empire and, finally, a war to acquire colonial territories for the purposes of colonization and economic exploitation." As we can see, this is not about fighting communism as an ideology. With all the hatred of the Nazis for the Bolsheviks, for the Communists, this was only the tip of the iceberg in the plans that they hatched.

In modern Russian patriotic discourse, there are many slanderers who are trying to distort the truth about the Cold War period. But even those historians and "public opinion leaders" who pursue the goal of destroying the heaps of liberal lies are also trying to convince us that the war of the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany was not at all a struggle of capitalism against communism, but a German war for the destruction of Russian statehood. These are the features of the modern conjuncture. With one hand, Russian historians are fighting against Western falsifiers, and with the other they are engaged in exactly the same falsification. Only the motives differ.

So is it possible to agree with the above characterization of Isaev? Of course not. Its evidence base here is akin to the argumentation of Putin, who spoke out against the ideologization of the feat of the Soviet people, which I wrote about in the article “On the Reconciliation of Reds and Whites.” The fact is that with such an approach, the most important thing remains unclear - what did the Soviet people fight for? Moreover, it is absolutely not clear how one can fight against Bolshevism, destroying the peoples who build communism, and at the same time not fight against communism as such? What kind of twisted logic is this? It turns out that if we remove the semi-forbidden word “communism”, which is so annoying to modern Russian historians, then all the exploits of the soldiers of the Red Army and our heroic partisans immediately depreciate. And what is the difference between the conditional "patriotic" and "liberal" approaches? Yes, nothing. The essence is the same, although the signs are different. In addition, it is overlooked that Hitler declared war on Bolshevism on January 27, 1932 in Düsseldorf, where 300 of the largest industrialists staged a kind of casting for the role of Fuhrer.

“You cannot create a strong and healthy Germany if 50% of the population is Bolshevik-minded,” Hitler said at the time. There is not even a hint of a war against the Soviet Union yet.

In addition, it is impossible not to notice that it is inconvenient for Isaev to think about the war against Bolshevism, he hesitates and moves on to the more convenient Rosenberg thesis about the war against the “Great Russian Empire”.

The Nazis claimed that the USSR was an example of a Great Russian empire, and our real Great Russian imperials believe that Russia within the USSR was a cash cow for non-Russian peoples. They are generally sure that the Russians in the USSR were the oppressed people, either the Bolsheviks, or the Jews, or the Caucasians. This discrepancy between the two varieties of fascists is due to the fact that their original theses about the essence of Soviet power are absolutely false.

Moreover, it is possible to conduct a thought experiment by removing the factor of Bolshevism from the interwar political alignments. Let's assume that in place of the USSR there really is a "Great Russian empire". Would Hitler have come to power in this case, would the Anglo-Saxon imperialists pump money into Germany? Of course not, this would make no sense, because this "Great Russian empire" would threaten their interests only locally, in certain regions. Another thing is the threat of communism, the threat of the creation of the World Soviet Union with the corresponding loss of the property of the oligarchy.

And now to the era between 1945 and 1991. More precisely, how modern political experts “backdating” draw up the confrontation between the USSR and the USA in order to demonstrate how close the approaches of German fascism, American imperialism and the ideologists of the modern Russian Federation are to the answer to the question of why the Soviet people fought in the Great Patriotic War and for that there was a fight in the cold war.

As an example, let's take A. Okorokov's book “USSR vs. USA. Psychological war. Open the chapter "Cold War" and read:

“Thus, we can say that the Cold War grew out of the results of the “hot” war - the Second World War. And for this reason alone, as the historian and political scientist rightly notes, Doctor of History. ON THE. Narochnitskaya, it could not be a confrontation between the "free world" and "totalitarian communism" or the class struggle of world imperialism and the "stronghold of peace and socialism." According to N.A. Narochnitskaya, if, after the end of the Great Patriotic War, Greater Russia could throw off its communist ideology and be reborn as the Russian Empire, the Cold War would still take place. For the reason that its main aspect was not the “fight against communism”, but the fight against “Russian imperialism”, moreover, on the very territory of historical Russia.

The fact that the Cold War was aimed at destroying not the communist regime, but the Russian traditional statehood is clearly evidenced by the later statements of famous American politicians. They belong to the so-called period of the victory of the “Western democracies” over the Soviet Union.”

So, with a light stroke of the pen and the selection of the necessary quotes, it is “proved” that after the Second World War there was a struggle not against communism, which began to spread throughout the world, but against some kind of “Russian traditional statehood”. As if there were never wars in Vietnam, in China, Korea, there was no revolution in Cuba. There, too, did the United States fight against Russian statehood? Not to mention how the United States manually installed fascist regimes in Latin America, just to prevent the communists or left-wing politicians like Salvador Allende from coming to power. Apparently, by providing diplomatic and military support to the Chinese, Cubans, Vietnamese and Koreans, the CPSU expanded the zone of influence of a certain “Russian empire”. This is how the opinion of this or that historical character and, even worse, of some political scientist, is presented as a proven fact. With this approach, building an evidence base does not need to be dealt with at all. Today, using this technology, books can be baked like pies.

But the pinnacle of the evidence base in this chapter is a reference to a quote from the famous fascist Zbigniew Brzezinski:

“Even more revealing is the statement of the Secretary of the Trilateral Commission, the famous American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski:

“Russia is a defeated power. She lost a titanic fight. And to say “it was not Russia, but the Soviet Union” means to run away from reality. It was Russia, called the Soviet Union. She challenged the US. She was defeated. Now there is no need to feed illusions about Russia being a great power. We need to discourage this way of thinking ... Russia will be fragmented and under guardianship.

I have always marveled at the stupidity of some people who stubbornly turn a blind eye to what is happening and construct their own alternate reality as they go. Narochitskaya and Brzezinski, apparently, from the category of just such characters. It is useless to look for logic in their reflections; they think about the Soviet Union in exactly the same way. And I know why - because they are pathological anti-communists.

Rosenberg, Narochitska, Brzezinski, being the ideological servants of individual detachments of the national bourgeoisie, view the world exclusively through the prism of consciousness shaped by reactionary ideology. So it was throughout history with the reactionary classes, who perceived the historical rival solely through the prism of their worldview, beyond the boundaries of which they were not able to go.

The open denial that fascist Germany, and then the United States, fought specifically against communism allows one to ignore the objective facts.

In fact, for us communists, it does not matter how the capitalists explain to themselves the struggle against communism, how they interpret and present it. Of key importance are only the facts that show that there are objective laws according to which the capitalist and communist formations function. And modern Russian figures of the ideological front are not able to assess the historical process without reference to the opinions of individuals who, in their opinion, supposedly determine this historical process. This is the stupidity in understanding the history of modern opinion leaders from numerous foundations and institutions named after themselves.

The concept of mixing different forms of class struggle is based on the similarity of the means used by the bourgeois forces. The capitalists fight each other as competitors, the bourgeois states fight each other for domination of the world market by their capitalists. This is also a class struggle between different detachments of the world-class bourgeoisie or the bourgeois classes of different countries, as it is more convenient for anyone to call it. The relations of competition between capitalists, as well as between proletarians, are absolute, while relations of cooperation or neutrality are relative. However, the specificity of the Cold War is, firstly, that the bourgeois classes of most "democratic" countries acted as a united front, and secondly, that the USSR was not a competitor to the Western bourgeoisie. The USSR did not compete with them for the redistribution of the world market, did not interfere in their internal affairs, Soviet enterprises did not compete with American or European ones inside America and Europe, and beyond their borders. On the contrary, the USSR freely sold raw materials, bought goods from Western capitalists, and always strictly fulfilled its contractual obligations. But the imperialists were haunted by the thought of the wealth of the USSR, of the opportunity to feast on Soviet industry, natural resources and the economies of Eastern Europe. The threat from the USSR came exclusively in the political field - the imperialists were afraid of the spread of communism in their countries. This was the essence of the Cold War. But the imperialists were haunted by the thought of the wealth of the USSR, of the opportunity to feast on Soviet industry, natural resources and the economies of Eastern Europe. The threat from the USSR came exclusively in the political field - the imperialists were afraid of the spread of communism in their countries. This was the essence of the Cold War. But the imperialists were haunted by the thought of the wealth of the USSR, of the opportunity to feast on Soviet industry, natural resources and the economies of Eastern Europe. The threat from the USSR came exclusively in the political field - the imperialists were afraid of the spread of communism in their countries. This was the essence of the Cold War.

It would be unforgivable not to point out to gentlemen experts the objective background of the Cold War, which they did not notice point-blank for many years, however, as they do not notice even now. And they won't notice in the future. Because for this you need to understand the historical process much deeper than at the level of evidence of a particular thesis with the help of papers and documents. V. Podguzov, explaining the absurdity of the idea of ​​an appeal in the fight against the bourgeoisie to its own laws, noted:

“In particular, even such a serf of the American oligarchs as Z. Brzezinski is dumbfounded by the consequences that engulfed America after the collapse of the USSR. In 1990, he noted in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, the salary of American business executives was only 70 times that of the average American. Now this difference has grown to 325 times. What can be said about Brzezinski's mental and moral abilities, if he knew that in the USSR the difference between the pay of higher and lower positions did not exceed three times, and in the USA the gap was already 70 times. Was it hard to guess that the US oligarchs were fighting against the USSR precisely in order to remove all upper income limits and cut even more wool from the skins of American hamsters. No, it was necessary, as in the old cowboy joke,

Of course, today's Russian bourgeois politicians and their political scientists do not want to realize the fact that during the Great Patriotic War, and then during the Cold War, the Soviet Union fought not only and not so much for freedom and independence, but with world imperialism as the highest manifestation of capitalism.

From this follows the question: who should the proletariat follow in the future—the bourgeoisie and its ideological servants, or the Marxists? If it is for the Marxists, then we should be able to explain to everyone what the historical moment is and how it is connected with the process of the world revolution. We must be able to explain that there is no fundamental difference between Russian, American, European, Iranian, Turkish and other capitalists. The difference lies only in private interests. And the more the regional imperialists come into conflict with the West, the more they draw closer to the PRC, which only strengthens Beijing's international positions. But this does not at all cancel their essential reactionary nature. At the same time, in the West, the main leitmotif of the current Cold War is considered the idea of ​​“opposing democracy to authoritarianism” represented by China and the Russian Federation, about which, in particular,

“Democracy is under attack today, so the US and the EU must prove to the whole world that this is the best system. We must ensure that the US and the EU provide themselves with global leadership in fighting the pandemic, economic recovery, spreading democracy and human rights around the world.”

This will be discussed in the next section.

https://prorivists.org/63_ncw1/#4

(To be continued tomorrow)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:38 am

Continued from previous post.
Democracy versus authoritarianism

Deciphering the term "authoritarianism" in the Western press is superficial and untenable. It must be assumed that the authoritarianism, which, according to Biden, is now opposed by the United States and its allies, is a kind of generalization of "undemocratic" regimes.

The practice of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the US imperialist policy after its self-destruction indicate that we are talking about covering up fascism by Western democracy.

V. Podguzov in the article “ Fascism - an ideological accident or an obligatory offspring of private property? " wrote:

“The development of basic relations within the history of the ENTIRE exploitative society inevitably gives rise to corresponding superstructural relations reflected in ideological concepts. Fascism is not just another, especially purely national, personified exotic ideology. The highest form of development of the capitalist basis, state-monopoly capitalism, corresponds to a theoretical superstructure that actually substantiates the necessity and inevitability of world domination by one narrow group of owners of financial capital, i.e. theory of fascism. Moreover, it is clear to all participants in capitalist market relations that "a holy place is never empty." One national group of oligarchs will be "too lazy" to fight for world domination, e ea place in this struggle will be taken by another nationally oriented group of oligarchs from another continent, not for a second doubting that only by destroying a competitor can one survive in the conditions of a modern economy.

One of the important reasons for the delusion of our opponents is not so much that they still know the history of mankind poorly, but rather that they have not mastered diamatic thinking. They do not understand that if the general prevails over the particular, then when solving particular problems, especially in the area of ​​the superstructure, it is necessary to understand that this particular problem is a derivative of the ENTIRE previous chain of human development and it did not arise like in the Bible "turned on "light from God" at the behest of the pike, at my will, "but grew, like, for example, the problem of world drug trafficking and world drug addiction, from a barely noticeable poppy seed. And if humanity is not convinced that private ownership of the means of production, which arose many thousands of years ago, the toll relations of value arising from it,



Meanwhile, it was not Italy or Germany of the last century, not Mussolini or Hitler, but the financial oligarchs of the whole world that brought economic relations in the world to such a state that only the blind did not notice the socio-political order of the oligarchs, who were ready to allocate money for both black and brown shirts. for cannon fodder, i.e. for ordinary nationalists. Not Mussolini and Hitler gave rise to Nazism in the years when the First World War had not yet ended, but the indestructible lust for the redistribution of the world between ALL the oligarchs of financial capital in the conditions of the UNEQUAL DEVELOPMENT of WORLD capitalism.



Centuries have passed after Aristotle, but the theoretical works, for example, by Brzezinski, published after the collapse of the USSR, are restrained in form, but the most ordinary fascism in essence, having only more cynical differences in style from the Aristotelian or Hitlerian version of the presentation of the needs of any national detachment of financial oligarchs. capital, the goal of which is WORLD DOMINATION, first a group of nationally oriented oligarchs, and then, ideally, one of them.

Thus, fascist in terminology, imperialist in essence, the concept of Aristotle-Malthus-Nietzsche-Mussolini-Schiklgruber-Sharp-Brzezinski is nothing more than a consistent, frank presentation of the essence of the need of the ruling class under conditions of private property. That is why, speaking of the main historical act that would immediately free humanity from the hardships of world wars, i.e. and from fascism, Marx already in the Manifesto of the Communist Party pointed out the need to eliminate such a form of production relations as relations of private property.

When at the beginning I wrote about the "nasty smell of Hitlerism", I did it not for the sake of a red word. The fact is that if earlier the fascist policy of the West was of an exclusively offensive nature, when the Western imperialists, by virtue of their economic superiority, could afford to arrange incursions into certain countries, now, after Afghanistan, in the conditions of the economic crisis, they put on themselves humanist masks and talked about the impossibility of imposing democracy by force. Now they will show their "humanism" by cultivating local fascists to change the government in those countries where it will be beneficial. Fascism in the service of democracy? Was it ever different? What, Hitler was not in the service of the Democrats? It was the Democrats who raised the German fascists. Of course, After World War II, the Democrats went to great lengths to instill in the minds of the masses the idea that fascism and democracy were allegedly incompatible. In reality, this contradiction can only be in the minds of the inhabitants, where the concept of fascism is tightly associated exclusively with swastikas, the Wehrmacht, Auschwitz and the SS. To remove the "damage" from the brain, everyone can read the article by R. Ogienko "To the question of the dangers of dogmatizing the essence of fascism "and the work of Yu. Voronin" Hitler's aggression and the "cold war" - a different form, but the essence is the same ".

There are still quite a few fools who seriously believe that democracy is supposedly the freedom to choose a candidate in the political supermarket of capitalism, and not the all-encompassing power of the bourgeois class. Moreover, the power of specifically the Western imperialist bourgeoisie, which proclaimed itself the only bearer and defender of this very democracy. The killings by NATO troops of the civilian population of the occupied countries in the minds of democracy lovers do not contradict the talk about "freedoms" and "human rights". And no matter what atrocities the Western and pro-Western regimes commit, they are, against all odds, considered “democratic” or allied with democracy, that is, correct. The modern bourgeoisie, hiding behind the idea of ​​democracy, has exposed itself to such an extent that only the ignorance of the proletariat is the main reason over which she still has power. Moreover, the dilemma of the Western bourgeoisie about whether to carry democracy on bayonets or not is another stroke to expose the idea of ​​democracy as the power of the people. Judging Western democrats for their crimes in the course of "defending democracy" is not yet possible. But that day will surely come.

As for the issue of “authoritarianism”, which Biden is going to oppose, this term of bourgeois political science is consonant with another term - totalitarianism, which is used to characterize regimes objectionable to the United States. But Western political scientists for a fee recognize as democratic any regime in any country in the world, if it has a Western “roof” over it. For example, as over the current Ukrainian fascist regime, where all Western norms of democracy are violated in the form of all kinds of bourgeois freedoms, but it is deliberately supported to annoy the Russian Federation. Earlier on the Proryvist website, an article by R. Ogienko “ Some Aspects of the Concept of Totalitarianism ” was published, where a Marxist analysis of this idea was presented:

“The term“ totalitarianism ”appeared to Giovanni Amendola in 1923 to critically characterize Mussolini’s regime, and this term did not bother him at all: he proudly called his state totalitarian. But the concept of totalitarianism was born much later, in 1951; it was a reaction to the crisis of bourgeois ideology associated with a sharp increase in the influence of the USSR and the world communist movement after the Second World War.

The world bourgeoisie, undoubtedly, had high hopes for fascism, they saw in it salvation from the “Bolshevik plague”, it was not for nothing that such a significant political event as the Olympic Games was held in the Third Reich! However, fascism did not justify the hopes placed on it. If earlier the ideas of fascism were very popular, and not only in Europe, but also in the USA, then when the Workers 'and Peasants' Army defeated the German war machine, the world community suddenly learned that, it turns out, fascism is not a complacent unity of the nation, but nothing covert terror of the oligarchs.

The defeat of fascist Europe was a strong blow to imperialism. Still would! Father-benefactor, defender from Bolshevism, Hitler was forced to shoot himself. Soldiers of the Red Army were everywhere welcomed as liberators, all progressive mankind looked with delight at the USSR - what, under these conditions, could the oligarchs of the USA and the British Empire do? And then, along with some other anti-communist concepts - such as the "cold war", "flexible response" - the concept of totalitarianism appeared.

With the destruction of the USSR and the collapse of the world system of communism, the imperialists were in no hurry to write off the concept of totalitarianism from ideological weapons. For example, in 2005, CIA Director James Wools stated in an interview with Borsa & Finanza that the United States was waging war against "three totalitarian movements, which resembles the situation of the Second World War." These three "totalitarian movements" are represented by: Ba'athism, Shia Islamic fundamentalism and "Sunni Islamist jihadists". Is the director of the CIA trying to accuse religious fanatics of communism? Most likely not, but the word "totalitarianism" has become a popular "brand" through the efforts of bourgeois propagandists and the secret police; now any country that has fallen under the sight of Anglo-American imperialism - be it Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,

The concept of totalitarianism is a set of petty-bourgeois, that is, philistine illusions, thickly mixed with crude anti-Soviet myths. Despite all its falsity and outright speculativeness, this concept shows amazing vitality, and even now, when the citizens of the former Soviet Union took a sip of market "freedom", so much so that for many it ended in death, the concept of totalitarianism continues to be rooted in the minds of a considerable part of the population, especially among the liberal-minded intelligentsia.

After we have decided on the concepts, I propose to continue the analysis of the global political agenda.

On January 6, 2021, when the Capitol was stormed, American democracy was dealt a reputational blow, and now Biden is striving to prove that it is still quite viable. That it was some kind of temporary failure, a mistake, and not evidence that the United States was needlessly terrorizing the entire planet, planting its "most perfect system of power."

“America is an idea, and the most unique in history: we are all created equal. We are like that and we cannot get away from this principle. This is the American idea... At the moment when our opponents thought that we would disperse and lose, we united. We have united. With light and hope, we have gathered new strength, new determination to win the competition of the 21st century... To all the world leaders I have met over the years, I have always said never bet against America - never. And this is true even today,” Biden said on April 28, 2021 during an address to Congress.

Thanks to precisely such arrogant and arrogant stereotyped speeches of American presidents, it becomes clear that by "democracy" it is precisely the world domination of the United States that is meant. But the fact that divisions within the United States are multiplying and the heap of problems accumulated over the entire previous imperialist history is growing, is a confirmation of Marxist criticism. Accordingly, there is a growing discussion within the American bourgeoisie and its ideological servants about whether the United States can still consider itself the flagship of democracy, but it is, of course, not at all scientific. And no matter how the Democrats and Republicans scold each other, both of them agree that, no matter how terrible the situation inside the country, America is still superior to authoritarian regimes.

“According to the president of the political consulting company Eurasia Group, Ian Bremmer, Putin (after meeting with Biden in Geneva) essentially applied what in America has long been called “whataboutism” (whataboutism, a rhetorical device that is known in Russia by the popular expression “A you have blacks being lynched!” — InoTV). “That the United States, in order to maintain its position of moral authority for democracy abroad, needs to strengthen its authority within its own borders is certainly true. But let's not pretend that we are talking about moral parity, as China and Russia are trying to say, "" The Washington Post expert quotes.

“No matter how bad the situation in the United States is - and things have been bad with us lately, and among Republicans at this stage, many no longer even believe in representative democracy - America still cannot be compared with either Russia or with the Chinese system," Bremmer added," InoTV reports.

The Republicans are dogging with the Democrats, the "epaulettes" are interfering in the affairs of the "jackets", and yet there are still about 50 million beggars, the so-called "domestic terrorism", unemployment and, of course, the problems of racism. In addition, after the storming of the Capitol in the United States, strange, inexplicable political assassinations of Trump supporters who criticized the Democrats began to occur in the United States, which no one is investigating ... And you can also recall the scandal with the so-called "secret army" of 60,000 employees to fight not only against external, but also with internal enemies. This is only a small part of the internal problems that have been discussed recently.

Of course, I'm not going to go through all the internal American political "kitchen", but an increasing number of internal and external problems are prompting US allies to look for ways to get rid of their guardianship. Moreover, the farther, the more America and Europe have claims to each other and quarrels on a variety of occasions. After all, as follows from Biden's words at the Munich Conference, not all democracies are equal and the United States intends to regain the status of the leader of the Western world. After all, it is necessary not only to put pressure on China and the Russian Federation, but also to keep the kicking Europe under control. What kind of democracy is this, where one country dictates standards of behavior to foreign democrats? However, the Americans, by their actions in Afghanistan and the conclusion of the new anti-Chinese military bloc AUKUS, even more set the Western European bourgeoisie against themselves, wishing to trade profitably with China. Thus, the Chinese issue leads the United States to move towards the formation of a purely Anglo-Saxon military-political cooperation based on "common values", while in the European Uniondream of their own strategic autonomy and a unified army. However, there are no sufficient conditions for a final break yet. The United States and the European Union are united in their position of confronting the "barbarians" who do not want to play by the rules established in the West.

As the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of England, Mark Carlton-Smith, quite candidly noted:

“We Europeans should not take a rule-based order for granted. This order cannot exist on its own. It is supported by hard power, mainly American, but not only.”

Here it is, the so-called "white man's burden", unchanged for centuries. The rhetoric changes, the meaning remains the same. Racism, swagger, hegemonism. Empire above all.

In London, they are already talking about a kind of “global Britain”, whose interests also extend to the whole world. And the foreign ministers of the EU countries have prepared a draft of the first European military concept called the "EU Strategic Compass", according to which Brussels intends to create conditions for independent foreign military missions without the participation of NATO. NATO fascism, sensing a threat to its dominance, wants to re-educate the world and abandon any international norms, establishing its own. As the saying goes, when gentlemen lose, they change the rules.

The Western imperialists are constantly talking about certain "rules", but they do not specify what those rules are. The UN Charter, to which the PRC and the Russian Federation appeal, of course, they interpret in their favor. Such a position should be understood as a lack of interest in the further preservation of the architecture of the UN, since it apparently no longer corresponds to the interests of the so-called "free world". Trump spoke directly about this, and what is on the tongue of a fool is on the mind of the smart. Moreover, the more America and Europe have to compete with China, the Russian Federation and other anti-Western regimes, the more often Western diplomats have to talk about a threat to “world security”, meaning by this the Western metropolis and its area of ​​influence. Not forgetting to make a complete moralist c whompathos of the statement about the superiority of democracy over authoritarianism.

But capitalism is so tripled that the economic contradictions between Europe and America turn out to be stronger than the proclaimed ideological community. Therefore, while still talking about democracy, the United States and Europe are developing their own political projects and are actively working to create new international platforms where they can freely promote their ideas for rebuilding the current world order without encountering any criticism and resistance, which constantly happens at meetings UN Security Council.

Earlier in the American, European and Russian press, the topic of the summit that Biden intends to convene this year to create an alliance of democracies to repel authoritarian regimes was discussed, but, as noted in Foreign Affairs, the organizers will have to rack their brains over who will be invited to this event, because not all of Washington's allies are suitable for participation in this event.

What goals and objectives did the United States set during the meeting?

“First, Joe Biden hopes to enlist the support of other states to fight corruption, defend against authoritarianism, and promote human rights around the world. Secondly, it is planned to provide support to public organizations that are at the forefront of protecting democracy. Third, the participating states, as conceived by Joe Biden, should appeal to the private sector, namely technology corporations and social networks. They will be called upon to recognize their own commitment to protecting open democratic communities and free speech. For example, tech companies - which benefit from the fruits of democracy - must make specific commitments to ensure that their algorithms and platforms do not support police states, aid repression in China and elsewhere.

At the same time, Europe has its own projects. Thus, on September 26, 2019, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, together with representatives of 50 countries, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas announced the creation of an “alliance for multilateralism”.

“Despite all the existing crises, the rules-based world order has brought us more peace and prosperity than at any time in history. We have to protect him,” Maas said.

As Deutsche Welle reported :

“Maas put forward the idea of ​​an alliance for multilateralism in July 2018, in opposition to the concept of US President Donald Trump, who proclaimed that the future belongs to the patriots. France, Canada and Japan have been working on the implementation of this idea for a long time, but the conference in New York, which, among others, brought together foreign ministers from more than 30 countries, was the first major event under the new format.

Multilateralism is the principle of building relations between states, based on the mechanism of multilateral agreements that allow each state to enjoy privileges in relations with all partners. Within the framework of this model, a clearly limited membership is not assumed, as is the case with the seven or twenty, but it provides for the reform of international institutions and the strengthening of international agreements.”

As we can see, this alliance aims not at all to comply with the UN Charter, but to protect the "world order based on rules." Thus, we are talking about the creation of parallel structures, whose members set goals for themselves outside the UN. Moreover, they are going to defend the world order proclaimed by them, which is not recognized by most countries of the world and directly contradicts the spirit of the UN Charter. And all because the collective West can no longer use the UN Security Council as before. And he needs new platforms.

The United States is forming an “alliance of democracies”, Germany and France are advocating an “alliance for multilateralism”… Of course, all this is necessary in order to curb China, which is increasing its influence in the UN, where the West is no longer comfortable. The United States and the European Union especially do not like the fact that China, by cooperating with other countries within the framework of the New Silk Road project, as well as providing loans to governments of different countries, thereby finances and supports "authoritarian regimes", creating "obstacles to democracy." After all, when Western creditors provide money, they always put forward political conditions in advance for receiving it. Moreover, the money is always issued strictly metered. This is how they supposedly force their puppet regimes to "improve". After all, the West wants to look like a civilizer in its own eyes. But if we put aside all this moralistic pathos, then there is not a single example that would prove the correctness of the Western accusers of the PRC. Until recently, the whole world was circulated by footage of palaces that Afghan officials built for themselves with American money.

China, unlike the NATO countries, is not engaged in the export of ideology, competing with the West solely on the market conditions it loves. But the example of recent years has shown that the West loves competition only in words. Solely for the purpose of promoting democracy. More precisely, he is very fond of talking about the value of competition in the complete absence of competitors. And the spread of democracy around the world, which is so baked in Washington and European capitals, is necessary precisely so that there is no competition at all. Only the brilliant metropolis and the obedient colonies surrounding it, dutifully fulfilling the notorious "rules".

As noted by the Chinese Foreign Ministry:

“Democracy is a common value of all mankind, and not some kind of “patent” of individual states. There are no “democratic leaders” in the world, and no country in the world has the right to position itself as a “mentor of democracy”. Propaganda of the idea of ​​an “alliance of democratic states” and the narrative of “democracy versus authoritarianism” is essentially an attempt to persecute dissidents under the pretext of defending democracy. This is an attempt to turn the ideology and value system into a tool to put pressure on other countries and advance the geopolitical strategy. This is not democracy at all, but pure hegemonism. Such actions, which turn the wheel of history in reverse, can only sow division and confrontation, and all countries should perceive such behavior with caution and counteract it.”

The examples of democracy promotion since the last Cold War show that the ritual of elections in non-Western countries is not needed at all, since the West reserves the last word in their recognition. And if the political regime in this or that country is no longer beneficial for European and American capitals, then the “will of the people”, expressed in the ballots, does not matter at all. As the examples of Venezuela and Belarus have shown, the "presidents" in these countries were appointed by the West remotely and no "will of the people" in the form of a vote was required for this. Moreover, the “oppositionists”, who shouted about falsifications by the authorities, are also not interested in the elections. They immediately agreed to the candidacy of the appointed "Gauleiter". But what is there to say about Venezuela or Belarus? Even in "God-saved" America, the "will of the people" frankly does not care,

The example of the last US presidential election and the subsequent storming of the Capitol seriously damaged the image of exemplary democracy, since the open secret was revealed. “Suddenly” it turned out that the elections in the United States are no different from the elections in the condemned “authoritarian regimes”. The only difference is that the owners of the “democracy” brand have the most expensive army in the world. But even with the most expensive army, democracy does not always win. And in Afghanistan, she seriously overstrained herself. In other words, we will not be mistaken if we put an equal sign between democracy and the American military-industrial complex. As V. Podguzov wrote:

“The FIFTEEN nuclear aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy are the main source of American economic “luck”, entrepreneurial acumen and efficiency. The rapid reaction force contains the basic wisdom of both the Chicago and Stanford "economic" schools.

Nevertheless, the flight of US-led NATO from Afghanistan has once again shown that no Western occupation regimes, even armed with the most modern weapons, are able to withstand the Islamists if they are supported by the masses. Moreover, the forces that were sent in the past to fight the Afghan communists, supported by the Soviet Union, turned against the colonialists themselves. The imposition of the Western way of life on the population of Afghanistan has nothing to do with civilization, since capitalism gets along remarkably well with the wildest customs and ideologies due to the fact that it immanently contains all those properties that allow them to exist. And therefore, there can be no question of any civilizing mission of the West in Afghanistan.

As for the justification of the NATO colonization mission, which allegedly consists in preventing the formation of a terrorist threat to the United States on the territory of Afghanistan, this argument does not stand up to criticism, since the West has been cultivating and supporting Islamist groups in Asia and Africa for decades, including in order to slow down the development of peoples . Getting rid of terrorism is possible only after getting rid of Western imperialism as the main pillar of world capitalism.

The "enlightenment" of the Western colonialists about the impossibility of imposing democracy by force came "in hindsight". And if the defeat had not happened, then no “enlightenment” would have happened either. And then ... the moment came when the Pope of Rome, who for centuries blessed the conquistadors, fascists and democrats for the genocide of peoples and the war against the communists, in his speech quoted the "main enemy of world democracy" in the person of Putin about the impossibility of imposing alien values ​​on other peoples, thinking that he was quoting Merkel. But we know that there is no "enlightenment" and cannot be. The colonialists and their puppets can be made to talk about peace in only one way - by letting them bleed. And the more blood is allowed, the more they express a desire for dialogue. But no matter how it is lined up, it can not be about peace, but only about a truce, while exceptional "superhumans" will lick their wounds and recuperate. In reality, the colonizer can only be peaceful when he is dead. Before that, it doesn't count.

This is what follows from an article by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in American Foreign Affairs. Americanist Dmitry Drobnitsky cited excerpts from this text with his comments on his Telegram, from which it follows that the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was a mistake, which, according to him, will lead to an increase in the influence of autocracies.

“According to Rasmussen, if and when the US and its allies in the united West leave somewhere, autocracies – Putin, Kim Jong-un, etc. – are immediately there. In a somewhat corrected form, this doctrine has been adopted by the current American administration.

True, there was some dissonance. The Biden administration (more precisely, the coalition of forces that dropped Trump) nevertheless decided to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. But the Alliance of Democracies Foundation (of which Rasmussen is a co-founder) does not fully approve of this decision. Moreover, in his article, Anders Fogh Rasmussen believes that the conclusion about the inadmissibility of imposing democracy by military and other means of democracy around the world is not only fundamentally wrong, but also extremely harmful,” writes Drobnitsky.

I won't quote the full excerpts from his note, but the main thing is that there is a split in the West about how exactly to spread their dictatorship - aggressively or with the help of "soft power". This is not at all about the rejection of the "export of democracies", but only about how this will happen in the future. In new conditions. Moreover, the further, the more the appetites of the West will not coincide with its real economic opportunities. That is why Biden linked the exit from Afghanistan with the need to concentrate resources for further confrontation between the PRC and the Russian Federation.

Of course, we are only at the beginning of the path of struggle, and the more the Western empire shrinks and then breaks up into separate parts, the more fiercely Europe and the USA will try to maintain their possessions. It follows from this that the whole world will have to reap the consequences of the actions of the West in the form of interventions, seizures, sanctions, the work of European and American corporations in the colonies, drug trafficking, support for fascists, Islamists, etc., etc.

In addition to economic, political and military pressure on China, Washington hits all countries that cooperate with it. So, on March 24, 2021, speaking at NATO headquarters in Brussels with a speech about Washington’s foreign alliances and partnerships, Blinken brought out a new “axis of evil” that opposes NATO — China, North Korea, Russia and Iran. The same four countries were named in the US intelligence community's annual national security threat assessment report.

As can be understood from Blinken's "argumentation", the threat to NATO and the United States is any country that cares about their own security, conducts sea and land military exercises, works on a nuclear arsenal, does not allow NATO ships to sail where they want, strengthen economic, political and military relations with neighbors. Of course, all these actions are regarded as acts of aggression and militarization directed against the security of NATO countries that want "peace in the world." Blinken's logic works in the same way as for the slave owners of previous centuries, when the native is always guilty, not recognizing the superiority of the ideas of Christianity, and now the idea of ​​democracy in the form of a world order based on rules.

“We see this in China's efforts to threaten freedom of navigation and militarize the South China Sea, targeting countries throughout the Indo-Pacific region with increasingly sophisticated military capabilities. Beijing's military ambitions are growing year by year...

We also see it in the new military capabilities and strategies that Russia has developed to challenge our alliances and undermine the rule-based order that ensures our collective security. This includes Moscow’s aggression in eastern Ukraine, the build-up of forces, large-scale exercises and acts of intimidation in the Baltic and Black Seas, the Eastern Mediterranean, the High North, as well as the modernization of nuclear capabilities and the use of chemical weapons against critics on NATO territory…

And beyond China and Russia, regional parties such as Iran and North Korea are seeking nuclear and missile buildups that threaten us, our allies and partners,” Blinken said.

The second category of threats, according to Blinken, includes

“Disinformation campaigns and the use of corruption as a weapon to fuel distrust in our democracies, as well as cyber attacks against our critical infrastructure and theft of intellectual property. From China's blatant economic coercion of Australia to Russia's use of disinformation to undermine confidence in elections and safe, effective vaccines, these aggressive actions threaten not only our countries, but our shared values."

Of course, the NATO countries, or rather its largest members, do not interfere in the affairs of other states, they do not arrange provocations, they do not impose unilateral sanctions, they do not engage in disinformation. Holy simplicity.

All those countries that Blinken named can be considered the main rivals of US imperialism, curbing its appetites in specific regions. And we will talk about each of them in more detail in the last two sections below.

https://prorivists.org/63_ncw1/#4
Continued on following post
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:32 am

Continued from previous post.
Fascism and anti-fascism of our days

If in the previous section I described the ideological background of the new Cold War and pointed out why the current Western world order is fascism in the new conditions and circumstances, then after the start of the special operation in Ukraine, it should be explained what is the characteristic of “anti-fascism” of our days.

The era of Western world domination is gradually coming to an end, and the Western bourgeoisie and its politicians are faced with the question of how to prevent this. The only possible option, given its very limited capabilities and internal instability in a crisis, is to sow chaos and destruction in competing countries through its own extensive agents. It is easy to come to the conclusion that the process of destructive economic and political processes will be accompanied by increased wars and chaos around the world.

World politics in the conditions of the special operation in Ukraine allows us to see once again that the instruments of struggle of the “free world” are hitting it no less ruthlessly than its opponents, but at the same time, for the first time since 2014, we see that the front of resistance to pressure USA, England and the European Union is growing. Western fascism in different regions of the world provokes a response. Such a response is the special operation, which is carried out under the slogan of anti-fascism and the fight against Nazism in Ukraine.

At the same time, it should be recognized that this response cannot be called progressive, since it is not being conducted in line with the struggle for communism. After all, anti-fascism should not only be a denial of discrimination and chauvinism. However, the armed struggle against the Kyiv regime is partly progressive, not so much because of the elimination of known threats from the Russian Federation, but because of the narrowing of NATO's zone of influence. After it ends, we may see similar military operations in other regions of the world, which will be aimed at expelling the US and its allies from long-established places, control over which allowed them to maintain their dominance. There are so grandiose changes on the nose that sometimes you can’t believe that you will see it all with your own eyes…

On February 24, a special operation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine began and rather quickly highlighted the positions of the parties. Now it has become openly clear what the struggle is for - to maintain the superiority of the so-called "free world" led by the United States. Realizing what is at stake, the collective West intends to use all resources to put pressure on any country that will demonstrate undesirable behavior. Such actions only force other countries to look for contacts to ensure their own economic, political and military security from the actions of Washington, as well as its satellites. Moreover, if earlier Washington defined its opponents in the form of the so-called new "axis of evil" - China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua - now Washington finds a "violation of human rights" in India for refusing to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation. But the Western media have long promoted it as an alternative to China in order to play on the contradictions between Beijing and New Delhi. In addition, the new presidential candidate of Brazil, Lula da Silva, proposed the creation of a pan-Latin American currency called Sur to free itself from the US dollar (the late Muammar Gaddafi wanted to create the same thing, but only for Africa). Do not pick up the phone in Saudi Arabia. Sheikhs do not want to either condemn the special operation in Ukraine, or increase oil production to weaken Russia's position in the market. Brazil's new presidential candidate, Lula da Silva, proposed the creation of a pan-Latin American currency called Sur to free itself from the US dollar (the late Muammar Gaddafi wanted to create the same thing, but only for Africa). Do not pick up the phone in Saudi Arabia. Sheikhs do not want to either condemn the special operation in Ukraine, or increase oil production to weaken Russia's position in the market. Brazil's new presidential candidate, Lula da Silva, proposed the creation of a pan-Latin American currency called Sur to free itself from the US dollar (the late Muammar Gaddafi wanted to create the same thing, but only for Africa). Do not pick up the phone in Saudi Arabia. Sheikhs do not want to either condemn the special operation in Ukraine, or increase oil production to weaken Russia's position in the market.

As the new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz noted, introducing one package of sanctions after another, the West punishes the Russian Federation for violating precisely the notorious “rules”, that is, the neo-colonial system established by the United States, acquired after the destruction of the USSR. Of course, large countries, some of which are members of the BRICS, refuse to openly condemn the special operation of the Russian Federation, in particular China, Iran and Brazil, not to mention such as India and Argentina mentioned above. The United States is so self-confident in its omnipotence (even after the defeat in the trade war with China and the flight from Afghanistan) that they still believe that all they have to do is threaten certain countries with new sanctions and disconnection from the colonial financial system led by the IMF and the World bank, so everyone will immediately run to apologize and bow. And when they do not run and do not bow, then this is presented in the Western media almost as a sensation. The morality of the adherents of the "rules" is such that, in their opinion, Russia should be condemned for its actions, while the conduct of wars by the United States and NATO against a number of countries and the commission of war crimes by them cannot be considered a violation of morality. After all, in their opinion, this self-proclaimed world order applies to all countries that are obliged to obey the morality of the "masters" who put their "rules" above the UN Charter. Hence the tone of the statements. who are obliged to obey the morality of the "masters" who put their "rules" above the UN Charter. Hence the tone of the statements. who are obliged to obey the morality of the "masters" who put their "rules" above the UN Charter. Hence the tone of the statements.

On April 4, a quote from Blinken's statement was circulated in the media:

“We find ourselves again in the whirlwind of history. A more assertive China is challenging the rules-based world order that has long been the basis for the security and prosperity of Americans and peoples around the world. The post-Cold War era is over."

Later, on April 7, the London Foreign Office woke up and found that the international security architecture needed to be rebuilt. Liz Truss once again flashed insight.

“We must rebuild our international security architecture. We can no longer work within the framework of outdated agreements with Russia, which she openly ignores and undermines, ”she told The Telegraph. From a sick head to a healthy one.

Familiar words. Nothing new. In the previous section, we just repeatedly walked on the topic of "the world order based on rules." But if earlier there were conversations where everyone said what they wanted, now concrete deeds have already begun. Who and how far is ready to go in confirmation of what was said earlier.

As they say now in Kyiv, "the free world has the right to defend itself." In a certain sense, this is true, since the Western neo-colonial system and representatives of its political leadership perceive the policies of the PRC, the Russian Federation, the IRI, the DPRK and other countries as an attack on the world order they have built. That's why they talk about protection. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that this is not the case. That is why the policy of the West, led by the United States, is fascism, which they call the spread and defense of democracy. That is, their power. Another thing is that this fascism causes different ideological reactions in different countries. But whatever it may be and whatever subjective premises it is based on, objectively different political regimes find a common language for joining forces in the struggle to destroy the existing world order.

It should be pointed out that in addition to maintaining the dominance of the collective West led by the United States, its fascism of today is aimed at:

1. Liquidation of the national liberation movement and any centers of resistance to the West;

2. Spreading the most reactionary and obscurantist ideologies in order to divert Western capital, foundations, media, NGOs, etc. from resistance, with subsequent redirection to the fight against the enemies of the West under the guise of "struggle for independence", etc.;

3. Using the discontent of the population with certain political regimes in other countries to redirect this discontent in favor of the West and the subsequent transfer of power in them under its control;

4. The elimination of all remnants of the gains of the era of the USSR in the post-Soviet space and work towards preventing the growth of sentiments of what is now called "social justice" and a positive attitude towards the communist past, not to mention the struggle for communism.

As I already wrote, in the United States, after leaving Afghanistan, imperialist ideologists are arguing about two lines of support for their hegemony - either through direct armed intervention, in support of which former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke out, or through the use of "soft power" with the help of an extensive media systems, NGOs, special services and their own agents in different countries of the world, including inciting regional conflicts. So far, the second line has prevailed. In addition, I noted that this decision is associated with new conditions in which Americans can no longer feel as at ease as before:

“It is not at all about the rejection of the “export of democracies”, but only about how this will happen in the future. In new conditions. Moreover, the further, the more the appetites of the West will not coincide with its real economic opportunities. That is why Biden linked the exit from Afghanistan with the need to concentrate resources for further confrontation with the PRC and the Russian Federation.

In the new conditions, the United States will fight by proxy, using previously accumulated cadres and groups. In addition, it should be understood that even when the Americans used their army during invasions, they did this not only to achieve victory over the enemy, but also to create and maintain political chaos, under the guise of which they implemented their own projects to rob countries. Now, for this, they will make more intensive use of "local natives", who are not sorry. That will allow the American military-industrial complex not to rust and enrich itself on the blood and corpses of these "fighters" for democracy. But the communist countries, as well as the major regional imperialists, have already well studied the methods of the Americans and have developed their own methods of counteraction, which is why the effectiveness of Washington's efforts will inevitably fall. What we see in Ukraine and what we saw earlier this year in Kazakhstan. And China's desire to deepen cooperation with the CSTO speaks just to confirm these words. Gradually losing power and being limited in resources, the West will incite wars and conflicts throughout the planet. Consequently, this will lead to the need for the ruthless and widespread destruction of Western agents of influence in all its forms.

The entry of the CSTO troops into Kazakhstan after the coup attempt in January of this year immediately made itself felt by all collaborators on the territory of the former USSR. Polish, Baltic, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian fascists on the one hand. On the other hand, gangs and groups of "moderate opposition" in the Middle East. During the operation in Kazakhstan, we saw how the “symbol of the Syrian revolution” Hasna Hariri, and the “singer of the Syrian revolution” Faisal al-Qasem, and NEXTA, supervised by the Polish special services, and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and the “Congress of Russian Intelligentsia” merged in a single impulse, and the Kyiv regime. Despite their diversity, they all spoke almost the same words, from which we can conclude that they have one owner.

From this it should be concluded that there is no objective difference between the militants of the Ukrainian Azov, Aidar, Misanthropic division, Centuria and any of the groups that swore allegiance to the Islamic State. Some with swastikas and symbols of the Dirlewanger SS division pinned on their chests are ready to kill for “independent Ukraine” and “live Belarus”, while others are ready to cut off their heads for their own interpretation of Islam. But the point, of course, is not in Islam and not in the "ridges", but in serving Western imperialism. For example. The Kyiv regime supports adherents of the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami group operating in Crimea, headquartered in London. It was also supported by Memorial, which was recently banned in the Russian Federation. Also, the work of the center was associated with the support of the Tablighi Jamaat group, whose militants were detained in Kazakhstan. That is, there is a very obvious connection between the fascists from Eastern Europe and the jihadists fighting in Syria under the control of the United States, the European Union and England. And above all this, there is a huge superstructure in the form of the media, Western NGOs and "human rights organizations" covering terrorist networks. Remember how the entire Western press and human rights activists were hysterical after the arrest of Roman Protasevich, editor-in-chief of the NEXTA Telegram channel? And later information appeared that this subject fought as part of the Azov fascists. But this did not at all embarrass European journalists and human rights activists. As soon as it became clear that Protasevich was a waste material, everyone forgot about him. Western NGOs and "human rights organizations" that cover terrorist networks. Remember how the entire Western press and human rights activists were hysterical after the arrest of Roman Protasevich, editor-in-chief of the NEXTA Telegram channel? And later information appeared that this subject fought as part of the Azov fascists. But this did not at all embarrass European journalists and human rights activists. As soon as it became clear that Protasevich was a waste material, everyone forgot about him. Western NGOs and "human rights organizations" that cover terrorist networks. Remember how the entire Western press and human rights activists were hysterical after the arrest of Roman Protasevich, editor-in-chief of the NEXTA Telegram channel? And later information appeared that this subject fought as part of the Azov fascists. But this did not at all embarrass European journalists and human rights activists. As soon as it became clear that Protasevich was a waste material, everyone forgot about him.

The West is undermining its position, as it has to spend more and more effort to maintain its influence, which only leads to the strengthening of the position of China and the Russian Federation. A rather serious “bell” for the United States was the results of the “Summit for Democracy”, which took place on December 9-10, 2021. Despite the fact that it was preceded by so many conversations and expectations, in fact, this forum turned out to be an extremely rotten event, which was forgotten almost the next day. But for many months in the United States they threatened that Biden would put together a powerful “coalition of democracies” and lead a crusade against autocracies. And what is the result? Zilch.

It is already clear that Washington has no one left, except for its satellites from the G7 club, whom it is inciting first to the PRC, then to the Russian Federation. And also in the reserve regimes such as Kyiv and Taiwan, and all sorts of "moderate oppositionists" - fighters for democracy.

It is now obvious that the United States is trying to drag out the military conflict in Ukraine as much as possible, using all its resources. Here, for example, is what the former head of the US Special Operations Command in Europe, retired Major General Mike Repass, proposes for victory in Ukraine:

1. The United States and allies (France, Poland, Great Britain, Germany) should assist in the formation of strategic forces within the Armed Forces of Ukraine from five brigades with a total number of 40 thousand fighters and their training on their territory;

2. Equip the brigades with Western weapons and equipment;

3. Ukraine is able to find the specified number of soldiers, given the current situation in the country;

4. It takes six to eight months to implement the plan.

They are trying to do something similar in other places, for the future. For example, in Taiwan. But the Taiwanese regime is already queuing up for the arms that Kyiv needs now.

The West is no longer in a position to expand in the form of coups in other countries, so now its plans are to keep the previously won positions based on the existing economic and military reserves.

Special operation and fascism live
As the negotiations on security guarantees of the Russian Federation have shown, the West in its current state is a priori not capable of negotiating. He does not want to listen to the arguments of either side. And if under Stalin and Khrushchev he was still quite capable of negotiating, because he understood what kind of political force was opposing him, today, 30 years after the victory in the First Cold War, he simply demands the unquestioning implementation of his orders. The reason is not that, despite all the military power of the PRC and the Russian Federation, he does not see them as equal opponents, but that he perceives the political process through the prism of “rules” known only to him within the framework of the existing neo-colonial system. That is why the White House was ready to negotiate with the Kremlin only on items that were of interest to it, but did not want to make any concessions on the global agenda.

The significance of the special operation in the context of the new Cold War should be assessed at three levels:

1. Changes at the political level. The beginning of the special operation revealed two things that are denied in the West. The first is that Western countries are in the minority. All active actions against the Russian Federation are taken exclusively in the West. The rest of the major countries have either taken a neutral position or refrain from commenting. Secondly, the support of the Russian Federation is much greater than the disapproval of its actions. The opposite feeling is formed solely due to the fact that the Western media, retaining the role of global newsmakers, are trying to create the impression that the Russian Federation is doomed. So far, the Kremlin's support is not as active as one would like. But it will increase as the special operation is successfully completed, after which another powerful reputational blow will be dealt to the West;

2. Changes in the global economy. The steps that non-Western foreign governments and companies are forced to take regarding trade with the Russian Federation and work in the Russian Federation are primarily due to the reluctance to fall under sanctions in the conditions of the neo-colonial financial system tied to the US and EU economies. But in this way, the construction of parallel systems was begun, within which it is possible to trade without fear of sanctions. Consequently, the economic superiority of the West can be maintained exactly as long as parallel financial systems do not become more convenient than the Western one. In fact, the steps taken by the Western countries lead to their isolation;

3. Changes in the military alignment. The special operation is a big advertisement for the Russian military-industrial complex, whose successes in the West are trying to be interrupted by flows of disinformation. It was exactly the same in Syria, where the advanced developments of Russian military specialists were worked out. The demonstrative launch of the Sarmat missile was made not only to impress Western decision-making centers... It is no secret that the Ukrainian campaign of the Russian Federation is being closely studied by the PRC Ministry of Defense. While the Russian Federation is grinding the fascists in Ukraine and diverting most of the attention to itself, the PRC is strengthening its military ties with Central Asia, with Iran and is ready to cooperate with the CSTO, strengthening its positions in the South China Sea, on the Solomon Islands (which especially infuriated the United States) ... ;

4. Changes on the ideological front. By covering and defending the Kyiv regime, the West perfectly shows its face, what values ​​it defends. Of course, this was clear before. But now that the United States and Europe have been defeated, and a show trial of Kyiv criminals and captured NATO generals and military officers who secretly helped and advised the Kyiv regime will be held, the idea of ​​Western superiority will be significantly reduced. When the hard facts of US activity in Ukraine and the crimes of the Kyiv regime itself are presented in full detail, other countries will be able to speak more openly and freely, expressing criticism of the US and its European satellites.

Of course, the United States and the European Union, which have been supporting the Kyiv regime economically and politically for so many years, cannot look at this indifferently, since in fact we are talking about the destruction of their political project, and therefore they turned on their media machine to the maximum and drag Zelensky's parsley to all parliaments " free world” with a short program, where he talks with a sad face about how “Azov” in the catacombs of “Azovstal” defends democracy. I note that they don’t want to see his drunken face anywhere else outside the “free world”. As an example, it is worth noting that the US has had to turn on serious pressure on the President of Indonesia to persuade him to invite his favorite toy to the G20 summit due to take place in November. Of course, only because Putin will be present there.

For seven long years, the collective West did not care about the genocide of the people of Donbass, but now The Economist is placing the bloody flag of Ukraine on its cover, and Time is Zelensky’s words: “Life overcomes death, ”, that is, not the absence of wars, but the place where humanity lives - but “light”, i.e. light). This is what fascism propaganda looks like today.

I have already seen some episodes from Western political programs, where the presenters during the live broadcast try to ignore the questions about where all these mourners were for eight years, claiming that Putin allegedly kills the civilian population of Ukraine, when Kyiv purposefully exterminated the population of the LDNR. Those who ask these uncomfortable questions are either trying to shut their mouths or simply kicked out of the studio.

Until now, not a single study has been conducted where it would be really documented and proven that the Russian army deliberately exterminates the population of Ukraine. And why is it needed at all? Look at the provocations in Bucha and Kramatorsk. No expertise is required. Meaning is nothing, informational “hype” is everything. The culprit is appointed immediately. Even the fact that the Tochka-U missile is used exclusively by the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not taken into account. Not to mention the fact that the footage of the shelling of the Donetsk Armed Forces is given out by the Western media as Russian bombing of Ukraine. French journalist Anne-Laure Bonnel, who has been working in the Donbas since 2015, said live on the national TV channel CNews that she has evidence of the destruction of the population of the LDNR by the Ukrainian army. Of course, they listened to her, but part of the recording was cut out. That's what "freedom of speech" is. But it is already reported that the screenwriter of the series "House of Cards" Beau Willimon came to Ukraine to make a film about the events about the "atrocities" in Bucha. What is the difference between Hollywood and the White Helmets now?

As rightly noted in the Russian Foreign Ministry, this technology was first worked out by German propaganda against the Red Army after it left the city of Nemersdorf in October 1944. Nowadays, we are all seeing similar fakes online in Syria, not to mention the stories with Litvinenko and the Skripals. The best weapon against such informational sabotage is logic. Since these "blockbusters" with catchy posters and inscriptions on the front pages of the European and American press are not intended to respond to logical arguments. We have repeatedly observed the work of this complex - the government, intelligence agencies, the armed forces, non-profit organizations and the media. Special services under the leadership of the authorities are developing an operation, after which, at the appointed hour, the play begins with further “pumping” the necessary interpretation of what is happening through all information channels, after which politicians are connected with pre-prepared statements to justify certain actions. The goal is to present the desired country in the guise of "world evil", against which any actions are justified. However, in the Western media, a whole genre has long been singled out under the "atrocities of the Russian troops." We open any Western media and we will definitely find some kind of horror story about the adventures of Wagner in Africa. And always with a bloody trail and mass rapes from anonymous sources. However, in the Western media, a whole genre has long been singled out under the "atrocities of the Russian troops." We open any Western media and we will definitely find some kind of horror story about the adventures of Wagner in Africa. And always with a bloody trail and mass rapes from anonymous sources. However, in the Western media, a whole genre has long been singled out under the "atrocities of the Russian troops." We open any Western media and we will definitely find some kind of horror story about the adventures of Wagner in Africa. And always with a bloody trail and mass rapes from anonymous sources.

The very emergence of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation and the Luhansk and Donetsk republics under the wing of the Russian Federation is evidence that the West, led by the United States, can no longer freely determine political geography on an arbitrary basis. Of course, in addition to the Donbass, there were and are other hot spots in the world in which the interests of the global imperialist and the regional imperialists clashed, but now the US global political initiative is gradually depleted. China and the Russian Federation are pushing the US and the EU out of Africa, developing support for Latin American countries. Receiving infrastructure support from China and military support from the Russian Federation, the authorities of African countries receive leverage that allows them to stop being hostages of the West, which was interested in supporting constant wars under the pretext of combating terrorism. Accordingly, every kilometer squeezed from the West,

For example, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte, during a television talk show, said to Putin: "Of course, this man is completely insane." Of course ... Although you can still recall the words of Johnson during his last visit to India:

“Negotiating with Putin is like bargaining with a crocodile that has grabbed your leg.”

Indeed, it is much more pleasant to do business with the accommodating "native leaders" from Eastern Europe. At the same time, Rutte does not consider everything that the Kyiv regime and its executioners did as madness, because the Netherlands, along with England, are its investors interested in introducing the relevant information agenda into the minds of Ukrainians through controlled media.

Of course, Putin is a liberal nationalist, an anti-communist, and some of his statements about Ukraine are pure chauvinism. However, objectively, the Russian Federation under Putin is one of the main forces directed against Western hegemonism. And the longer this struggle continues, the more the Russian people get rid of Western illusions. And more and more proletarians understand that if the Russian Federation collapses now, the West will install the same fascism here as in Ukraine, and destroy the country, and at the same time take all the necessary resources into their hands. It will be possible to forget about freedom and legality for the communists altogether. The leftists and liberal detractors of Putin, although they think differently, but in the same direction. The Western liberal simply wants to continue what Hitler did not achieve, and the pacifist-leftist, who argues thatThe Left and the special operation of the Russian Federation "), in his idiocy helps Western fascism.

The entire Western bourgeoisie, which has centuries of experience in conquering and colonizing peoples around the world, cannot relate to Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, Nicolas Maduro, the late Fidel Castro and other leaders differently. She was raised on a morality of double standards. Other peoples of the world, in her opinion, should not and cannot have independent leaders. That is why Western propaganda tells its inhabitants about terrible "dictators" and their "crimes", which they portray as fools, idiots, crazy, mentally ill. It spreads the same picture of the world in its conquered colonies and educates the local masses in the same spirit as its own. And, of course, he imposes his butchers everywhere - Churchills, Roosevelts, Trumans, Reagans, Thatchers and others in the form of "great peacemakers" and "brilliant rulers".

As I already wrote, for the refined Western capitalist, grown in the fascist paradigm of moral and any other superiority over all other peoples, as well as for the local layman (in his mass), who for decades was daily grown and stuffed with the same propaganda, not only Russians, but and the peoples of the former USSR as a whole have never been people. Maximum talking animals. People could recognize us only in words, when in 1991 we abandoned communism, began to build capitalism, recognize the Western way of life and consumer culture as reference. That is, to lead a so-called "normal" or "civilized" lifestyle. Which was explained only and only by the need for interaction in the market. Moreover, even those few sympathizers of the USSR and local communists who were and are in Europe and the USA, they are perceived there as a foreign body or simply as crazy, subject to censure and cure. But now, after the war in Donbass, we have once again clearly seen how they treat us. That is, to those of us who refused to betray the land of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers and the memory of them even after thirty years of capitalism. There is no need to be deceived on this score and assume that the Western bourgeois once thought that the Russian bourgeois could be "on the same footing" with him. Never. All of us, without exception, are natives, divided only for the sake of convenience into “good” (that is, useful) and “bad”, which must be democratized. And Western diplomacy, both under the Soviet Union and now, has worked and is working in the same direction - to tame some in order to use them against others. And therefore, the attempts to play nobility proclaimed by the Russian Foreign Ministry in order to “sober up” the West and return its diplomacy to the mainstream of “civilized behavior” is another illusion of the inflamed bourgeois consciousness. It will never be appreciated. Times were not appreciated even after 1945. On the contrary, the Red Banner over the Reichstag frightened them and made them even more angry. And we, because of the prevailing Trotskyist line in the CPSU, have weakened the pressure. Whereas it was necessary, on the contrary, to strengthen more and more.

According to Lavrov, the special operation in Ukraine is aimed at destroying the American world order. In turn, German Chancellor Scholz said that in no case should the victory of the Russian Federation be allowed. These are words that describe the two objective positions of the parties in the new Cold War. They once again show the very idea that we, the entire team of Proryv and Proryvist, are constantly trying to convey to lovers of democracy in the form of all kinds of leftists - fascism is an integral part of democracy, and not its opposite. Fascism is the ideological and political superstructure on the basis of state-monopoly capitalism. And what cannot take place in the so-called multicultural and tolerant Europe, which defiantly fights with local lovers of posing, is very possible in countries such as Ukraine, which does not prevent us from calling them democratic. And in this, again, there is no contradiction.

Fascism does not contradict democracy. But only two categories of idiots will not understand this truth: the first have stalled on the dogmatic understanding of the definition of Georgy Dimitrov, while others believe that “fascism is Mussolini, and Nazism is Hitler”, etc., and not at all those financial wallets that gave them money to buy shirts of the right color. It's extremely hard to get this crap out of your head. However, those who do not want to eliminate this gap in knowledge may well get a gap in the skull.

At first glance, a mannered official of the structures of the European Union with a fine mental organization and a tattooed admirer of the SS division "Galicia" have nothing in common with each other. But this is only at first glance. For the pro. In reality, they stand for the same thing - for the domination of the West and its right to plunder the peoples with the help of NATO. Only one does this in quiet corridors and offices of European structures, and the other in the trenches in the Donbass. The same can be said about the Islamists in the Middle East.

As I. Ivanov writes in the article " A guaranteed way to denazify Ukraine ":

“The layman does not understand that under capitalism both liberal-democratic and fascist currents exist and develop simultaneously. These currents not only do not contradict each other, but under certain circumstances fruitfully cooperate with each other. Do we not observe in modern democratic bourgeois countries how democratic freedoms and social guarantees are being destroyed everywhere? Don't we see how, as the economic crisis worsens and social unrest grows, the ruling class of the capitalist countries tightens legislation everywhere, more and more resorting to open forms of terror?

Are you saying that there are only 2-3% of stubborn Nazis in society and you shouldn’t make a tragedy out of this? But 2-3% are stupid fighters, torpedoes painted with a swastika. They will be directed and controlled by decent gentlemen in expensive and beautiful suits with a liberal or social democratic official agenda. And believe me, for you to disappear from this world, these 3% are more than enough. The remaining 97% will simply keep quiet: some will applaud the national heroes who dealt with the enemies of the Fatherland, while others will tremble with fear behind the curtains.

The same was written by V. Podguzov in the article " The market and fascism ":

“It was the victory of the market economy that was needed, so that in the Baltic countries and in Ukraine, the demonstrations of old and young fascists turned into almost a favorite spectacle of the native population. Now Russian journalists of democratic nationality, who have done everything necessary for the mass revival of the carriers of the "Holocaust", i.e., the fascists in the Russian Federation, with feigned indignation, conduct lengthy reports from Nazi sabbaths or places of undermining people who tried to remove anti-Semitic posters.

Was it possible to imagine, before the establishment of market relations in the USSR, that columns of national jerks with a swastika on their sleeves were marching on the streets of Moscow? This was absolutely out of the question. Now, the swastika on the sleeves and walls of the market Moscow is as common as the "non-independence" prostitutes on Tverskaya. Today, in all the media of the market-driven Russian Federation, the word “fascists” in the news has become as familiar as the word, for example, “precipitation” in weather forecasts.”

The Kremlin has repeatedly emphasized that the special operation will be brought to an end and no sanctions will interfere with this. The fascists from Eastern Europe and the Islamists of the Middle East are the last strongholds of democracy, which should serve as watchdogs guarding the borders of the "free world" from "authoritarian subhumans." They are absolutely dependent on the support of the West, which qualitatively distinguishes them from Hamas, Hezbollah or the Taliban.

It is in this that the statements of the current representatives of the Kyiv regime completely coincide with the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism a hundred years ago. But without an important clarification, this will only be a half-truth. And it consists in what analysts in the largest Chinese political party publications have long written about: that the United States needs the Kyiv regime not only to irritate the Russian Federation, but also to deter Europe from gaining what they call strategic autonomy. To keep the EU under control, it needs an enemy. In this light, the meaning of Scholz's words is even better revealed. However, it does not hurt to add the words of the EU representative for external relations and security policy, Josep Borrell, that "this war must be won on the battlefield." That is, they intend to fight to the last Ukrainian.

In this regard, it is interesting to hear what the British say, who, after creating a tripartite alliance with the Polish and Kyiv regimes, no longer hide their ambitions in Eastern Europe. Secretary of Defense Ben Wallace stated the following:

“If it were my decision, then I would like Putin to return not just to the pre-February borders – he needs to be thrown out of Donetsk and Crimea. Putin must fail."

No less interesting statement was made by his henchman James Hippie:

“It is absolutely legitimate for Ukraine to launch strikes deep in Russia to disrupt logistics, if these supplies are not disrupted, then this will directly lead to death and bloodshed on the territory of Ukraine.”

It is immediately clear in whose interests the Kyiv regime is working. London behaves as if the territory of Ukraine is its property. Let me remind you that this is the same Wallace who previously gave out military secrets to well-known Russian pranksters, after which the British Ministry of Defense blocked videos from his talking shop all over YouTube. And then he said nothing. According to him, London is ready to help the Kyiv regime in the development of nuclear weapons. And now again. That is why the Russian Federation put forward a proposal to NATO for new security guarantees and launched a special operation.

As you can see, the statements of the patrons of the Kyiv regime from Europe, England and the United States are no different from the statements of the leaders of the terbats, people's deputies and the generals of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is all one economic, political and military mechanism. By the way, here is a publication from the Ukrainian Forbes:

“It will be more difficult to refuel tanks. There are 18 Russian oil depots near Ukraine, two burned down. Where are the others?".

That is, objects for terrorist attacks are openly discussed in the press. And making statements about the need to kill Putin and Russians is not considered insanity in the West. Why be surprised after the open assassination of IRGC General Qasem Soleimani and Muammar Gaddafi?

Observing the above-described political processes taking place in the European Union, you understand how absurd and ridiculous the questions about whether Ukraine will be accepted into the European Union and NATO look. Since all the efforts with which the West helps Kyiv with weapons, and the European Union tried to save Azov, there should be no doubt that Ukraine and the European Union are united. Moreover, speaking to the European Parliament on May 9, French President Macron said that

"Ukraine, by its struggle and courage, has proved that it is a heartfelt member of our Europe, our family, our union."

By the way, the Chinese foreign policy publication Global Times admits that the war in Ukraine may gradually develop into a major European war.

“The US made Ukraine a de facto NATO member because there has never been a specific NATO member that has received as much support from the US and other members of the alliance as Ukraine, especially in terms of military equipment,” says strategic weapons expert Song Zhongping. .

As you can see, my assessments are quite similar to those of Chinese experts.

The new world order that should replace the current one will not be able to finally take place while the West has the current economic, political and military capabilities. He must be deprived of them. But this time the capture of Berlin, Paris, Brussels and many other cities in Europe will be useless without the conquest of England. Russian tanks must enter London and eliminate what is now called Great Britain or the United Kingdom. It is impossible to fight a neo-colonial system that has been built up over centuries without dealing a death blow to its heart.

Another thing is what modern bourgeois Russia is like with its meager opportunities, oligarchic economy and anti-people regime. Firstly, it is not capable of playing such a role, and secondly, it is itself an imperialist country, the basis of which, as it grows stronger, projects similar fascist tendencies into the superstructure (“Russian World”, Dugin’s Eurasianism, etc.). If some ordinary Russian and Donbass soldiers are fighting with thoughts of restoring the USSR and social justice, then the military-political leadership of the Russian Federation is “pragmatically” pursuing a policy of fighting for a “sphere of influence” in Eastern Europe. As the military conflict deepens, Russian society itself is splitting, as the proletariat tends to pro-Soviet nostalgia, and the bourgeoisie to the division of the spoils of the conquered territories.
Concluded in following post.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sat Aug 06, 2022 11:37 am

Continued from previous post.
Denazification and anti-fascism on the example of the Russian Federation

As they now write in the Western press, on February 24, the Russian Federation committed an unprovoked aggression against a democratic state. Just like on August 8, 2008 against the regime of Georgia headed by Mikheil Saakashvili. In reality, this is not so. It doesn’t matter who struck first, especially since the civil war in Ukraine has been going on since 2014. It is important to know whose fight is fair. The struggle of the people of Donbass is fair, although the choice in favor of the bourgeois Russian Federation against Bandera Ukraine is the choice of the best of the worst. As for the position of the Russian Federation, the Kremlin tolerated NATO's eastward advance for a long time and repeatedly offered to agree on the creation of a new security architecture in Europe, but its proposals remained unheeded, therefore, a phase of open military conflict to oust the US and NATO from Eastern Europe is not something unexpected. Capitalism is war, and fighting is only its most consistent form.

If we argue from the standpoint of the political logic of the behavior of the Russian Federation, then the military operation was appropriate back in 2014-2015, and the people of Donbass expected it. The Russian Federation had every right to support the uprising of Donbass due to the fact that it was the United States and the European Union that were directly involved in the process of overthrowing the previous authorities, turning Ukraine into a colony and unleashing a full-fledged civil war. But the cowardice and weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie played a cruel joke, and now tens of thousands of Russian and Donetsk soldiers, civilians and Ukrainian warriors drugged by nationalism are dying.

For all the declarative goals of the Russian Federation to fight fascism, there are significant problems with understanding the essence of fascism due to the objective class anti-communist orientation of power. However, the difference between the political regime in the Russian Federation and its Eastern European counterparts on the issue of attitude to the Soviet past is that it aims to preserve capitalism and the power of the local bourgeois class, while in Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, etc., this policy pursues the goal of preserving the colonial consciousness of the local population, which should be educated on similar examples of collaborators of the past and prevent the emergence of any sympathy for communism. That is why anti-communism is an integral element of the Maidans in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

It follows from this that anti-communism and the emphasized counter-revolutionary nature of the regime in the Russian Federation directly affect the understanding of the goals of the special operation and the denazification itself. The introduction of the ideology that the October Revolution was a catastrophe, not to mention the historical assessment of the role of Lenin, is most directly reflected in the assessment of the Great Patriotic War. The actions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in Ukraine in the federal media are identified with the actions of the Red Army, but still, in addition to protecting their native land, the goals of the Red Army in the war against the Nazis differed significantly from the goals of the special operation in Ukraine. The goal of the Red Army was to protect the gains of the October Revolution and communism, which was reflected not only in the mass consciousness, but also in the charters. Accordingly, from this point of view, "denazification" raises the question of whether how is it possible without the above goals. In other words, form and content do not match. Then it was about the liberation of the occupied territories of the Soviet Union with the subsequent liberation of European countries and the spread of communism. Whereas now the goal is to liberate Ukraine from a hostile political regime and include its territory in one form or another in the orbit of influence of the Russian Federation, that is, without changing the socio-economic system. And if the Bolsheviks perfectly understood what fascism and capitalism are, how they are connected, now there are big problems with this in the Russian Federation at the grassroots level. Whereas now the goal is to liberate Ukraine from a hostile political regime and include its territory in one form or another in the orbit of influence of the Russian Federation, that is, without changing the socio-economic system. And if the Bolsheviks perfectly understood what fascism and capitalism are, how they are connected, now there are big problems with this in the Russian Federation at the grassroots level. Whereas now the goal is to liberate Ukraine from a hostile political regime and include its territory in one form or another in the orbit of influence of the Russian Federation, that is, without changing the socio-economic system. And if the Bolsheviks perfectly understood what fascism and capitalism are, how they are connected, now there are big problems with this in the Russian Federation at the grassroots level.

On this topic, I already wrote in the article " People without a Motherland ":

“When they talk about Nazism in Ukraine in the Kremlin and on federal channels, then Nazis mean all those who wear Nazi symbols, engage in Nazi propaganda on social networks, distribute relevant literature, paraphernalia and goods, commit murders motivated by racial and cultural hatred, include into the corresponding groups, etc. That is, Nazism is presented as evil, but the ideology of Banderaism is presented as the source of this evil. Thus, the reason is sought not in the institution of private property itself, the immanent properties of which give rise to inequality and fascism proper, which, by the way, were pointed out by such anti-fascists of the past as Bertolt Brecht, but in the fact that there is an insufficient fight against extremism. Based on the above position, then fascism can be fought endlessly.

At the Victory Parade in 1945, Soviet soldiers threw fascist banners at the foot of the Lenin Mausoleum, which should prompt our contemporaries to think about what the war was for. Now the Mausoleum is shyly draped on Victory Day. Hence the question: if denazification, then at the foot of what will Ukrainian soldiers, and in the future, NATO banners and trophies, be thrown by Russian soldiers? Apparently, to the foot of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior or to the foot of the Gazprom office. Is this what anti-fascism looks like now? But this is a rhetorical question. If anyone does not understand. After all, as Lavrov said, the Russian Federation, unlike the Soviet Union, has no ideology and no desire to impose its way of life on anyone. On the one hand, this is, of course, good. But this does not make it any clearer what the struggle is being fought for. What, for example, China is fighting for is perfectly clear and does not raise questions. But what is the purpose of denazification in the Russian Federation? For the sake of a bun and a tram, as in the movie libel about Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya? Or like a character in the film "Tourist" about Russian PMC fighters in the Central African Republic - if the Americans are for democracy, then we are for justice?

At the same time, I do not want anyone to get the impression that I am trying to belittle the exploits of the Russian military in the fight against the Kyiv regime. The General Staff set goals for them that must be fulfilled, but there is also an ideological part of the issue, which, in my opinion, is no less serious than the military one.

The issue of denazification is directly related to the attitude towards Lenin and his legacy. And this aspect is especially significant. Therefore, to drape or not to drape the Mausoleum on May 9, whether to “rebrand” Lenin after the spread of tales about him as a “German spy” and a “revolution funded by the German General Staff” is only part of the political show, the same as the question of the monument Dzerzhinsky at the Lubyanka. This will in no way bring closer the understanding that denazification cannot be carried out without decapitalization. Unfortunately, the majority of Russians, like Ukrainians, comprehend politics at the level of interpretations and opinions without penetrating the essence of the phenomenon. And no one thinks that the political processes taking place now and the existing regimes on the territory of the former USSR are a direct denial of the Great October Revolution and the Great Victory.

In this case, it would not be superfluous to recall once again that Putin, as is well known, also advocates the de-ideologization of the feat of the Soviet people. But if the authorities stop draping the Mausoleum, then it will not be difficult to imagine the reaction of the Western media, as well as the United States, the European Union and Eastern European regimes. The behavior of both sides is extremely predictable not only in terms of motives, but also in terms of reaction. It is all the more strange when the left advocates for the Kremlin to stop draping the Mausoleum. Well, let's say that in the Kremlin they will go to a meeting and will not do this. What will change from this? Absolutely nothing. They do not notice that all their anti-Kremlin pathos will immediately subside and the essence will be exposed - that what we have before us is nothing more than playing up a political pose. What, after that the Russian Federation will turn into the RSFSR?

Lenin, as one of the greatest Marxists and the creator of the first Soviet state in the history of mankind, was a theoretician and practitioner of communism, and therefore for the Soviet people the question of ideology in the sense that it is now for the capitalist Russian Federation did not arise at all. Since ideology determined the goal of the struggle, while the Russian Federation is just one of many capitalist countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that, while carrying out the “denazification” in the fight against Nazi Germany, the soldiers of the Red Army knew what the war was for, while now, when carrying out the denazification of the Russian Federation, there is nothing to offer in the field of ideology, and therefore, due to idealistic political philosophy, there is no common understanding what fascism is, which in turn leads to the same idealistic content of the idea of ​​denazification.

At the moment, the ideological quintessence of denazification was best expressed by the president of the Historical Perspective Foundation, Natalya Narochnitskaya, whom I mentioned earlier, who said the following:

“Our guys should know that the souls of those who fought in the trenches of Stalingrad, on the Seelow Heights, who raised the flag over the Reichstag, are watching them from above, the soldiers of Suvorov and Kutuzov, who lay down on the Borodino field, are with them, those who fought with them on the Kulikovo field and with Alexander Nevsky on Lake Peipsi. All our Russian army is now praying in heaven, and God does not have the dead and the living. We are all alive for him, as our Fatherland should live.

Our ancestors were people, without a doubt, heroic ... it is thanks to them that we live now. But that's just necrophilia. As in all these religious cults. And God, probably, is also Russian. Or Russian? In Soviet times, we also honored the deeds of heroic ancestors, and the pioneers wrote letters and laid capsules with messages for distant descendants, and all this reverence still evokes only bright and kind emotions. Whereas today the veneration of ancestors has fallen to the level of medieval funeral cults, with priests and candles. And any religion, as you know, is not just one of the forms of escapism and escape from reality, but also an integral companion of nationalism. A nationalist cannot simply bury his ancestors and give them peace. That is why it is worn with them everywhere. Instead of just honoring their memory as great men, who gave their lives for their Fatherland, he needs to be constantly in touch with them, which is why religion is needed. Not to mention the real blasphemy and nonsense - about the praying Red Army soldiers in heaven. This is real historical fantasy.

Representatives of the current Russian government think in the same direction. It would seem that denazification… But Medvedev argues with Europe about Christian values:

“History will put everything in its place and show which side is right. Who became the custodian of true Christian values, protecting them from atheists, bandits and nationalists. Who kept a single cultural code of communication between the peoples of Europe, based on the Christian faith. Who stood up for people who lived in isolation for years, subjected to violence and destruction. For this, Russia has to go its own way. It won't be easy."

Is this what the fight is for? Fighting the Nazis, did the Red Army also fight for this? Although, watching in modern Russian cinema praying Red Army soldiers with miraculous icons that bring victory, you are no longer surprised ... But what President of Belarus Lukashenko said at the opening of the monument to Metropolitan Filaret:

“We all see very well that the biblical battle between good and evil is not over. Even today it goes all over the planet under various circumstances and in the most unusual guises. How such a confrontation ends is clearly visible in our native and fraternal Ukraine.”

Is this what denazification is for? If yes, then there are no questions.

And here is how Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev understands the ongoing process of denazification:

“Europe is already facing the activation of officially prohibited manifestations of fascism and neo-Nazism, as, together with migrants from Ukraine, criminals fed by Bandera with neo-Nazi views are fleeing the inevitable criminal prosecution. This will lead to a revival of Nazi ideas in Europe, to manifestations that not so long ago were considered impossible. The growth of ultra-right sentiments, fueled by tens of thousands of trained and combat-experienced Ukrainian radicals, who have already found a common language with Hitler's European fans, cannot be ruled out.

It is somehow rather weak for an analyst at the level of an entire secretary of the Security Council, given everything I have said above.

“Now history is repeating itself. The West still provides the most active support to Ukrainian neo-Nazis, continuing to pump weapons into Ukraine,” he continues.

Commenting on another question, Patrushev lists the crimes of Americans in the wars after World War II, but does not consider them Nazis. Probably because they called themselves democrats, not Nazis. This is all really perverted logic that passes off the effect as the cause.

Patrushev's interview proves once again that the Kremlin and the secret services understand Nazism solely as a political movement in Germany in the 30s and 40s of the previous century, and not as a specific political practice that does not depend on the name of the party, its symbols and rhetoric and is a consequence of the capitalist basis. Accordingly, the question of how the revival of Nazi ideas can occur in the West is a mystery to me personally. And what is now observed in the West with the widespread persecution of everything that has to do with the Russian Federation, and the worship of the United States in order to please Washington - these are not obvious facts of fascism?

The current process of a widespread ban in the West of everything related to Russia and Russian culture does not surprise me, since I have been observing all this with my own eyes since 2014, living in Ukraine. And until February 24 of this year, this barbarism did not bother anyone in Europe from the word at all. As well as the destruction of the population of the LDNR by the Kyiv regime. Now, when the Russian Federation has begun to destroy everything that the United States, the European Union and NATO have created in Ukraine since 2014, the wholesale displacement of everything Russian has begun. In reality, all this is one and the same process, only at different stages with a long history.

For decades after the end of World War II, the United States fed the OUN members, cultivated fascism and hatred for everything Russian in the Ukrainian diaspora, supported just such politicians in Ukraine after 1991, supported the Euromaidan, and then the coup d'état, ruling the country almost manually, trained local death squads in the form of punitive battalions dictated what reforms should be carried out, etc., etc. And now Patrushev believes that Ukrainians who went to Europe will infect Europeans with Nazism. Is it possible by holding seminars on the theory and practice of National Socialism? And what the Americans were doing together with NATO allies after the Second World War and before 1991 and after, is this not Nazism and fascism? Both Nazism and Fascism. Nazism,

The United States and the European Union created the Kyiv regime and supported it throughout this time, and therefore there is no reason not to consider them the same fascists. I will supplement my words with a quote from I. Ivanov from his article “A Guaranteed Way to Denazify Ukraine”:

“Returning to the arguments of the Ukrainian side that fascism cannot exist in Ukraine, since it is legally prohibited, I would like to note the following: we must distinguish between fascism as an ideology, fascism as a political regime and fascism as a method of terror.

Fascist ideology as a way of uniting the poor and the rich on the basis of "blood and soil", as well as a method of terror against dissidents within the country or in solving foreign policy problems, the ruling class can also use in the so-called democratic bourgeois society, which we observe daily in almost every country.

Aren't the ruthless napalm bombings of Vietnam or the McCarthyism in the USA, which was accompanied by the mass repression of "anti-American" citizens with pro-communist views, not a form of terror?

Isn't the modern suppression of dissent in all European bourgeois countries, associated with the cleansing of opinions from the information space that are different from the position of the authorities on the Ukrainian conflict, not fascist methods?

It is only necessary to distinguish, as already mentioned above, fascist methods from the fascist political regime, which is already an open form of suppression of any dissent on the part of the ruling bourgeois class, which is no longer limited by any bourgeois democratic laws.

Now, after millions of Ukrainians have poured into the European Union, ordinary Europeans have got the opportunity to visually see from all sides their brothers, whom their authorities have been growing all these years in Ukraine. And most importantly, get to know their rich inner world. That is, the products that were stuffed with the European and American media, NGOs and other funds. Now, when on the streets of European cities Ukrainian refugees arrange absolutely insane concerts with calls to “kill Rusnya” for the sake of world peace, it suddenly turned out (it has never happened before, and here again) that the propaganda of the Russian Federation did not lie. Nevertheless, calls for the murder and persecution of Russians, which were previously an element of the exclusively news chronicle of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, are gradually spreading to the whole of Europe, which is natural. And no one is going to punish the insane Ukrainians for their expressions. After all, if they are allowed to do this completely freely on Facebook, then why should they be banned on the streets of cities? And if so, would that be a violation of free speech and human rights? That is, calls for murder on a national basis are no longer a violation of the law and human rights. Just like none of the human rights activists noticed the destruction of the people of the LDNR and the burning of people alive in the Odessa House of Trade Unions on May 2, 2014. That is, fascist practices and democratic human rights in the West have not contradicted each other for a long time. would that be a violation of freedom of speech and human rights? That is, calls for murder on a national basis are no longer a violation of the law and human rights. Just like none of the human rights activists noticed the destruction of the people of the LDNR and the burning of people alive in the Odessa House of Trade Unions on May 2, 2014. That is, fascist practices and democratic human rights in the West have not contradicted each other for a long time. would that be a violation of freedom of speech and human rights? That is, calls for murder on a national basis are no longer a violation of the law and human rights. Just like none of the human rights activists noticed the destruction of the people of the LDNR and the burning of people alive in the Odessa House of Trade Unions on May 2, 2014. That is, fascist practices and democratic human rights in the West have not contradicted each other for a long time.

“Don't buy from the Russians. They support Putin,” they write in Frankfurt, Germany, on shops owned by Russians. “A good Russian is a dead Russian” can be seen on stores in London. “Apologize for Putin, and then order,” they write at the entrance to restaurants in Czech Prague. For some Europeans, it turned out that this somehow does not fit with their declared values. Which only exposed their real ignorance. After all, when their politicians urge them to do the same, they are not perplexed. They are immediately explained that, they say, what they mean is not at all what they thought. But it doesn't take a genius to understand that the real inside of the Western bourgeoisie comes out clearly when they are resisted and events do not unfold according to their plan. Declared values ​​are needed for the plebs, who must believe in the ideals of democracy and vote, while the real values ​​are shown in the actions of their politicians. But, apparently, for many Europeans - this is still a "secret with seven seals." Actually, as for Patrushev, for whom the definition of a Nazi is tattoos on the body or involvement in one or another neo-Nazi group.

I have already mentioned that, according to Lavrov, the special operation in Ukraine (and denazification as part of it) marks the beginning of the struggle against the American world order, and Patrushev claims that,

“speaking of denazification, our goal is to destroy the foothold of neo-Nazism created by the efforts of the West at our borders. The need for demilitarization is due to the fact that Ukraine, saturated with weapons, poses a threat to Russia, including from the point of view of the development and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Okay… What's next? Based on Patrushev's words, it turns out that there is no need to either go to the enemy's lair or finish him off there.

So, what is it that today in the Russian Federation is presented as anti-fascism upon close study and reflection?

1. Failure to understand the essence of fascism as a social phenomenon inherent in capitalism in general and the imperialist basis in particular, and therefore the erroneous reduction of it to a variety of extremism and political movement, i.e., the absence of a class and formational characteristic of fascism.

2. Removal from the struggle of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War of the main goal - the preservation of the gains of the October Revolution and the struggle for communism, instead of which supra-class patriotism in the interpretation of the modern Russian Federation is put in the first place, or, in other words, the idea of ​​class reconciliation, i.e. nationalism .

3. Anti-revolutionary, following from the previous paragraph, which pursues the goal of maintaining power by the ruling class and capitalism in general with the expansion of the sphere of influence of Russian capital.

4. The lack of a clear understanding of anti-fascism and filling it with completely reactionary anti-communist meanings, which follows from paragraphs 2 and 3, in order to put him on the wrong path. The anti-fascists of the past who fought in Spain, in the resistance movement in Europe under Nazi occupation, might disagree with the communists on certain issues, but the most progressive of them understood that fascism as a phenomenon cannot be destroyed without the destruction of capitalism. Now it's not like that.

5. Lack of understanding that Western imperialism is the fascism of our day, and therefore it must be fought in the same way as with the previous one, since its goal is the same as that of German fascism - world hegemony and world capitalist slavery.

As Ruslan Ostashko from Politrussia noted in one of his streams, the difference between Russia, on the one hand, and Ukraine and Europe, on the other, is that they destroy and destroy monuments to the soldiers of the Red Army, while we save and restore them. This is certainly important, but no less important is whether we understand correctly what the soldier of the Red Army fought for. Does the Kremlin need it now? After all, if a soldier of the Red Army and the Soviet people fought for the conquests of the October Revolution, then what is it, the Kremlin will condone extremism?

To be continued….

K. Kyiv

https://prorivists.org/63_ncw1/#4
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:33 pm

Opposition Speeches and Communists
Translated by communist-ml.ru

The political impotence of liberal and left-wing opposition is expressed in the same old tricks. Liberals want maximally show Putin’s regime in the negative, anti-democratic color. The Left want to show their arch-revolutionary spirit, to run into the real «battle» with the bourgeois police car, in the face of Special Police Force. Liberals always work under all circumstances, as their political line financially depends on the Western capital. It is important for them to create a reason for work of the Western media, colorfully capture pictures and videos of their «achievements» and take a political stance. In essence, they and their program — it is a bourgeois fuss appendage between «national» capital and their Western partners. A foreign imperialist pays for the liberal opposition, which, however, among the local petty-bourgeois intellectuals has social roots, then to use it as the arguments in the political and economic bargaining.

Leftist opposition — Udaltsov & Co. is the left part of the same petty-bourgeois intellectuals, who decided to play in the revolution and stood under the liberal slogans, allegedly in attempt to deepen the protest. The blurring of their positions and promiscuity of their opinions directly mixes Udaltsov’s followers and their friends of Russian Young Communist League (b) with the Liberals. And if the leaders as Udaltsov likely directly sold themselves out liberals, the ordinary left opposition, which came «to fight» for democracy with the Special Designation police Detachment while was sold only indirectly.

Among the Russian Young Communist League (b) there is a belief, that in any protest it is necessary to participate in the forefront, moving it forward. They make quite reasonable attempts to justify their participation, spending stupid historical analogies and pulling their narrow-minded theoretical layouts under the current situation.

The reason for existence of petty communism and democratic half-communism of Udaltsov is the fact of petty bourgeoisie existence — a special layer which serves as a buffer between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The petty-bourgeois mentality inherent to each proletarian who only thinks it is better to settle, infected by miserliness and careerism, creates the illusion that we can make significant changes without any special efforts and a radical demolition of the existing system. A passive type of thinking is the ordinary petty modern philistinism.

So a philistine forms a political core group of the opposition. If he thinks in a reformist way, it is a liberal. If he thinks revolutionary — it is leftist.

In fact, any public outrage takes a well-trodden path of the bourgeoisie, as all the conditions dictated by the current economic conditions, from which comes a political struggle, as a result of emotional disturbance and ideological mediation of these conditions. Since the masses outrage because of everyday perception of the surrounding social reality, the results of perturbations cannot go beyond the existing social system. Thus, any movement can be considered petit bourgeois, but it is important not only where and how the masses go, it is important who goes and how he is organized. We criticize the opposition for where and how it leads, so we call it a purely petty prostitute in the service of the Western imperialists, or opposition local small and medium capital. The fact, that opposition simply does not stand up the criticism how it is represented in the social composition and how it is organized. This is a thrash of opposition, composed of a few half-dead organizations with loose programs, organized around social networks and around welfare of the bourgeoisie, who were supported by urban youth and petty bourgeoisie of Moscow. This is a socio-political complexion of opposition.

If the labor movement, which consists of proletarians of the physical labor, since they are well-organized, could appear massively with similar political issues (fairness of elections, anti-corruption, against Putin), then we would be required to keep the explanatory work. Then, perhaps, would stand the actual question of the participation with the aim to turn workers from the path of stupid haggling of unclear political demands without any hints on a positive result. But the workers are smarter than our opponents, so that they understand the futility of this fuss. Yes, they are infected with despair and feel meaningless of any struggle, but it does not mean that we have to cure them calling to get involved in any fighting. Despair is, exactly, that they are not satisfied by any struggle.

While the voice of real communists, who are calling first of all to make war against the bourgeoisie in the ideological front, to clean Marxism and apply it to the working masses to create the Communist Party is not on the paper, not in the compromise with opportunism, and indeed truly not will be heard, civil activism and any other liberal opposition fighting the petty bourgeoisie will confuse activity of the proletariat.

The actualization of ideological struggle is due to several things: firstly, the proletariat is silent, it waits until the communists would bring an organization; secondly, we have had exactly the ideological defeat for the proletariat minds; thirdly, it is necessary to dissociate the opportunism completely based on the developed Communist ideology, which is highly responsive for working class problems.

Let’s take, for example, the content of opposition struggle, and answer the question in what way it meets the interests of proletariat? Opposition requires fair elections. Are there really conscious workers who believe in honesty of bourgeois elections? It is even uncomfortable to write for the workers that fair elections are not possible till the question of property is not resolved. Bourgeoisie buys everything — elections, if they «honestly» choose someone who is not the right person, after they will buy an incumbent deputy. They will buy a judge and a panel. Everything is subject of sale. What kind of honesty is in question? About honest contest of money? So, the proletarian’s money is barely enough to cover his family expenses, he doesn’t care about the contest. And can somebody be honest in the market? Market and money competition – this is a priori a deceit. It is awkward to propagandize an obvious thing.

Opposition demands the leaving of Putin. Is it not clear that Putin — is the manager of the big monopolistic bourgeoisie? If to remove Putin and put somebody at his place, what will change? It is clear that those who scream about this, want to take Putin’s place to have a possibility to take an advantage. The proletariat always has a benefit from destabilization of bourgeoisie, the bourgeois government and its state, but to put as the main objective Putin’s leaving that allegedly create a crisis — is too hasty wishful thinking. The proletariat has neither the strength to pull down Putin nor the organization to hold the power. And to get involved in the liberal fray against Putin with a known beforehand zero result – it is an exchange of principles, nothing more. Luting of true goals pursued by the proletarian class.

The opposition wants to overcome a corruption. This point may be the most interesting, because often the active proletarians «knock against» the fight against red tape. The fact, that the Communists and thus working class are not against the corruption of bourgeois system. The corruption it is a way to ensure the loyalty of apparatus consisting of bourgeoisie state performers. Now the bourgeoisie transformed into a big monopoly and launched an anti-corruption campaign against authorities, which is no longer a useful tool for the interests of a small group of oligarchs. Thus, the less corruption in the Russian Federation — the stronger a bourgeois dictatorship. Moreover, the corruption of power is favorable for revolutionary movement in purely utilitarian terms and for an ordinary proletarian it is easier to give a bribe to particular performer, than to feed a crowd of anti-bribetakers.

The working class must be strongly against corruption of its power, because under socialism the corrupt official is a direct agent of the bourgeoisie.

There is also a petty bourgeois myth that government officials, as a special caste of managers, allegedly exploited the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This follows from a misunderstanding of the bourgeois state essence, as an apparatus of violence in the service of the entrepreneurial class. In the end, private owners dictate their conditions for the state, because their direct appointees are selected in the legislative and judicial authorities, and appointed to the executive authorities. State for strong players — it is just a tool and an arbitrator, who expresses common class interests. But for the small and medium entrepreneurs, shopkeepers and artisans, the state – it is a terrible enemy, which pushes them by taxes and regulated bank rates for loans and does not come up to the big bourgeois. Their view it is an above mentioned myth.

The entire opposition struggle is simple fuss about petty and impossible demands. The market creates corruption, Putin’s walk off will not loosen the capitalism and fair elections in a class society sound as nonsense in the service of the bourgeois order, in the spirit of abstract liberalism. Theoretically, the issue of protest is more broadly: «For the bourgeois-democratic revolution». But do we struggle against the remnants of feudalism? Against the landlords, who consolidate the development of capitalism productive forces? It is absurd. May be bourgeois-democratic demands set against the fascist regime? There is also no a direct open dictatorship of imperialism and it couldn’t be yet. While the rest of bourgeoisie fascism spills only from time to time, as in any capitalist society. Again there is a theoretical ignorance to sum theoretical basis for tail-ism in practice. To be afraid of admitting the situation, to refuse to work on the theory, learning and to get up to the liberals and anarchists tail (i.e. in the street fighting to support the anti-fascists) — it is the fate of the Left.

https://prorivists.org/eng_opposition_and_communism/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:45 pm

On sanctions and import substitution
No. 5/69, V.2022

Since 1992, the Russian Federation:

- ruined its own production of technologically complex products;

- closed many areas of R&D and economically suffocated scientific institutions, lost scientific and engineering personnel for high-tech industries;

- ruined the education system;

- lost all potential in machine tool building (the most affected industry);

- from a country with actual autarky in 1991 , the Russian Federation in a few years became a country that produces mainly raw materials, and on imported equipment;

- the program of "import substitution" was systematically plundered, and funds were invested not in development, but in imitation of production, to the point that stickers of organizations registered in the Russian Federation were pasted onto Chinese components.


Thus, the sanctions that block access to high-tech equipment, including critically important ones, such as microprocessor technology, aircraft, aviation parts and materials, urgently require Russian capital to approach the issue of import substitution not formally , but in good faith . For the time being, we can forget who is to blame for the fact that our home-grown imperialists got into the same puddle that they themselves diligently filled with shit.

So, what will Russian capital do under sanctions?

— From the very beginning, it compensates for losses incurred on the foreign market from sanctions on the domestic market . That is, prices will climb up, salaries will remain in place.

— Capital can (or rather, wants to) form import substitution industries exclusively through the state budget. That is, the sawing of Rotenberg with Platon and Chubais with Rosnano is all flowers compared to the shameless robbery of the budget, which will be done by “friends and acquaintances of the Rabbit” from among the oligarchs “for import substitution”.

- Large-scale investments from the budget will at least freeze social payments at the same level. In fact, most likely, they will even be cut.

— The impoverishment of Russians and hostilities, which brought down real wages, the mass of migrants fleeing the war, will create conditions for the formation of “competitive” import-substituting industries that will produce products worse than imported ones (it was necessary to develop technology, and not indulge in an oil pipe with a faucet) and more expensive imported (because the technologies are suboptimal, expensive, and, again, for such a feat, the oligarchs will cut off a fatter piece for themselves - they “suffered from the sanctions”).

- Those technologies that the Russian industry cannot reproduce will be doomed to purchase very expensive products through second or third hands. “Dear Russians” will also pay for this.


In a word, the Russian proletarian will be skinned and will be skinned for a very long time until he creates at least a second Taiwan or Shenzhen somewhere in Novosibirsk. And even after achieving this goal, the proletarians will not stop being skinned, since capitalism is a game where Achilles will never catch up with the tortoise, that is, the salary of the proletarian on average never goes beyond the required minimum. Along with the proletarian, the petty huckster, the petty entrepreneur, will also be skinned, which is joyful and fun for the communists, because it is precisely the petty huckster who is the main conductor and anchor of bourgeois consciousness in the proletariat. The more hopeless and bleak the life of a shopkeeper, the easier it will be for the proletarian to agree with the communists.

Capital will decide what is necessary and important for itself, and at the same time for the revolution, to develop production independent of other capitalist countries, at the expense of social sacrifices and deprivations, on the hump of the proletariat .

WE WILL PAY FOR EVERYTHING , kill everyone who rejoices in the coming independence of the Russian oligarchs from the oil pipe.

And this is even under the ideal condition that the capitalists will really "honestly" implement the program of industrial autarky. In practice, we all see that the implementation of any state program is accompanied by maximum theft on the part of oligarchs and officials, a multiple rise in cost, delays, and poor quality of the final product.

How do communists propose to solve this problem:

1 . It is necessary for the proletariat, having organized itself into a class through the Communist Party, to take power , nationalizing all industries and removing any private owners from the management of industry. They have already managed enough - the shit where they planted the whole country is quite obvious.

2 . To cover the entire industrial complex with a single state plan, built beyond all financial mechanisms, according to natural indicators .

3 . By accumulating all the resources of society (and not just the bourgeois state budget, which at best amounts to ten percent of the total profit of the capitalist class), the planning authorities can allocate much more funds to the construction and development of the necessary industries than the capitalists will ever pull out of their pockets.

4 . At the same time, the social interests of the proletarian will be observed - housing, education, medicine will be transferred completely to public funds, and will not be the subject of speculation, the planned economy, having a hundred times more funds in its hands than the bourgeois state budget, will be able to realize both pensions and social support different forms.

5 . It is possible that the growth of the welfare of the proletarians at first will not be as rapid as one would like - the huge industrial and technological lag of the last thirty years will require, first of all, to invest in production, and not in the social sphere, but in any case, under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, growth cannot not to be, in contrast to capitalist conditions, where there is a systematic tendency for real incomes to fall.

6 . The absence of the institution of capitalist profit (profit is a part of the surplus product withdrawn by the capitalist), which the capitalist spends not on socially useful things, but on luxury and his own wishes, sometimes coinciding, but, as a rule, not coinciding with social necessity, as well as a better organization through planning, they will make it possible to create independent high-tech industries of their own with orders of magnitude less social sacrifice and economic costs .

Therefore, every honest proletarian who understands what is happening, who does not want to simultaneously fill Abramovich’s egg-box and chip in for Putin on a new tank on a “purely Russian processor”, must:

a) study Marxism ;

b) join the Communist Party of Scientific Centralism, on which the staff of the Proryv magazine and other publications have been working for many years ;

c) to actively promote the communist worldview and dialectical materialism to work for the seizure of power by the working class .

Only in this case does the most painless and fast scenario for the development of Russian industry have a chance to be realized.

I. Bortnik
19/05/2022

https://prorivists.org/69_isi/

Is it profitable for Putin to start a "witch hunt"?
No. 3/67, III.2022

Many leftists, having looked at Putin's address and seeing in it the evoking of the "spirit of anti-communization", heart-rendingly voiced that Putin is no better for the communists than the Ukronazis.

I will not say for a long time that the real damage to the communists in the matter of their physical destruction and obstruction of the propaganda of communism over the past eight years from Putin and from the Ukronazis is incomparable. If in Khokhloshtat the Nazi thugs physically dealt with the communists, and all periodicals were closed and even judged for likes under the emblem of the USSR, then in terrible Putin's Russia we all write quite calmly and discuss issues of building communism, our publications are published. Those three and a half activists who did run into a criminal case, to put it mildly, are idiots in themselves, and indeed not communists at all, but rather anarchists.

The question is a little different.

Firstly , in connection with the operation in Ukraine, the Ukrainian communists, who have a negative attitude towards the Ukronazis (and this is very mildly said - they hate them fiercely), are one of the social forces that can be relied on in Ukraine. Which, at least, will definitely not pick up a machine gun and run to restore the power that kept them underground for eight years. It is not difficult and not scary for Putin to allow compromising propaganda in Ukraine: it has not caused him any concern since 2001 to this day, why would the Ukrainian communists, even weaker ones, whom the Ukronazis have been disorganizing for eight years, suddenly become dangerous to him? On the contrary, the communists in Ukraine will be a deterrent to Bandera in the public mind for Putin. Remove them - weaken your position.

Secondly , Putin is actively exploiting the unifying motives in the minds of the inhabitants of the former USSR for the imperialist expansion of the capital of the Russian Federation into these countries. The collapse of the USSR hit hard on all the working people of all the republics. And in the restoration of the USSR, a significant part of them see a way to improve their economic condition. With all the anti-communist rhetoric, which is often overlooked, a real "witch hunt" will clearly undermine the naive spontaneous hope that the expansion of the Russian Federation is the form in which the USSR will be restored. To kill this hope means to breed enemies, in this case small-town CIS nationalists. And to produce enemies in conditions where there are already so many of them is not very reasonable.

Thirdly , at present, the absolute toothlessness of the Russian left, the absolute obedience and controllability of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation give him a reliable guarantee that everything is under his control. Many times up to now it has been possible to channel all protests and simply ignore all communist criticism. It is unprofitable to destroy this beckoning world, especially in conditions when sanctions and the deterioration of the living standards of almost all proletarians will cause a wave of internal protests that will have to be channeled. This is not required. The maximum that can be done is to plant a couple of violent ones so as not to muddy the waters. In conditions of poor predictability of the development of events in Ukraine, in principle, it is very important to maintain controllability.

Fourthly , judging by the helpless wording with which the legal system puts these most “violent” ones, the security agencies are not ready for such work in principle - they are poorly aware of what is happening and how the left movement is developing, for example, they systematically confuse anarchists with communists and vice versa. It is all the more dangerous to launch a campaign with such personnel in conditions when they provide a very large-scale operation in Ukraine and, I believe, in the CIS, and it is necessary to restrain local nationalists who really have weapons and a desire to really fight.

Fifthly , the real number of supporters of socialism, whatever that means, is quite large in the Russian Federation. Boris Yeltsin, for example, already faced the fact that his anti-communist attempts were desperately refused to be understood by the scientific and technical intelligentsia, who saw how anti-communists were killing their offspring - Soviet industry and science. You can only convert the neutrality of the general population into open hostility if you really want to shoot yourself in the foot. Not fatal, but annoying.

Therefore, I would not share the alarmism about what Putin says about Lenin there. It must be understood that even the former KGB officer Putin studied Lenin so superficially that his ignorance speaks for him more than real active anti-communism. Just found a convenient scapegoat.

I. Bortnik
04/03/2022

https://prorivists.org/67_putin/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:53 pm

Kudrin and the planned economy
No. 1/65, I.2022

On January 13, the odious representative of the "young reformers" A. Kudrin gave an interview to TASS.

By the way, the so-called liberalization of prices, to which Kudrin put his paw, which he is proud of without hesitation, is one of the measures of the Yeltsin regime for the mass proletarianization of the population, when sky-high prices turned former Soviet workers into almost classical ancient slaves working for food. Kudrin has well mastered the thesis that a market economy can only function when there is a mass of proletarians, i.e. poor people who have nothing but their labor force, which they are ready to sell to anyone they meet. Therefore, it was necessary to rob, literally strip to the skin the naive Soviet citizens who believe that a market economy is when everyone is given a Volga and jeans pants. They thought that since Nosov is a writer, it means that the deformities of capitalism described by him are just fairy tales,

In the opening speech of the journalist, one can directly feel how the saliva of subservience drips:

“They [market reforms] turned out to be quite painful, but as a result, the country in a short time, in just 10–15 years, has come a long way from an unviable planned system to a fully-fledged market economy recognized throughout the world with functioning institutions.”

Indeed, “only” 15 years of liberal genocide, rampant democracy, bandit terror, civil wars, the painful death of hundreds of thousands of people, a demographic hole from which the country cannot climb out to this day. And now, after all these torments and sufferings, through which the liberals led the people, - after that, Rossiyushka finally blossomed! Look what palaces and yachts the "effective managers" have built for themselves!

In fact, the journalist mentioned 15 years in vain. After all, another 15 years come to mind, when the country really “has come a long way”. I mean Stalinist industrialization. Russia in 1925 and Russia in 1940 are like a horse with a plow and a tractor with a seeder. A cursory acquaintance with the figures is enough to feel the colossal creative power that the “non-viable planned system” showed. The growth rate of the gross industrial output of the USSR in 1940 amounted to more than 1500% compared to 1913. The growth rate of the national income of the USSR, in comparison with the main capitalist powers (USA, England, France), in the same 1940 was more than 400% relative to 1913. And this must be understood that the growth of national income under capitalism and in the lower phase of communism are fundamentally different things. Under capitalism, the lion's share of the national income is appropriated by the capitalist class, leaving the proletariat with leftovers from the master's table, while under communism all income is distributed in favor of the people. The socio-economic achievements of the USSR can be listed for a long time. Is the current market RF capable of boasting such successes? The question is rhetorical. If it could, the Ministry of Culture would immediately pay for a feature film about it. But so far, "patriotic" tapes are filmed exclusively about Soviet achievements in the field of science and sports. Unless they made a movie about the Crimean bridge, but even there the plot revolves around the sexual adventures of the main characters, and the construction of the bridge acts as a faded background. and under communism, all income is distributed in favor of the people.

What happens, in the 30s, when industrialization was underway, the “unviable” planned economy worked well, when there was a war with fascist Europe, planning also did not fail - in the “war of engines” the USSR confidently “made” Europe, - shock recovery of the country after the war was also carried out thanks to the plan, as was the subsequent space program, where the Union was also the first. And at the end of the 80s, it suddenly took it and ceased to be viable!

“In order for prices to match supply and demand, the planning system had to balance everything. But with the fall of the USSR, it was completely destroyed, there was no one to determine the proportions of supply and demand, ”says Kudrin.

I wonder who destroyed it? An hour, not his accomplices from economic circles? It's funny to read how Kudrin complains that censorship forbade him to use the word "competition" in his articles in relation to the Soviet economy, he replaced it with "economic competition." Until the autumn of 1988, he was banned, and this despite the fact that already in May the law on cooperation was adopted, when the underground Soviet Burists were given the green light. Kudrin, of course, is cunning, presenting the case as if the Gorbachev government resisted the market and pinched the economists, not allowing them to develop "new ideas, new scenarios that would go beyond the planned economy." In fact, long before “perestroika”, a “market wing” arose and became stronger among Soviet economists. The economists of the USSR were far from Marxism,

Thus, in 1952, Stalin was forced to explain seemingly simple things, that it was impossible to artificially stick market concepts to socialist relations, such as “necessary” and “surplus” labor, hiring workers, and so on, and called on Soviet economists to “put an end to with this discrepancy between the old concepts and the new state of affairs in our socialist country, replacing the old concepts with new ones corresponding to the new situation.

They, the economists, pretended to understand everything, but after the death of the leader, they immediately returned to the development of "market socialism" and attempts to bring it to life. Recall at least the Kosygin reform, which, according to the same Kudrin, "had the beginnings of market mechanisms." Brezhnev was weak in Marxism, but on an intuitive level he understood that the idea of ​​"improving" planning by market methods would not lead to anything good. Therefore, the Kosygin reform was curtailed. But the “marketers” were also not foolish and were patiently biding their time. And they waited.

So that the reader can understand what "specialists" were in the State Planning Commission, I can cite one episode. One interesting figure looked at our Yandex.Zen channel, a certain Antipov V.I., according to his personal statement, he worked for 15 years at the Main Computer Center of the State Planning Committee, was engaged in the automation of the work of the State Planning Commission on behalf of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the author of the book “Gosplan Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow”. I quote his statement:

“Gosplan works only if there are market prices. It is a tool for balancing supply and demand. Gosplan should be the general regulator. Local regulation is a controlled market.”

How do you like it? What is the term “managed market” worth! Sounds as "reasonable" as a straight curvature, a chaste prostitute, or an honest thief! Although why be surprised if such a definition as the “socialist market” and other phenomena of capitalism were used during perestroika, which were given the prefix “socialist”, imagining that the predatory nature of these phenomena would disappear from that!

And here is a quote - just fire:

“The Stalin era is a forced retreat from market self-regulation before the war. First with the Germans, and then with the Americans. The political economy of the Stalin era is the political economy of feudalism…”.

Great, isn't it? Well, if collectivization was, according to historians, “the second edition of serfdom”, then, obviously, Stalin revived feudalism under a red flag, and the state turned into a collective feudal lord, as in ancient China ... All this blatant lie about the fact that collective farmers were not given passports so that they could not go anywhere, that they were “tied to the ground”, etc., I analyzed in my old article on collective farms, so I will not comment on this fragment.

And the last statement from Mr. Antipov, so to speak, for dessert:

“If at 16 you were not a member of the Komsomol, you have no heart; If at 40 you are not an entrepreneur, you have no brains.”

And such characters sat in the State Planning Commission and determined the economy of the Union! Is it any wonder why by 1986 the Soviet economy was in decline? Scientific central planning was consciously and consistently shattered by such Anti-Povs, for whom Stalin's political economy is feudalism. But this is so - a trifle paunch. The main pests, the ideologists of "market socialism" were Abalkin, Kontrapovich, Lieberman and other "outstanding Soviet economists." An article was published in Breakthrough , which we recommend that all readers read.

Let us now return to our sheep, to Mr. Kudrin.

“...The government then chose the interests of the country and citizens, who, thanks to the hawkers, were able to buy some products at reasonable prices. This gave people the opportunity to earn. You were allowed to go out and sell everything you could. People were selling spoons, televisions, jewelry, some furniture, just clothes, just to feed themselves.

What a charm, they themselves stripped the people to the skin, and then generously allowed them to sell their junk in order to feed themselves! As the Russian poet Gnedich wrote:

Landowner Balaban,

Pious man, pleasing to Christ,

For the poor in the village he built a house of charity,

And he made beggars for him from the peasants.


Another remarkable statement by the head of the Accounts Chamber:

“In addition, in 2003-2004 we restored (on average, of course) the standard of living that citizens had in 1990 before the collapse of the USSR. On average, this was achieved for both teachers and doctors. Now the standard of living is about 20% higher than in the Soviet Union. In the zero years, when I was Deputy Prime Minister, from 2000 to 2011, the standard of living in the country tripled. It seems like an unattainable number, but we started from a very low level.”

That's it, dear Russians. Thanks to the efforts of Kudrin and Co., 30 years (!) After the destruction of socialism, the standard of living has increased by as much as 20%! Here is the achievement! The only pity is that the cunning reformer forgot to specify in relation to what period of the USSR the Russians began to live better.

In general, this is an extremely thankless task - to measure the standard of living of the people under capitalism. After all, in capitalist society the people are split into two classes: into a handful of capitalists and a mass of hired workers. If there was not a single oligarch in the USSR, then in the Russian Federation, according to official estimates, there are 22 billionaires, whose total fortune exceeds $ 304 billion, this is 23 trillion rubles, for comparison: the income of the state of the Russian Federation for 2022 is about 18 trillion rubles. The top bureaucracy, proteges of the oligarchy, are trying to keep up with the standards of consumption set by the masters of life. The average salary of an official in the Russian Federation is officially more than 65 thousand rubles. Most of all, “employees of the legislative authorities” (as the deputies were called in a veiled way) receive 110 thousand rubles. And try to count what part of those 20% in real numbers falls to the lot of the proletariat? And this is the average temperature in the hospital. We added up the incomes of 22 oligarchs, along with their lackeys, and 16 million Russians officially living below the poverty line, and it turned out that the “average Russian” lives better than the “average Soviet person”! Yes, and after 30 years of technological progress! But how, in a market-like way, to calculate and put into a statistical table such things as access to medicine and education? In the Union, every person, regardless of income level, had access to the full range of medical care and to all medical and preventive procedures. Anyone could also get an education, even a worker, even a collective farmer. In the market RF, these benefits of the "non-viable planned system" in a truncated form are hardly preserved, being under the yoke of the Kudrin optimizers.

Suppose, in his statistics, Kudrin took all this into account, calculated, calculated and authoritatively gave the result: the standard of living has risen. And due to what such an achievement? In what way is the average proletarian able to improve his financial situation? That's right, get consumer loans, which the proletarians do. In 2019, the government was worried: 15% of the population spend 70% of their income on debt repayment. In October, Vedomosti reported that the debts of Russians on loans in 2021 increased to 23.9 billion rubles and continue to grow. Otherwise, it cannot be. Under a planned economy, the life of the population improves due to the development of means of production, the development of science, and the introduction of technology. This is the task of socialist production: the creation of conditions for the all-round and harmonious development of every individual.

And here is Kudrin's main statement, taken as the headline of TASS:

“Certainly, we will never return to a planned economy. One can calmly put an end to this dispute: there will never be a state plan in Russia. Unless, of course, something completely unbelievable happens. Africa is already growing faster than us. If we start creating the state plan again, these countries will be ahead of us.”

As for Africa - a very loud statement, of course. But what about countries like South Korea, Japan, China? They have quite powerful state regulation and even have five-year plans. Why are they not far behind Africa? Obviously, Kudrin, like an old monkey, can no longer be taught new tricks: just as in the 90s the theses about the “invisible hand of the market” that “decides everything” were put into his head, so he continues to repeat them.

In reality, after capitalism entered its highest stage, the free market economy is a thing of the past. In all more or less developed countries there is planning, to a greater or lesser extent. First of all, this concerns the capitalist monopolies. Within one corporation, the entire production chain operates on a planned basis, not a market one. And since the lion's share of the economy is concentrated in the hands of the monopolistic, i.e., oligarchic, bourgeoisie (as Lenin aptly put it: "tens of thousands of enterprises are everything; millions of small ones are nothing"), market competition is carried on mainly between corporations.

Yes, there are still small and medium-sized businesses, but they are extremely unstable. Small owners are constantly devoured by countless competitors, and they survive, just like in the wild, purely due to their "fertility". It is known that Marx predicted the complete disappearance of the small proprietor. And he really would die. But its existence is consciously fueled by the oligarchy through the states. This is done in order to maintain the stability of capitalism, in order to strengthen the petty-bourgeois consciousness of the proletariat, the belief that everyone can "open their own business" and live well under capitalism. Again, the petty bourgeoisie is being used as piglets, which are brought up for the winter (i.e., the next cycle of crisis) to then be put under the knife.

Planning is used not only by corporations within their divisions, but also by oligarchic governments. The market economy in its development has reached its own negation. Corporations born of free competition strive for predictability, for a plan. The monopolists are thus compelled to go themselves towards that very "unviable planned system", but they can never reach it because of the dominance of private property.

Lenin's well-known saying: "Socialism is a state-capitalist monopoly, turned to the benefit of the whole people and has ceased to be a capitalist monopoly to that extent." How does this conversion take place? First of all, by replacing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the working class. The right of private property is abolished, the main means of production are transferred to public ownership under the control of the proletarian state. But in order for the formal socialization of the means of production to become real, it is necessary to establish a system of centralized scientific planning. And this is not a trivial task.

Our leftists think that it's enough to build a supercomputer, load data into it - and it's done! But the problem of building communism is not at all in the technical aspects of the organization of planning or production. No OGAS system is capable of destroying private property relations or creating communist production relations, because all these ideas with computers are just tools, and private property, exchange, value, etc. are relations between people. That's the problem. Under Stalin, by the way, the role of value relations was perfectly reduced even without any computers, although it is clear that their presence would simplify a number of technical issues, would make departments more compact and efficient. Rogues in any system are able to find an opportunity to cheat, loafers - the opportunity to "mow down" from work, and careerists - climb up. Relying on OGAS and other projects is an attempt to replace Marxist science with technocratism.

So what needs to be done to build a correct planning system that will lead to the withering away of the market and the building of complete communism?

Today we have a lot of skeptics and critics who call for a critical examination of the victorious experience of the Stalinist USSR, but there are few of those who are aimed at seriously extracting positive experience. Our duty Stalinists, unfortunately, are extremely superficial and do not notice those things that really ensured the success of building communism. For example, cashless payments between enterprises. It is not easy to pull off some kind of fraud if there is no money on hand. Under Stalin, production was focused not on market indicators, but on providing conditions for the development of each member of society. At the same time, what bourgeois economists call "customer orientation" was present: beautiful and varied products, for different tastes and colors. If we consider advertising brochuresStalinist era, you realize that all these liberal myths that the plan is not able to satisfy the needs of the consumer are just a blatant lie. But when the Khrushchevites came and began to destroy the Stalinist planning system, it was then that the vices began to appear that today liberal economists attribute to the plan as allegedly its organic shortcomings.

Some cunning figures are trying to portray the matter as if the success of the Stalinist system is that it, they say, combined both the plan and the market, in particular, fishing artels are singled out. If we approach it purely formally, then we can say that artels are entrepreneurs who do not use hired labor, and artels are something like small businesses. But in reality, this was not the case. Firstly, all the artels were included in the general plan thanks to the system of contracts, just like the collective farms. Secondly, artels were under the strict control of various inspection bodies and artels could not, like today's entrepreneurs, give bribes to inspectors so that they turn a blind eye to violations of safety regulations, sanitary conditions, etc. Actually, the petty bourgeoisie largely survives thanks to that breaks the law, and the inspectors turn a blind eye to these violations. As they began to seriously check various establishments such as shawarma or donuts in Moscow, they closed in an instant, because they could not stand the competition.

So the “Stalinist” artels, unable to compete with state-owned enterprises, were closed or they themselves passed under the control of the state. There was no paradise for a small proprietor, as some citizens try to imagine, in the USSR under Stalin.

Thus, it must be recognized that the Stalin era was an era of the victorious building of communism, that is, the process of the withering away of commodity-money relations in society. Therefore, it is she who should be taken as an example of how planning should be organized. Naturally, we are not talking about blind copying. For example, the mass organization of collective farms is now an unnecessary measure. You can simply socialize agricultural holdings, where the labor of rural workers will be organized in the same way as in factories and factories. In peasant Russia, the Bolsheviks were forced to develop a form of building communism, taking into account the strong small-property instincts of the masses of the people, while the modern Russian Federation has greatly facilitated our work by proletarianizing the mass of small owners. Modern capitalist society has become much simpler compared to the beginning of the 20th century:

Contrary to the mantras of all the Kudrins, the plan is not the past, but the future of Russia. Russia today is more than ever ready for communism . Everything rested only on the subjective factor of the absence of the Communist Party, capable of organizing and leading the working class to build a communist society.

R. Ogienko
22/01/2022

https://prorivists.org/65_antikudrin/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:30 pm

Class income in Russia
The picture of economic inequality in 2017

The share of the proletariat in the country's income is 64%.

The share of social payments (compensation of the bourgeois state for the cost of the commodity "labor force" for the reproduction of the proletariat as a class, including pensions) in the country's income is 20%.

The share of the bourgeoisie in income is 14%. Source (pp. 10 - 11).

The balance of export / import of capital from the Russian Federation - ($ 24.8 billion). Source .

What is included in the export / import of capital read here (Chapter 5).

A significant part of the exported capital, of course, is the income of the bourgeoisie, that is, the surplus value that is withdrawn from the tax jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and, therefore, falls out of the official income statistics of Rosstat. This is well said here .

Let's take the monetary value of the income of the proletariat, they amount to (the formula "= C69/100*E69") 36.1 trillion rubles, or $600 billion (we don't know why the discrepancy with the government's data, we make further calculations according to Rosstat).

Given the absolute annual trend towards the export of capital, all $24 billion is proposed to be considered the average income of the oligarchy.

The proletariat in the Russian Federation is 72 million people, 4 million officially unemployed, and plus about 26 million proletarian children.

The bourgeoisie represented by dollar millionaires - 189 thousand people (+ wives, children, mistresses, that is, a maximum of one million).

Thus, $5.8 thousand per year for each person from the proletarian environment (including children and the unemployed) and $146 thousand for each person from the bourgeois environment (including children, wives and mistresses).

However, it should also be taken into account that top managers get into the proletariat, whose salaries significantly increase the average indicators for workers and employees. The modal value of wages in the Russian Federation is $4.2 thousand per year, which, as can be seen, is significantly lower than $5.8 thousand for each member of the proletarian family.

Excluding taxes and fees, in reality it turns out that the proletarian, at best, $2.5 - $3 thousand oppose the bourgeois $127 thousand or 150 - 180 thousand rubles - 7.6 million rubles.

https://prorivists.org/inf_inc-russia/

(Now here's the thing, Russians, with the vestiges and memory of the soviet Union are outraged by these disparities, while the working class in the USA just shrugs and gets a second or third job...)

Does the pension reform contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation?
Part 2 of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states :

“In the Russian Federation, laws should not be issued that abolish or diminish the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.”

First , what is the constitution of a bourgeois state and how does it differ, for example, from the constitution of a state of the dictatorship of the working class?

“What is a bourgeois constitution? It is the will of the bourgeois class elevated into a law, that is, into a publicly announced social rule based on coercion, regarding the basic, general provisions of social life in the territory where this bourgeois class has extended its rule. Therefore, all bourgeois constitutions revolve around the "sacred" right of private property and the inviolability of the person, basically the owner of huge amounts of this property. The will in this case is developed rather spontaneously, through a similar awareness of their interests and class goals by a social group that objectively stands out in society. The authors of bourgeois constitutions formulate its provisions, taking into account the influence of all bourgeois groups, in order to ensure its support.

The Sovburs were a weak class and took power under the supervision of American imperialism and its CIA, therefore they adopted their constitution in 1993 according to a draft that was brought from the embassy on Novinsky Boulevard.

The Decembrists developed several versions of the constitution, but they all expressed the interests of the bourgeoisie, so the authors were hanged, and the supporters were sent to keep proud patience in the depths of the Siberian ores. Whereas, for example, the constitution of Count Panin was quite decent, that is, noble, so he was only scolded for preparing a coup, giving out nine thousand serfs so that he would not be upset because of failure. Your man, after all.

What is the constitution of the dictatorship of the proletariat? It is the will of the working class elevated into a law, that is, into a publicly announced social rule based on coercion, regarding the achieved degree of weakening of the exploiting classes, with insufficient development of the productive forces for the complete rejection of law in favor of the scientific basis of social life. Roughly speaking, the Bolshevik constitutions contained a list of Marxist provisions on the mechanism for destroying the objective foundations of the class division of society. Marxism was thus transformed into a norm of law, into rules for the violation of which the dictatorship of the working class punished. It is clear that in such a case this will of the working class, raised to law, is worked out, forged consciously by its vanguard, otherwise it would be impossible to maintain state power.

If the will of the working class was worked out not by Marxists, but by the opportunist leaders of the CPSU, then the Constitution of the USSR contained all kinds of opportunist rubbish [as, for example, the 1977 model]. Legally consolidated that actual political consciousness, which was determined by the quality of the vanguard of the working class.

It can be said about the first constitutions that the party and all class-conscious workers went towards the peasant masses and the rushing intelligentsia in joining the construction of a non-exploiting formation with more familiar to them, legally fixed, norms of behavior. In addition, the Bolshevik constitutions had a powerful propaganda effect in bourgeois countries.

Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation is not “the highest law according to which society lives,” but a setting document fixed by state violence, which announces the main regulatory principles of the ruling class. The material support for these principles is both the economic interest of this class and the consideration of the alignment of class forces, which, in the understanding of the bourgeois class, is most conducive to its stable dominance for many, many years to come.

It would be strange and naive to believe that bourgeois constitutions would fix as inviolable rights that would be contrary to the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie. The introduction of such rights is theoretically possible under the gigantic pressure of the labor movement, but not at the own will of the bourgeoisie.

Secondly , we have a clear formal-legal contradiction between the provisions of the pension reform (begging for the right to a pension) with Part 2 of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Moreover, the interpreter of the constitution - the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation - gives a detailed transcript of the above article:

“A change by the legislator of previously established conditions should be carried out in such a way that the principle of maintaining citizens’ confidence in the law and the actions of the state is respected, which involves maintaining a reasonable stability of legal regulation and inadmissibility of making arbitrary changes to the current system of norms, as well as, if necessary, providing citizens with the opportunity (in particular, through the establishment of temporary regulation) to adapt to the changes introduced during a certain transitional period. Related to this are the legitimate expectations of citizens that the right acquired by them on the basis of the current legislation will be respected by the authorities and will be implemented.

However, one should not rush to conclusions.

Thirdly , one of the essential characteristics of bourgeois justice is a kind of variability, flexibility in the bad sense of the word. Almost all legal norms have loopholes, the ability to turn them in the opposite direction. There are very few consistent and direct provisions in bourgeois law. Therefore, in particular, the Constitution of the Russian Federation has the following, part 3, in Article 55:

“The rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen may be limited by federal law only to the extent necessary to protect the foundations of the constitutional order, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of others, to ensure the defense of the country and the security of the state.”

Naturally, Medvedev 's explanatory note contains appropriate reservations. The rights of "other persons" are violated:

“The current procedure for calculating the amount of insurance pensions in a negative demographic situation leads to non-equivalence of the pension rights of insured persons and obligations to pay pensions to them. There is a constant increase in pension recipients against the background of a decrease in the number of persons for whom insurance premiums are paid. The ratio of the number of employees to the number of pension recipients by 2025 will be 1.04, while now it is 1.12.”

Moreover, even the rights of pensioners are violated by the “presumption of incapacity for work”:

“The current retirement age - 60 and 55 years for men and women - was first fixed in 1928 and was further developed in the 30s of the last century. It was established for the main category of citizens in an industrial type society (workers employed in the industrial sector) on the basis of their loss of ability to work. Thus, the presumption of disability and loss of wages and other payments and rewards at a certain age was established. At the same time, life expectancy at birth in 1926-1927. in the European part of the RSFSR was 43 years.

It turns out not even a derogation of civil rights, but almost their expansion.

Thus, if the pension reform is not recognized as necessary in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional order, the legitimate interests of other persons, or to ensure the security of the state, then it really contradicts the Constitution of the Russian Federation. But from the filing of the bill follows some intention of the bourgeois government to present the reform in the spirit of Part 3 of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

https://prorivists.org/inf_pension-reform_constitution/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:17 pm

Official Marxists of the People's Republic of China on Modern Russia

Foreword SP

We offer several publications by Chinese scientists who position themselves as Marxists. Articles are posted by the newspaper to get acquainted with the approximate level of ideas about capitalist Russia among the official Marxists of the PRC. All articles were published in 2012 in Chinese Marxist journals, so they operate with material from that time.

1.Russia: Evolution of Society and Perspectives of Civil Society
2.The class of "new rich" in China and Russia in the period of transformation: a comparative analysis
3.Socio-economic transformation and change in the structure of class strata in Russia and China
4.Comparative Study of Corruption Issues in China and Russia

Russia: Evolution of Society and Perspectives of Civil Society
1. The process of evolution of Russian society at the end of the 20th century
Compared to the capitalism of the West, which has a history of several centuries, Russian capitalism looks very young - it is only about 10 years old. But in this very short 10-year period, it went through the stages of spontaneous origin, trade competition, the merging of financial capital with industrial capital, and the formation of oligarchies.

The capitalist evolution of Russian society is divided by us into the following periods:

1) The period of origin and initial growth (until 1993)

The "sprouts" of capitalism appeared in the late 1980s during the last period of M. Gorbachev's tenure in power and began to sprout after the economic liberalization that began in Russia in 1992. And the "commercialization and corporatization" of the late 80s and early 90s caused a wave of "nationwide involvement in trade" in Soviet society. During this period, commercial capital received an unprecedented development.

2) Period of chaotic development (1994-1995)

In the mid-90s of the 20th century, following the development of trade, capital began to be concentrated in the financial and stock sector, and banks began to grow like mushrooms after rain. Due to the decline in production and severe inflation, it was equally unprofitable to invest in both production and wholesale trade. Therefore, a huge mass of society's money began to move into the financial sector and gradually accumulate there.

During this period, Russian financial capital has successfully stepped over the stage of "enrichment" and completed the "initial accumulation". They went through the path of development, on which the venerable consortiums of the classical capitalist society spent tens and even a hundred plus years. And a few years later, taking advantage of privatization, he began to stretch his tentacles into the sphere of industry and communications, trying to take over the mass media. The forces of finance capital in Russia can be said to have become the vanguard of the development of capitalism.

3) The heyday and emergence of the crisis (1996 - summer 1998)

Following the gradual progress of economic reform, the Russian bourgeoisie also went through a process of birth, first steps, maturation and swelling. Walking in line with the reform and working in the field of import-export in the real estate market, the new Russian aristocracy began to extract fabulous commercial profits, retain budgetary funds for their own purposes, and manipulate the financial and stock situation.

In 1996-1997, large-scale privatization began in the full sense of the word. At this time, Russian capitalism entered a completely new stage, and Russian society underwent qualitative changes. The Russian big bourgeoisie, monopolistic, oligarchic and bureaucratic in character, finally came into being. The Russian monopoly bureaucrats and financial oligarchs of the late 1990s, on the one hand, greedily swallowed the treasures of society, and on the other, tried their best to interfere in politics, divide state power and put the government under their control.

4) The period of settlement and streamlining (from 1998 until now)

1998 is a "temporal watershed" in the development of Russian capitalism. The financial crisis provoked the emergence of those crises that lurked in the depths of Russian society. Social contradictions have become more acute, especially between big capital and society. The financial crisis of 1998 also hit the financial oligarchy very hard. Many banks have closed, the oligarchs' purse has become much thinner. And some of these financial aces turned out to be political and economic bankrupts.

Y. Primakov, who became prime minister of the government, called into question Russian capitalism of the oligarchic type. He suggested considering the nationalization of the illegal income of the oligarchs received in the process of privatization. And he warned some of the oligarchs that prison cells had already been prepared for them.

V. Putin, having come to power, on the one hand, quietly dealt a targeted blow to individual oligarchs, and, on the other, demanded that large financial magnates not interfere and not get involved in politics. If they normalize their behavior, then the government will treat them the same as everyone else. As for the traditional branches of natural monopoly, they were ordered to reorganize. At the same time, it was required that the reorganization plan take into account the interests of the state and society, and not just the opinion of the heads of enterprises. With a special focus on streamlining the current political and economic order in Russia, Vladimir Putin straightened out the path it had taken before. He strengthened the authority of the Center,

2. Analysis of the nature of Russian society
For the past ten years, from Yeltsin to Putin, official Russia has deliberately shied away from defining the nature of Russian society whenever it comes up. There is still no consensus on the political and economic formation of the current Russian society and among Russian scientists in the field of social sciences. Nevertheless, this does not prevent us from defining the nature of Russian society from different angles. In recent years, more than a dozen of its characteristics have appeared. These are “oligarchic”, “nomenklatura”, “bureaucratic”, “barbarian capitalism”, “robbery capitalism”, “parasitic”, “gangster”, “peripheral”, as well as “anomalous”, “criminal”, “comprador”, "fictitious capitalism".

3. Features of the evolution of Russian society
Some Russian scholars cite such features of Russian capitalism, demonstrated by it over the 10 years of its existence, as its "speculative", "oligarchic", "criminal" and "comprador character". We believe that the most important features of Russian capitalism are two - its pronounced bureaucratic and oligarchic nature.

On the bureaucratic nature of Russian capitalism. For more than 10 years of reform in Russia, the interests of the majority of members of society have been seriously ignored. In the face of a sudden wave of democratization and marketization, ordinary people were completely unprepared. But now the “Komsomol entrepreneurs” have begun a wave of marketization, as well as the later red capitalists and financial-industrial associations, in a word, the Russian bourgeoisie have thick birthmarks of power structures and bureaucratic background. According to Russian scholars, capitalism in Russia has been bureaucratic from the very beginning. The old bureaucracy of the Soviet period and the new elite of the new, Russian period in the course of the reform turned out to be closest to power and property. They knew better than anyone the "gaps" of society in the process of revolution and conversion, and if we add to this that the legal norms of perestroika came from their own pen, then it is not difficult to understand why they were the first to create their own market economy. Power turned into capital in a timely manner, capital was chasing power, and the “companies under a new sign” that appeared in the mid-1990s, along with corporatization and privatization, greatly accelerated and legitimized the “bourgeoisization” of the Russian bureaucracy. Relying on the previously existing capital of power and relations, the new and old bureaucracy turned into the owners of this power and this capital, and the state monopoly into departmental and local.

Regarding the oligarchic nature of Russian capitalism. Russian capitalism has a pronounced "oligarchic coloring". In 1997, a representative of the right-wing forces of Russia, a former deputy. Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, in an interview with Novaya Gazeta, noted that there are two types of capitalism in Russia. One is authoritarian-bureaucratic, its slogan is: all power, property and money belong to the bureaucracy. The other is oligarchic. It demands that all power, property and money belong to a small stratum of people, consisting of business owners, businessmen and non-bureaucracy.

Both bureaucratic and oligarchic capitalism are a misunderstanding and a trap in the development of Russian society, the result of the decline of the Russian state and the emergence of legal chaos in the process of 10 years of reform. At the same time, this speaks of miscalculations in the choice of the strategic direction of the Russian reform, and especially the economic one. Bureaucratic and oligarchic capitalism has caused serious consequences in Russian society: the authority of the authorities has fallen, the political situation has destabilized, and monopoly has spread widely in the economy and there is not enough free competition. Since the forces of traditional monopolism and financial oligarchs represent the interests of big capital, exclude competition from external capital, and press down on medium and small Russian capital, they seriously hinder Russian society in overcoming the crisis.

4. New power in the face of V. Putin and prospects for Russian civil society
1) Putin's promotion of the reform of the political party system and the cultivation of a mature civil society.

2) Efforts to restore order and protect the rights of citizens.

3) Strengthening control over the media and the creation of civil society.

Zhang Shuhua



The class of "new rich" in China and Russia in the period of transformation: a comparative analysis
First: the general characteristics of the Chinese and Russian "new rich" class.

The "new rich" class in transitional China and Russia has the following common characteristics:

1. Representatives of the Chinese and Russian "new rich" class of approximately the same age and social background .

Chinese and Russian society during the period of transition from a planned economy to a market model is characterized by the emergence of a class of “new rich”, and these “new rich” of the two countries, mainly with preferential government policies, or no policy at all [state regulation of the accumulation process], amassed great wealth. But they are different from the national bourgeoisie in the generally accepted sense of the word, and also different from the bourgeoisie of the developed countries of the West. Many of the representatives of this class are not the creators of fixed production assets, but earned their capital only on the absence of a rational state policy during the period of transition from a planned economy to a market economy, in the absence of special laws and regulations.

2. As a rule, the formation of the “new rich” class in China and Russia took place in the context of the criminalization of business.

According to a study undertaken by the Institute for Strategic Studies in 1994 in Russia, 40% of respondents indicated that they did their business illegally, 22.5% were prosecuted, and 25% are still associated with criminal groups. Criminal groups are in contact with the business community in order to control the economic sphere, these criminal groups control 35,000 business entities, including 400 banks and 47 exchanges, and more than 1,500 state-owned enterprises. On September 7, 2001, The Independent noted that “according to some experts, criminal gangs control about 60% of state-owned enterprises and 50% of enterprises of all [other] forms of ownership ... i.e. about 40,000 companies and enterprises (including 1,500 state-owned companies ,

In China, as in Russia, the "new rich" class also has a connection with the underworld. Hu Angang, director of the China Studies Center at Tsinghua University, said that a significant number of enterprises and individuals are engaged in the shadow economy, and some are engaged in illegal economic activities, and there has been a significant number of cases of tax evasion to get rich quick. The class of "new rich" carries out the rapid accumulation of personal wealth at the same time, it is characterized by tax evasion. According to official data from the Ministry of Public Security in 1997-2002. over 40,000 tax evasion cases were opened, many were arrested for more than 3 years, and 19.2 billion were returned to the treasury.

3. The Chinese and Russian "new rich" classes have different relationships with the authorities.

According to data published in Izvestia on December 27, 1995, based on the materials of the round table, many businessmen in Russia held various government posts in the past. More than ¾ of experts believe that the "new rich" created [their] fortune with powerful patrons. And 2/3 of experts believe that rich people acquired wealth with the support of [high-ranking] friends. The vast majority of experts believe that only a very small number of people have earned wealth through hard work. According to the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1997, 61% of the business elite were in the civil service in the former Soviet Union, holding various positions at different levels [of government].

In China, the "new rich" class has also accumulated fortunes to varying degrees with the support of the authorities. In 1998-2003 The Chinese government has conducted an investigation at the provincial and national levels about the activities of officials who violate the law and discipline. According to the data obtained by the Central Commission for Discipline [of government officials] for 6 years at the provincial and national levels, out of 109 cases of violation of discipline and law, 74 cases of violations were observed in the field of economics, which is 67.9% [of all cases of violation of discipline by officials], in as part of violations in the economic sphere, 36 of them are related to the activities of private enterprises, which is 48.65%; 27 cases related to the participation of 23 private enterprises, which account for 85.2%, were transferred to the judiciary.

4. The social assessments of the Chinese and Russian "new rich" class are not high.

In general, whether it is Russia or China, the "new rich" have a bad reputation, they are criticized more than they are praised, and there are more negative reviews than positive ones.

In Russia, the class of “new rich” that appeared in the course of social transformations was nicknamed “new Russians” by the people. In 1997, within the framework of a round table organized by the Russian Observer magazine, Russian scientists and experts noted that in Russia the class of “new rich” as a whole is not distinguished by high moral qualities, on the contrary, their cunning, unscrupulousness, selfishness, cruelty, but at the same time At the same time [it is necessary to pay attention to] the purposefulness, will, energy of this social group. For Russia's "new rich" class, a definition may be appropriate: the market is the use of bad habits to achieve good ends. The researcher A. Kim, who took part in the discussion of this topic, noted that the “new Russians” do not have a sense of social responsibility ... and if it is absent,

According to the Center for Social Research of the University of China, [only] 5.3% of respondents believe that the majority of China's "new rich" got rich legally, 14.5% believe that the rich made their fortune "more or less" honestly, 48.5% of respondents believe that there are social channels that allow you to acquire wealth honestly, 10.78% of respondents believe that there are “almost no” such channels, and at the same time, according to another study, 29.7% of respondents believe that the emergence of this new class has [ for society] more negative consequences than positive ones, and 24.6% of respondents believe that the role of the “new rich” class is rather positive than negative.

Second: an analysis of the causes and characteristics of the differences in the class of "new rich" in China and Russia.

1. The Chinese and Russian class of "new rich" differ in the level of education and level of culture.

In Russia as a whole, there is a generally [reasonably] high level of education among the members of the “new rich” class, while in China, due to varying degrees of access to educational opportunities, its overall quality is distributed unevenly. The fact is that at the initial stage of the transition period, the conditions were different, the Soviet Union was distinguished by a higher degree of urbanization and the rural population there was only 34% of the total, while in China 80% of the population was concentrated in rural areas; in the former Soviet Union, the social security system covered all urban and rural areas, while in China only cities were covered by social security, and in the vast majority of rural areas, social security was practically absent, which, to a certain extent, had an impact on the overall quality of life. In addition, in connection with the reforms that began to bring the economies of rural regions and cities closer together and began to change society, the number of applicants for achieving wealth in any way has increased dramatically: through migration to the cities, even with the prospect of becoming at first an urban unemployed, through self-employment, participation in farming movement - all this [far from] contributed to raising the cultural level of such people. In the same way as the process of socio-economic transformation did not contribute to this at first, providing a gap in the cultural level with the social group of workers in high-tech enterprises, educated party and government officials, demanding the opening of colleges and universities for the most far-sighted private entrepreneurs, which will gradually have an impact on adjusting the level of knowledge of the “new rich” class, but the indicated unevenness [in the level and quality of education] still remains. Russia is one of the leaders in the eradication of illiteracy, over the past 15 years to date, 91,100,000 people have received secondary education, which is 73.9% of the total number of citizens, 16% have a university education, and even during the Soviet Union, before the start of radical transformations , the country was led by party and government officials, directors of large enterprises, who had a very high level of culture and education, [well, if] we take, for example, members of the "seven bankers" - businessman Gusinsky was [in Soviet times] a theater director, Berezovsky was mathematician and corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR ...

2. The “new rich” class in China and Russia influences economic life to varying degrees.

1) Differences in wealth.

It is rather difficult to determine the level of well-being of citizens who could be classified as “new rich”, since in both China and Russia the rich do not want to advertise the size of their real assets, moreover, even within the same country at different times and in different regions have different wealth standards. However, based on an examination of the available data on accumulated personal property and assets in China and Russia, comparisons can still be made. From 1991 to the present day in Russia, the “new rich” have accumulated fortunes of tens of billions of dollars, for example, M. Khodorkovsky’s fortune before the court verdict reached $150 billion, and since 1978 after 27 years [of the reform policy] in China very rich people also appeared, for example, according to the weekly Fortune of June 27, 2005, published in the article "Richest 500 List" for 2005, the wealth of these wealthy citizens was 1190000000 yuan, and the first number on the list, businessman Chen, had a personal fortune of [only] 150 billion yuan, or about 1800000000 US dollars. These data indicate that during the transition period in Russia, the “new rich” class has accumulated much more wealth than in China, and its representatives may well become part of the world class of the rich.

2) The rate of wealth accumulation within the Chinese and Russian "new rich" class differs.

On the basis of the above analysis, we can conclude that in Russia large capitals accumulated much faster than in China.

According to Forbes magazine, only a few years ago there were no Russian citizens on the list of the richest, but by 2003 there were 17 of them, a little less than in the USA, Germany and Japan, but already in May 2004, according to According to the same magazine, Russia came second after the United States in terms of the number of dollar billionaires. What became for researchers to some extent a surprising phenomenon. Compared to him, the wealth accumulated by the richest citizens of China is incomparable, and none of them can yet be attributed to the global business elite.

3) Differences in the degree of influence on economic life.

As part of the transition period, a new social stratum was formed in Russia, whose leaders [in the 1990s] were representatives of the “seven bankers” and, as before, representatives of the seven largest financial consortiums still have a significant influence on economic and political life. These seven largest financial consortiums, having a large number of subsidiaries, holdings, owning controlling stakes in many joint-stock companies with more than 10,000 employees, have extended the "tentacles" of their influence to all spheres of social life - politics, the economy, the social sphere, having a sufficient charge energy to influence the functioning of the national economy as a whole. In October 1996, assessing the influence of the largest [at that time in Russia] Berezovsky financial conglomerate, the Financial Times reported, that six financial groups have taken control of up to 50% of the Russian economy and most of the media, and all have their own [powerful] banking structures. In China, however, the possibility of influence of representatives of the “new rich” class on the national economy is much more modest; this influence can affect the economy only in the long term.

The main differences between the "new rich" classes in China and Russia that emerged during the transformation:

1) China and Russia have chosen different paths of transformations, if China has relied on gradual transformations, then Russia has relied on radical ones. 2) It was precisely due to the fact that China relied on the gradual transformation that the Chinese leadership could constantly monitor the progress of the implementation of changes, regulating legislation, identifying and correcting errors, thereby reducing the costs of transition, while in Russia the “new rich” received super-advantages due to imperfection of the political and legal system. 3) The transformation process had different goals. The goal of reforms in China was initially the elimination of social inequality and exploitation, social prosperity, so the Chinese leadership has constantly implemented a number of measures to reduce the income gap between the richest and poorest segments of the population, to improve social security, to punish corrupt officials. That is why the “new rich” class does not have as much influence in China as in Russia, where capital was formed [largely] within the framework of shadow structures.

3. Analysis of the influence of the Chinese and Russian "new rich" class on political life.

Gaining economic power during the transition period, the “new rich” class is obliged to put forward its own political demands in order to actively participate in political life and strive to realize its own rights and interests, however, in both countries, the participation of the new class in political life occurs in different ways. According to research, representatives of the “new rich” class in China have long taken a politically wait-and-see attitude, fearing that with a radical change in state policy, they may again be considered as “bourgeois elements” and may be subjected to political persecution. Only with the deepening of the policy of reform and opening up, their doubts began to dissipate, so gradually the “new rich” class in China began to formulate its own political aspirations, which manifest themselves in two types of actions: firstly, legal actions related to calls to establish such links with state structures that could allow Chinese businesses to convey their reasonable demands and proposals to the authorities through official channels, as well as related to the opportunity to take part in party activities and resolve disputes, secondly, illegal actions related to corruption and bribery, poisoning the political life of society. However, in general, in China, the class of "new rich" has not yet formed a unified political aspirations. as well as those related to the opportunity to take part in party activities and resolve controversial issues, and secondly, illegal actions related to corruption and bribery that poison the political life of society. However, in general, in China, the class of "new rich" has not yet formed a unified political aspirations. as well as those related to the opportunity to take part in party activities and resolve controversial issues, and secondly, illegal actions related to corruption and bribery that poison the political life of society. However, in general, in China, the class of "new rich" has not yet formed a unified political aspirations.

In Russia, the degree of influence of the “new rich” class on the political life of society is much greater than in China, and it is characterized by the presence of common political aspirations. The power of capital in Russia is very significant, which was manifested, for example, in the presidential elections of 1996, when a conglomerate of leading Russian businessmen formed a united front against the Communist Party, providing solid support to Yeltsin. This fact demonstrates not so much the political victory of big Russian business as the growing political influence of business circles [at that time]. In June 1998, in order to prevent the impending economic crisis, B. Yeltsin relied on negotiations with big business, and thereby, According to The Washington Post, a “shadow cabinet” was [virtually] formed on the basis of the Advisory Committee on Economic Policy [under the government of the Russian Federation]. It is worth recalling the political scandal started by Berezovsky, as a result of which in 1999 Y. Primakov was forced to leave the government. All these facts testify to the fact that the class of "new rich" in Russia has a political energy to such an extent that allows it to influence political life.

What is the essence of the differences in the influence of the Russian and Chinese "new rich" classes on the political life of society? I believe that the main reasons are the following: 1) As we noted in the first part of our analysis, with some common features of the formation of the “new rich” class in China and Russia, its relations with the authorities are built differently in our countries, the reason is different political experience representatives of this class, in Russia, representatives of the business elite already had significant political experience by the time the reforms began, since they held senior positions in government agencies and enterprises, according to research by the Russian Academy of Sciences, 61% of representatives of the Russian business elite held senior positions with the Soviet state apparatus, for example, Chernomyrdin during the Soviet Union, he served as Minister of the Oil and Gas Industry, and Khodorkovsky was a Komsomol functionary. In China, the “new rich” class has little or no political experience. 2) Carrying out radical reforms, Russia, unlike China, chose the Western model of parliamentary democracy, which allowed the "new rich" class to take a more active part in the political life of the country and create a favorable political atmosphere for themselves. 3) Between our two countries there are significant socio-psychological differences in the models of [political] behavior of businessmen. The Chinese class of "new rich" is still under the influence of the "cultural revolution", so some of its representatives are still afraid that the reforms may be curtailed and they will be called "bourgeoisie" again, calling into question the legal protection of private property. This is one of the reasons, why the “new rich” are reluctant to advertise their wealth [by taking an active part in political life], except in cases of tax evasion, the origins of which go back to the mentality of the Chinese, which was seriously influenced by the times of the “cultural revolution”. In Russia, however, there are no fears about the possibility of a return to the days of the Soviet Union, so the representatives of the “new rich” class do not have fears such as those mentioned above, and they actively participate in political life maximizing utility.

Third: a comparison of the "new rich" classes in China and Russia.

A comparative analysis of the "new rich" classes in China and Russia during the transitional period yielded the following results.

First of all, one should pay attention to the abstract nature of general conversations about the radical nature of transformation or about the positive and negative aspects of a particular political regime; in reality, it is much more important to take into account national conditions, national characteristics, real facts, without blindly copying some [universal] development models. The progressiveness of any regime is determined by its capabilities, including, sometimes, if necessary, to take radical measures in order to reduce the costs of transition, as well as the costs associated with the destabilization of social life. In other words, the choice of a specific reform model depends on local conditions and the possibilities for successfully achieving the stated goals of transformation.

Russia in the process of transition ignored its specific national characteristics, historical and cultural traditions, copying the Western model of development, which created additional difficulties in the transition period, as noted in an increasing number of scientific articles on this topic. The Russian leadership has recognized the fact that blind mechanical copying of development models from foreign textbooks will only increase the costs of the transition and change the attitude towards the need for reforms. The revival of Russia on market and democratic principles, with the borrowing of positive experience, is quite possible, but only with a rational attitude towards the process of implementing this experience. Compliance with this requirement is necessary to ensure social stability and improve living standards. Guided by this pragmatic idea, the Government of Russia has achieved a lot in the modern world in recent years. To what extent do the Chinese adhere to this principle in the implementation of their reforms? This issue deserves separate careful consideration.

Second, as reforms deepen, China should learn from the Russian experience to avoid the cost of too many mistakes, such as massive privatizations, massive bankruptcies, jumble of laws, and rising transition costs.

An important lesson for China is the state property reform, in which Russia lost a large share of state assets, which is why special attention should be paid to reforming state enterprises without losing their assets, which, for example, was manifested in the creation on March 24, 2003 of the Commission on State Supervision and Reform Management state enterprises. Despite some success in its work, there are still many unresolved problems in supervision and asset management in a number of provinces and counties, where control is still weak and therefore local authorities are engaged in covert manipulation of state property, which requires increased vigilance in strengthening the rule of law and the need to avoid a recurrence mistakes made by Russia.

Third, China should learn from the Russian experience in order to improve the laws and regulations governing the activities of the "new rich" class and creating an opportunity to create a harmonious society with socially responsible business.

Since B. Yeltsin counted on the help and support of the “new rich” class, a policy of connivance and compromise was pursued in his time, which led to the possibility of free political manipulation [carried out] by some representatives of this class, after V. Putin came to power, a number of radical measures to limit the encroachment of representatives of this class on omnipotence, the oligarchs found themselves out of politics, which created favorable opportunities for the development of the relationship between political stability and economic growth.

Representatives of the Chinese class of "new rich" are trying to enter the political life in two ways: first of all, after amassing huge fortunes and gaining control of part of the financial sphere, they began to try to bribe officials, and also try to control the political life on the ground. That is why, taking into account the lessons of the Yeltsin era, it is necessary to firmly adhere to the principle of purity of the ranks, at the same time, taking into account reasonable political demands, we must encourage their promotion, which, ultimately, should lead to the elimination of exploitation, differentiation and the triumph of the cause of the common prosperity of socialism with Chinese characteristics, to more efficient social distribution, the development of social responsibility of the rich class, the formation of conditions for creating a harmonious society, and the development of a socialist political civilization with Chinese characteristics. The “new rich” class, earning a lot of money, must also share political responsibility, since the further development of the socialist market economy model in which they grew up depends on them. In addition, the Chinese leadership must continue to improve laws and regulations, creating conditions for the development of a healthy "new rich" class.

Fourth, compared to Russia, even in the era of transition, and even more so compared to the West, China is still not a very rich country with a huge population of 1.3 billion people, which is why we need the development of legitimate business, business created through honest work to preserve the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. At the same time, one cannot rely on one-sided approaches to assessing the activities of the “new rich” class, oriented solely on negative assessments of their activities. We must carefully evaluate the activities of representatives of this class based on an analysis of specific historical conditions, taking into account the transition period and encouraging legitimate entrepreneurial activity.

Fifth, within the framework of the transition period, calls for an immediate bridging of the gap between the rich and the poor is tantamount to demanding the demolition of the wall [of misunderstanding] between West and East, since for changes of this kind it is necessary to change the social structure, healing social relations as a whole. To achieve this goal, efforts are needed to organize the sharing of the results of reforms by all social strata.

Xu Yuangong

https://prorivists.org/inf_theorychina-russia/

Continued tomorrow.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:10 pm

Continued from previous post. The final section here has some editorial issues, I reproduce it as is.
Socio-economic transformation and change in the structure of class strata in Russia and China

Since the 3rd Plenum of the 11th CPC Central Committee in 1978, China has embarked on a policy of reform and opening up. Carrying out a gradual transition from a planned economy to a market economy, he, by now, has approved the system of the socialist market economy in its original form. Since the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia began to transform a planned economy into a market one. In the process of transformation, the structure of social class strata in both countries has undergone many changes. Since the essence, goals and methodology of the transition to a market economy in Russia and China are not the same, changes in the structure of the social class strata of both countries are also characterized by very significant differences.

1. Changes in the structure of social class strata in Russia
The essence of the socio-economic transformation in Russia is the transformation of the former socialist system of the USSR into a capitalist system of the Western type, the goal is to build a free market economy by promoting privatization, through "shock therapy". Thus, the share of the state and collective sectors of the economy has drastically decreased and the structure of a multi-structural economy has been formed with the dominance of non-public sectors.

After the transformation of the economy, the social structure of Russia has undergone a serious polarization. With regard to the structure of the social class strata of the country, Russian researchers have adopted many different methods of differentiation, however, in a comprehensive study of such factors as income, wealth, power, social status, influence, etc., class strata in post-transformed Russia are usually divided into three:

First, a layer of new capitalists and new entrepreneurs. As a result of the privatization carried out in Russia, a group of so-called "new Russians" and a commercial elite, as well as a certain number of private owners, appeared. “Voucher privatization” involved the new and old bureaucracy buying up many vouchers held by the population, which became one of the ways to turn state property into private property, “cash privatization” even more quickly entailed the transfer of a significant part of state property assets into private hands. As a result, the vital arteries of the state economy passed into the hands of small "oligarchs".

Second, the middle class. Nowadays, many Russian researchers believe that a “middle class” has already formed in Russia, including such social groups as small entrepreneurs, semi-entrepreneurs, production managers, high-level intelligentsia and highly skilled workers. Since the criteria for the "middle class" are not uniform, estimates of its size vary greatly. According to a sociological survey conducted by the Institute for Comprehensive Social Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian middle class now makes up about a third of the country's total population. According to other researchers, it is only a quarter.

Thirdly, the stratum of the poor. It includes manual workers from among the working class, ordinary peasants from state farms and collective farms, the unemployed, and old-age pensioners. Yeltsin's "shock therapy" caused inflation, prices went up, as a result of which the savings of many citizens depreciated, real incomes and living standards fell sharply. After Putin came to power, some efforts were made to reduce the number of the poor, but the phenomena of poverty have by no means been eliminated, the differentiation between the rich and the poor is still very large, the polarization between them is very serious. In his political address this year, President Putin acknowledged that one-fourth of the population still has incomes below the minimum subsistence level.

2. Changes in the structure of social class strata in China
In the initial period after the founding of the PRC, four classes formed in China: the working class, the peasant class, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie. After the socialist transformations were basically completed in 1956, two classes and one stratum formed, namely: the working class, the peasant class and the stratum of the intelligentsia. Starting from 1978, when reform and opening up began, our country, based on the postulate of China's presence at the initial stage of socialism, approved the fundamental economic system of joint multi-structural development with the dominance of public property and the distribution system with the coexistence of its diverse forms with the dominance of distribution according to work. The recently concluded 3rd Plenum of the 16th CPC Central Committee emphasized that that it is necessary to maintain the dominant position of public property, actively implement diverse and effective forms of public property, further strengthen the vitality of public property, persistently develop a mixed property sector with joint-stock state, collective and non-public capital, ensuring that the joint-stock system becomes the main form of the public property system . Along with this, the non-public sector of the economy must be persistently developed and actively oriented. collective and non-social capital, striving for the joint-stock system to become the main form of the public property system. Along with this, the non-public sector of the economy must be persistently developed and actively oriented. collective and non-social capital, striving for the joint-stock system to become the main form of the public property system. Along with this, the non-public sector of the economy must be persistently developed and actively oriented.

The change in the fundamental economic system and distribution system contributed to the corresponding changes in the structure of China's social and class strata.

First of all, the working class has changed. The changes in the working class are mainly as follows: firstly, the number has increased, the cultural level, the structure of knowledge and integral qualities have reached a very high level, there are fewer and fewer workers engaged in manual labor, and more and more workers engaged in mental labor, and personnel employed in science and technology, education, economic management. Secondly, if in the past workers worked exclusively in the sector of public property, now they work in sectors of various forms of ownership, the number of workers in enterprises of non-public property is increasing. Thirdly, the forms of employment and the value perceptions of employees and workers are also undergoing continuous pluralization, a transition is taking place from a single distribution to work, inherent in the conditions of a planned economy, to free choice of employment and free movement. Fourthly, the difference in income between different strata, different groups within the working class is gradually increasing; as a result of the reform of state enterprises and sectoral regulation, some employees and workers are dismissed, some of them are re-employed after dismissal, and some are transferred to individual management or other occupations.

Further, there were also changes in the peasant class. The changes in the peasant class are mainly as follows: firstly, the Chinese reforms began primarily from the countryside, the introduction of a system of family contractual responsibility, linked to the results of production, increased the production activity of the peasants, gave them the opportunity to fully develop their own initiative and creativity; secondly, settlement and volost enterprises received rapid development, which led to an influx of peasant entrepreneurs; thirdly, the gap in income between the inhabitants of the village and the city, between the peasants of the same district and between the peasants of different districts, is gradually increasing; fourthly, a large surplus labor force has formed in the countryside, which is moving en masse to the cities, joining the ranks of job seekers, formed a migratory population of unprecedented scale throughout the country; fifthly, following the decline in the share of agriculture in the national economy, the proportion of rural workers in the total labor force of the country has correspondingly decreased; sixth, there is a reduction in the rate of growth in the incomes of the peasantry; for some peasants (especially in the western region of the country), life is relatively difficult.

3. Changes also occurred in the ranks of the intelligentsia
In the past, for a very long period, the intelligentsia in China were erroneously regarded as bourgeois intelligentsia. Accordingly, with the in-depth development of the reform of the economic system, the former erroneous course of interpreting this stratum as "bourgeois" was corrected, and the social position of China's intelligentsia greatly improved. It was clarified that the intelligentsia is the essence of mental workers, an important component of the working class, moreover, its relatively high cultural quality part, the distributor of advanced productive forces. The changes that the intelligentsia has undergone are mainly as follows: firstly, part of the intelligentsia and scientific and technical personnel continue to work in government agencies, cultural departments, research structures, educational institutions and state-owned enterprises, having become an important backbone of the reform of all these institutions; secondly, part of the research workers, managers and scientific and technical personnel embarked on the path of starting their own business by becoming entrepreneurs in the non-state sectors of the economy, or managing personnel of joint-stock enterprises - that is, they became members of a new social stratum; thirdly, some of the intelligentsia have low incomes, there are difficulties and the matter of their material support is waiting to be improved. became members of a new social stratum; thirdly, some of the intelligentsia have low incomes, there are difficulties and the matter of their material support is waiting to be improved. became members of a new social stratum; thirdly, some of the intelligentsia have low incomes, there are difficulties and the matter of their material support is waiting to be improved.

4. Several new social strata have emerged
The Report at the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of China listed 6 new social strata, namely: the stratum of the founders of non-state scientific and technological enterprises and technical personnel, the stratum of self-employed persons, the stratum of administrative and technical personnel invited to enterprises with foreign capital; persons employed in intermediary organizations; stratum of persons of free professions. Currently, the value added generated in the non-public sectors of the economy is one third of GDP.

Despite the fact that many changes have taken place in the structure of China's social class strata during the period of reform and opening up, the working class still represents the social class base of the CPC and is the ruling class in our country. The fundamental course of the CCP, which is to rely on the working class with all your heart and all your thoughts, has not changed. The peasantry is an important force in China's socialist industrialization and an important mass pillar of the CPC. The Communist Party of China and the government of the PRC pay great attention to the problems of the peasantry, rural areas and agriculture, persistently improve the cultural qualities and living standards of the peasantry, and build a new socialist village. Along with this, the Communist Party of China and the government of the PRC are very attentive to the position and role of the new social class strata in the initial stage of socialism,

Lee Shingen



Comparative Study of Corruption Issues in China and Russia
China and Russia are two neighbors, throughout history, the paths of their social development were largely similar, although there were differences that manifested themselves in different events. This is true even [for the time] after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, although now the two countries have different ideologies. But there are many aspects of political and economic transformations that are similar in content. One of them is corruption, which was especially evident during the transition period, with [all] its features. This article examines the problem of corruption on a full scale for our two countries, and also analyzes the basis for its comparative analysis.

1. Overview of Corruption Issues
Currently, both in China and in Russia, the problem of corruption is a very acute problem. Although the governments [of our countries] are taking a variety of measures designed to minimize the consequences of corruption, the statistics show us the complexity of the situation.

According to the dynamics of the corruption perception index over the past 10 years, China and Russia have developed an extremely unfavorable situation with the level of corruption.

It should be noted that the indicators for Russia in dynamics are decreasing somewhat faster than for China, in 2005 the index was 2.4 points and 128th in the world. In China, the situation with the indicators of this index is not much better - 78th place.

The latest study by the Russian Democratic Information Foundation shows that the situation with corruption in Russia is very difficult. In 2005 corruption in Russia reached 316 billion US dollars. The average bribe given to officials was $135,800. Manifestations of corruption are noticeable in the education system, in healthcare, pensions, when looking for a job and hiring, in dealing with the state traffic inspectorate and in the process of office work in courts. The scale of corruption in higher education alone in 2005 reached 583.4 million US dollars. In the healthcare sector, bribery has reached $401 million. In the work of military enlistment offices, the volume of bribes for the opportunity to evade military duty in 2005 amounted to 353.6 million US dollars.

According to a United Nations study, from June to September 2004, in more than 60 countries, the global average level of corruption was 10%, while in Russia this figure is twice as high and reaches the level of 21%. In April 2006, Izvestia published that over the past five years, one out of every three people had been forced to pay bribes. The amount of bribes ranges from 2,000 to 7,500 rubles. The average bribe in Russia is 5,048 rubles.

Corruption in China, according to statistics, is also a very serious problem. According to the data on the activities of the Prosecutor's Office of the PRC, supervisory authorities at all levels in 1979-1982. dealt with a total of 98225 cases of corruption and bribery, in 1983-1987. there has been an increase to 155,000 cases, in 1988-1992. - up to 214318 cases, in 1993-1997. - up to 387352 cases. Over the past 18 years, according to studies of corruption and bribery, the average annual growth rate was 22%. According to statistics, from October 1997 to May 2002, the supervisory authorities dealt with 78 million problem cases, and 780,000 people were subjected to disciplinary measures of party responsibility, a total of more than 30.1 billion yuan was returned to the treasury. According to nationwide investigations from 2001 to July 2005. in total, there were 152,440 cases of investigation and 170,087 cases of corruption and bribery. In the same period, the state's total economic losses [from corruption] amounted to 18.96 billion yuan. Some economists have pointed out that the losses associated with corruption in China could be as high as one trillion yuan, which is between 13% and 16.8% of GNP. These cases of uncovered corruption are just the tip of the iceberg. In reality, the problem of corruption is much more serious than is believed. These cases of uncovered corruption are just the tip of the iceberg. In reality, the problem of corruption is much more serious than is believed. These cases of uncovered corruption are just the tip of the iceberg. In reality, the problem of corruption is much more serious than is believed.

2. Features of corruption
There are many similar features of corruption in China and Russia.

Corruption is both a socio-political and economic aspect of everyday life. Corruption in China and Russia occurs at all levels, including various departments, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, medical and educational institutions, parliament, the media and other areas.

According to the INDEM Foundation, the latest study shows that the situation with corruption in Russia in 2001-2005. worsened. Over the past four years, business corruption in Russia has grown more than ninefold, from about $33 billion to $316 billion a year, while the average bribe paid by Russian businessmen to officials was $130,000. These figures do not include corruption in the highest echelons of power. In 2001, the Russian corruption market was valued at $33.5 billion. The size of the business corruption market grew about four times faster than federal budget revenues. Corruption is increasing daily. The scale of corruption in higher education, healthcare, and the performance of military duty in recent years is indicated above. In 2001, in Russia, 50.1% of the population faced corruption on a daily basis, and by 2005, this figure reached 54.9%. In solving personal problems in 2001, 25.7% of residents faced the risk of corruption, and by 2005 this figure had reached 35%.

According to recent studies, corruption has several causes: (1) a purely economic reason associated with the need to make the necessary political decision for business by party and government bodies; (2) permanent payments from wages for the “private” needs of decision makers; (3) bribery and power grab to create favorable opportunities for managing financial flows and speed up the progress of affairs; (4) distribution of "cheques with no indication of the amount" in party and government institutions, academic and scientific institutions, etc.; (5) The general atmosphere of striving for the accumulation of capital at any cost. Corrupt elements pursue the goal of achieving wealth through the illegal accumulation of capital, which could be directed to personal needs.

In the new situation in Russia, the idea of ​​corruption has also changed. In addition to the usual bribery in the form of money [in an envelope], new forms of bribes have appeared in the form of payment for business trips and travel abroad, guarantees of profitable jobs [for officials after leaving state structures], embezzlement of money from the state treasury. The process of economic transformation is used by many government officials to enrich themselves by participating in privatizations, land transactions, credit distribution, etc., as well as through equity participation in the activities of companies and the distribution of profits. Russian government officials, abusing their power, get their hands on huge sums of money. Previously, with high inflation, they made money on delaying the wages of miners, teachers, and the military.

And in China, corruption is taking on new forms. Firstly, it is a cover-up by the law for a number of illegal actions. Secondly, “intellectual” corruption, which is no longer based on a simple thirst for momentary profit, but is based on the use of computer and high technologies to commit crimes. Thirdly, corruption strengthens the relationship between business and government, which is only getting stronger year by year.

Geographic features of corruption. Until recently, China was a country with a traditional culture and value system, and despite economic changes, it remains so in many ways. Therefore, family ties play an important role in corruption. For example, this is manifested in family ties within state institutions. In the southeast of China, export-oriented, there are peculiarities of manifestation of corruption associated primarily with business. In the north, where there is a large number of state-owned enterprises, corruption problems are associated with the erosion of state assets.

In Russia, the closer to Moscow, the greater the scale of corruption, for example, the level of revealed corruption (recognition of officials in bribes) in the Volga region was 17%, in the Central District, in the North-West and the Moscow Region - 19%, 26% and 53% respectively.

Some Russian government officials accept bribes from the mafia in collusion with the mafia. Since the beginning of the transition period, the Russian mafia has continued to develop and grow, carrying out more and more unbridled activities to accumulate enormous wealth. One of the means of their activity is bribery. At various levels of government, government officials were arrested who served as fronts, for example, in selling weapons to crime syndicates. Other examples: smuggling of drugs, nuclear materials, "exemption" from customs duties, taxes, the conclusion of lucrative government contracts, etc.

This is also the case in China. There is a "special relationship" between the police and thieves, there is drug trafficking and gangster gangs that are covered by government officials, local public security and judicial officials.

In addition to these features, there are some significant features of China, the main features are:

1. Highly visible cases of corruption among government officials.

2. Cases related to the abuse of power in the field when supervising the activities of various institutions, organizations, enterprises.

3. There are obvious facts of corruption associated with the provision of "special" conditions in the management of financial flows, in the transportation of raw materials and the management of international trade operations, in the field of industry. Some corrupt officials pursue their goals in cooperation with foreign businessmen, receiving illegal profits from transactions. According to the Ministry of Commerce, released for the first time, there are more than 4,000 corrupt officials [who made money in these areas], and the turnover under their control amounted to a total of 50 billion US dollars.

3. Causes of corruption
The corruption of China and Russia has several underlying causes.

Difficulties of the transition period. China's transition from a planned economy to a market economy took place gradually, and the transformation of the market infrastructure was gradually carried out. Therefore, our control system basically continues to be the old model of a planned economy, which inevitably leads to a discrepancy between conditions and opportunities. In addition, in the process of socio-economic transformation, new areas of economic activity have emerged, such as the real estate market and the stock exchange. And here the corresponding control system has not yet been installed. Therefore, in these new areas, the level of corruption is high.

Russia began "shock therapy", which became a symbol of radical reforms. These reforms rapidly destroyed the old planned economic system, and a market economy system was established in its place. But, as the experience of developed countries shows, the development of a market economy is a long process that cannot be completed within a short period of time. Therefore, it is important to create specific forms of control that prevent the emergence of corruption in such conditions. Market chaos only creates favorable opportunities for the individual appropriation of capital by corrupt officials who use the market opportunities and the situation with the redistribution of various resources, leading to super-enrichment.

The fight against corruption is conducted by the government inefficiently. In this regard, subjective factors play an important role. When the government faces a situation of rampant corruption, it is very difficult for anti-corruption forces to develop. In Russia, for example, the situation is the same, corruption is everywhere, and there is no one to fight it. The objective reason is that there are many obstacles in the [effective] fight against corruption.

The absence of the necessary laws and regulations, as well as the refusal to act within the framework of existing legislation.

The Chinese government has initiated more than 300 laws, instructions, more than 30,000 rules, but due to various reasons, they are not implemented, or not implemented in all. Therefore, in the selection and appointment to positions, the correct solution of the personnel issue is important. We need party and government control in this area. What is needed is a real fight against corruption instead of formal operations within the system.

Russia joined the United Nations agreement on the fight against corruption. Many laws and regulations related to curbing corruption have been enacted. The anti-corruption law was specifically initiated back in November 2001, it was submitted to the parliament in 2002, and in 2005 its re-consideration was initiated. Such a delay in the development of legislation does not contribute to the anti-corruption fight.

ethical aspect. Russia has had a communist code of ethics for a long time, and it has dominated [society and political life]. After the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union, the communist ethic was set aside, and the new system had to come from the morality and ethics of the market. Under the influence of the “demonstration effect”, people began to focus on the living standards of developed countries, where the main ethical principle is a high income, so the desire to obtain it at any cost has led to a decrease in the moral standards of our society as a whole. Due to the long-standing one-sided emphasis on national, collective interests and disregard for personal interests, the opposite situation has developed, which has led to extreme selfishness. Many government officials ignore the interests of the state and collective interests and act on their own selfish aspirations. In China, the development of ethics and value systems also faced the problem of regulation. During the transitional period, the ethics of the nation was violated, many lost the sense of collectivism, which led to a decrease in moral standards.

In addition to the above reasons for corruption in our countries, attention should be paid to the following.

Sluggish reform of government functions. The development of a market economy required a reduction in state intervention in economic life. At the beginning of the process of forming a market economy, the planned system only hindered the development of enterprises. Which led to corruption among Chinese officials. Agencies cannot monopolize market transactions, but can only exercise the function of macro-control and management functions, monitoring market transactions in accordance with the law. They are also required to control state-owned assets in order to guarantee the state against losses associated with their inefficient use. And if the government minds its own business, and private enterprises mind their own, then corruption can be significantly reduced.

Overconcentration of power, lack of control and containment mechanisms [of corruption]. In China, there are serious flaws in the power structure, power is still too concentrated. Certain signs: the patriarchy of the system, the problems of moving personnel up [up the management hierarchy], the lack of will of officials. It can be said that the overconcentration of power is not limited to the personnel system and leadership structure, which creates favorable opportunities for corruption. And there is no system aimed at strict control of the powers [of officials].

The problem of decentralization of management in Russia. Since 1991 in the Soviet Union, and in 1992, already under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, changes have taken place in political life in the direction of the development of pluralism of opinions and the formation of a market system. And the president has many powers, and the parliament is weak. There are difficulties in complying with various laws and regulations. The executive power during the transitional period did not have the opportunity to pay attention to the anti-corruption policy, as it was busy with transformations in the economic sphere. What created favorable conditions for corruption in all echelons of bureaucratic management. Under Putin, the country has made the transition to "managed democracy" in order to strengthen the central government, which, however, has weakened the local government. Therefore, a dilemma arose - on the one hand,

Ultimately, both China and Russia are at the beginning of a long anti-corruption journey and need a system to curb it.

Dai Longbing

https://prorivists.org/inf_theorychina-russia/#3

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply