Reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR

[blindpig]

Reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR
Post by blindpig » Thu Jun 15, 2023 7:54 pm

We have covered this topic in several places but this work deserves inspection because it is written by one of the 'Breakthrough' gang, serious communists and Russians. If anybody should know.... It is a pamphlet and so damn long I had to give it it's own thread. One section a day will be posted until complete, along with commentary.

*************************************

Reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR
3/19, March 2018



🎙
dedication

The presented pamphlet was written for the second anniversary of our wonderful newspaper Proryvist and is intended to help the reader gain clarity in the scientific establishment of the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

The brochure is dedicated to a staunch fighter, reliable comrade and faithful friend - my mother.

Author

Content
I. Methodological aspects of the study
1. On the category of "cause"
2. Diamatics of objective and subjective
3. Preconditions and factors of the transition from capitalism to communism
4. Concise formulation of the foundations of the materialist understanding of history
II. Review of the main versions of the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR
1. The Stalinist Constitution as a prerequisite for the restoration of capitalism
2. The bureaucracy is a “caste” or “class” that seized power in the USSR
3. The Kosygin-Lieberman reform, the abolition of the MTS and other reforms
4. The October Revolution turned out to be premature
5.The USSR after the death of Stalin became a capitalist country
III. The reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR
1. Circumstances of constant action
2. Sphere of finding the cause
3. Problems of the class struggle within the Communist Party
4. The roots of opportunism in anthroposociogenesis
5. The opportunistic degeneration of the party leadership is the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR

ORDER BROCHURE BY MAIL
Introduction
Over the past fifteen years, the question of the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR has received a generally recognized solution, however, in the very first approximation - all left-wing organizations and researchers have recognized that the specific reasons lie somewhere in the indisputable fact of the degradation of the CPSU. However, at the same time, most of the materials devoted to the study of the causes of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR are collections of historical facts of a known segment of the history of the USSR after the death of Stalin and before the establishment of a new bourgeois state in varying degrees of reliability and detail. Using description as research methodeconomic, political, and social processes in the USSR, the left hopes, through the diligence and thoroughness of collecting and systematizing facts, to reveal, in fact, this question itself. Thus, the situation with the theoretical press proves that for a truly scientific search for an answer to the question of the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, it is impossible not to understand what, generally speaking, such a reason is.

In addition, the dominance of an extremely schematic understanding of the formation theory makes the leftists categorically announce various changes in the economy of the USSR as a reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR: the Kosygin reform, the liquidation of the MTS, the transfer of equipment to collective farms, and the like. The identification of the material factors of the construction of communism and the restoration of capitalism, thus, as an integral part of the question of identifying the causes of the restoration of capitalism, shows the modern left's lack of full knowledge of the theory of building communism.

I.Methodological aspects of the study
1.About the category "reason"
Ushakov's explanatory dictionary explains that the reason is

“a phenomenon, a circumstance that serves as the basis of something or causes the appearance of another phenomenon.”

Approximately with this concept of reason, confusing the dictionary meaning with the Marxist category, the leftists are engaged in factoscopy of the history of the USSR.

Undoubtedly, firstly , that a cause without an effect, a cause taken in isolation, has no meaning, and vice versa. The cause, according to Hegel, "shines" in the effect, and the effect in the cause.

Secondly , the effect is posited in itself as the cause, the transformation of the cause into the effect is the transformation of the cause into what it is in its essence. Lenin pointed out:

“Cause and effect, ergo, are only moments of universal interdependence, connection (universal), interconnection of events, only links in the chain of development of matter” (“Synopsis of Hegel’s book“ Science of Logic ””.).

The identification of a cause in an infinite variety of facts is its establishment. Primary analysis - the division of the diversity of past events taken in unity - is an obligatory, but the very initial stage of the study. Confusing essential and non-essential does not allow to establish the cause. Here is how, for example, Hegel points out what "enters" the cause:

“A reason, for example, a painter or a pushing body, has, however, another content: the painter is in addition to colors and their form, which connects colors to [create] a picture, and the pushing body is in addition to the movement of a certain force and a certain direction. But this other content is an accidental appendage, not related to the cause; whatever other qualities the painter may have, regardless of the fact that he is the painter of a given picture, this does not enter into the picture; only those of its properties which are present in action are inherent in it as a cause; for the rest of its properties it is not a cause. In the same way, whether the pushing body is a stone or a tree, whether it is green, yellow, etc., this does not enter into its push, and in this sense it is not a cause ”(“ Science of Logic ”).

Thirdly , the transformation of a cause into an effect cannot be a simple direct development of it, the cause as a phenomenon must be considered in unity with its opposite, that is, in a state of struggle with it, and just “victory”, the denial of the opposite, is the moment of transformation cause to effect.

Fourthly , the emergence of an effect from a cause is not a temporal operation in itself, but a meaningful one - the development of matter, although it takes place in time. For some believe that the whole past is the cause of the whole present and that any historical fragment can be correlated with any fragment of the more distant past and thus assign causes and effects. In fact, the causal chain is strictly defined, strictly specific.

Thus,

“in the philosophy of Marxism, the category “cause” is adopted to denote not just a specific historical fact that precedes an event (at best, this is called a prerequisite or reason), but, first of all, a factor that has reached a certain degree of maturity and is in unity with its opposite, but therefore, in a state of struggle with it, denying it, which gives the investigation a strictly defined, concrete character, and a relatively stable form. Simply put, struggle and only struggle can be the cause of this or that effect. Nothing in the universe arises without struggle, understood diamatically. In turn, the struggle arises there and then, where and when there is an identity and unity of opposites” - V.A. Podguzov (“ Methodology for studying the causes of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR ”).

The absence in the left movement of a universally recognized detailed concept of the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR speaks mainly of the fact that, at the same time, there is no understanding of what the construction of communism actually is. Today, in the left-wing information space, if, of course, we exclude all sorts of Trotskyism and semi-Trotskyism, several historical facts of completely different significance and scale are slipped as reasons: the petty-bourgeoisness of the masses, the Kosygin-Lieberman reform, the liquidation of the MTS and the transfer of equipment to collective farms, the betrayal of the party leadership and even the legal norms born of the Stalinist Constitution. As if petty-bourgeoisism appeared in the early 1950s, before Kosygin there was no Voznesensky and others like him, and the constitution was adopted not in 1936, but in 1956.

In general terms, the reasons are described as the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat (and almost always it means various legal squiggles, and the rejection of it is presented in the form of declarations and documents of the XXII Congress of the CPSU), as a rejection of the class struggle and a turn towards the market against the plan - that's all as a result of the degradation of the CPSU. But again, these are not reasons, even if they are listed in a neat row, but previous events and phenomena. They talk about the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR no more than the phrase "After the death of Stalin, everything went wrong." But what is mostly wrong and why specifically - that is the question.

Revealing the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR will make it possible to avoid counter-revolution in the future, despite the fact that the specifics of the specific historical conditions of the USSR were unique. In the meantime, left-wing theorists have revealed the historical facts that preceded the collapse of the USSR, and they know exactly what should not be repeated from the experience of the USSR, but this in no way insures against making independent and original mistakes. All the mistakes that lead to the restoration of capitalism have a single basis - it is the cause.

Thus, not every fact is a cause, but at the same time, the diamatic method requires the identification of not only the factor as such, that is, the immediate cause, but also the completeness of the accompanying context - the entire volume of connections of the phenomenon in its main one. What then is this context in the first place? Mainly - this is the ratio of the number of elements of the factor itself and its opposite , in unity with which it exists as a stable phenomenon. And, therefore, the prerequisites for the maturation of this factor - that is, the dependencequantitative growth of the elements of a factor of a strictly defined quality from links external to a given phenomenon. Otherwise, the context is a set of conditions, including spatial and temporal ones, that in one way or another affect the maturation of the factor.

So,

“under the word cause, one should understand, first of all, the RATES of development of opposing factors involved by natural historical circumstances in unity and struggle, therefore, in the process of negation of negation. The negation itself (the moment of the jump) is unthinkable otherwise than as a consequence of MOVEMENT, i.e. objective accumulation of quantitative changes leading to a qualitative leap" - V.A. Podguzov (" Methodology of the study of the causes of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR ").

Usually they say that such and such facts were the cause of such and such an event, and list them. Sometimes one or more facts are singled out as the main one among others. In reality, a cause is a certain stable state , the quantitative certainty of its homogeneous constituent elements can be illustrated or described by certain facts. The consequence, therefore, is a new stable state that has arisen as a result of the development or degradation of the former.

It should be understood that it happens that the reasons are given to us completely on the surface, the only mystery is in what specific form they will manifest themselves - what specific quantitative certainties will make the reason mature enough. It happens that the onset of the effect is absolutely inevitable in the very near future, so the cause can be felt as the action itself.

The category "cause" must be properly applied.

An excellent illustration of the establishment and concise formulation of the reasons for the victory of Bolshevism is Stalin's book "History of the CPSU (b.). Short Course.

If the identification of causes occurs in a satisfactory manner, then the factor is usually indicated as the main fact or main facts . A factor differs from a fact in that it represents a certain trend, and within the framework of social development, every factor has two sides: objective and subjective.

(Continued following post.)

[blindpig]

2.Diamatics of objective and subjective

The most important condition for understanding the cause in social science is the understanding of the diamatics of the objective and the subjective in society. The fact is that in nature all correlations of forces are formed and interact only objectively and spontaneously. The outcome of any "struggle" of factors appears exclusively in the form of reinforced concrete necessity directly. Whereas in society the balance of forces or potentials is formed exclusively with the participation of consciousness. Moreover, the level of adequacy of consciousness plays a key role in optimizing the objective process of the development of society.

Engels explained this:

“The history of the development of society in one point differs essentially from the history of the development of nature. In nature (since we leave aside the reverse influence of man on it), only blind, unconscious forces act on each other, in the interaction of which general laws are manifested. There is no conscious, desired goal anywhere here: neither in the countless apparent accidents visible on the surface, nor in the final results confirming the existence of a pattern within these accidents.

On the contrary, in the history of society there are people who are endowed with consciousness, who act deliberately or under the influence of passion, striving for certain goals. Here nothing is done without a conscious intention, without a desired goal. But no matter how important this distinction is for historical research, especially of individual epochs and events, it does not in the least change the fact that the course of history is subject to internal general laws. In fact, even in this area, on the surface of phenomena, in spite of the consciously desired goals of each individual person, by and large, apparently, chance reigns. The desired is accomplished only in rare cases; for the most part, the goals set by people before themselves come into mutual clashes and contradictions or turn out to be unattainable partly by their very nature, partly due to the lack of means for their implementation. The collisions of innumerable individual strivings and individual actions lead in the realm of history to a state completely analogous to that which prevails in nature devoid of consciousness. Actions have a known desired goal; but the results actually resulting from these actions are not at all desirable. And if at first they seem to correspond to the desired goal, then in the end they lead not at all to the consequences that were desirable. Thus, it turns out that, by and large, chance also dominates in the field of historical phenomena. But where the game of chance takes place on the surface, there this chance itself always turns out to be subordinate to internal, hidden laws. The whole point is to discover these laws.

Whatever the course of history, people make it this way: everyone pursues his own, consciously set goals, and the total result of this multitude of strivings operating in various directions and their various effects on the external world is precisely history. The question therefore also boils down to what this multitude of individuals wants. Will is determined by passion or reflection. But those levers which, in their turn, directly determine passion or reflection, are of the most varied nature. Partly it may be external objects, partly ideal motives: ambition, “serving truth and right,” personal hatred, or even purely individual whims of every kind. But, on the one hand, we have already seen that the numerous individual strivings operating in history in most cases do not produce the same consequences as

Marx and Engels emphasized even more succinctly in The Holy Family:

“It is impossible to separate thinking from the matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all change."

If we take society as a whole, then the subjective is of two kinds. The first is based on knowledge, that is, when the subjective coincides with the objective.

“For mentally healthy people, reasoning about an object always, in the end, leads to the comprehension of the essence of the object under study. Subjectively formulated truths, from the point of view of the degree of their adequacy to the object of reflection, are identical to the objective content of the subject of research and, at the same time, are opposite to it, since thought, no matter how accurate it is, remains a thought about the object, but not the object itself. Another question is that adequate thinking, as an integral PROPERTY of a person, objectively transforms the subject himself, puts him in different relations with the outside world, nevertheless, figuratively speaking, thought is a form of ordering atoms or electrons (this is especially clear in magnetic media) , but not the generation of atoms from thought itself.

…

Objective factors, as we know, do not depend on consciousness, but consciousness, even adequate consciousness, depends on the content of objective social being and does not include anything that would not be contained in objective reality. We note, in passing, that only that consciousness can be adequate, the carriers of which do not try to explain the problems of being from the standpoint of delusion, incl. Einsteinianism, i.e. Machism in physics and, denying each other, branches of theology.

…

The objective and the subjective are in an inseparable unity and, naturally, a struggle, the essence of which can only be understood diamatically. Consciousness will look funny if all information about the material world is emasculated from it. It turns out the inner world is infinitely poorer than that of a deaf-deaf-mute newborn. The development of deaf-deaf-dumb human individuals has so far occurred only due to the accumulation of information about the surrounding material world, which entered their consciousness through the organs of touch. The diversity of the material world predetermines the richness of emotions and knowledge, tasks and functions, connections and relationships that arise in human society.

The thesis about the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness in isolation from their consideration as an identity, as a form of the unity of opposites, is absolutely fruitless. This formulation works only as a password for anyone who wants to enter the hallway of dialectical materialism. However, having passed the “gates” of science, delving into its expanses, it is just as useless and dangerous to trump with this password ”- V.A. Podguzov (" Methodology of the study of the causes of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR ").

In this case, the known objective laws of the external world dominate. As an example, today it is difficult to cite any broad sphere of social life where one could find a truly free domination of scientific knowledge. The most suitable, of course, are the various technological requirements of production - machines and units are practically incompatible with subjectivism. And here you can also recall many of the developed local safety requirements - industrial, transport and sanitation. Pandemics that kill 30-40% of the population have forced humanity to learn the basic rules of hygiene.

Second- subjective, manifested as delusion or ignorance. Here man is dominated by the blind necessity of the objective conditions of the external world and the laws of the development of society itself, but humanity is not ready for them, cannot appropriately adapt, and, therefore, they “hit” it more painfully. For example, human society as a whole has not yet armed itself with the known laws of its own reproduction (communism), therefore it has become entangled in internal contradictions between its members (classes) and lives inexpediently, wastefully, stupidly, from social catastrophe to social catastrophe (prehistory of mankind). But these laws themselves exist and have always existed even before their discovery by Marx. They seem to be dictated by the external need for survival and are the optimal form for this. The laws of reproduction are manifested in particular in the social nature of production, in the necessary collectivism of people as a whole. Instead of their detailed knowledge, most of the society is dominated by animal atavisms (competition, private property).

If we take the subjective exclusively within society, between individuals, groups of people, that is, take the objectivity of the subjective, it turns out that everything that is subjective for others is objective for an individual. But this is a very formal definition, which requires clarification, primarily because of the presence of social class antagonisms, because of the internal conflict of society.

Thus, “the most objective” is social consciousness, collective will, worldviews of groups, including classes. For an individual or a separate group, the will of the vast masses is unquestionably objective. Why? The point is that the degree of objectivity in a non-antagonistic society depends on the level of knowledge, while in an antagonistic society it depends on the outcome of coercion .

What is objective, say, for the proletariat class? As long as he does not understand the structure of society, the will of the bourgeoisie, "constructed" in the form of law, state, morality, acts as an objective one. Are the legal norms of, say, the Civil Code objective for the proletariat today? Objective! Moreover, one proletarian (judge, bailiff, policeman) “beats” another proletarian for them with the complete conviction that the law is something like a natural force. But as consciousness grows, due to the fact that the proletariat is the class of the majority of society and, with the proper development of its consciousness, no material social force can influence it purely technically, the proletariat can show its will on the issue of social order and at least impose its own norms of law, and maybe, guided by scientific knowledge, to impose everything that is required in accordance with the objective necessity of progress dictated by conditions outside society (the expedient organization of the reproduction of society or the construction of communism). That is, his will will become objective both for other social groups and for individuals. In particular, because he, that is, the working class , is able to impose his will, including by force of coercion.

In the same way, relations of production are objective for all people under capitalism, although some are well aware that wage labor, capital, the market, and private capitalist property are, to put it mildly, very stupid and harmful forms of relations between people.

In passing, for an exhaustive understanding of the examples, it should be recalled that the division of society into classes is a product of the use of the difference of people, which historically developed in the course of the division of labor .

From these examples, among other things, it is clear that violence is precisely the result of the transformation of the collision of subjective opposites in social contradiction into objective conditions of coercion for the losing side.

Thus, absolutely objectively , firstly, that which is generally outside of society, that is, the entire universe. Secondly, a necessary clarification to the first one: it is also absolutely objective that, being outside of society, it is a material factor of its existence within society itself, that is, the conditions of nature and the human body itself as its manifestation.

Relatively objective , that is, the objectivity of the subjective , within society, from a purely formal side - everything that is outside the subject. Further, to the point. The "productive" subjective is science, that is, that which coincides with the objective. Behind this subjective is the objective future, because practice makes the objective reality “obey”. Socially significant in conditions of social antagonisms (class society), that is, in conditions of a low level of consciousness in general, the prehistory of mankind, then the subjective, behind which there is a greater material force. In this connection, it is clear that the rule of the bourgeoisie rests not on violence in the literal sense of the word, that the armed bourgeoisie is capable of crushing the proletariat, but onignorance of the proletariat , since only subjective delusions allow the gigantic material force of the majority of society to exclude itself from the objective process of the class struggle. The ignorance of the proletariat, on the one hand, and the greed of the bourgeoisie, on the other hand, are the objective factors of class division.

With the development of science, with the mastery of scientific knowledge by the whole society, everything subjective, which does not correspond to the objective, fades away. And thus, the objective inside society gradually coincides with the objective outside society - this is the process of increasing social harmony. In a society of mature communism, the subjective should only reflect individuality, the "handwriting" of the individual, but not claim any other objectivity. For example, Beethoven in his work through his personality (subjective) revealed the revolutionary era (objective), and his subjective as a whole does not interfere in any way, but, as it were, only expresses the objective, despite the fact that he dedicated his works to some random people and generally created, in a sense, for random reasons.

It's time to remember Stalin's interview:

“Marxism does not at all deny the role of outstanding personalities or the fact that people make history. In Marx, in his The Poverty of Philosophy and other writings, you can find the words that it is people who make history. But, of course, people do not make history in the way that some fantasy tells them, not in the way that comes to their mind. Each new generation encounters certain conditions already in place at the moment when this generation was born. And great people are worth something only insofar as they know how to correctly understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they do not understand these conditions and want to change these conditions as their fantasy tells them, then they, these people, fall into the position of Don Quixote. Thus, it is precisely according to Marx that one should not oppose people to conditions. It is the people but only insofar as they correctly understand the conditions that they found ready-made, and only insofar as they understand how to change these conditions, do they make history. This, at least, is how we Russian Bolsheviks understand Marx. And we have been studying Marx for decades... Marxism has never denied the role of heroes. On the contrary, he recognizes this role as significant, however, with the reservations that I just spoke about ”(“ A Conversation with the German Writer Emil Ludwig ”).

Therefore, it is clear that in Stalin's answer, the conditions are something objective, while great people are subjective. What is the objective condition in this case? Here, firstly, it is absolutely objective - natural conditions and social factors arising from them. Secondly, in fact, the will and consciousness of the classes entangled in the struggle, in the first place, and other types of will and consciousness, behind which there is a large social material force.

In the consciousness of the masses, as an objective condition, two fundamental components should be singled out. The first is the entrenched division of labor. The development of human society requires the involvement in the process of reproduction of mankind more and more elements and forces of nature, which causes a certain specialization of labor. The depth of labor's mediation of natural material at a certain stage brought to life in one case the need for a division of labor into predominantly physical and predominantly mental, in another case into agriculture and industry. And secondly , since these leaps in the division of labor took place in the condition of only the initial separation of human society from the bosom of nature, then material interest, that is, a complex of animal reflexes and instincts, even the remnants of cannibalism in the human psyche, developing over hundreds of thousands of years of malnutrition and freezing, as the most significant “already ready-made” baggage, which acted at the same time in the form of a special public relation of private property , divided thus society into classes . Therefore, class division is a kind of realization of the potential difference between the more advantageous and the less advantageous position. And overcoming the class division from a subjective point of view is a compensation for the difference in this situation (the first phase of communism and the dictatorship of the working class), but from an objective point of view there is elimination of the antagonism of the division of labor, mainly by eliminating predominantly manual labor in general and turning agriculture into a full-fledged branch of industry (mature communism).

With regard to the relationship between the genetic factors of the psyche and exploitation, V.A. Podguzova says:

“Today, no one doubts that the potential of abilities for various types of creativity, especially for its brilliant levels, is rooted in the structure of chromosomes. Under favorable social conditions, they form a personality capable of outstanding results in areas that correspond to natural inclinations. Under NOT favorable social conditions, natural inclinations are conserved or completely lost, especially if the owner of the ingenious gene set ordered everyone to live long in infancy. All these objective genetic prerequisites play a significant role in the formation of both parasitic and altruistic inclinations of the individual.

In slave-owning, feudal and bourgeois conditions, the lower classes, under the supervision of parochial schools and madrasahs, Catholic universities, synagogues, the Inquisition and the synod, boyars, guardsmen, gendarmes, executioners, hard labor and jails, regardless of genetic predisposition, were forced to produce the bottom. The tops, regardless of the degree of their mediocrity, produced the masters of these bottoms. Social conditions most significantly influenced and still influence the process of realization of genetic inclinations, excluding the automaticity of their disclosure in the individual in the conditions of a class-antagonistic society. Only under communism are the inhibitory effects on the natural creative inclinations of EVERYONE excluded individuals and, at the same time, the conditions of communism do not contain the elements of being that would nourish the cannibalistic, parasitic inclinations in the psyche of individuals.

Rare cases of individual representatives of the "lower classes" breaking through to the "tops" in a class society, without making "the weather", without canceling the operation of the prevailing law, gave rise to a condescending saying in Russian folklore: "From rags to riches."

Thus, there is every reason to assert that there are not only INDIVIDUALS capable of developing into a violinist, doctor, artist, inventor, but also INDIVIDUALS that push the humanoid onto the path of parasitism, i.e. contributing to the formation of a slave owner, feudal lord, entrepreneur, liberal, clergyman, cannibal in a person. Cases of cannibalism also take place in the 21st century and testify to the presence in the genes of certain individuals of a hereditary tendency to this type of atavism ”(“ Can the Communists go forward, embarrassed by the word communism? - 3 ”).

Returning to Stalin's quote: therefore, it is correct to understand the conditions, correctly understand how they must be changed from the point of view of the objective requirements of progress and thus set in motion the masses - the material forces of society, and there is that activity that makes the great great . Such activity is a process of affirming the identity of the subjective and the objective , the quality and quantity of which, as we move from the era of the decline of class societies to the era of the actual history of mankind - communism - will only increase.

It can be seen from the foregoing that an understanding of the relationship between the objective and the subjective in society, especially in the course of building communism, is a prerequisite for revealing the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

In the left movement, preference is given to vulgar materialism, the gap between the objective and the subjective, the search for an “objective” reason in the basis of Soviet society. However, Lenin explained that

“The opposition of matter and consciousness has an absolute meaning ... exclusively within the main epistemological question of what to recognize as primary and what to recognize as secondary. Beyond these limits, the relativity of this opposition is undoubted" ("Materialism and Empirio-Criticism").

Moreover, Lenin recognized the grossest mistake

“the oblivion of Marxism, expressed in a theoretically incorrect, eclectic definition of the relationship of politics to the economy” (“Once again about trade unions, about the current situation and about the mistakes of comrades Trotsky and Bukharin”).

Explaining his idea at the same time there:

“Politics is a concentrated expression of economics,” I repeated in my speech, because I had heard this reproach, completely inconsistent, in the mouth of a Marxist, for my “political” approach. Politics cannot but take precedence over economics. To argue differently means to forget the ABC of Marxism.”

The left movement continues to confuse the concept of "primacy" and the concept of "primacy". Marxism, while recognizing the primacy of the human organism in relation to consciousness, at the same time obviously recognizes the primacy of the second over the first. Marxism, recognizing, in addition, the primacy of social being over social consciousness, however, affirms the primacy of the latter over the former. A multiple and accessible presentation of this issue is available in the articles by V.A. Podguzov. One of many examples:

“Matter is primary in the sense that it is reflected in consciousness, but if consciousness correctly reflected the cause-and-effect relationships of matter, it will not wait, for example, for the next lightning strike. Consciousness allows its bearer to produce fire when he wants and give it to people, like Prometheus, i.e. consciously.

… Indeed, the external environment surrounds us. Man also sways in the wind. But unlike oak, it is able to hide from the wind. A person begins to act like a human only after the external environment has an impact on his receptors, gives rise to "signals" that will enter the "memory" and be processed by the hemispheres, after which they will turn into a "command" thought for action. If a person's consciousness is dialectical, then his reaction will be adequate to the external environment of any complexity. If the consciousness of a person is spoiled by vulgar materialism, then such a person will definitely screw something up for the amusement of the public.

The main thing for which the classics of Marxism “broke their spears” in battles with vulgar materialists is the following: the recognition of the primacy of matter allows us to draw a fundamental conclusion that objective laws operate in the world that do not depend on human consciousness, but are cognizable by it and amenable to use. Consciousness only reveals what objectively exists, although the brain can creatively multiply the quantity and quality of combinations from fragments of objective reality. Only seven musical notes gave rise to many combinations of them, i.e. music. One and the same brick allows for many architectural solutions. Even the generation of fear, pain, in all descriptions, resembles people with different, but real human complexes, and devils differ from vulgar materialists only in hooves, horns, pig snouts and tails, i.e. details, borrowed from objective reality. But every attempt to think contrary to the objective laws of matter is equal to self-destruction. It is no coincidence that the Qur'an contains an observation taken from life: “If Allah wants to punish a sinner, then he takes away his mind. The owner of an empty head will do everything else on himself.” A very materialistic observation.

Communism has not yet been built in the USSR, not because there were not enough objective prerequisites, but because there are many divorced people in the country with diplomas instead of intelligence, who at first twitch, and then pretend to think, who do not think with “convolutions of the brain”, but with the folds of the stomach ”(“ To the Circumcisionists of Marxism ”).

And here:

“Every intellectual from the student's bench knows that social being, according to Marx, is primary, and social consciousness is secondary. But, as social life has shown, it is almost impossible to find philosophers on the territory of the USSR who would know what they “eat” this thought with. In other words, the conclusion on the question of the relationship between social being and social consciousness, formulated in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, again turned into truth "in itself".

Meanwhile, the phrase “social being” is adopted in Marxism to denote not just the existence of society, its presence, but, as Hegel said, the whole totality of relations that arise between people in the process of reproducing the material conditions of being and all forms of development of society. Social being is not a mechanical sum of the current being of individual people. It is the necessary and only possible form of human existence precisely as a Human, outside of which the Human disappears, being reborn into an upright animal.

It is no coincidence that since the emergence of private property, and hence the state, there has been the most sadistic form of punishment in the form of lifelong solitary confinement or exile to a desert island, i.e. forced exclusion from society.

The mental, emotional and physical properties and inclinations of a Human preclude his solitary existence.

Unlike unicellular organisms, reproduction, development and exchange with the substance of nature is possible for a person only through social being, only due to the need and ability to carry out diverse forms of relations between people with the inevitable development of these forms.

If in "non-living" matter the moment of its existence, motion and reflection are absolutely inseparable from each other, i.e. are immediate and instantaneous, then the movement of society as matter is mediated, i.e. occurs only after the objective laws of motion, one way or another, are reflected in the individual and social consciousness. Only after this, the individual and society begin their movement towards triumph or tragedy, depending on what they choose as an answer to the question posed by life - truth or error.

Practice promises death to society if the decision taken by it contradicts the objective laws of the existence of matter.

In social practice, a subjective decision always precedes an action and, depending on the degree of compliance of the decision with the requirements of objective laws, predetermines the result of practice. This is especially clearly seen in the fate of a sapper, to whom objective reality gives the right to make a mistake, i.e. to deviate from the requirements of the objective laws of explosives, but only to one and always the last.

For sincere anarcho-primitivists, no less difficulties than the main question of philosophy are created by one of the fundamental provisions of Marxism that in the process of producing the material conditions of their existence, people enter into objective production conditions independent of their will and consciousness, i.e. . economic relations.

The scholastic, vulgar-materialist approach to this formulation does not allow anarcho-primitivists to comprehend the dialectical depth of this formulation. Meanwhile, even a Roman, in order to force a northern European to become his slave, i.e. to enter into objective production relations with him, when all the objective prerequisites for slavery (in the form of means of production) had already matured, it was necessary not only to make a subjective decision, but also to oblige the Senate to pass a law, to prepare legions for hunting northern Europeans, i.e. put politics ahead of economics.

In the era of the market, in order to enter into industrial relations, i.e., for example, to get hired in a private college as a teacher, or a doctor in a private clinic, or an engineer in a private factory, it is necessary to have an appropriate subjective education.

That is, in the conditions of the market, people really enter into economic relations of hiring, regardless of their consciousness, regardless of the degree of agreement with the very principle of market hiring (private property in this sense excludes the possibility of choice), but if the level of education is low, then the lover of living will have to go down into the mine, and if the level of education is high, then there is a chance to climb the economic “Olympus”.

The difference in the destinies of people in the class, i.e. exploitative society is a consequence of differences in the levels of mental development of employees, taken, moreover, in relation to the needs of the ruling class, which purposefully strengthens these differences.

If we do not touch the oligarchs of the market society, for whom ignorance is as typical as for the feudal lords at the stage of their degeneration, then, according to the ratio of the levels of mental development of individual individuals, the society looks rather motley. A fool among idiots, a fool among smart people, smart among graduates, smart among smart people, etc. The variety of these combinations overshadow the essence of the matter. The prevailing view is that success in a market environment depends only on the free competition of career seekers. In fact, in a developed class society, caste prevails, i.e. ignorance huddles in huts, and education in ... lackey.

In other words, the “brain” of the nation, the modern market intelligentsia, will not understand in any way that the material prosperity of some of its representatives is not the result of a pure manifestation of their talents, and even pure competition between the intellectuals themselves, but is achieved exactly to the extent that the intellectual grovels before the economic "godfathers". Only by succeeding precisely in servility can an intellectual count on plentiful handouts from the "master's" table. If an intellectual allows himself the luxury of working for an objective truth that does not exaggerate the income of the owner, then his genius is recognized ... only after death.

Giordano Bruno, Componella, Radishchev, Pushkin, Chernyshevsky, Tolstoy, Garcia Lorca, Victor Jara...

The owners of the market economy are well aware of the role of social consciousness in shaping the forms of social life. They are aware that the more dynamically the scientific level of social consciousness develops, the more rapidly the obsolete basis will collapse. And vice versa, the longer the public consciousness stays at the level of mass ignorance, the longer the market tyranny will last.

Thus, the recognition of the secondary nature of consciousness within the framework of the main question of philosophy does not relieve the communist from the obligation to study consciousness as a specific property of matter, from the need to understand its essence, quantitative characteristics, dynamics and stages of its development.

Replacing the power of the "law of the jungle" with the authority of objective laws known to people, replacing the control of people with the control of the processes of production of material conditions for the flourishing of the creative forces of each Human - such is the necessary condition for the accomplishment of the modern social revolution, the private name of which is the communist revolution.

Theory and practice are precisely that inseparable pair of opposites that today cannot exist without each other. Their unity and struggle is a necessary condition for the revolutionary development of modern society. Their struggle is relative, their unity in revolutionary activity is absolute” (“ The Correlation between Theory and Practice ”).

Modern leftists read the classics as if only in fragments, they read some quotations cut off by opportunists. So, for example, reading the "Short Course":

“If nature, being, the material world is primary, and consciousness, thinking is secondary, derivative, if the material world represents an objective reality that exists independently of the consciousness of people, and consciousness is a reflection of this objective reality, then it follows that the material life of society , its being is also primary, and its spiritual life is secondary, derivative, that the material life of society is an objective reality that exists independently of the will of people, and the spiritual life of society is a reflection of this objective reality, a reflection of being.

This means that the source of the formation of the spiritual life of society, the source of the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views, political institutions must be sought not in the ideas themselves, theories, views, political institutions, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, the reflection of which are these ideas, theories, views, etc.

This means that if different social ideas, theories, views, political institutions are observed at different periods of the history of society, if under the slave-owning system we meet some social ideas, theories, views, political institutions, under feudalism - others, under capitalism - still others, then this cannot be explained. "nature", not the "property" of the ideas, theories, views, political institutions themselves, but the various conditions of the material life of society in different periods of social development.

What is the existence of society, what are the conditions for the material life of society, such are its ideas, theories, political views, political institutions.

In this regard, Marx says: “It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness.”

This means that in order not to err in politics and fall into the position of empty dreamers, the party of the proletariat must proceed in its activity not from abstract “principles of human reason”, but from the concrete conditions of the material life of society as the decisive force of social development, not from the good wishes of “great people”, but from the real needs of the development of the material life of society.

The fall of the utopians, including the populists, anarchists, and socialist-revolutionaries, is explained, among other things, by the fact that they did not recognize the primary role of the conditions of the material life of society in the development of society and, falling into idealism, built their practical activity not on the basis of the needs of the development of the material life of society. , and independently of them and in spite of them, they were built on the basis of “ideal plans” and “comprehensive projects”, divorced from the real life of society.

The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lies in the fact that in its practical activity it relies precisely on the needs of the development of the material life of society, never breaking away from the real life of society.

At this point, they hastily put the book down and immediately hit "practice." Everything is clear here.

Whereas Stalin writes further:

“From the words of Marx, however, it does not follow that social ideas, theories, political views, political institutions are of no importance in the life of society, that they do not produce an inverse effect on social being, on the development of the material conditions of society. We have spoken here so far about the origin of social ideas, theories, views, political institutions, about their emergence, about the fact that the spiritual life of society is a reflection of the conditions of its material life. As regards the significance of social ideas, theories, views, political institutions, as regards their role in history, historical materialism not only does not deny, but, on the contrary, emphasizes their serious role and significance.[leading in the right connection with the movement of the masses to the "primacy" of politics in relation to the economy according to Lenin] in the life of society, in the history of society.

Social ideas and theories are different. There are old ideas and theories that have outlived their time and serve the interests of the moribund forces of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they hinder the development of society, its progress. There are new, advanced ideas and theories that serve the interests of the progressive forces of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they facilitate the development of society, its progress, and they become all the more important, the more accurately they reflect the needs of the development of the material life of society.

New social ideas and theories arise only after the development of the material life of society has set new tasks for society. But after they have arisen, they become a most serious force, facilitating the solution of new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, facilitating the advancement of society. It is precisely here that the greatest organizing, mobilizing and transforming significance of new ideas, new theories, new views, new political institutions is felt. New social ideas and theories actually arise because they are necessary for society, because without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming work it is impossible to resolve the urgent tasks of developing the material life of society. Having arisen on the basis of new tasks set by the development of the material life of society,

So social ideas, theories, political institutions, having arisen on the basis of urgent tasks of developing the material life of society, the development of social being, then themselves influence social being, the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary to complete the solution of urgent problems of material life. life of society and enable its further development. In this connection, Marx says: "Theory becomes a material force as soon as it seizes the masses."

This means that in order to be able to influence the conditions of the material life of society and accelerate their development, hasten their improvement, the party of the proletariat must rely on such a social theory, such a social idea, which correctly reflects the needs of the development of the material life of society and is therefore capable of setting in motion broad the masses of the people, is capable of mobilizing them and organizing them into a great army of the proletarian party, ready to smash the reactionary forces and pave the way for the advanced forces of society.

The fall of the "Economists" and the Mensheviks is explained, among other things, by the fact that they did not recognize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role of progressive theory, progressive ideas and, falling into vulgar materialism, reduced their role almost to nil, consequently dooming the party to passivity, to vegetation.

The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lies in the fact that it relies on an advanced theory that correctly reflects the needs of the development of the material life of society, raises the theory to its proper height and considers it its duty to use its mobilizing, organizing and transforming power to the bottom.

This is how historical materialism solves the question of the relationship between social being and social consciousness, between the conditions for the development of material life and the development of the spiritual life of society.

This quote by Stalin has everything to understand that the vulgar schematics prevailing in the left environment are false.

The leftists often write that the entire superstructure (including spiritual life) is a reflection of the basis, and Marxism, as an element of the superstructure, “flows” from machine tools, machines, aggregates connected with labor ... However, Stalin said that the spiritual life of society is a reflection of material conditions his life - that is, the leftists confuse the concepts of "social being" and "relations of production" (basis), which are extremely different in scale.

Moreover, later in the text of the Short Course, Stalin explains that the system of conditions of material life, that is, the system of conditions of social existence, in addition to the mode of production (productive forces + production relations) - the leading factor determining the development of society, also includes the surrounding nature and the composition of society. Schematics are destroyed even at the most elementary question: do not geographical conditions receive any reflection in the superstructure of society? For leftists, it turns out that geographical conditions determine the mode of production, and its side (basis) “produces” the entire superstructure. It turns out that nature, unmediated by productive activity, should not be reflected in consciousness at all and cannot, say, provide material for a poetic word. In short, instead of Marxism, you get porridge.

Many leftists propagate that Marxism in its content is the theoretically formulated interests of the proletariat. Whereas Stalin said that Marxism is a theory that, firstly , arose " on the basis of the urgent tasks of developing the material life of society ." Not on the basis of the tasks of developing the proletariat! Not on the basis of the tasks of raising the standard of living! Not out of the need to express the interests of the trade union committees or bring the price of labor to its value! And in connection with the development of social life itself!

Let us clarify once again what, strictly speaking, "social being" is. Social being is a category adopted to denote the fact that humanity objectively exists , while existing in certain natural conditions, and, at the same time, that people live at any given time in a certain way , with a certain way of reproducing society . Society develops and develops in leaps and bounds. From an extremely long primitive social existence through the social existence of the slave era and then feudalism to capitalism and finally to the social existence of the true history of mankind - communism. The determining factor in the transition from one being to another being is the mode of production. And geographical and other natural conditions only provide the well-known, within a fairly wide range, the necessary material both for the general physical survival of a person as a living organism, and for the possibility of transforming nature to meet the needs of society.

It is worth noting that social existence automatically determines the consciousness of only those who do not have a scientific worldview , that is, for whom the objective laws of natural conditions and the objective laws of the development of society itself are not yet known or are no longer known. The consciousness of those who have a scientific worldview, as well as their productive practice, is determined by an understanding of the objective laws of reality, including social life, and not by its “blind” influence. Social being, being primary in relation to consciousness, however, is inextricably linked with it.. And production relations as an element of social life are inextricably linked with the superstructure as an element of social consciousness. The identity of these two opposites (base and superstructure) is called the socio-economic formation.

Second , Marxism is a theory that

"correctly reflects the needs of the development of the material life of society and is therefore capable of setting in motion the broad masses of the people, capable of mobilizing them and organizing from them the great army of the proletarian party, ready to smash the reactionary forces and pave the way for the advanced forces of society."

Thus, not Marxism is a certain formulation of the worldview of the proletariat, but, on the contrary , Marxism adequately reflects social being and social consciousness, Marxism is the science of society , and that is why Marxists are able to mobilize, organize, set in motion ...

Why do Marxists set in motion mainly the proletariat? Why is it customary to call a revolutionary subject precisely the working class, and not, for example, the class of working people or the class of the poor? Because capitalist society, objectively split into two classes at its very foundation, the basis, does not contain any other advanced forces. Because in the proletarian class the detachment most suitable, most adapted by the very conditions of life for the revolutionary struggle, is the detachment of industrial workers. Therefore, it is the "working class".

The relations of production are thus recognized as objective. Marx wrote:

“In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary relations independent of their will—relations of production that correspond to a certain stage in the development of their material productive forces” (preface to the Critique of Political Economy).

By the way, while writing a review to Stalin on this chapter of the draft book, Yaroslavsky posed an interesting question to this quotation given in the Short Course. Here is the first half of the review recently introduced into scientific circulation from Stalin's personal archive:

“I received Chapter IV of the History of the Military-Industrial Complex (b) yesterday, on a day off. I must tell you that I could not tear myself away from reading this chapter: it is so saturated with content that is fresh, new for anyone who studies the history of the party, in comparison with what the previous textbooks "History of the CPSU (b)" were. Reading this chapter, I especially felt the shortcomings of my own work in this direction. You know that I am not a flatterer, so you will not misinterpret my admiration.

In particular, your work On Dialectical and Historical Materialism makes a great impression. Of course, teachers will also have to work on themselves and relearn. After all, the teachers of the history of the Party have hitherto mainly adhered to the pragmatic method. Now they will have to deal with Marxo-Leninist philosophy, Leninism, with an in-depth interpretation of social phenomena and historical events. And for those who study the history of the Party, of course, such a chapter will present certain difficulties, but they must be overcome at all costs and ensure that our youth is really accustomed to theoretical work. After all, if we remember our own youth, then we started with such works as the works of Marx and Engels, the works of Plekhanov “On the Development of a Monistic View of History”, “Our Differences”, “Socialism and the Political Struggle”, Lenin’s “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”, etc., are serious works that require diligent work. Now, when there are all the possibilities to study Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin in the original, this study is going - to put it bluntly - rather weakly. Therefore, such a study of the history of the party as dictated by the new textbook "History of the VKP(b)" will be of great importance for the Bolshevik, Marxist, Leninist education of party members and Komsomol members.

In connection with this chapter, I have a question of a theoretical nature, to which I ask you to answer. On page 207, there is a quotation from Marx: “In the social production of their lives (that is, in the production of material goods necessary for people’s lives – ed.) people enter into certain, necessary, relations independent of their will – relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces.

The same quotation, more extensive, appears on pp. 209-210. Since no reservations regarding socialist and communist society are made either to this quotation or to the description of the five main types of production relations — primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, socialist — one might think that even under socialist-communist In the mode of production, people also enter into relationships that do not depend on their will.

It seems to me that this is not so. In Engels' Antidüring we read: “With the transfer of the means of production into public ownership, commodity production is abolished, and with it the dominance of products over producers. The anarchy of social production will be replaced by its organization according to a premeditated plan. Stop the struggle of individuals for existence. It can be said that in this way man will finally separate himself from the animal kingdom, from animal conditions he will pass into truly human conditions. The conditions of life that surround humanity and have hitherto dominated it will come under the power and control of men who will for the first time become real and conscious masters of nature, precisely insofar as they become masters of their own social relations. The laws of their own social relations, the laws of nature that have hitherto opposed men as alien laws of nature dominating them, will then be completely legitimately applied by them and, consequently, subject to their domination. The social system, which until now appears to people as given from above by nature and history, will then be their own, free work. The objective external forces that have dominated history will come under the control of man. And only then will people begin to create their own history quite consciously, only then will the social causes set in motion by them have largely and increasingly desirable effects.

And this will be the leap of humanity from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom.”

If the first stage in the development of socialist production does not yet have that leap “from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom,” which the founders of communism spoke of, then in any case the relations of production are built differently. The distinguishing feature of these relations of production is that the main class of producers, the working class, becomes a class for itself: it works for itself and not for the exploiters. Secondly, his work takes place according to a definite plan (three five-year plans), and this plan establishes production relations. Correspondingly, the role of the peasantry and the role of the intelligentsia in production also change, also entering voluntarily and consciously into production relations. Thus we have a new type of production relations,

It is hardly correct, therefore, to say that relations of production under socialism and communism are just as independent of the will of the people (the workers of socialist and communist society) as these relations are in capitalist, feudal, slave-owning, primitive communist society.

It seems to me that a reservation should be made in this sense. If I'm wrong, please clarify."

In passing, it should be noted that in Yaroslavsky's arguments about the production relations of the USSR in the first phase of communism, there is no essential and, in fact, the main factor - the class struggle , that is, the struggle of new - communist production relations with the remnants and habits of all previous production relations - from sabotage to sloppiness . Yaroslavsky, on the other hand, considers the very fact of planning the national economy and the circulation of national wealth for the benefit of the people as a sufficient condition for declaring production relations communist. While this is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.

In fact, the very fact of socialization and even planning (which is a side of socialization), the proclamation of the state of the dictatorship of the working class does not allow such a conclusion to be drawn. This approach to communism is a kind of clearing the ground for the cultivation of the production relations of communism. The building of communism in the economy is therefore a process of moving from formal socialization to actual socialization , from immature planning to general scientific planning, to more and more exact observance of the law of planned and proportional development of the national economy and thus ensuring a constant increase in the progress of development.

It is difficult to reliably establish what impact Yaroslavsky's remark had, but presumably the "slip of the tongue" in the "Short Course" took the following form:

“Up to a certain period, the development of productive forces and changes in the field of production relations proceed spontaneously, regardless of the will of people. But this is only up to a certain moment—until the productive forces that have arisen and develop have time to mature properly. After the new productive forces have matured, the existing relations of production and their carriers, the ruling classes, turn into that "insurmountable" barrier that can be removed from the road only through the conscious activity of the new classes, through the violent actions of these classes, through the revolution. Here the enormous role of new social ideas, new political institutions, new political power, designed to abolish the old relations of production by force, stands out with particular clarity. On the basis of the conflict between the new productive forces and the old production relations, on the basis of the new economic needs of society, new social ideas arise, new ideas organize and mobilize the masses, the masses rally into a new political army, create a new revolutionary power and use it to abolish by force the old order in the field of industrial relations and approve the new order. The spontaneous process of development gives way to the conscious activity of people, peaceful development to a violent upheaval, evolution to revolution.

The proletariat," says Marx, "in the struggle against the bourgeoisie will inevitably unite into a class... by means of revolution it transforms itself into the ruling class and, as the ruling class, by force abolishes the old relations of production."

And further:

“The proletariat uses its political dominance to wrest all capital step by step from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all the instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the sum of the productive forces as quickly as possible.”

“Violence is the midwife of every old society when it is pregnant with the new.”

(Continued on following post.)

[blindpig]

(Continued from previous post.)

That is, the question of the role of the subjective was framed by Stalin only as the taking of political power by the working class, quite likely, deliberately not allowing the general reader to get ahead of himself, since the content of the economic discussion of 1951, for example, showed that many even economists, based on the pathos of the victories of Bolshevism, tend to exaggerate the subjective factor up to the complete abolition of social and natural laws by it. What can we say about the bulk of those for whom the "Short Course" was written in the late 1930s?

Thus, in the indicated methodological aspects, one should take into account the fact that in the process of conquest of political power by the working class and as the construction of communism unfolds both in the field of the material life of society and in the spiritual field, the subjective factor plays an ever increasing role . It can be said that the subjective factors based on the scientific worldview are transformed into the objective factors of the social movement .

For example, today, from the point of view of the objectivity of the social life of Russia, Marxism-Leninism is a subjective theory that is very far from being put into practice, the bearer of which is a narrow stratum of people who are usually called political activists. However, in the near future, Marxism, having mastered the masses through the vanguard party, will turn into an objective factor in the development of society.

An intermediate phase, the phase of affirming the basic, general conclusions of Marxist science among the masses, and therefore the corresponding economic system, can be seen today in the DPRK, Cuba, and partly even in the PRC and the SRV. Moreover, the peculiarity of Juche, in our opinion , lies precisely in the rather successful resolution of the issue of the subjective in society by criticizing the vulgar ideas about Marxism, even though under them Kim Jong Il mistakenly presented Marxism itself.

3.Prerequisites and factors for the transition from capitalism to communism

In order to consistently unfold the process of studying the causes of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR in a form that is illustrative to the reader, one should start, in fact, with capitalism.

An objective prerequisite for the inevitable transition of mankind to communism is the transformation of private productive forces into social ones. Virtually no modern good, especially high-tech, can be produced by one person or even a local group of craftsmen. Moreover, in the benefits of modern civilization, “like in a drop of water”, the entire centuries-old world production and not only the culture of mankind is reflected.

One of the most obvious manifestations of the social nature of the productive forces is the widespread concentration of capital, which is expressed, among other things, in strategic and short-term economic planning. It is impossible to imagine the existence of modern imperialism without economic planning. Thus, the objective need for planning in the course of production, even in the form of entrepreneurial activity, while being some limited understanding of objective economic laws, has long since become the objective prerequisite for communism in capitalism.

Planning in this case is the need for an expedient organization, mainly of the production process, caused by the scale and qualitative originality of the factors of production themselves, which, in turn, are a consequence of the rapid development of applied sciences. The objective message of communism in capitalism is thus the gradual and more and more consistent transformation of science into the productive force of society.which, among other things, manifests itself in the social nature of the productive forces. The degree of development of production requires the involvement of an increasing number of elements of nature and a wider and deeper use of various natural forces. The grandiose scale of the production activity of mankind at the stage of state-monopoly capitalism presupposes the wide use of scientific knowledge, including in the field of state regulation. Roughly speaking, the transformation of the "exact" sciences into a productive force is a particularmanifestation of the social character of the productive forces. The law of the obligatory conformity of production relations to the nature of the productive forces thus makes its way. He is opposed by resistance from the obsolete forces of society, which, in fact, stand guard over the order of private property relations.

However, the transformation of objective prerequisites into mature objective factors, that is, ripening conditions into full-fledged causes, is possible only with sufficient maturity of subjective factors . In this case, for example, such visual analogies are appropriate.

If there is a fueled MTZ-82 in the field, then, having objective technical characteristics, it is certainly an objective prerequisite for increasing labor productivity when performing arable work. MTZ-82, combined in a known way with soil of a certain fertility, is able to significantly increase the rate of useful turnover of the arable layer, that is, to objectively affect the proportion of the time spent and the required result obtained in agricultural work. This is a fact completely independent of any consciousness whatsoever. However, without subjective knowledge of this fact, and, no less important, without having known skills and the ability (and in our conditions, the right) to use MTZ-82 on the land, this objective premise literally means nothing and cannot be considered an objective factor. That is, it will "play" only in conjunction with the subjective factor. Moreover, the maturity of the subjective factor, in particular the quality of skills in using the tractor in this particular plowing, determines the degree of implementation of the maturity of the objective factor in practice, the highest point of which is the maximum possible plowing speed without loss of quality in these specific conditions. To this illustration, it should be added only that the well-known fact that tractors are used for plowing is also an objective fact. Although some fans of Dom-2 believe that iPhones grow on trees, so anything can happen ... in particular, the quality of skills in using the tractor in this particular plowing determines the degree of realization of the maturity of the objective factor in practice, the highest point of which is the maximum possible plowing speed without loss of quality in given specific conditions.

Similarly, for example, with a tank. If we have a tank at our disposal with excellent tactical and technical characteristics, significantly superior to those of an advancing enemy tank, but at the same time our “subjective factor” of the operator has only figured out plowing on the MTZ-82, then it is unlikely that we will be able to realize the existing objective tank advantage in fire strength, security and mobility. To do this, it was necessary to first initiate the transformation of a plowman into a tanker.

In short, the bottom line is that “objectivity” within society, unlike nature, does not provide for any automatism. Another question is that before the "procedure" of the transition of society from capitalism to communism, social progress was carried out exclusively within the framework of the above formula "people enter into production relations that do not depend on their will."

The subjective prerequisite for communism in capitalism, therefore, is the scientific theory of building communism , developed on the basis of diamatics within the framework of Marxism and including adequate knowledge, including about all objective and subjective, necessary and sufficient factors for building communism.

The subjective factor is the revolutionary subject - the working class , in which the vanguard role is played by the party of the dictatorship of the scientific worldview , also called communist. That is, the transformation of Marxism into the material force of society does not mean the mastery of it, Marxism, of the entire mass or almost the entire mass of proletarians, since this is practically impossible due to objective and subjective factors that slow down progress, including the decay of capitalism. The transformation of Marxism into a material force of progress at the first stage of historical practice signifies the degeneration of the proletarian exploited masses into a working class that consciously entered the struggle for political power, guided and led by its vanguard, the Marxist party.The party is a kind of headquarters, the brain of the class .

V.A. Diapers:

“The Communist Party will be able to fulfill its historical mission only when it merges with the working class to the extent possible, becomes its absolutely recognized vanguard, enlightens it to such an extent that it is the working class ITSELF that will CONSCIOUSLY rise up to fight for the right to Human existence for itself and their descendants, and not only at the moment of the overthrow of the power of entrepreneurs, thieves and speculators, which is fundamentally the same thing, but far beyond the moment of a political upheaval, when every worker will understand the vital need to transform production relations in a communist way and all the power of their workers' dictatorship MYSELFwill direct against those who hinder the creation of planned centralized foundations for the comprehensive and complete development of all the best inclinations laid down by nature in EVERY person "(" Communism against "communism" ").

Roughly speaking, the productivity of the organization of the proletarian masses into the working class, as well as the victoriousness of the struggle of the working class for the conquest of political power and the unfolding of communist construction, entirely depend on whether the Communist Party is, in fact, the Party of Communists in its cadres. All the historical successes of all the communist parties of the world directly depended on the number of diamatically literate leaders at their disposal.

All talk and blame for "objective conditions" that make it impossible for Marxists to fulfill their historical destiny, properly proceed from vulgar ideas about the relationship between objective and subjective factors. And to put it simply, this kind of whining is a form of self-justification, first of all, of its low theoretical level.

Let Kim Jong Il slander here and there about Marxism, even if his formulations are not as brilliant as Stalin's, but he is a hundred times more right than all leftists:

“A biological being can be considered simply a part of nature, whose fate is decided by the objective life situation. In contrast, man is the ruler of the world, the transformer of the world, who remakes the objective world in accordance with his own needs and decides his fate on his own. Further development of independence, creativity and consciousness of a person further strengthens his place and enhances his role as the ruler of the world and its reformer, and this is expressed in the transformation of nature and society by man. As man's independent consciousness and creative ability develop and his role increases, the wealth of society is multiplied and social relations are improved. In historical development, any generation takes a start on the social wealth and social relations created by previous generations, that is, on given objective conditions, and uses them. These objective conditions, of course, have an important impact on the development of society, but they themselves are a historical creation of the independent, creative and conscious activity of man, and man also uses them and develops them further. Even if the objective conditions are favorable, but if the level of independence, creativity and consciousness of a person who uses and develops these conditions is low, and these qualities are not fully manifested, then one cannot expect the rapid development of society. On the contrary, even if unfavorable objective conditions exist, society can develop dynamically if the level of independence, creativity and consciousness of a person is high and all these human properties are fully manifested.

That is why the Juche Country did not fall. And it will not fall as long as the WPK endows the masses with a responsible attitude towards their destiny, and equips its members ideologically so that they fulfill their role as the guiding force of the subjective factor. But here, of course, much depends directly on the leaders, on Kim Jong-un and his employees.

It should also be noted that in the DPRK there is confusion with economic issues just in the spirit of Khrushchev - the Constitution of the DPRK says :

"Proper use of such economic levers as cost, price and profitability."

However, the country successfully exists, in spite of American and European imperialism, as a country of communism, successfully solving local problems of ensuring sovereignty in conditions of extreme scarcity of the resource base.

Another question is that as capitalism rots in its imperialist stage, as the level of development of capitalism grows, the oligarchy more and more impressively pays for and activates processes that serve as inhibitory factors in the formation and development of the gravedigger of capitalism. The policy of purposeful decomposition, stupidity and debilitation of the entire population serves as a means to disorganize the proletarian masses.

V.A. Diapers:

“But modern liberals pretend that neither rampant religious and nationalist terrorism, nor the comedy of the permanent struggle of all developed market countries with their native corruption, i.e. with the prostitution of the market "elite", neither the growth of drug addiction of the population, nor the growing misanthropy, nor mass sexual disharmony and dysfunction are obvious signs for them of the natural process of decay of the main productive force of the imperialist countries. Only the mental degradation of the population can explain the fact that at hand the oligarchs will always find several million individuals who enthusiastically see themselves in the role of "cannonballs".

…

It is necessary to take a diametrical approach to taking into account the complex of completely concrete, MATURE objective and subjective factors predetermined by the objective historical process, to assessing the role they will play in the process of rejecting capitalism. But many leftists today live with the conviction that it is enough to occupy offices in the Kremlin, and then “the triumphal march of Soviet power” will follow. Anpilov dreamed about it , perhaps Rokhlin, Udaltsov , Petrukhin, Zyuganov, Grudinin think so... subjective factors that hinder the revolutionary process. That's why Lenin won during his lifetimeALL opponents of the working people, who uncompromisingly pursued the policy of the Bolshevik Party's monopoly on the education of the proletarian and semi-proletarian masses of mental and physical labor.

In other words, many novice leftists perceive the Marxist teaching on the connection between objective and subjective factors of a revolutionary situation, on the connection between the productive forces and production relations, as a teaching about the AUTOMATISM of the historical process, and not as a teaching about the NECESSITY that obliges subjects to know exactly and build their practice in strict accordance with with the demands of open objective laws, and not to hope that since there is an industrial proletariat, it is enough to tell him about the size of his possible salary and "everything will go like clockwork."

In fact, it is necessary for the party not to rattle the communist name, but to win real recognition from the mass of proletarians of mental and physical labor as a competent intellectual leader of this mass, i.e. organized, disciplined and competent vanguard" (" Can the Communists go forward, ashamed of the word communism? - 4 ").

Further, the question arises of the role and place of people's material interests, including class interests, in the communist struggle, in the realization of the objective and subjective factors of communism. If you read the left theorists, it turns out that the material interests of one proletarian, the material interests of a group of proletarians, are one thing, while the material interests of the proletarian class are, as it were, quite another. Under the latter, under these general class interests in the left information space, the most adequate, literate and Marxist-savvy subjects understand the scientific requirement for the elimination of classes, that is, as it were, “interest” in building communism. The classics used a special term for these general class interests - "radical interests".

Such a view, given these clarifications, is not grossly erroneous, but today it is highly inaccurate. Why is it inaccurate? The fact is that the practice of defeating the CPSU has shown that the fact that the proletariat is in power in itself is a necessary, but completely insufficient condition for the realization of these very “communist interests”. It turned out that it was necessary to build communism somehow. And here, no “interests”, no matter how much they are “general” class, “radical”, or at least “fundamental”, do not provide assistance.

And even more: the excitation of momentary real material interests, even if they embrace the entire working class without exception, on the contrary, directly does not allow communist production relations to be established. Wages in the first stage of communism, under certain conditions, can be a lever for the growth of productive forces, but in one way or another it is directly opposed to communist production relations .

Historical practice has shown that on the basis of class feelings, appealing to class interests, it turns out, for example, to beat the interventionists, expropriate the capitalists, purge the party of the Nepmen, successfully fight against fascism, but not build communism. This requires culture: scientific knowledge, skills, upbringing, habits.

If we recall Lenin's "State and Revolution", then, primitively speaking, the thought comes through that if the bourgeois state is defeated, the proletarian masses are mobilized to govern the state, then it's practically in the bag. It can be said that there were such aspirations. There was hope that the consciousness of the working class, which had taken state power, would bear fruit fairly quickly. But the practice turned out to be more difficult, it takes much more time and much more culture.

In 1921 Lenin wrote:

“We reckoned, raised by a wave of enthusiasm, having awakened popular enthusiasm, first general political, then military, we expected to carry out directly on this enthusiasm equally great (as well as general political as well as military) economic tasks. We reckoned—or perhaps it would be more accurate to say: we assumed without sufficient calculation—by the direct orders of the proletarian state, to organize state production and state distribution of products in a communist way in a small-peasant country. Life has shown our mistake. It took a number of transitional steps: state capitalism and socialism to prepare - by working for a long series of years to prepare - the transition to communism. Not on enthusiasm directly, but with the help of the enthusiasm born of the great revolution, on self-interest, on personal interest, on economic calculation, first take the trouble to build strong bridges leading in a small-peasant country through state capitalism to socialism; otherwise you will not approach communism, otherwise you will not bring tens and tens of millions of people to communism. That's what life told us. This is what the objective course of the development of the revolution has told us” (“On the Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution”).

Stalin in 1923 said:

“In 1917, when we were going uphill towards October, we imagined that we would have a commune, that it would be an association of working people, that we would put an end to bureaucracy in institutions, and that the state, if not in the next period, then through two or three short periods, it will be possible to turn it into an association of workers. Practice, however, has shown that this is an ideal, which we are still far from reaching, that in order to rid the state of elements of bureaucracy, in order to turn Soviet society into an association of working people, a highly cultured population is needed, a completely secure peaceful situation around , so that there is no need for large cadres of troops that require large funds and cumbersome departments, whose existence leaves an imprint on all other state institutions.

Therefore, one can, of course, continue to write about "fundamental interests", about "general class interests", but the caveat will be significant: communism will not come by itself, even if the bourgeoisie is suppressed and power is transferred to the working class. And interests, all the same, are something taken for granted. It is precisely the principles of cost accounting that are built on interests.

Interest is based mainly on social instincts and reflexes . If it were possible to build communism, that is, a society of scientific principles and scientific organization, through the realization of interests, then Marxism would be superfluous. One of the main reasons why Marx undertook the development of scientific socialism was that the interests of the proletariat were not capable of ensuring its victory over the bourgeoisie in a strategic perspective.

In order to "understand", to realize one's interests, no special theory is needed. Even a child is able to understand his interests. For seven thousand years, society has developed through the clash and struggle of class interests, and all theories and ideologies only served the process of struggle running ahead.

The future achievement of the communist formation is mainly a product of the knowledge of society, the identification of material factors for its further development, and the organization of this social movement from the point of view of the optimality of the forces expended. The working class, as a class of organized workers, armed with theory and led by the vanguard party, represents the transformation of the subjective factor into the objective factor of the transition from capitalism to communism. The factor is mainly political. Consequently, the working class is a side that is gaining strength in identity with its opposite, the bourgeoisie, which, developing in the struggle, will lead this contradiction to subsidence, to a leap.The working class is that part of society which will transform the possibility of communism into the reality of communism by virtue of its position, its objective qualities, but through the subjective quality of its consciousness .

The proletarian himself is not interested in communism. The interests of an individual proletarian are often no different from the interests of an individual oligarch. The interests of the entire proletarian class, in its purely proletarian consciousness, consist in the suppression of the bourgeoisie as a hostile class. This is something like a national feeling, only class. A kind of guild spirit. But the interests of the entire proletarian class do not go beyond the functioning of capitalism.

The building of communism, the liquidation of classes, in the strict scientific sense, cannot be called interests . These are not interests, but the only possible future of mankind . Progress is possible only towards communism, and its engine is not interest, but science, knowledge.

Thus, the process and outcome of the class struggle of two mature factors, the progressive - the working class, headed by its vanguard, relying on the entire system of objective prerequisites for the reorganization of society (= Bolshevism), and the conservative - the bourgeois class, organized in a bourgeois state and relying on the entire system retarding forces, is the process of turning cause into effect in the question of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism.

At the same time, objective factors that are already present today are a necessary condition, and subjective factors are sufficient.

(Continued in following post.)

[blindpig]

4.Concise formulation of the foundations of the materialistic understanding of history

In order to describe the broader context of the transformation of capitalism into communism, this process should be assessed as a transition from a class society as a whole to a classless society. In a simplified form, from the designated angle of view, the schematics of the deployment of the five socio-economic formations is as follows.

Humanity is a form of organization of matter. Society, being a part of nature, is also a special force of nature itself. The mode of manifestation of this special force consists in the development of nature, not excluding society itself as a part of it. Successive stages in the development of specific forms of transformation of nature, which also represent entire historical epochs in the history of mankind, are called modes of production. Why not by means of expanded reproduction of society - which would be more logical? The fact is that due to the low development of the productive forces in the historical period up tothe achievements of mature communism, the reproduction of man proper turned out to be secondary, absolutely subordinate to the production of material goods. For many centuries in the issue of human reproduction, the dominant place was occupied by the problem of biological reproduction and maintaining at least the existing level of intellectual development, skills and cultural appearance. Therefore, it was the mode of production of material goods that played an absolutely decisive role in the expanded reproduction of society.

Further, the mode of production is an inseparable unity of productive forces , that is, specific people of a certain culture, armed with specific tools of production, and production relations , that is, relations between these people in the production process.

It is obvious that the productive forces, firstly , are capable of infinite development. Secondly , they show their maturity as they become absolutely public - the more people are correctly used in production, the higher the rate of development of society. Thirdly , at each specific moment, the connection of the productive forces with the body of nature objectively requires a certain combination of joint human efforts of a certain quality.

From this it follows that ideal, that is, expedient, most productive, production relations is such a form of human relations that accurately takes into account all the necessary proportions of the quality and quantity of labor , the tools used, the natural forces used, and the body of nature itself. In other words, a form of social relations, entirely based on scientific knowledge of the process of transformation of nature. Moreover, the fundamental condition for this kind of relationship is the complete consolidation of the efforts of all members of society as a guarantee, firstly, of the internal conflict-free society, and, secondly, a guarantee of expanded reproduction of society.

However, since the development of consciousness, that is, the quality of reflection, occurs as the transformation process itself develops, and humanity develops only through the development of the elements of nature, the formation of the type of production relations has so far been purely spontaneous . In short, people connected with each other in the necessary process of production not consciously, but blindly.

What, then, determined the shape of production relations? Firstly , these are the objective requirements for the exploitation of the tools of production - which ensured the change of eras, and secondly , the atavisms of the animal psyche. If the conscious, scientific organization of production relations is a truly human, rational approach, then in the conditions of its immaturity, the remnants of the animal in man manifest themselves : reflexes, instincts, which are called material interests. Roughly speaking, people built relationships among themselves following the example of animals.

If we remain on the basis of materialism, then it is clear that there is simply nothing else to manifest itself. There are no other sources of formation of mutual communication between people in the production process.

Therefore, when humanity was in the most severe conditions of the primitive state, when the surplus product was so small that it was hardly seriously accumulated, relations of production were relations of cooperation and mutual assistance of members of the tribal community, extremely pressed by external circumstances. Without the complete consolidation of the forces of the entire community, without absolute collectivism, survival was impossible at all. In this case, material interests were only collective and completely coincided with the survival instinct of the entire tribe. The sphere of spiritual life, of course, was extremely primitive and entirely subordinated to the tasks of physical survival. Engels describes it this way:

“The tribe remained a boundary for a person both in relation to a foreigner and in relation to himself: the tribe, clan and their institutions were sacred and inviolable, they were that supreme power given by nature, to which the individual remained unconditionally subordinate in his feelings, thoughts and deeds. No matter how impressive the people of this era look in our eyes, they are indistinguishable from each other, they have not yet come off, in the words of Marx, from the umbilical cord of the primitive community” (“The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”).

The institutions of the primitive community were so naturally connected with the primary needs of productive activity and the survival of the community that in the public consciousness of primitive man the superstructure in a strictly scientific sense was not singled out. The spiritual life of primitive man was extremely simple: the collective is everything in general, the source of life and the only way of life in the aggressive conditions of nature.

On the other hand, with the transition to more productive methods of transformation, with the leap in the development of productive forces—the transition from extremely primitive tools of labor to more advanced ones—a fundamentally new type of production relations gradually took shape. The organization of a higher level of production, the gradual specialization of labor into physical and mental, into executive and managerial, singled out the most authoritative elders in a special position. It is quite natural that, lacking the possibility of scientific knowledge of the expedient organization of people's relations in the process of production, primarily the effective use of the growing surplus product as the main factor in the expanded reproduction of society, the consciousness of the formed elite was still subject to the same reflexes, instincts,scope for narrow-group and individualistic flourishing.

The main method of the “struggle for survival” of a group or individual within a community is alienation, usurpation of the surplus product, and then the factors of production themselves . If " common labor leads to common ownership of the means of production, as well as the products of production " (Stalin), then the deepening division of labor led to private ownership of the means of production, as well as the products of production. Thus, the relations of production took shape on a completely unnatural anti-social basis - on the exclusion of the neighbor from the means of subsistence . At the same time, exchange appeared for the first time, followed by money and capital.

Consequently, a special state of intra-social conflict arose in the form of the presence of social classes opposed to each other - the exploiters and the exploited, which gave rise to a special social institution that rose above society and protected the private property of the exploiters - the state .The new social order, based on the interests of the exploiting class, was framed in the form of a declaration of rules - that is, public and private law. Together with the state, a special, highly consolidated area of ​​the spiritual life of society was required - specific forms of social consciousness and special social institutions that would give stability to the combination of poor production relations with always zealous, lively, vigorous, forward-moving productive forces. The totality of these political, legal, religious, artistic, philosophical views and their corresponding political, legal and other institutions is called the superstructure.

Thus, for the last seven thousand years, there has been a social inhibition of the unfolding of the endless potential for the development of productive forces for the sake of greed, selfishness, hedonism, and the whims of representatives of the ruling classes.

In order to assess what losses mankind has suffered during this time in the mutual devouring of private property relations, it is necessary to assess how much productive human labor, how much creative potential has been “burned out” in mutual wars, mutual massacres, in the construction of religious buildings, the production of weapons and means of terror, in the course of the conscious planting of religion, nationalism, democracy, in the order of stupidity and tyranny. The rejection of communist principles has put mankind in a state of contradiction with itself, in a state of constant misfortune.

In the next seven thousand years after the split of society into classes, in production relations, following the unstoppable development of the productive forces, only the forms of private property changed in essence. Moreover, they changed with a huge creak, overcoming the colossal resistance of the superstructure.

Thus, capitalism crowns the development of the squalor of societies based on private property . Societies whose structure is determined by relations of production, in which unnatural and anti-social relations of private property are tied with weights to the objective urgent requirements for the development of productive forces. Instead of friendly, joint, collective labor, society is mired in mutual extermination, in the jungle of its ignorance and wild passions.

History, nevertheless, shows more acts of progress than acts of inhibition of progress, and, moreover, they are growing rapidly. This proves the progressiveness of feudalism in relation to slavery and capitalism in relation to feudalism - both in the development of tools and production skills, and in the change of types of production relations, although we are talking only about different forms of exploitation. And the main thing is that the era of capitalism, which had accumulated sufficient baggage of spiritual culture by that moment, was marked by the maturation of science as a productive force, and the development of Marxism formed a mature subjective prerequisite for the elimination of private property relations in the basis through the victory of the working class in the class struggle.

II.Review of the main versions of the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR

After the bankruptcy of the CPSU and the destruction of the USSR, anti-communists of all sorts base their demagogy mainly on the exploitation of these two historical facts. Moreover, in such a presentation: since the USSR is no more, the CPSU ordered to live long - it means communism is impossible, and Marxism is anti-scientific, and that's it.

This highly speculative approach ignores the following.

Firstly , the fact that Marxism, as a theory of building communism, did not exclude, but assumed the possibility of restoring capitalism in the USSR. In many works of the classics, special attention was paid precisely to how to ensure the permanent victory of communism in the USSR, victory over enemies, over spontaneity and social inertia in the conditions of an imperialist encirclement. Otherwise, according to the laws of the class struggle, the forces of progress in the USSR were in danger of defeat.

Moreover, on the basis of a thorough study of Lenin's legacy, Stalin proved that for countries with a predominance of a petty-bourgeois population and under conditions of imperialist encirclement, the core of the lower phase of communism is a period of sharpening and intensification of the class struggle . Extremely rich forms of class struggle used against the dictatorship of the working class, the main of which are: war, intervention, sabotage, sabotage, espionage, conspiracy, terror, kulak uprising, profiteering, bribery, bureaucracy, strike, betrayal; and the large scale of these actions proves in itself that the building of communism is met with fierce resistance from the classes that have lost power.

As soon as the exploiting classes were formally liquidated in the USSR and the bourgeois elements were suppressed, the imperialists and imperialist agents first initiated a military-political conspiracy of a gang of spies, saboteurs and assassins, which, under the platform of the restoration of capitalism, included, in addition to nationalists, all kinds of opportunists and socialists . democrats, and when he was defeated, Germany and other “weak” countries, tormented by Versailles, were pumped up with military power, put a psychopath at the head of this pack and completely untied his hands in the hope of setting half of Europe against the USSR. Thus, only complete opportunists could assert that communism in the USSR had finally and irrevocably established itself.

Moreover, the change in the guiding thrust of the party-state policy: the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist doctrine to the jelly of Khrushchev’s Trotskyism, the embodiment of which is the empty land of the third program of the CPSU, led world imperialism to replace the methods of class struggle, which purely outwardly looked like a weakening of the confrontation, a “thaw ”, “peaceful competition”, but in fact was a creeping counter-revolutionary process. All the hostile elements inside the USSR were given practically full scope for their covert struggle against communism. The dumbest of the anti-communists became dissidents, the more or less talented entrenched themselves in the unions of writers, filmmakers and artists, and the most savvy voted for each other within the CPSU itself, quickly moving up the party ladder.

Secondly , it ignores the fact that both due to class conflict and due to the constant disagreement between social being and social consciousness, progress is not carried out at an evenly progressive pace. History contains both periods of forward movement, periods of relative stagnation, and periods of rollback. Progress is observed in general, at the change of major historical eras. Neither slavery, nor the feudal, nor the capitalist system was established from the first, second or even third time. This is a characteristic feature of the natural history process today.

Thirdly , the collapse of the CPSU, the USSR and other countries of the Warsaw Pact does not mean the collapse of all communist countries. The revisionism of the CPSU undermined the authority of Marxism, the Stalinist experience, split the unified world communist movement, strengthened Trotskyism of all shades, but countries in which power remained in the hands of the proletariat survived. And North Korea and Cuba continue to build communism today. In the PRC, again, there is a protracted disease of NEP. Therefore, reports of the death of communism and Marxism are greatly exaggerated .

Anti-communists are the least interested in revealing the real reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. That is why bourgeois propaganda imposes the original "dead end" and "utopia" of communism as the reason for the collapse of the USSR. But much more cunning approaches are being preached.

There are no people who deny that one of the turning points in the history of the USSR was the victory of Khrushchev's Trotskyism. Khrushchev is a representative of that breed of opportunists, perverts, iscariots (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Yagoda), the essence of which lies in an explosive combination of ignorance and double-dealing. The logic of opportunistic, factional struggle is stronger than the desires of individuals. At the same time, we must not forget that not everyone who makes a mistake becomes a factionalist, then an enemy of the Party and communism. But such a mistaken one, who at the same time possesses the personal qualities of a double-dealer. A double-dealing opportunist, in accordance with the objective logic of political practice, will necessarily turn, depending on the scale of his abilities, either into a petty dirty trick or into a rabid enemy.

Trotskyism is not only a political phenomenon, but also a psychological one, a special form of social mimicry, implicated in the pomp of narcissism.

Khrushchev's Trotskyism is a demagogy revolving around the so-called "cult of personality", which was another rehash of Trotsky's nonsense about mastering Stalin's " apparatus according to the laws of political mechanics formulated by Machiavelli ".

“The power of Stalin is a modern form of Caesarism. It is an almost undisguised monarchy, only without a crown and so far without heredity,” wrote Trotsky in 1938 (“Stalin”).

Khrushchev essentially repeated the same thing in his closed report and subsequently launched a widespread campaign to discredit Stalin, his practical and theoretical heritage. In the orbit of Khrushchev's thesis about the abuse of power by Stalin, there is also a consequence of this abuse - a certain deformation. Trotsky, in fact, wrote about the " deformation of the workers' state ", from which Khrushchev drew his ideas.

Khrushchev declared that the return to the "Leninist norms of collective leadership" completely corrected the situation with the "cult of personality." Say, he, Khrushchev, corrected all the "deformation". In particular, in a report at the XXII Congress, he said:

“The constant renewal of cadres, the advancement of new comrades who have grown up at work, the combination in our party and state orchestra of young and experienced workers is the law of development of the Marxist-Leninist party. This conclusion of our party is based, in particular, on the lessons flowing from the consequences of the personality cult of JV Stalin. I have had occasion to speak about this more than once, including in the Report of the Central Committee at this congress. The draft Program and Rules—these main documents of the Party—formulate provisions that should create a guarantee against the recurrence of the personality cult, should erect a reliable barrier in its path. We declare from the rostrum of the congress: the party must take all necessary measures to close the path to the cult of personality forever. The systematic renewal of elected bodies should henceforth become an inviolable norm of party life, norm of state and public life. On this basis, new opportunities will open up for even more consistent implementation of the principle of collective leadership. The Party relies on the collective experience and collective thought of the Communists, of the entire people, and develops in every possible way the initiative of public organizations, of all Soviet people. Every good initiative, every good idea, every valuable proposal should be carefully considered, actively supported and implemented.”

Thus, Khrushchev opposed Leninism with rotten liberalism. Instead of being guided by science , as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin did, there is the utopia and anarchism of the collective mind of the party. Instead of the talents tested by the revolution, a dozen wise men who sang with each other , as Lenin taught, is a purely bourgeois-democratic principle of constant renewal of cadres. Instead of scientific centralism , which was approved and developed in the party by Lenin and Stalin, there is a systematic electoral leapfrog, democracy.

So, if we remain on the basis of Trotskyism, including the Trotskyism of Khrushchev's spill, what reasons are put forward for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR?

Trotsky wrote everything in advance in his 1936 book The Revolution Betrayed:

“From inside the Soviet regime, two opposite tendencies are growing. Insofar as it, in contrast to decaying capitalism, develops the productive forces, it prepares the economic foundation of socialism. Insofar as, to please the upper strata, it brings the bourgeois norms of distribution to an ever more extreme expression, it prepares the way for a capitalist restoration. The contradiction between forms of ownership and distribution norms cannot grow without end. Either bourgeois norms will have to be extended, in one form or another, to the means of production, or, conversely, the norms of distribution will have to come into line with socialist property.

…

Nor can one hope that the bureaucracy will peacefully and voluntarily renounce itself in favor of socialist equality. If now, despite the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, she found it possible to introduce ranks and orders, then at a later stage she will inevitably have to seek support for herself in property relations. It may be objected that it makes no difference to the big bureaucrat what the dominant forms of property are, as long as they provide him with the necessary income. This reasoning ignores not only the instability of the bureaucrat's rights, but also the question of the fate of offspring. The newest cult of the family did not fall from the sky. Privileges are only half the price if they cannot be passed on to children. But the right of will is inseparable from the right of ownership. It is not enough to be a director of a trust; one must be a shareholder.

The foregoing is in perfect agreement with what Khrushchev verbally fought against.

It is alarming that in the left information space, under the guise of orthodox Marxism, approximately the same dish is often served.

Here, for example, are the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR from the RKRP program:

“The critical situation that manifested itself in the USSR by the beginning of the 1990s did not develop suddenly. It was due to a gradual change in the balance of forces, representing, on the one hand, the creative, communist trend in the life of society, and on the other, the destructive, petty-bourgeois trend.

... As a result of the rebirth, the top of the CPSU became part of the authoritarian-bureaucratic system ...

... The political organization of society continued to operate without broad communication with the workers, and such manifestations of it as cumbersome, inefficient, growing privileges and corruption caused discontent that undermined faith in the justice of the existing system.

... Significant circles of the party-state bureaucracy gradually reoriented from the official communist ideology to various bourgeois concepts. The strengthening of private property tendencies paved the way for the economic reform of 1965, which had a destructive character for the national economy. Orienting enterprises to the volume of sales in rubles and profit, it stimulated group egoism, financially motivated producers to produce as few products as possible and as expensive as possible, gave rise to shortages and inflation, increased the non-equivalence of relations between town and country, sharply increased the share of luxury goods and social harmful goods in the produced fund of personal consumption of the population.

... The highest official administrative, economic and party leaders remained out of control, gradually became above the law, created various privileges for themselves, turning into an independent social stratum, cut off from the workers. In the created environment of extravagance and lack of control, corruption grew. Connivance with private property tendencies led to a slowdown in the development of the productive forces of society. The country's economy was transferred to the path of creating a capital market and a labor market, which is the essence of capitalism. The country lived more and more at the expense of raw material supplies to the developed capitalist states.

... The state power, uncontrolled by the working masses, with the blessing of the anti-communist leadership of the CPSU, under the sign of the transition to the market, led an anti-people policy of raising prices, privatization, and encouraging local and foreign transnational capital. Foreign policy has also become subordinate to the latter.”

These provisions were accepted in 2012, that is, they are relevant. It is clear that the quotes are "trimmed" for the beauty of correlation with The Revolution Betrayed. But one way or another, the program of the RCWP only describes some facts from the history of the USSR, passing them off as reasons. And it turns out that a significant part of the facts that the RCWP focuses on in its program was cited by Trotsky as his predictive reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. By itself, this should suggest that the reasons have not been established, because a real Marxist program cannot in any way repeat Trotsky in the content of his ideas.

1.Stalin's Constitution as a prerequisite for the restoration of capitalism

Separately, it should be noted the mazurka chatter that the prerequisite for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR was ... the Stalinist Constitution. Theoretically, this position goes back to the generally accepted concept in the left environment. The title article on this subject was published by a symbiosis of "titans" of thought: Tyulkin - Popov. In their opinion, Stalin made a mistake in changing the principle of holding elections to the Soviets from "production" to "territorial".

“In connection with the adoption of a new, allegedly more “democratic” Constitution, a transition took place to the system of elections by territorial districts, characteristic of bourgeois democracy, which separates the authorities from labor collectives and makes it practically impossible to recall deputies who have become detached from the people. Stalin's statements of that period about what happened, allegedly in connection with the adoption of the Constitution of 1936, the expansion of democracy should therefore be recognized as erroneous. It would be more correct to say that, in fact, a step was taken towards the transition from Soviet, proletarian democracy to parliamentary, bourgeois democracy, assuming formal equality and ignoring the existing inequality. No real expansion of democracy from a one-time formal extension of the right to vote to representatives of the former exploiting classes could take place. But with their gradual departure from the historical stage on the basis of the elimination of all exploitation, Soviet democracy, as a democracy for the working people, is gradually coming to universal suffrage in a natural way. The rejection of the principle of electing deputies through labor collectives in factories and factories, which is characteristic of the Soviets, and the transition to elections by territorial districts is tantamount to a rollback - from the Soviets to parliamentarism and, accordingly, the weakening of real democracy.

... the process of more and more intensive infection of the state machine with bureaucracy and careerism began, clogging it with bureaucrats and careerists who put their personal interests above public ones, the process of ripening in the bosom of the party-state system of the Khrushchevs and Gorbachevs. Names remained from the Soviets, but their essence began to blur. The dictatorship of the proletariat, having lost its inherent organizational form, was threatened. The proletarian character of the organs of power, which were still called Soviets, was now ensured only by the remaining elements of their connection with the class through the nomination of candidates from labor collectives, through their periodic reports to the working people, through the regulation of their social composition by party organs, as well as the accumulated inertia of the proletarian nature of the parties. But already under Stalin, which is at the tomb of V.I. Lenin vowed to strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat and throughout his life fought for this, an anti-worker majority gradually began to accumulate in the Central Committee, which, by its opportunism, growing into revisionism, was going to change the class nature of the state after the death of Stalin.

And this is Trotsky's position on the topic:

“In the field of politics, the difference between the new constitution and the old one is the return from the Soviet system of elections, according to class and industrial groupings, to the system of bourgeois democracy, based on the so-called “universal, equal and direct” voting of the atomized population. It is a question, in short, of the legal liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Where there are no capitalists, there is no proletariat, explain the creators of the new constitution, and consequently the state itself, from a proletarian one, becomes a people's state.

… The Soviet proletariat still exists as a class profoundly different from the peasantry, the technical intelligentsia and the bureaucracy; moreover, as the only class fully interested in the victory of socialism. Meanwhile, the new constitution wants to dissolve it politically into the "nation", long before it dissolves anatomically into society.

... Democratically elected bodies of local self-government are municipalities, dumas, zemstvos, anything you like, but not councils. A national legislative institution based on a democratic formula is a belated parliament (or rather, its caricature), but in no case is it the supreme organ of the soviets” (“The Revolution Betrayed”).

So the homespun "Stalinism" of the RKRP, RPR and FRA in establishing the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR is nothing but Trotsky's rehashing.

The problem of misjudgment of the Stalinist Constitution is rooted in a misunderstanding of the Marxist theory of power, constitutional law and the dictatorship of the working class. A brief analysis of these concepts will reveal the position of Tyulkin-Popov-Trotsky as deeply opportunist.

The essence of power comes down to the process of imposing will. In the vast majority of cases, the imposition of will is ultimately secured by violence. In the vast majority of cases, the imposed will is contrary to the interests of the subordinates. These two signs reflect the essential feature of any power - it arises as a product of a conflict, the aggravation of which to the point of mutual destruction cannot be stopped by other means.

Otherwise, relations in form may resemble power, but not power in content.

So, power is a form of relations between people, which boils down to forceful coercion to act to the detriment of one's own interests. State power, therefore, is an instrument of the domination of one class over other classes, of exploiters over the exploited, through professionally organized violence, a special public institution that has become above society . The state arises along with the split of society into classes, as a product of the irreconcilability of their antagonism, and will disappear along with the destruction of this conflict division of society. No power can become state if it is not based on the interests of a really existing economically and sufficiently developed political class.

The source of power is not law, not powers, not a “social contract”, not the will of heroes, not violence, but private property relations .

The division of labor during the completion of the Neolithic revolution into predominantly physical and predominantly mental pitted two groups of people against each other, which, due to the underdevelopment of consciousness and the dominance of animal instincts, led to the transformation of this opposition into antagonism, to the establishment of exploitation through the alienation by the managers of all factors of production from the controlled . This alienation is rooted in the very mode of production. Therefore, some countries disappear, others appear, some means of labor disappear, others appear, and the principlesthe alienation of the majority in the course of the production of material and spiritual goods from the conditions of this activity remain unchanged. These relations of alienation are called "private property". The state is a kind of condition for maintaining the established order of alienation, the order of domination of the exploiting class over the exploited through organized violence.

This is how Marxism understands power.

The philistine will object that, they say, the main thing he knows about power is that power governs society, issues laws, establishes special regulatory organizations and the like, and violence is necessary mainly to create an atmosphere of security from attacks on life and property of respectable citizens. So, of course, the exterior decoration of the facade of the state looks like.

The real power in society is not in the hands of bureaucracy, powerful administrators, managers. The actual power is in the hands of the oligarchic class, which is given to it by private property, in our case, capital. The state apparatus plays the role of a guarantor of the preservation of this actual power, but is not its source. It is the capitalist form of ownership that creates the conditions that force the majority of people to act contrary to their interests, subjugates all people.

The main purpose of the state consists of two interrelated things - ensuring the right of private property as a public expression of social relations of private property and maintaining by all means the economic and political order that follows from this . And the “management of society,” as the philistines understand it, all sorts of numerous regulatory functions, from social policy to the “management” of finances, are completely secondary, caused by the complexity of the social organism, the long overdue demand for a transition from the idiocy of the class struggle to the scientific organization of social life.

The governing bodies of the state, both bureaucratic and economic, can objectively act only within the framework of optimizing the methods of solving the tasks assigned to them by the ruling class. Others are punishable by resignation, prison or contract killing.

There is an unprincipled difference between the epochs of exploitative societies in that under slavery and feudalism, slave owners and aristocrats needed fetters, whips and a Cossack saber to make the majority of the people work, and now hired slaves torture themselves voluntarily, for the sake of money and, as usual, in overtime mode due to credit "foreign cars".

Socio-historical practice has proved that the ruling class is able to create its own state because it was able to realize the difference in class potentials, primarily intellectual - the ability to manage production, high organization and moral and psychological advantage over other social groups. Thus, the essence of power lies in the identity of antagonistic classes . And this identity, to put it simply, is the violence of one class over the other classes. Moreover, the preservation and rooting of the dominance of one class over each other is directly dependent on the degree of organization of the class in relation to the subordinate antagonist class.

It is now clear that the opportunists do not adhere to the Marxist theory of power and the state, but to the liberal one. There can be no other explanation for Tyulkin-Popov's position on the Stalinist Constitution, except that, in their opinion, the order in which the organs of power are formed predetermines the strength and potential of the working class. Not his will and consciousness, but the rule of law.

Of course, Popov argues that the parliamentary form only threatens the implementation of the dictatorship of the working class, that if the ruling party is completely Marxist, then the dictatorship can be argued. However, the very fact that the method of formation of public authorities is significant enough to argue that Stalin made a mistake, and the Soviets lost their quality of organs of the dictatorship of the working class, speaks only in favor of the liberal theory of law.

And if you take your head out of the sands of parliamentary dreams, then according to Lenin’s notes on the elections to the Constituent Assembly and to the Soviets, it is clear that he assigns a secondary role to representative institutions in general, and even more so does not pay attention to the principles of their formation. Public authorities are needed not for the proletariat to govern itself, as the supporters of democracy understand, but because of habits, social inertia . In addition, due to the objective need to preserve coercion, and in the eyes of the proletarian and especially the peasant “thick”, representative institutions of power look much more logical.

The notion that the communist revolution is a revolution for democracy is extremely vulgar. There are well-known theories that the Marxists are fighting capitalism in order to give the workers the most complete access to put into practice their opinions about the social order, and Stalin allegedly did not build communism at the head of the ruling party in the USSR, but put into practice consistent proletarian democracy . Thus, tailism , the principle of denying the vanguard role of the party, the principle of denying the scientific nature of the communist struggle, is being affirmed in the left milieu. In reality, it is clear that the class is led by the avant-garde - the party , that the success of this leadership depends on the intellectual, strong-willed and other personal qualities of the personnelcomposition of this vanguard, on the effectiveness of its organizational structure and the strength of ties with its class. Lenin pointed out:

“[The Bolsheviks are accused of] understanding by the dictatorship of the proletariat in essence the dictatorship of its organized and conscious minority. Indeed, in the era of capitalism, when the working masses are constantly exploited and cannot develop their human abilities, the most characteristic of the workers' political parties is precisely that they can only embrace a minority of their class. A political party can only unite a minority of a class, just as the really class-conscious workers in every capitalist society constitute only a minority of all workers. Therefore, we are forced to admit that only this conscious minority can lead the broad working masses and lead them ... If this minority is really conscious, if it knows how to lead the masses,

The Marxists, as headquarters and guiding force, organize the working class and lead it to the conquest of state power. Lenin taught that

“The Bolsheviks won, first of all, because they had behind them the vast majority of the proletariat, and in it the most conscious, energetic, revolutionary part, the real vanguard of this advanced class” (“Elections to the Constituent Assembly and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”).

Moreover, in a letter to the leadership of the NKJust, Lenin argued that the state of the dictatorship of the working class is “ we, we, class-conscious workers, we, the communists .”

The organizational forms of the power established by the working class are taken from the experience of the exploiting states, from the experience of the revolutionary struggle, from the consciousness possessed by the vast masses. It would be absurd to assume that public authorities in their form should be imposed on the masses from the outside, because for this it would be necessary to convince almost every second person, therefore revolutions everywhere take place in those organizational and power forms that are characteristic of certain countries, are well understood by one or another other classes, most convenient for the popular masses and their revolutionaries. Any imposition of such forms occurs with difficulty and, as a rule, fails.

The class nature of power is determined not by the class composition of the government or representative bodies, but by the goals that the state implements . Stalin explained:

“The class nature of our state and our government is self-evident—it is proletarian. The aims of our state and our government are also clear—they boil down to the suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, to the organization of a socialist economy, to the abolition of classes, and so on.”

And here:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry means the dictatorship of the working majority over the exploiting minority, over the landowners and capitalists, over the speculators and bankers, in the name of democratic peace, in the name of workers’ control over production and distribution, in the name of land for the peasants, in the name of bread for the people.

The dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry means an open, mass dictatorship, carried out in front of everyone, without a conspiracy or behind-the-scenes work. For such a dictatorship has nothing to hide that there will be no mercy for lockout capitalists who aggravate unemployment through various “unloadings” and bankers-speculators who raise food prices and create hunger.

The dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry means a dictatorship without violence against the masses, a dictatorship by the will of the masses, a dictatorship to curb the will of the enemies of these masses.

Such is the class essence of the slogan ‘All power to the Soviets!’” (“On the Question of a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government”).

It can be seen that class essence is determined not by formalism, but by the objective content of politics . Has it not happened that the dictatorship of the working class has been carried out, for example, in the form of a military dictatorship? How many political decisions in the USSR were carried out by deputies elected from below on the basis of the production principle, workers from the machine tool before 1936? What difference does it make how the deputy corps of the Soviets is formed, if all decisions in the country are actually made by the leadership of the party in the center and in the localities?

Lenin said that from an objective point of view, the people do not vote for an individual, the people vote only for the party.

The class nature of power, the party, propaganda, science, literature, art, and so on is determined not by the subjective ideas of people carrying out this activity, including not by the goals that they can declare; not subjective ideas of people who evaluate this activity from the outside; not by the origin of the participants themselves or their place in the system of social production, but by the objective fact in favor of which class the results of this activity turn out to be in the conditions of a class struggle that does not tolerate neutrality, which draws into the maelstrom of its movement the entire diversity of human practice.

The historical fact that elections to the Soviets for a long time took place on the principle of production is explained not by the fact that in this way the “real” dictatorship of the proletariat and the workers’ “access” to power are ensured, but by the greatest spread of Bolshevism among the workers of large industrial enterprises.

The state of the dictatorship of the working class, as is known, begins with the replacement of the political power of the bourgeoisie, that is, its state, by establishing the political domination of the working class, in particular, the necessary stage of which is the destruction of the old apparatus of power. Why is it necessary to break up the old state? This question was raised in Marxism and then resolved by Marx on the basis of the experience of the Paris Commune. To seize a bourgeois state and adapt it to revolution proves to be extremely inconvenient, as the experience of Venezuela, for example, shows us every day. The apparatus of the bourgeois state is simply unsuitable for exercising dictatorship over the exploiters, because its personnel, in its worldview, in its psychology, consists of bourgeois inhabitants. Which, however,

The essence of the dictatorship of the working class is the construction of communism , which in this case means the decisive and uncompromising eradication of power as a social relation. The dictatorship of the working class is the use of the apparatus of coercion in order to replace the domination of man over man, with a form of community that represents the domination of objective laws over the whole of society . Consequently, the dictatorship of the working class is not limited to coercion.

The organization of the bourgeois class and its strength lies mainly in its state. In essence, the bourgeois state is the political party of the bourgeoisie, which stands guard over the general class interests of the magnates. In this sense, capitalism does not necessarily require any special headquarters or mental center for the rule of the oligarchs. It is necessary to provide only a legal order, behind which the social relation of private property is hidden in a particularly perverted modification of the "free" civil transaction and the cult of money. Which, however, does not mean that at certain moments the capitalist classes do not have their own headquarters, separate leading organizations and outstanding leaders.

The dictatorship of the working class - the actual power of the working class - means the domination of public property, that is, the centralized scientific planning of production and, as a result, its influence on distribution and consumption. This scientific nature is manifested mainly in the fact that, firstly , production is carried out to increasingly satisfy the material and spiritual needs of the whole society, each of its members, and secondlyin the fact that certain proportions, planned and progressive development are observed in production, which are an objective requirement to improve the productive forces. The organization of the working class and its strength lies in its vanguard, the Communist Party, and in the strength of its connection with the class.

Why is the dictatorship of the working class no longer fully power? Because the role of violence in the system of the dictatorship of the working class is reduced to a minimum of the expediency of protection from imperialism and coercion of a microscopic minority, represented by fragments of the exploiting classes and separate strata in which the habits of the former scum life are strong. Thus, if we take into account the role of violence and coercion, then we can assume that the dictatorship of the working class is a synonym for persuasion , that is, the introduction of a scientific approach and a scientific worldview in all spheres of society, primarily, of course, in the economy. The latter is the elimination of power itself . Replacing the dominance of force and ignorance with the dominance of reason and universal happiness .

There has not been and cannot be a situation in which the masses of the people or the masses of the working class correct the party at the expense of democracy. Any masses can express confidence or distrust, serve as an indicator of whether the policy of the state and the party does not go beyond the will of the class or the will of the people. And this approval or disapproval is rather not a consequence of understanding the goals, social movement, and so on, but the improvement or deterioration of their material situation and spiritual condition.But information on how to build communism is not contained in the mass consciousness, therefore Khrushchev carried out his reforms with relative simplicity, therefore Gorbachev destroyed the USSR, and the masses did not understand anything. It was clear to people who carefully read The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR that Khrushchev's course, to put it mildly, did not fit into the plan for building communism worked out by Stalin. And even without understanding the scientific validity of the Stalinist plan, by the mere fact that Khrushchev did not offer any justification for his reforms, one empty talk, any more or less literate person would see, would feel that Khrushchev was an anti-communist, a fool, an opportunist. And there were such people, and there were many of them, but the masses did not understand this and could not understand it .Therefore, faith in democracy, whether in military-tribal, even in slave-owning, even in feudal, even in bourgeois, even in proletarian, even in electronic, even in party, is just a product of ignorance . No "collective mind", "mass consciousness" is capable of working out a communist course, no matter how complete, deep, direct democracy there is.

The meaning of communist construction consists, among other things, in turning the mass of working people into a community, a partnership of competent, highly educated communists. Including by involving people in the management of the state and society. But this is done not to "promote interests", "to express aspirations", but as a realization of the absolute law of communism - the all-round development of each individual. It is he who is the condition for achieving mature communism . Society needs all people, every individual, as a guarantee of expanded reproduction at maximum rates. Anyone ignorant is a loss from the total potential of society.

The Stalinist Constitution was not the source of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the juridical consolidation of its gains. Any constitutions have no real force if there are no social forces behind them. The Stalinist Constitution existed as long as it had the support of the masses. As soon as the party decided to adopt a new constitution, the Stalinist one lost all its force, not only legally, but also in fact. It is not constitutions that determine social life, but the content of the class struggle , which, in turn, is only reflected in the norms of law.

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 by the ruling class.

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, elevated into a law , is worked out, forged consciously by its vanguard.otherwise it would be impossible to keep state power.

If, however, 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 sorts of opportunist rubbish. Legally consolidated that actual political consciousness, which was determined by the quality of the vanguard of the working class. But no constitution can abolish the class struggle, change the class nature of power, or build communism.

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.

From the same considerations, the Marxist policy in the field of religion is pursued. Communism completely excludes all religiosity and faith, is a science, the highest form of materialism, but at the same time, due to the stable forms of social consciousness that exist in fact, a compromise policy of freedom of religion, freedom of atheistic propaganda, a ban on religious propaganda and complete self-support of cult organizations is chosen. The final liquidation of religion is expected gradually after a thorough liquidation of all the conditions that give rise to religion itself, including the forces of social inertia.

Exactly to the extent that the party, as the vanguard of the working class, determines by its propaganda and persuasion the will of this class, its dictatorship is carried out as a form of organization of the class itself, and the goals, ways and means of social development are worked out as the main content of its power.

The actual imposition of the will of a class is not reduced to the activity of formal institutions in general.

In a bourgeois country, one must see the difference between the establishment and then application of law in the interests of the business class and the actual law of the bourgeoisie. The entrepreneur has not only and not so much legal power over the proletarians, but factual power, which is much more extensive than legal power, although it covers it. Such power is given to him by money and private property, which allows him to dominate wage workers. Consequently, along with public, institutional power in bourgeois society, the class of entrepreneurs still has non-public power, much more sophisticated and vile. In addition, the power of the bourgeoisie gives spiritual domination over the proletariat, provided by certain circumstances and no less famous means: education, art, the media, the scientific department, the entertainment industry.

Also, the working class of the USSR, along with the formal institutions of power - the Soviet bodies, there was a non-public power.This power manifested itself as the result of the mastery of Marxism by the masses, the result of party propaganda. Such actual power was based not on violence, but on competence. For example, the political and economic resolutions of the enterprises, which were adopted by the broad masses of the workers, are acts of real influence on the management of the national economy. The working class, among other things, exercised its power by penetrating the army, the administrative apparatus of the national economy, conducting major industrial construction projects and, in particular, participating in the socialist transformation of the countryside: in the development of virgin lands, dispossession, collectivization, strengthening collective farms and other measures of Soviet power, aimed at ensuring the bond between the working class and the broad masses of the peasantry.

The working class was associated with the state apparatus, primarily the party, Komsomol, trade unions and other public organizations. The working class, as a conscious community with clarified common goals of communist construction, dominated informal relations due to the state provision of the ideological primacy of the basics of Marxism in the public consciousness.

The party used the masses of the working class for additional control over the administrative apparatus of production and Soviet institutions. It is precisely these separate elements of the dictatorship of the working class that the tailists Tyulkins and Popovs seize upon and develop their theory of democracy. But they fail to see that without Party influence, without the rooting of precisely Marxist propaganda, the working masses are independently capable of working out neither the tasks of their influence, nor the goals of their actions, except for purely economic ones. The practice of removing the CPSU from power and destroying the USSR with the active use of workers' strikes clearly proved this.

Consequently, the procedure for the formation of the Soviets, the procedure for holding elections to the Soviets has nothing to do with the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

(Continued in following post.)

[blindpig]

(Continued from previous post.)

II. Review of the main versions of the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR
After the bankruptcy of the CPSU and the destruction of the USSR, anti-communists of all sorts base their demagogy mainly on the exploitation of these two historical facts. Moreover, in such a presentation: since the USSR is no more, the CPSU ordered to live long - it means communism is impossible, and Marxism is anti-scientific, and that's it.

This highly speculative approach ignores the following.

Firstly , the fact that Marxism, as a theory of building communism, did not exclude, but assumed the possibility of restoring capitalism in the USSR. In many works of the classics, special attention was paid precisely to how to ensure the permanent victory of communism in the USSR, victory over enemies, over spontaneity and social inertia in the conditions of an imperialist encirclement. Otherwise, according to the laws of the class struggle, the forces of progress in the USSR were in danger of defeat.

Moreover, on the basis of a thorough study of Lenin's legacy, Stalin proved that for countries with a predominance of the petty-bourgeois population and in conditions of imperialist encirclement, the core of the lower phase of communism is the period of sharpening and intensification of the class struggle . Extremely rich forms of class struggle used against the dictatorship of the working class, the main of which are: war, intervention, sabotage, sabotage, espionage, conspiracy, terror, kulak uprising, profiteering, bribery, bureaucracy, strike, betrayal; and the large scale of these actions proves in itself that the building of communism is met with fierce resistance from the classes that have lost power.

As soon as the exploiting classes were formally liquidated in the USSR and the bourgeois elements were suppressed, the imperialists and imperialist agents first initiated a military-political conspiracy of a gang of spies, saboteurs and assassins, which, under the platform of the restoration of capitalism, included, in addition to nationalists, all kinds of opportunists and socialists . democrats, and when he was defeated, Germany and other “weak” countries, tormented by Versailles, were pumped up with military power, put a psychopath at the head of this pack and completely untied his hands in the hope of setting half of Europe against the USSR. Thus, only complete opportunists could assert that communism in the USSR had finally and irrevocably established itself.

Moreover, the change in the guiding thrust of the party-state policy: the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist doctrine to the jelly of Khrushchev’s Trotskyism, the embodiment of which is the empty land of the third program of the CPSU, led world imperialism to replace the methods of class struggle, which purely outwardly looked like a weakening of the confrontation, a “thaw ”, “peaceful competition”, but in fact was a creeping counter-revolutionary process. All the hostile elements inside the USSR were given practically full scope for their covert struggle against communism. The dumbest of the anti-communists became dissidents, the more or less talented entrenched themselves in the unions of writers, cinematographers and artists, and the most savvy voted for each other within the CPSU itself, quickly moving up the party ladder.

Secondly , it ignores the fact that both due to class conflict and due to the constant disagreement between social being and social consciousness, progress is not carried out at an evenly progressive pace. History contains both periods of forward movement, periods of relative stagnation, and periods of rollback. Progress is observed in general, at the change of major historical eras. Neither slavery, nor the feudal, nor the capitalist system was established from the first, second or even third time. This is a characteristic feature of the natural history process today.

Thirdly , the collapse of the CPSU, the USSR and other countries of the Warsaw Pact does not mean the collapse of all communist countries. The revisionism of the CPSU undermined the authority of Marxism, the Stalinist experience, split the unified world communist movement, strengthened Trotskyism of all shades, but countries in which power remained in the hands of the proletariat survived. And North Korea and Cuba continue to build communism today. In the PRC, again, there is a protracted disease of NEP. Therefore, reports of the death of communism and Marxism are greatly exaggerated .

Anti-communists are the least interested in revealing the real reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. That is why bourgeois propaganda imposes the original "dead end" and "utopia" of communism as the reason for the collapse of the USSR. But much more cunning approaches are being preached.

There are no people who deny that one of the turning points in the history of the USSR was the victory of Khrushchev's Trotskyism. Khrushchev is a representative of that breed of opportunists, perverts, iscariots (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Yagoda), the essence of which lies in an explosive combination of ignorance and double-dealing. The logic of opportunistic, factional struggle is stronger than the desires of individuals. At the same time, we must not forget that not everyone who makes a mistake becomes a factionalist, then an enemy of the Party and communism. But such a mistaken one, who at the same time possesses the personal qualities of a double-dealer. A double-dealing opportunist, in accordance with the objective logic of political practice, will necessarily turn, depending on the scale of his abilities, either into a petty dirty trick or into a rabid enemy.

Trotskyism is not only a political phenomenon, but also a psychological one, a special form of social mimicry, implicated in the pomp of narcissism.

Khrushchev's Trotskyism is a demagogy revolving around the so-called "cult of personality", which was another rehash of Trotsky's nonsense about mastering Stalin's " apparatus according to the laws of political mechanics formulated by Machiavelli ".

“The power of Stalin is a modern form of Caesarism. It is an almost undisguised monarchy, only without a crown and so far without heredity,” wrote Trotsky in 1938 (“Stalin”).

Khrushchev essentially repeated the same thing in his closed report and subsequently launched a widespread campaign to discredit Stalin, his practical and theoretical heritage. In the orbit of Khrushchev's thesis about the abuse of power by Stalin, there is also a consequence of this abuse - a certain deformation. Trotsky, in fact, wrote about the " deformation of the workers' state ", from which Khrushchev drew his ideas.

Khrushchev declared that the return to the "Leninist norms of collective leadership" completely corrected the situation with the "cult of personality." Say, he, Khrushchev, corrected all the "deformation". In particular, in a report at the XXII Congress, he said:

“The constant renewal of cadres, the promotion of new comrades who have grown up at work, the combination in our party and state orchestra of young and experienced workers is the law of development of the Marxist-Leninist party. This conclusion of our party is based, in particular, on the lessons flowing from the consequences of the personality cult of JV Stalin. I have had occasion to speak about this more than once, including in the Report of the Central Committee at this congress. The draft Program and Rules—these main documents of the Party—formulate provisions that should create a guarantee against the recurrence of the personality cult, should erect a reliable barrier in its path. We declare from the rostrum of the congress: the party must take all necessary measures to close the path to the cult of personality forever. The systematic renewal of elected bodies should henceforth become an inviolable norm of party life, norm of state and public life. On this basis, new opportunities will open up for even more consistent implementation of the principle of collective leadership. The Party relies on the collective experience and collective thought of the Communists, of the entire people, and develops in every possible way the initiative of public organizations, of all Soviet people. Every good initiative, every good thought, every valuable suggestion must be carefully considered, actively supported and implemented.”

Thus, Khrushchev opposed Leninism with rotten liberalism. Instead of being guided by science , as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin did, there is the utopia and anarchism of the collective mind of the party. Instead of the talents tested by the revolution, a dozen wise men who sang with each other , as Lenin taught, is a purely bourgeois-democratic principle of constant renewal of cadres. Instead of scientific centralism , which was approved and developed in the party by Lenin and Stalin, there is a systematic electoral leapfrog, democracy.

So, if we remain on the basis of Trotskyism, including the Trotskyism of Khrushchev's spill, what reasons are put forward for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR?

Trotsky wrote everything in advance in his 1936 book The Revolution Betrayed:

“From inside the Soviet regime, two opposite tendencies are growing. Insofar as it, in contrast to decaying capitalism, develops the productive forces, it prepares the economic foundation of socialism. Insofar as, to please the upper strata, it brings the bourgeois norms of distribution to an ever more extreme expression, it prepares the way for a capitalist restoration. The contradiction between forms of ownership and distribution norms cannot grow without end. Either bourgeois norms will have to be extended, in one form or another, to the means of production, or, conversely, the norms of distribution will have to come into line with socialist property.

…

Nor can one count on the fact that the bureaucracy will peacefully and voluntarily renounce itself in favor of socialist equality. If now, despite the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, she found it possible to introduce ranks and orders, then at a later stage she will inevitably have to seek support for herself in property relations. It may be objected that it makes no difference to the big bureaucrat what the dominant forms of property are, as long as they provide him with the necessary income. This reasoning ignores not only the instability of the rights of the bureaucrat, but also the question of the fate of offspring. The newest cult of the family did not fall from the sky. Privileges are only half the price if they cannot be passed on to children. But the right of will is inseparable from the right of ownership. It is not enough to be a director of a trust; one must be a shareholder.

The foregoing is in perfect agreement with what Khrushchev verbally fought against.

It is alarming that in the left information space, under the guise of orthodox Marxism, approximately the same dish is often served.

Here, for example, are the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR from the RKRP program:

“The critical situation that manifested itself in the USSR by the beginning of the 1990s did not develop suddenly. It was due to a gradual change in the balance of forces, representing, on the one hand, the creative, communist trend in the life of society, and on the other, the destructive, petty-bourgeois trend.

... As a result of the rebirth, the top of the CPSU became part of the authoritarian-bureaucratic system ...

... The political organization of society continued to operate without broad communication with the workers, and such manifestations of it as cumbersome, inefficient, growing privileges and corruption caused discontent that undermined faith in the justice of the existing system.

... Significant circles of the party-state bureaucracy gradually reoriented from the official communist ideology to various bourgeois concepts. The strengthening of private property tendencies paved the way for the economic reform of 1965, which had a destructive character for the national economy. Orienting enterprises to the volume of sales in rubles and profit, it stimulated group egoism, financially motivated producers to produce as few products as possible and as expensive as possible, gave rise to shortages and inflation, increased the non-equivalence of relations between town and country, sharply increased the share of luxury goods and social harmful goods in the produced fund of personal consumption of the population.

... The highest official administrative, economic and party leaders remained out of control, gradually became above the law, created various privileges for themselves, turning into an independent social stratum, cut off from the workers. In the created environment of extravagance and lack of control, corruption grew. Connivance with private property tendencies led to a slowdown in the development of the productive forces of society. The country's economy was transferred to the path of creating a capital market and a labor market, which is the essence of capitalism. The country lived more and more at the expense of raw material supplies to the developed capitalist states.

... The state power, uncontrolled by the working masses, with the blessing of the anti-communist leadership of the CPSU, under the sign of the transition to the market, led an anti-people policy of raising prices, privatization, and encouraging local and foreign transnational capital. Foreign policy has also become subordinate to the latter.”

These provisions were accepted in 2012, that is, they are relevant. It is clear that the quotes are "trimmed" for the beauty of correlation with The Revolution Betrayed. But one way or another, the program of the RCWP only describes some facts from the history of the USSR, passing them off as reasons. And it turns out that a significant part of the facts that the RCWP focuses on in its program was cited by Trotsky as his predictive reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. By itself, this should suggest that the reasons have not been established, because a real Marxist program cannot in any way repeat Trotsky in the content of his ideas.

1.Stalin's Constitution as a prerequisite for the restoration of capitalism

Separately, it should be noted the mazurka chatter that the prerequisite for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR was ... the Stalinist Constitution. Theoretically, this position goes back to the generally accepted concept in the left environment. The title article on this subject was published by a symbiosis of "titans" of thought: Tyulkin - Popov. In their opinion, Stalin was mistaken in that he changed the principle of holding elections to the Soviets from "production" to "territorial".

“In connection with the adoption of a new, allegedly more “democratic” Constitution, a transition took place to the system of elections by territorial districts characteristic of bourgeois democracy, which separates the authorities from labor collectives and makes it practically impossible to recall deputies who have become separated from the people. Stalin's statements of that period about what happened, allegedly in connection with the adoption of the Constitution of 1936, the expansion of democracy should therefore be recognized as erroneous. It would be more correct to say that, in fact, a step was taken towards the transition from Soviet, proletarian democracy to parliamentary, bourgeois democracy, assuming formal equality and ignoring the existing inequality. No real expansion of democracy from a one-time formal extension of the right to vote to representatives of the former exploiting classes could take place. But with their gradual departure from the historical stage on the basis of the elimination of all exploitation, Soviet democracy, as a democracy for the working people, is gradually coming to universal suffrage in a natural way. The rejection of the principle of electing deputies through labor collectives in factories and factories, which is characteristic of the Soviets, and the transition to elections by territorial districts is tantamount to a rollback - from the Soviets to parliamentarism and, accordingly, the weakening of real democracy.

... the process of an increasingly intensive infection of the state machine with bureaucracy and careerism began, clogging it with bureaucrats and careerists who put their personal interests above public ones, the process of ripening in the bosom of the party-state system of the Khrushchevs and Gorbachevs. Names remained from the Soviets, but their essence began to blur. The dictatorship of the proletariat, having lost its inherent organizational form, was threatened. The proletarian character of the organs of power, still called Soviets, was now ensured only by the retained elements of their connection with the class through the nomination of candidates from labor collectives, through their periodic reports to the working people, through the regulation of their social composition by party organs, as well as the accumulated inertia of the proletarian nature of the parties. But already under Stalin, which is at the tomb of V.I. Lenin vowed to strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat and throughout his life fought for this, an anti-worker majority gradually began to accumulate in the Central Committee, which, by its opportunism, growing into revisionism, was going to change the class nature of the state after the death of Stalin.

And this is Trotsky's position on the topic:

“In the field of politics, the difference between the new constitution and the old one is the return from the Soviet system of elections, according to class and industrial groupings, to the system of bourgeois democracy, based on the so-called “universal, equal and direct” voting of the atomized population. It is a question, in short, of the legal liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Where there are no capitalists, there is no proletariat, explain the creators of the new constitution, and consequently the state itself, from a proletarian one, becomes a people's state.

… The Soviet proletariat still exists as a class profoundly different from the peasantry, the technical intelligentsia and the bureaucracy; moreover, as the only class fully interested in the victory of socialism. Meanwhile, the new constitution wants to dissolve it politically into the "nation", long before it dissolves anatomically into society.

... Democratically elected bodies of local self-government are municipalities, dumas, zemstvos, anything you like, but not councils. A national legislative institution based on a democratic formula is a belated parliament (or rather, its caricature), but in no case is it the supreme organ of the soviets” (“The Revolution Betrayed”).

So the homespun "Stalinism" of the RKRP, RPR and FRA in establishing the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR is nothing but Trotsky's rehashing.

The problem of misjudgment of the Stalinist Constitution is rooted in a misunderstanding of the Marxist theory of power, constitutional law and the dictatorship of the working class. A brief analysis of these concepts will reveal the position of Tyulkin-Popov-Trotsky as deeply opportunist.

The essence of power is reduced to the process of imposing will. In the vast majority of cases, the imposition of will is ultimately secured by violence. In the vast majority of cases, the imposed will is contrary to the interests of the subordinates. These two features reflect the essential feature of any power - it arises as a product of a conflict, the aggravation of which to the point of mutual destruction cannot be stopped by other means.

Otherwise, relations in form may resemble power, but not power in content.

So, power is a form of relations between people, which boils down to forceful coercion to act to the detriment of one's own interests. State power, therefore, is an instrument of the domination of one class over other classes, of exploiters over the exploited, through professionally organized violence, a special public institution that has become above society . The state arises along with the split of society into classes, as a product of the irreconcilability of their antagonism, and will disappear along with the destruction of this conflict division of society. No power can become state if it is not based on the interests of a really existing economically and sufficiently developed political class.

The source of power is not law, not powers, not a “social contract”, not the will of heroes, not violence, but private property relations .

The division of labor during the completion of the Neolithic revolution into predominantly physical and predominantly mental pitted two groups of people against each other, which, due to the underdevelopment of consciousness and the dominance of animal instincts, led to the transformation of this opposition into antagonism, to the establishment of exploitation through the alienation by the managers of all factors of production from the controlled . This alienation is rooted in the very mode of production. Therefore, some countries disappear, others appear, some means of labor disappear, others appear, and the principlesthe alienation of the majority in the course of the production of material and spiritual goods from the conditions of this activity remain unchanged. These relations of alienation are called "private property". The state is a kind of condition for maintaining the established order of alienation, the order of domination of the exploiting class over the exploited through organized violence.

This is how Marxism understands power.

The philistine will object that, they say, the main thing that he knows about power is that power governs society, legislates, establishes special regulatory organizations and the like, and violence is necessary mainly to create an atmosphere of security from attacks on life and property of respectable citizens. So, of course, the exterior decoration of the facade of the state looks like.

The real power in society is not in the hands of bureaucracy, powerful administrators, managers. The actual power is in the hands of the oligarchic class, which is given to it by private property, in our case, capital. The state apparatus plays the role of a guarantor of the preservation of this actual power, but is not its source. It is the capitalist form of ownership that creates the conditions that force the majority of people to act contrary to their interests, subjugates all people.

The main purpose of the state consists of two interrelated things - ensuring the right of private property as a public expression of social relations of private property and maintaining by all means the economic and political order that follows from this . And the “management of society,” as the philistines understand it, all sorts of numerous regulatory functions, from social policy to the “management” of finances, are completely secondary, caused by the complexity of the social organism, the long overdue demand for a transition from the idiocy of the class struggle to the scientific organization of social life.

The governing bodies of the state, both bureaucratic and economic, can objectively act only within the framework of optimizing the methods of solving the tasks assigned to them by the ruling class. Others are punishable by resignation, prison or contract killing.

There is an unprincipled difference between the epochs of exploitative societies in that under slavery and feudalism, slave owners and aristocrats needed fetters, whips and a Cossack saber to make the majority of the people work, and now hired slaves torture themselves voluntarily, for the sake of money and, as usual, in overtime mode due to credit "foreign cars".

Socio-historical practice has proved that the ruling class is able to create its own state because it was able to realize the difference in class potentials, primarily intellectual - the ability to manage production, high organization and moral and psychological advantage over other social groups. Thus, the essence of power lies in the identity of antagonistic classes . And this identity, to put it simply, is the violence of one class over the other classes. Moreover, the preservation and rooting of the dominance of one class over each other is directly dependent on the degree of organization of the class in relation to the subordinate antagonist class.

It is now clear that the opportunists do not adhere to the Marxist theory of power and the state, but to the liberal one. There can be no other explanation for Tyulkin-Popov's position on the Stalin Constitution, except that, in their opinion, the order in which the organs of power are formed predetermines the strength and potential of the working class. Not his will and consciousness, but the rule of law.

Of course, Popov argues that the parliamentary form only threatens the implementation of the dictatorship of the working class, that if the ruling party is completely Marxist, then the dictatorship can be argued. However, the very fact that the method of formation of public authorities is significant enough to argue that Stalin made a mistake, and the Soviets lost their quality of organs of the dictatorship of the working class, speaks only in favor of the liberal theory of law.

And if you take your head out of the sands of parliamentary dreams, then according to Lenin’s notes on the elections to the Constituent Assembly and to the Soviets, it is clear that he assigns a secondary role to representative institutions in general, and even more so does not pay attention to the principles of their formation. Public authorities are needed not for the proletariat to govern itself, as the supporters of democracy understand, but because of habits, social inertia . In addition, due to the objective need to preserve coercion, and in the eyes of the proletarian and especially the peasant “thick”, representative institutions of power look much more logical.

The notion that the communist revolution is a revolution for democracy is extremely vulgar. There are well-known theories that the Marxists are fighting capitalism in order to give the workers the most complete access to put into practice their opinions about the social order, and Stalin allegedly did not build communism at the head of the ruling party in the USSR, but put into practice consistent proletarian democracy . Thus, tailism , the principle of denying the vanguard role of the party, the principle of denying the scientific nature of the communist struggle, is being affirmed in the left milieu. In reality, it is clear that the class is led by the avant-garde - the party , that the success of this leadership depends on the intellectual, strong-willed and other personal qualities of the personnelcomposition of this vanguard, on the effectiveness of its organizational structure and the strength of ties with its class. Lenin pointed out:

“[The Bolsheviks are accused of] understanding by the dictatorship of the proletariat in essence the dictatorship of its organized and conscious minority. Indeed, in the epoch of capitalism, when the working masses are subjected to incessant exploitation and cannot develop their human faculties, the most characteristic feature of workers' political parties is precisely that they can embrace only a minority of their class. A political party can only unite a minority of a class, just as the truly class-conscious workers in every capitalist society constitute only a minority of all workers. Therefore, we are forced to admit that only this conscious minority can lead the broad working masses and lead them ... If this minority is really conscious, if it knows how to lead the masses,

The Marxists, as headquarters and guiding force, organize the working class and lead it to the conquest of state power. Lenin taught that

“The Bolsheviks won, first of all, because they had behind them the vast majority of the proletariat, and in it the most conscious, energetic, revolutionary part, the real vanguard of this advanced class” (“Elections to the Constituent Assembly and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”).

Moreover, in a letter to the leadership of the NKJust, Lenin argued that the state of the dictatorship of the working class is “ we, we, class-conscious workers, we, the communists .”

The organizational forms of the power established by the working class are taken from the experience of the exploiting states, from the experience of the revolutionary struggle, from the consciousness possessed by the vast masses. It would be absurd to assume that public authorities in their form should be imposed on the masses from the outside, because for this it would be necessary to convince almost every second person, therefore revolutions everywhere take place in those organizational and power forms that are characteristic of certain countries, are well understood by one or another other classes, most convenient for the popular masses and their revolutionaries. Any imposition of such forms occurs with difficulty and, as a rule, fails.

The class nature of power is determined not by the class composition of the government or representative bodies, but by the goals that the state implements . Stalin explained:

“The class nature of our state and our government is self-evident—it is proletarian. The goals of our state and our government are also clear - they boil down to the suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, to the organization of a socialist economy, to the abolition of classes, etc.”

And here:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry means the dictatorship of the working majority over the exploiting minority, over the landlords and capitalists, over the speculators and bankers, in the name of democratic peace, in the name of workers’ control over production and distribution, in the name of land for the peasants, in the name of bread for the people.

The dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry means an open, mass dictatorship, carried out in front of everyone, without a conspiracy or behind-the-scenes work. For such a dictatorship has nothing to hide that there will be no mercy for lockout capitalists who aggravate unemployment through various “unloadings” and bankers-speculators who raise food prices and create hunger.

The dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry means a dictatorship without violence against the masses, a dictatorship by the will of the masses, a dictatorship to curb the will of the enemies of these masses.

Such is the class essence of the slogan ‘All power to the Soviets!’” (“On the Question of a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government”).

It can be seen that class essence is determined not by formalism, but by the objective content of politics . Has it not happened that the dictatorship of the working class has been carried out, for example, in the form of a military dictatorship? How many political decisions in the USSR were carried out by deputies elected from below on the basis of the production principle, workers from the machine tool before 1936? What difference does it make how the deputy corps of the Soviets is formed, if all decisions in the country are actually made by the leadership of the party in the center and in the localities?

Lenin said that from an objective point of view, the people do not vote for an individual, the people vote only for the party.

The class nature of power, the party, propaganda, science, literature, art, and so on is determined not by the subjective ideas of people carrying out this activity, including not by the goals that they can declare; not subjective ideas of people who evaluate this activity from the outside; not by the origin of the participants themselves or their place in the system of social production, but by the objective fact in favor of which class the results of this activity turn out to be in the conditions of a class struggle that does not tolerate neutrality, which draws into the maelstrom of its movement the entire diversity of human practice.

The historical fact that elections to the Soviets for a long time took place on the principle of production is explained not by the fact that in this way the “real” dictatorship of the proletariat and the workers’ “access” to power are ensured, but by the greatest spread of Bolshevism among the workers of large industrial enterprises.

The state of the dictatorship of the working class, as is known, begins with the replacement of the political power of the bourgeoisie, that is, its state, by establishing the political domination of the working class, in particular, the necessary stage of which is the destruction of the old apparatus of power. Why is it necessary to break up the old state? This question was raised in Marxism and then resolved by Marx on the basis of the experience of the Paris Commune. To seize a bourgeois state and adapt it to revolution proves to be extremely inconvenient, as the experience of Venezuela, for example, shows us every day. The apparatus of the bourgeois state is simply unsuitable for exercising dictatorship over the exploiters, because its personnel, in its worldview, in its psychology, consists of bourgeois inhabitants. Which, however,

The essence of the dictatorship of the working class is the construction of communism , which in this case means the decisive and uncompromising eradication of power as a social relation. The dictatorship of the working class is the use of the apparatus of coercion in order to replace the domination of man over man, with a form of community that represents the domination of objective laws over the whole of society . Consequently, the dictatorship of the working class is not limited to coercion.

The organization of the bourgeois class and its strength lies mainly in its state. In essence, the bourgeois state is the political party of the bourgeoisie, which stands guard over the general class interests of the magnates. In this sense, capitalism does not necessarily require any special headquarters or mental center for the rule of the oligarchs. It is necessary to provide only a legal order, behind which the social relation of private property is hidden in a particularly perverted modification of the "free" civil transaction and the cult of money. Which, however, does not mean that at certain moments the capitalist classes do not have their own headquarters, separate leading organizations and outstanding leaders.

The dictatorship of the working class - the actual power of the working class - means the domination of public property, that is, the centralized scientific planning of production and, as a result, its influence on distribution and consumption. This scientific nature is manifested mainly in the fact that, firstly , production is carried out to increasingly satisfy the material and spiritual needs of the whole society, each of its members, and secondly, in the fact that certain proportions, planned and progressive development are observed in production, which are an objective requirement for improving the productive forces. The organization of the working class and its strength lies in its vanguard, the Communist Party, and in the strength of its connection with the class.

Why is the dictatorship of the working class no longer fully power? Because the role of violence in the system of the dictatorship of the working class is reduced to a minimum of the expediency of protection from imperialism and coercion of a microscopic minority, represented by fragments of the exploiting classes and separate strata in which the habits of the former scum life are strong. Thus, if we take into account the role of violence and coercion, then we can assume that the dictatorship of the working class is a synonym for persuasion , that is, the introduction of a scientific approach and a scientific worldview in all spheres of society, primarily, of course, in the economy. The latter is the elimination of power itself . Replacing the dominance of force and ignorance with the dominance of reason and universal happiness .

There has not been and cannot be a situation in which the masses of the people or the masses of the working class correct the party at the expense of democracy. Any masses can express confidence or distrust, serve as an indicator of whether the policy of the state and the party does not go beyond the will of the class or the will of the people. And this approval or disapproval is rather not a consequence of understanding the goals, social movement, and so on, but the improvement or deterioration of their material situation and spiritual condition.But information on how to build communism is not contained in the mass consciousness, therefore Khrushchev carried out his reforms with relative simplicity, therefore Gorbachev destroyed the USSR, and the masses did not understand anything. It was clear to people who carefully read The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR that Khrushchev's course, to put it mildly, did not fit into Stalin's plan for building communism. And even without understanding the scientific validity of the Stalinist plan, by the mere fact that Khrushchev did not offer any justification for his reforms, one empty talk, any more or less literate person would see, would feel that Khrushchev was an anti-communist, a fool, an opportunist. And there were such people, and there were many of them, but the masses did not understand this and could not understand it .Therefore, faith in democracy, whether in military-tribal, even in slave-owning, even in feudal, even in bourgeois, even in proletarian, even in electronic, even in party, is just a product of ignorance . No "collective mind", "mass consciousness" is capable of working out a communist course, no matter how complete, deep, direct democracy there is.

The meaning of communist construction consists, among other things, in turning the mass of working people into a community, a partnership of competent, highly educated communists. Including by involving people in the management of the state and society. But this is done not to "promote interests", "to express aspirations", but as a realization of the absolute law of communism - the all-round development of each individual. It is he who is the condition for achieving mature communism . Society needs all people, every individual, as a guarantee of expanded reproduction at maximum rates. Anyone ignorant is a loss from the total potential of society.

The Stalinist Constitution was not the source of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the juridical consolidation of its gains. Any constitutions have no real force if there are no social forces behind them. The Stalinist Constitution existed as long as it had the support of the masses. As soon as the party decided to adopt a new constitution, the Stalinist one lost all its force, not only legally, but also in fact. It is not constitutions that determine social life, but the content of the class struggle , which, in turn, is only reflected in the norms of law.

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 by the ruling class.

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, elevated into a law , is worked out, forged consciously by its vanguard.otherwise it would be impossible to keep state power.

If, however, 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 sorts of opportunist rubbish. Legally consolidated that actual political consciousness, which was determined by the quality of the vanguard of the working class. But no constitution can abolish the class struggle, change the class nature of power, or build communism.

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.

From the same considerations, the Marxist policy in the field of religion is pursued. Communism completely excludes any religiosity and faith, is a science, the highest form of materialism, but at the same time, due to the stable forms of social consciousness that exist in fact, a compromise policy of freedom of religion, freedom of atheistic propaganda, a ban on religious propaganda and complete self-support of cult organizations is chosen. The final elimination of religion is supposed to be gradual after the thorough elimination of all the conditions that give rise to religion itself, including the forces of social inertia.

Exactly to the extent that the party, as the vanguard of the working class, determines by its propaganda and persuasion the will of this class, its dictatorship is carried out as a form of organization of the class itself, and the goals, ways and means of social development are worked out as the main content of its power.

The actual imposition of the will of a class is not reduced to the activity of formal institutions in general.

In a bourgeois country, one must see the difference between the establishment and then application of law in the interests of the business class and the actual law of the bourgeoisie. The entrepreneur has power over the proletarians not only and not so much legal, but factual, which is much more extensive than legal, although it covers it. Such power is given to him by money and private property, which allows him to dominate wage workers. Consequently, along with public, institutional power in bourgeois society, the class of entrepreneurs still has non-public power, much more sophisticated and vile. In addition, the power of the bourgeoisie gives spiritual domination over the proletariat, provided by certain circumstances and no less famous means: education, art, the media, the scientific department, the entertainment industry.

Also, the working class of the USSR, along with the formal institutions of power - the Soviet bodies, there was a non-public power.This power manifested itself as the result of the mastery of Marxism by the masses, the result of party propaganda. Such actual power was based not on violence, but on competence. For example, the political and economic resolutions of the enterprises, which were adopted by the broad masses of the workers, are acts of real influence on the management of the national economy. The working class, among other things, exercised its power by penetrating the army, the administrative apparatus of the national economy, conducting major industrial construction projects and, in particular, participating in the socialist transformation of the countryside: in the development of virgin lands, dispossession, collectivization, strengthening collective farms and other measures of the Soviet government, aimed at ensuring the bond between the working class and the broad masses of the peasantry.

The working class was associated with the state apparatus, primarily the party, Komsomol, trade unions and other public organizations. The working class, as a conscious community with clarified common goals of communist construction, dominated informal relations due to the state provision of the ideological primacy of the basics of Marxism in the public consciousness.

The party used the masses of the working class for additional control over the administrative apparatus of production and Soviet institutions. It is precisely these separate elements of the dictatorship of the working class that the tailists Tyulkins and Popovs seize upon and develop their theory of democracy. But they fail to see that without Party influence, without the rooting of precisely Marxist propaganda, the working masses are independently capable of working out neither the tasks of their influence, nor the goals of their actions, except for purely economic ones. The practice of removing the CPSU from power and destroying the USSR with the active use of workers' strikes clearly proved this.

Consequently, the procedure for the formation of the Soviets, the procedure for holding elections to the Soviets has nothing to do with the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

[blindpig]

(Continued from previous page)


3.Kosygin-Lieberman reform, abolition of MTS and other reforms

One of the most widespread in the left environment is the opinion that the Kosygin reform served as the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

First of all, it should be noted that no full-fledged reform, as many publicists and scientists write about it, was recognized in the USSR. The concept of the presence and impact of this reform originated in the West, and in our country it was adopted in the modern period in the course of attempts to analyze the causes of the collapse of the USSR. In fact, we are talking about changes in economic planning.

In order to understand what the essence of the changes was, what self-financing is, one will have to not only get acquainted with Lieberman’s article and the “Kosygin reform”, but also give a concise idea of ​​the essence of Stalinist communist construction in terms of the forms of planning and management used until 1953.

As you know, on September 9, 1962, in Pravda, on the ideological and theoretical basis of the resolutions of the XXII Congress of the CPSU, an article by Lieberman, scandalous at that time, appeared with a plain title, according to which everything is immediately clear - "Plan, profit, bonus." It can be seen from the article that, firstly , the author is infinitely far from Marxism and considers the issues of planning, the functioning of enterprises, labor motivation from a positivist point of view (what is the only contrast between “economic” measures and “administrative” measures!); Secondlythat the whole concept is reduced to an elementary scheme by the standards of bourgeois management and planning: the center assigns a plan only for the volume of production and approves the “planned rate of return” (an incentive scale for the enterprise, dependent on the indicator: the percentage of profit to the sum of fixed and working capital), and the enterprise itself independently approves labor productivity, number of personnel, wages, production costs, savings and investments. Roughly speaking, the Economic Council appointed the plant a range of 10 million items by the end of the year, and the enterprise independently planned its activities on the basis of profit that arises from an independent determination of profitability, thus defining a planned task for it. As a consumer of raw materials, the plant must act as a supplier pricing controller,

“There are fears,” writes Lieberman, “that enterprises will start making only profitable products, and they will refuse unprofitable products. But, firstly, if the assortment is violated, the enterprise loses any encouragement. And secondly, it is very bad that some types of products in our country are highly profitable due to shortcomings in pricing, while others are unprofitable. That is precisely the task of pricing, as follows from the decisions of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, in order to ensure profitability under normal conditions for the entire range of products.

…

Note that the proposed procedure will force enterprises to produce only such products that can be sold and paid for. Enterprises will, further, properly calculate the effectiveness of new equipment and stop mindlessly ordering any new equipment at public expense.

At the same time, Lieberman is a rather active opponent of the planned economy. The spirit of his article is imbued with a purely forced necessity to reckon with socialism:

“Any indicators will be distorted when they are imposed on enterprises from above by the apportionment method. Instead, it is necessary to give enterprises the opportunity to calculate for themselves the optimal combinations of indicators in order to achieve the final effect: the best products that consumers really need, with the highest profitability of production. Without such "freedom of economic maneuver" it is impossible to sharply increase the efficiency of production. Without this, you can talk as much as you like about increasing the rights of the enterprise, but not achieve it.

…

It is now generally accepted that any assessment of the work of enterprises and any encouragement should be based on the fulfillment of the plan, as the most reliable measure. Why is it so? Because the plan supposedly creates equal conditions for enterprises and takes into account different natural conditions, different degrees of mechanization, and other "individual" circumstances. In reality, the plans of enterprises are now set according to the so-called "reporting base", that is, based on the level reached. This creates very unequal conditions: favorable conditions for those who perform poorly, tense conditions for those enterprises that really open up and use their reserves. Why strive for a good job in these conditions? Isn't it easier to try to get a good plan? It's time to fix this system!

Isn't it clear that really "equal conditions" can be created if there is a single standard of profitability for enterprises located in approximately the same natural and technical conditions. It is less dangerous to ignore certain differences in these objective conditions than to level the quality of economic leadership. By this leveling we preserve backward methods of production. Let the enterprises themselves, having from the center a production program and a long standard of profitability, show what they are capable of in competition for the best results. It's true that we don't have competition, but that doesn't mean we don't have competition for the best leadership practices. On the contrary, such a competition should be given full play to us.”

Lieberman's program looks like this:

"1. Establish that the plans of enterprises, after the coordination and approval of the volume-nomenclature program, are completely drawn up by the enterprises themselves.

2. In order to guarantee state conscientiousness and the interest of enterprises in maximum production efficiency, establish a single fund for all types of material incentives, depending on profitability (from profit as a percentage of production funds).

3. Centrally approve incentive scales depending on profitability as long-term standards for various industries and groups of enterprises located in approximately the same natural and technical conditions.

4. Strengthen and improve central planning by bringing obligatory tasks (control figures) only to the economic councils (executive committees, departments). Eliminate the practice of apportioning assignments by the economic councils among enterprises according to the “achieved level”. To oblige the economic councils to verify, evaluate and improve the plans independently developed by enterprises on the basis of economic analysis without changing the scales of profitability as a basis for encouraging enterprises.

5. To develop a procedure for using unified incentive funds from the profits of enterprises, bearing in mind the expansion of the rights of enterprises in spending funds for the needs of collective and personal incentives.

6. Establish the principle and procedure for flexible pricing of new products in such a way that more efficient products are profitable for both producers and consumers, that is, for the national economy as a whole.

In general, Lieberman's plan is something like a gigantic state order, which is made in the nomenclature, and all proportions are regulated internally, in fact, by the struggle of enterprises among themselves on market principles, that is, in a commodity form. It is not clear from the article how Lieberman was going to combine two opposite principles - the planning of the nomenclature from the center and the orientation towards the independence of the enterprise in the issue of product releases.

It should be noted that Lieberman did not appear out of nowhere in the early 1960s. He is a representative of a whole market direction of economic thought in the USSR. Marketers have always hid behind “pragmatics”, behind mathematics, behind statistics, behind self-financing. They camouflaged their views by improving planning in the same way that opportunists in politics improved socialism to infinity.

What Marxist foundations were rejected by marketers, including Lieberman?

Thus, communist central planning is the realization of the socialization of property, its content side. To snatch power from the hands of the bourgeoisie and to redistribute social wealth under the bourgeois mode of production does not at all mean to socialize property, even if it is formally legally in the hands of the dictatorship of the working class. Lenin taught:

“Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist technology, built according to the latest word in modern science, without a planned state organization that subordinates tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a single standard in the production and distribution of products. We, Marxists, have always talked about this, and with people who do not even understand this, it is not worth spending even two seconds talking.”

Thus, it is clear that economic and political issues are inextricably linked. Lenin ridiculed those who spoke of raising economic questions outside of political ones:

"Political vs economic approach - eclecticism",

"Trotsky for economic successes, Lenin for politics ha-ha!!" (Summaries of the pamphlet “Once again about the trade unions, about the current situation and about the mistakes of comrades Trotsky and Bukharin”).

The dictatorship of the working class cannot but embrace the basis by coercion, persuasion, education, mobilization, and organization.

Stalin developed Lenin's position:

“I would like to say a few words about an increase, about a qualitative improvement in the leading work of our Party in the field of economy, as well as in the field of politics. There was a time, comrades, about two or three years ago, when one part of the comrades, it seems, headed by Trotsky, reproached our gubernia committees, our regional committees, our Central Committee, arguing that the party organizations were not competent and interfered in the country's economic affairs in vain. Yes, there was such a time. Now hardly anyone will turn their tongues to hurl such an accusation at the party organizations. That the gubernia and regional committees have mastered the business of economic leadership, that the Party organizations are at the head of economic construction and not at the tail of it—this is such a striking fact that only the blind or the insane will dare to deny it. Already the fact

Others think that there is nothing special here. No, comrades. This is something special and important that should be noted. They sometimes refer to American and German economic bodies, which supposedly also manage the national economy in a planned manner. No, comrades, this has not yet been achieved and will not be achieved there as long as the capitalist system exists there. In order to lead in a planned manner, it is necessary to have a different, socialist, and not a capitalist system of industry, it is necessary to have at least a nationalized industry, a nationalized credit system, nationalized land, a socialist bond with the countryside, the power of the working class in the country, etc.

True, they also have something like plans. But these are plans-forecasts, plans-guesses that are not obligatory for anyone and on the basis of which it is impossible to manage the country's economy. Not so with us. Our plans are not plans-forecasts, not plans-guesses, but plans-directives, which are obligatory for the governing bodies and which determine the direction of our economic development in the future on a national scale. You see that we have a fundamental difference here” (Organizational Report of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) to the 12th Congress).

It is important not only to be able to plan the entire economy, or at least the entire industry, based on the coercion of an insignificant part of the population and the will of the vast majority, but also to be able, in fact, to plan in such a way that the means of production are used in the most efficient way, the productivity of labor increases, therefore , productive forces grew.

In other words, the task is to properly organize the relations of production on the basis of a certain level of development of the productive forces and the conditions of nature objectively opposed to them. If we add to this a correctly taken into account class balance of forces, in general, the whole policy and the level of development of the consciousness of workers, then this will be called scientific centralized planning.

The need to give a brief history of the formation and development of planning in the USSR is also dictated by the fact that directly opposite views on its subject are walking in the left-wing information space. In one case, in the Stalinist economy, allegedly, there was no cost accounting at all, every nail was planned, and things went off with a bang. In another case, almost the entire Stalinist industry, with the exception of the heavy machinery and the defense industry, was a continuous private artels and free enterprise, and Stalin was allegedly a great defender of private initiative and small business.

So. The first economic plan was the GOELRO plan. Stalin set the GOELRO plan as a model and an example of truly science-based planning.

“I had the opportunity,” Stalin writes in a letter to Lenin, “to read the collection Plan for the Electrification of Russia… An excellent, well-written book. A masterful sketch of a really unified and really state economic plan without quotation marks. The only Marxist attempt in our time to bring under the Soviet superstructure of economically backward Russia a truly real and the only technically possible production base under present conditions. Remember last year's "plan" of Trotsky (his theses) for the "economic revival" of Russia on the basis of the mass application of the labor of an unskilled peasant-working mass (labour army) to the ruins of pre-war industry. What misery, what backwardness in comparison with the GOELRO plan. A medieval handicraftsman who imagines himself an Ibsen hero,

It is clear that the GOELRO plan and the socialist sector during the NEP period were planned with significant deformations associated with an open struggle between the two economic structures . During the years of NEP, of course, self-supporting accounting was used, and the main self-supporting unit was the trust, which united several branch enterprises. The trust had a certain economic freedom and was supposed to be profitable, while individual enterprises within the trust did not have independence.

In 1927, the regulation on state industrial trusts was put into effect, in which the individual enterprise was given greater freedom:

“The direct management of individual production enterprises that are part of the trust is entrusted to directors (managers, administrators) appointed and dismissed by the board of the trust and acting on a sole basis within the powers determined by the board of the trust.

The relationship between the board of the trust and the director, as well as the rights of the latter to manage the enterprise, are determined in a special provision on the management of this enterprise, developed with the participation of the director, on the basis of a standard provision, and approved by the board of the trust.

The standard regulation on the management of production enterprises that are part of the trust is approved by the institution in charge of the trust.

The annual production and financial plan for each enterprise, as well as the plan and deadlines for the delivery of products, the amount and procedure for supplying the enterprise with monetary and material resources by the board of the trust in accordance with the production and financial plan, the procedure and forms of settlements between the board of the trust and the enterprise for the products delivered by the latter, Based on the system of work orders, they are developed by the director, considered by the board of the trust with his participation and approved by the board of the trust. Changes in the production and financial plan and all issues related to such a change are considered and resolved in the same manner.

What about profit?

“Every year, upon approval, in accordance with the procedure established by a special law, of the annual report and balance sheet of the trust, the amount of its profit or loss for the past operating year is determined. From the profits of the trust, first of all, deductions are made for the payment of income tax with a local surcharge to it. The remaining part of the profit, if there is a loss of previous years on the balance sheet of the trust, is used to pay off the said loss.

The remaining part of the profit after that is subject to distribution in the following order:

a) 10% - to the fund for improving the life of workers and employees;

b) 10% - to the reserve capital, until the latter reaches half of the authorized capital;

c) 10% - for the formation of special state capital in long-term credit institutions in accordance with special laws;

d) 25% - in the capital of the expansion of the enterprise, so that half of its deduction is placed as a long-term contribution of the trust to the long-term credit institutions mentioned in paragraph "c", and the other half remains at the disposal of the trust;

e) no more than 1.4% - to the underlying fund for the issuance of incentive remuneration;

f) the rest of the profits, with the exception of percentage deductions, going on the decisions of the relevant authorities for the formation of special capital, are turned into state revenue from the all-Union, republican or local budgets in accordance with the current legislation.

The trusts, in turn, were combined into 20-25 trading syndicates:

"The main task of the syndicate is the sale of the products of its members or the acquisition and procurement for them of the main types of raw materials and items of material and technical supplies, in order to replace the independent trading activities of the members of the syndicate."

On the whole, the logical managerial and economic structure of trust-syndicates, introduced by these resolutions, was poorly implemented.

After the Shakhty case, the resolution of the joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on April 6-11, 1928 stated :

“Finally, the circumstance that the decree on trusts, issued on June 29, 1927, was almost not implemented in practice, especially in the part that establishes the relationship of managing enterprises (directors) with technical managers-specialists and changed before published provisions (“Model Regulation”, established by order of the Supreme Council of National Economy No. 33, 1926). This practice, which made the entire technical staff directly dependent on the technical manager, prevented the establishment of a real unity of management and reduced the role of the enterprise manager (director).

These perversions in the system of government undoubtedly contributed to the long-term impunity of counter-revolutionary wreckers.

The actual management of industry was concentrated in syndicates, which often duplicated the functions of the Central Councils of the Supreme Economic Council. The independence of enterprises at that time was limited, since legally it was the trust that had economic and financial independence. Enterprises did not have separate material assets and funds.

Under the circumstances, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1929 decided that:

“The enterprise is the main link in the management of the industry. Therefore, the maintenance of the enterprise, the correct organization of supply, the most perfect organization of labor within the enterprise, the complete implementation of unity of command in production, the creation of the most favorable conditions for the maximum activity of the working collective and technical personnel of the enterprise, the selection of qualified administration, the necessary degree of independence of the enterprise, are the basis for further improvement. control systems of socialist industry.

The transfer of enterprises to economic accounting has fully justified itself. Cost accounting reveals the face of the enterprise, promotes the rationalization of production, the correct organization of marketing and supply, and at the same time causes opposition to elements of bureaucracy and red tape.

At the same time, the transfer of enterprises to economic scoring contributes to the rational organization of accounting for the production activities of the enterprise and to familiarize the masses with this activity.

Until now, the transfer to economic accounting has not been carried out at all enterprises. This measure must be resolutely carried out in the shortest possible time at all enterprises of state industry without exception.

With the strictest observance of production, financial, planning discipline within the limits of the given limits, the enterprise must be independent. Its administration bears full responsibility for the implementation of the program.

A certain amount of funds is provided at the disposal of the enterprise, the amount of which is determined annually by the industrial financial plan.

On the basis of the industrial financial plan, the order-order stipulates the production cost estimate set for the enterprise for a year and mutual charges in case of violation of the conditions established by the order-order.

…

The company has its own balance sheet. The basis of the monthly balance of the enterprise should be the cost of production data. The difference between the given and actual cost, under the indispensable condition of fulfilling the requirements for the quality of manufactured products, is the main indicator of the success of the enterprise.

Part of this difference in the amount provided by law remains at the disposal of the enterprise and, upon approval of the annual balance sheet, is spent at the discretion of the latter for production and household needs.

The same resolution actually liquidated the central offices of the Supreme Economic Council, instead of them, on the basis of syndicates, self-supporting organizations were created that manage their industries and are directly subordinate to the Presidium of the Supreme Economic Council: Soyuzugol, Soyuzneft, Energocenter, Steel, Novostal , "Tsvetmetzoloto", "Machine Association", "Machine Association" and others.

At the same time, taxation was simplified:

“The creation of a single self-supporting organization requires a decisive simplification of the system of taxation of industry; instruct the NKFin and the USSR Supreme Economic Council to develop a taxation system for state industry on the principle of a single deduction from profits.

And the most important:

“In order to strengthen the operational rights and responsibilities of associations of industrial enterprises, it is necessary that, when planning the trade turnover, the Supreme Council of National Economy and the People's Commissariat of Trade give only general directives to reduce selling prices, indicating the average limit of this reduction so that further operational work in the field of price setting is to the maximum extent provided by the associations.

…

The Supreme Council of National Economy, reducing the area of ​​its operational intervention in relation to lower authorities, should focus its main attention on drawing up production and financial plans for the development of industry and its technical reconstruction, on linking the work of individual branches of industry, on developing the main directives in the field of current planning and regulation of industry, on control over their implementation, on staffing and instructing economic agencies.

However, the importance of the central planning authority remained quite significant:

“The work of the Supreme Economic Council of the Union in managing associations should basically consist in developing basic directives for drawing up plans for the reconstruction of a given industry, approving control figures and capital work plans, appointing and dismissing the board of an association, approving balance sheets and reports, distributing profits and losses, authorizing the expenditure of special capital, audit and examination of the activities of the association, approval of charters and authorized capital, setting selling prices.

The unified planned technical and economic department of the Supreme Council of National Economy performs the following main functions:

a) industrial planning, development of long-term plans and control figures, planning of the geographical location of enterprises and zoning of industry, development of industrial policy and industrial legislation, coordination of the work of individual associations;

b) management of the technical reconstruction of industry, development of general lines for the technical development of industry, organization of new industries, specialization, etc.; general management of research work and management of research institutes directly subordinate to him; management of work on the transfer of foreign experience, on the exchange of experience between enterprises and on standardization and rationalization.

The main task of the Main Inspectorate should be to verify that all industry bodies are complying with the most important directives of the government and the Presidium of the Supreme Council of National Economy. The Main Inspectorate should widely practice the use of the republican and local bodies of the Supreme Council of National Economy for inspecting industry, as well as the involvement of the working masses and public organizations in inspections.

Measures were outlined in the same spirit at the 16th All-Union Party Conference in April 1929: the decentralization of operational functions and the strengthening of self-financing.

However, already since 1930 there has been a certain curtailment of the economic freedom of enterprises. In continuation of the policy of developing a planned beginning in the economy in 1930, at the 16th Congress, instructions were given to carry out

"the decisive elimination of institutions and forms of government, both uncritically borrowed from capitalism, although they were important in the early years of Soviet power, but lost their meaning in the conditions of the predominance of socialist elements in the country's economy (a plurality of taxes and tariffs, joint-stock companies, etc.)" .

It should be noted that in the period of the 1930s and up to January 1, 1949, planning was carried out mainly in fixed prices of 1926-1927.

Along with the development of industrialization on January 30, 1930, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution "On Credit Reform", which eliminated commercial credit in the socialist sector, concentrating all credit in the State Bank. The task of the loan is the seasonal and temporary needs of enterprises.

However, the Trotskyist Pyatakov, who headed the board of the State Bank, failed to carry out the reform and deliberately created a gigantic confusion in financial policy. This led to colossal mismanagement.

At the beginning of 1931, a short resolution of the Council of People's Commissars "On measures to improve the practice of credit reform" was issued, in which an attempt was made to rectify the situation. In addition, regarding self-financing, it said:

“To establish that from the planned transfers made by enterprises to the association (the difference between the selling price and the planned cost of production), the latter receives profit calculated from the percentage of profitability (profitability) of the previous year, and depreciation. The additional profit identified as a result of the cost reduction target is credited to the pooling account at a rate of 50%. The remaining 50% is credited to the association's special insurance account at the bank. The insurance account cannot be the subject of recovery for claims to the association.

And on March 20, 1931, a full-fledged resolution of the Council of People's Commissars "On changes in the lending system, strengthening credit work and ensuring cost accounting in all economic bodies" was issued, which, in particular, stated:

“The successes of socialist construction and the planned socialist organization of the economy, the decisive displacement of capitalist and the narrowing of the sphere of activity of private economic elements in the Soviet economy made it possible and necessary to move from commercial (bill) lending to direct bank lending to the entire national economy, carried out through the State Bank.

The credit reform, remaining on the basis of economic calculation and relying entirely on economic calculation as the most important lever for managing economic organizations in the entire socialized sector, should ensure that the ruble controls the fulfillment of economic plans and the progress of accumulations in the socialized sector of the national economy and strengthens the economic interest of each enterprise and each economic body in the fulfillment of the plans set by it, in the rationalization of production, in the reduction of costs, in the accumulation of profits.

The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR establishes that in the practice of credit reform, as a result of unsatisfactory leadership, in particular, completely unsatisfactory preparation for its implementation, on the one hand, and direct sabotage, on the other, gross distortions of the main tasks set for credit reform have been allowed. These perversions led to the fact that over the past period of application of the new credit system, not only was there no strengthening of control by the ruble over the implementation of production plans and accumulations by all organizations of the socialized sector, but, on the contrary, there was a violation of the principles of economic accounting, a weakening of attention to financial work and financial discipline in business organizations.

The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR states that one of the reasons for the unsatisfactory implementation of the credit reform was the State Bank's misunderstanding of its tasks, which found expression in the bank's desire to appropriate the unbearable functions of planning and regulating economic processes, which could not but lead to undermining the responsibility of economic people's commissariats and business organizations.

In fact, the role of the State Bank in the development of the socialist economy is to:

a) become a settlement organization for the socialized economy, a national apparatus for accounting for the production and distribution of products;

b) to ensure real day-to-day control by the ruble over the course of fulfilling plans for the production and circulation of goods, over the fulfillment of financial plans and the course of accumulation in the socialized sector of the national economy;

c) to ensure the strengthening of the cost accounting of enterprises and economic associations as the main lever in the fulfillment of plans (quantitative and qualitative tasks) in the entire socialized sector.

For the purpose of strengthening economic accounting and the practical implementation of real financial control over the course of fulfillment of plans for the production and circulation of goods and accumulations in the socialized sector, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decides:

1. State, economic and cooperative bodies and enterprises, within the limits of plan assignments, establish their relationships in the supply of goods, the performance of work and the provision of services by concluding contracts and issuing orders, and bear the responsibility established by law for their fulfillment.

2. Credit limits are established for state bodies in accordance with the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of January 14, 1931, art. 5-9. Within these limits, the State Bank opens loans to relevant enterprises and organizations in the amounts arising from agreements concluded by enterprises and economic bodies, and fulfills instructions from economic bodies within the limits of open loans as the agreements are actually fulfilled.

3. The form of settlement of economic bodies on commodity transactions must be indicated in the concluded agreements, depending on which the State Bank executes their instructions in the order of acceptance, letter of credit or special account, and acceptance in these conditions is considered the preferred form of payment.

…

6. Despite the fact that the majority of economic organizations are state organizations, their losses can in no case be covered at the expense of the state bank.”

Thus, a significant step was taken from commercial credit and complete economic independence during the NEP period to state credit and economic independence within the framework of the industrial financial plan.

Together with the decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, a corresponding circular was sent out . A little later, another resolution was adopted , this time the STO, “On working capital of state associations, trusts and other economic organizations”, also aimed at eliminating the consequences of the “work” of Pyatakov and the Trotskyists in the State Bank. True, the Trotskyist and former Socialist-Revolutionary Kalmanovich was also called to correct the shortcomings. Something about the process of personnel purge of the State Bank in 1930 can be gleaned from the publications "Through the Pages of the Archival Funds of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation."

Calling for the elimination of mismanagement, Stalin at a meeting of business executives in June 1931 said:

“Thanks to the mismanagement of business, the principles of cost accounting have been completely undermined in a number of our enterprises and economic organizations. It is a fact that in a number of enterprises and economic organizations they have long ceased to count, calculate, draw up reasonable balances of income and expenses. It is a fact that in a number of enterprises and economic organizations the concepts of "economy regime", "reduction of unproductive expenditures", "rationalization of production" have long gone out of fashion. Obviously, they are counting on the fact that the State Bank "will give us the necessary amounts anyway." It is a fact that lately the cost of production at a number of enterprises has begun to rise. They were given the task to reduce the cost by 10 percent or more, and they increase it. What is cost reduction? You know, that each percentage reduction in production costs means an accumulation within industry of 150-200 million rubles. It is clear that to raise the cost under these conditions means to lose hundreds of millions of rubles for industry and the entire national economy.

Pay attention to what content Stalin gives to the concept of "self-financing".

The initial stage of industrialization and collectivization naturally undermined the trade turnover between town and country that had developed during the NEP years. Therefore, in 1931, by a resolution of the Collegium of the People's Commissariat for Supply of the USSR "On the introduction of a unified system of supply by fence books", a rationing system for the distribution of products in the socialist sector of employment was introduced, which applied to basic, vital consumer products. In the difficult conditions of the beginning of industrialization, the card system fulfilled its mobilization tasks and was curtailed in 1935.

It should be noted what sources of growth in productive forces were indicated at the 17th Conference of the CPSU(b) in 1931:

"On the basis of greater economy, better utilization of productive capacities, better mobilization of forces and better practical guidance, to give the country more products and better quality."

At the same time, self-supporting brigades began to form throughout industry in 1931. The construction of teams is based on the course of the technological process and the principle of mutual production communication between individual members of the team. Each team receives from the administration of the shop a work order, which includes a quantitative task, the main norms established by the plan for the expenditure of raw materials, labor, tools, and other indicators necessary to determine the cost. On the basis of this order-task, each brigade puts forward its counter indicators and concludes an agreement with the workshop administration, which is an agreement on socialist emulation and shock work. The size of the bonus for such a brigade was 20-60% of the savings achieved by the brigade. In 1931-1932, more than 700,000 self-supporting brigades were organized at more than 2,000 large enterprises, which accounted for more than a third of the working data of enterprises. In the future, this movement unfolded more and more widely.

As mentioned above, in 1935 the card system was abolished and the well-known Stalinist policy of price reduction was launched. So, speaking at the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on November 29, 1934, Stalin explained:

“We need to develop with might and main trade turnover in all economic activity, in all our sphere through the money economy. Commodity turnover is not just an exchange of commodities. We need to strengthen the monetary economy.

The money economy is one of those few bourgeois economic apparatuses which we socialists must use to the fullest. It is far from being used, this apparatus. He is very flexible, we need him, and we will turn him in our own way so that he pours water into our mill, and not into the mill of capitalism. To develop commodity circulation, to develop Soviet trade, to strengthen the money economy—that is the main point of the reform we are undertaking.

We have a fairly well organized industry, we can produce products, goods; we also have a fairly well organized agriculture, we can have agricultural products. But all this is not enough. It is necessary to establish a meeting of these products - an exchange between the city and the countryside. And to establish an exchange between town and country under our conditions without trade, without buying and selling is an unthinkable thing. We have individual "leftist" elements in the Party who think that it is possible to switch right away to product exchange. It is nonsense. How many times did individual comrades try to do this and each time they bruised their foreheads.

We are now at the stage when the link between industry and agriculture, the exchange of commodities, products and products between town and country, can be carried out only through commodity circulation. We are at this stage, and we have not used this stage yet. Only after we use this stage to the bottom, it will be possible to raise the question of product exchange.

... The abolition of the rationing system in the field of grain products, cereals - obviously, we will do the same for potatoes, sugar and textiles - means that in terms of the link, the link between commodities, between town and country, mechanical, blind, clerical distribution rations, the distribution of products is put to an end... Only after our trade organizations learn to take into account all the specific features of each district and each region and establish the richest commodity distribution network, only after that it will be possible to try to raise the question of the transition from commodity circulation to product exchange without money . Until we have done this, until we have used even a third of this trade turnover, to talk about the destruction of the money economy, about the replacement of trade turnover with the exchange of products, is to talk nonsense, things are absolutely anti-Leninist,

... The significance of the reform that we are carrying out is to put on a real basis, on a real real basis, a policy of lowering prices for all goods and for all products. How are we now? Each trading organization tries to make a cape everywhere. If it is a difficult matter, then everyone wants to solve it by raising prices. This chaos, rather all this bacchanalia in price policy, must be put to an end. The meaning of the reform is that we are beginning to put on a real basis a policy of lowering prices for all goods and for all products.

The meaning of the reform is that the possibilities of grain speculation are cut off ... The workers compete with the state: rationed bread is sold much cheaper than the state, and there is no longer such a need for commercial bread. And this is everywhere, both in Moscow and in other large cities. This system revives petty speculation, petty speculation creates rich ground for petty theft and all kinds of theft, creates ground for all speculation, both large and small: since I buy bread cheaper here, and sell it more expensive there, I profit from it. The abolition of cards means the establishment of one price for bread within such and such a zone.

Consequently, the abolition of the card system significantly stimulated the role of money wages in the field of self-support.

In 1936, numerous funds for bonuses and improvement of the culture and life of workers were liquidated and a single fund for the director was created. The decision of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of April 19, 1936 stated :

“Establish a single fund for the director of the enterprise at the expense of profits in the amount of:

a) 4% of the net profit received by the enterprise within the approved plan;

b) 50% of the excess profit.

Funds from the director's fund are spent, with the approval of the people's commissar or in the manner prescribed by him, by order of the director for the following activities in excess of the approved state plan:

a) for housing for workers, engineering and technical workers and employees of the enterprise - at least 50% of the total fund;

b) to improve other types of cultural and community services for workers, engineering and technical workers and employees of this enterprise (nurseries, kindergartens, clubs, canteens, etc.);

c) for individual bonuses for especially distinguished employees of the enterprise;

d) for additional capital works;

e) for additional rationalization measures and technical propaganda.

The plan for spending the funds of the fund is established by the director in agreement with the factory committee of the trade union.

In January 1941, the practice of planning consumer goods was changed in order to establish the production of elementary products (carts, carts, harness, tar, resin, various containers, pottery, etc., brick, tile, lime, rosin, cotton and knitwear, furniture, footwear, glassware, chemical products, consumer hardware, school supplies) in all major manufacturing areas to save on unnecessary transportation. So, in the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On measures to increase the production of consumer goods and food from local raw materials" it was stated:

“Abolish the existing practice of centralized planning for the production and use of consumer goods and foodstuffs produced by local industry and trade cooperation, as hindering the development of local industry and generating irrational interregional transportation of goods.

Establish from January 1941 the following procedure for planning and distributing the products of local industry and industrial cooperation:

a) all products of the enterprises of the district and regional industry and trade cooperation, produced from waste and local raw materials, in full, and from state non-deficit raw materials - 50% (according to the list approved by the Economic Council under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR) remains at the disposal of the district, region (territory), republics;

b) the plan for the production and use of products produced by enterprises of district subordination is approved by the district (city) executive committees on the basis of the tasks of the regional (territory) executive committees of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies and the Councils of People's Commissars of the Union and Autonomous Republics;

c) the plan for the production of products (in assortment) produced by enterprises of regional subordination and industrial cooperation is approved by the regional (territory) executive committees of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies and the Councils of People's Commissars of the Autonomous Republics on the basis of assignments from the Councils of People's Commissars of the Union Republics.

Approximately such a model of a planned economy (industrial financial plans and self-financing) received appropriate regulatory and legal consolidation in the Stalin Constitution and functioned during the Great Patriotic War.

With the beginning of the war, a card distribution system was introduced, all director's funds, free working capital and unused funds allocated for capital investments were turned into the state budget for the military. Director's funds were liquidated. Accumulations and savings of the population, the implementation of state military loans and money and clothing lotteries were a voluntary and mass form of assistance to the cause of the defense of the Motherland.

At the same time, taxes were raised, money was issued, and other levers of economic and financial mobilization were used. However, it should be understood that cash was in the USSR a means of servicing the socialist sector and the population, a means of distribution, therefore, money emission, which increased the money supply by 2.4 times over 3.5 years of the war, concerned industry only in terms of marketing and trade enterprises , only in the production of consumer goods. Payments between state and cooperative institutions and organizations were made by bank transfer.

It is interesting that the market, which grew on the basis of military difficulties, did not play a significant role in the issue of providing the population with consumer goods. The card distribution system provided about 80 million people with rationed content.

At the same time, during the war years, labor productivity increased significantly, there was a surge in invention, the economy was powerfully advanced, and thus the cost price was reduced. Self-financing also had some influence on this process, as wages were raised in certain sectors and additional bonuses were appointed.

In general, the period of the Great Patriotic War shows that the most powerful motivator and source of the correct organization of production is patriotism and ideological mobilization of forces .

Naturally, during the war years, the role of economic contracts was significantly weakened and the role of direct directives was strengthened, the central offices could freely withdraw excess savings and even working capital before the approval of annual reports. At the same time, the system of subsidies was developed powerfully, which balanced the balance of various industries in the conditions of the need to transfer the economy to a military footing.

Already by 1943, spending on social needs exceeded the level of 1940.

After the end of the war, a period of recovery began. In paragraph 14 of the restoration tasks of the law on the five-year plan for the restoration and development of the national economy, it was said :

“Strengthen money circulation and credit relations in the national economy; to raise the importance of profit and cost accounting in the national economy as an additional stimulus for the growth of production; to increase the profitability of all branches of production by reducing the cost of production; to increase the attention of economic organizations to the mobilization of internal resources, to the regime of economy and the resolute liquidation of losses from mismanagement and unproductive expenditures; to increase the share of bonuses for the fulfillment and overfulfillment of production tasks in the earnings of workers and employees.

To raise the importance of profit and economic accounting, among other things, meant the elimination of the system of state subsidies. Mainly due to excess savings in the first years and the unfolding of the struggle to reduce costs.

However:

“State plans established for enterprises must organize the workers and the intelligentsia and mobilize them to fight for the plan, for moving forward along the path of overcoming difficulties and ensuring a new upsurge in the national economy. It is necessary to resolutely expose and put an end to the practice of setting underestimated plans that do not mobilize anyone and force people to drag behind "bottlenecks" and achieved standards in production. State plans must be Bolshevik. They should be calculated not on the arithmetic mean norms achieved in production, but on average progressive norms, i.e., equal to the advanced ones.

On July 1, 1946, directors' funds were restored in order to activate self-financing. When the director's fund was restored, the conditions for its formation were changed: deductions to the fund were made only if the enterprise: a) fulfills or exceeds the plan; b) produces the appropriate assortment; c) fulfills the task of reducing the cost; d) fulfills the sales profit plan.

Failure to fulfill at least one of these conditions deprived the director of the right to form a fund. Thus, the importance of the directors' fund was increased in stimulating the fulfillment and overfulfillment of the plan precisely in terms of qualitative indicators. Before the war, deductions to the director's fund were made in the same amount for all industries: a percentage of the profit received or a reduction in cost. When the directors' fund was restored, the size of deductions from profits or savings was differentiated by industry and then the percentages decreased as the economy was restored.

The funds could be spent in the following order: 50% - for overplanned costs of expanding the production and housing stock of the enterprise, the other half - for improving the cultural and community services for employees of the enterprise and for bonuses.

The functioning of the card system during the war years to supply the population with products and at the same time the growth of the money supply, including through the introduction of fake signs by the Nazis, allowed speculators to accumulate large sums by robbing the population. There was a real danger of the emergence of a full-fledged class of Sovburs. Therefore, at the end of 1947, in order to cut capital, a monetary reform was carried out and the card system was abolished. The joint resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks stated :

"The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. demanded the exertion of all the forces of the Soviet people and the mobilization of all the material resources of the country. During the Patriotic War, the expenditures of the Soviet state for the maintenance of the army and for the development of the military industry increased sharply. Huge military spending required the release of a large amount of money into circulation. The amount of money in circulation increased significantly, as in all the states that participated in the war. At the same time, the production of goods intended for sale to the population decreased, and retail trade turnover decreased significantly.

In addition, as is known, during the Patriotic War on the temporarily occupied Soviet territory, German and other invaders issued a large amount of counterfeit money in rubles, which further increased the surplus of money in the country and clogged our money circulation.

As a result of all this, much more money turned out to be in circulation than is necessary for the national economy, the purchasing power of money has decreased, and now special measures are required to strengthen the Soviet ruble.

Despite wartime conditions, the Soviet government managed to keep the pre-war state prices for rationed goods unchanged for the entire duration of the war, which was ensured by the introduction of a rationing system for the supply of food and industrial goods. However, the reduction of state and cooperative trade in consumer goods and the increase in the demand of the population in collective farm markets led to a sharp increase in market prices, which in some periods were 10-15 times higher than pre-war prices.

It is clear that the speculative elements took advantage of the existence of a large gap between state and market prices, as well as the presence of a mass of counterfeit money, to accumulate money on a large scale in order to profit at the expense of the population.

Now that the task of moving towards open trade at uniform prices is on the agenda, the large amount of money issued during the war prevents the abolition of the card system, since excess money in circulation inflates market prices, creates an exaggerated demand for goods and facilitates speculation.

Nor should it be allowed that the speculative elements, who had profited during the war and accumulated significant sums of money, be able to buy up goods after the abolition of the rationing system.

Therefore, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks decided to carry out a monetary reform, which provides for the issuance of new full-fledged money into circulation and the withdrawal from circulation of both counterfeit and defective old money.

Simultaneously with the monetary reform, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks decided to abolish the rationing system for food and industrial goods, abolish high commercial prices and switch to selling goods at uniform state prices while reducing ration prices for bread and cereals. Thus, great material benefits are created for the population.

(Continued in following post.)

Does this not illustrate the enormity of the task which the Bolsheviks set for themselves? The devil is indeed in the details.

[blindpig]

(Continued from previous post.)

On January 1, 1949, new prices were introduced for the products of a number of branches of heavy industry to better balance planning, which replaced the previous fixed prices of 1926-1927. This was an increase in wholesale prices, giving additional profit to enterprises, therefore, in favor of deploying self-supporting funds. Moreover, for individual enterprises, the cost of production of which was high not due to the unsuitable organization of production, but for objective, mainly natural and geographical reasons, separate settlement prices were introduced, which thus made it possible to refuse subsidies for these planned unprofitable enterprises.

Naturally, the increase in wholesale prices had no effect on retail prices, which continued to decline for the population.

A clear demonstration of the influence of the cost accounting system on labor motivation is provided by the organization of design work in construction. The cost of design in this case was determined as a percentage of the estimated cost of construction, and the bonus fund for employees of design organizations was set accordingly as a percentage of the design cost. That is, inside the colossal system of the socialist economy, designers with a purely bourgeois scheme of work were attached. It is clear that such a system gave rise to an artificial overestimation of the cost of construction, the disinterest of design organizations in the most economical design solutions. However, it was not possible to organize the highly qualified work of designers in a different way. And only in 1950 this disgrace was eliminated. Design organizations were transferred to the state budget, and their workers were transferred from piece-rate wages to time-based wages with bonuses for reducing the cost of construction. A single price list for design and survey work was introduced and the planning of design and survey work was radically improved; they began to be produced not depending on the receipt of orders, but on the basis of a general national economic plan. At the same time, small design organizations were completely liquidated. As a result, by the end of 1950, the cost of design and survey work decreased by 20%. but on the basis of the general national economic plan. At the same time, small design organizations were completely liquidated. As a result, by the end of 1950, the cost of design and survey work decreased by 20%. but on the basis of the general national economic plan. At the same time, small design organizations were completely liquidated. As a result, by the end of 1950, the cost of design and survey work decreased by 20%.

It is also interesting to consider as a clear example the changes in the field of economic activity of the MTS, made by the decision of the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1946. Thus, the party condemned the current system for evaluating the work of the MTS in hectares of soft plowing, as not stimulating the performance of more difficult, but at the same time productive work, and changed the principle of the implementation of the tractor work plan, henceforth it was considered to be completed only when the main types of tractor work were performed within strictly established deadlines. and with the appropriate payment in kind. In addition, the bonus system for MTS executives, independent of the yield achieved on collective farms, was abolished.

This example shows that not only the self-supporting leverage was used, but also the administrative-directive one. And it is clear that in the actual practice of economic planning it was the latter that prevailed. The cited brief essay, due to the tasks set, does not adequately reflect the non-commodity aspects of planning.

If you carefully read the materials of congresses, especially the XVIII Congress, then the expression "strengthening cost accounting", often heard from the lips of the party, means completely different from what it meant, for example, Chayanov, Kondratiev, Voznesensky, Khrushchev, Lieberman, Kosygin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin , sovburs and other democrats. If you ask any open, disguised or unconscious anti-communist, he will answer that the process of strengthening cost accounting is exhausted by expanding the economic independence of an enterprise, including increasing its financial responsibility.

In reality, of course, this was not the case. What is optimal planning? This is the development of balanced proportions of objective and subjective elements of production, taken as a whole, that meet the technological requirement for the development of productive forces at a given particular moment . In other words, it is such an organization of all production that satisfies the requirements of the law of the planned and proportional development of the national economy.

A natural tool for organizing such production is an accurate account of all production, economic, socio-political factors , productive use of resources, the availability of sufficient human resources, both in terms of technical and political literacy, both in the management environment and in the execution environment. Is there a place for the work of the law of value in the sphere of such an organization of production? No, because the law of value is born from the elements of relations between people opposed to each other and expresses certain proportions of average labor that arise at the moment of exchange. In the scientific organization of production, the movement of raw materials, finished products, and products occurs not through exchange, but through the identification of objective necessity, through accounting and directives . AnyCost accounting, in one way or another, expresses a cost proportion. The main source of cost proportions in the first phase of communism is the sphere of distribution "to each according to his work", which, in fact, is a local formulation of the law of value. But let's digress from the sphere of distribution.

Cost accounting is used in the work of enterprises in the socialist sector because of shortcomings in scientific planning, and as the latter develops, the sphere of operation of cost accounting is reduced.If you imagine this roughly, then you need to understand why in the early 1930s the Bolsheviks needed to strengthen the cost accounting? Stalin's claims to the heads of enterprises consisted mainly in the fact that they did not take into account costs, did not save resources in the process of fulfilling the task set by the plan. Does a real Bolshevik who works in industry need explanations that wasted resources are the losses of the whole society? Can a Bolshevik, or even just a sane leader, give a damn about such losses, which even if they do not affect the results of his professional activity in any way? Can the regime of economy, the reduction of unproductive expenditures, the rationalization of production, go out of fashion among real Bolsheviks? The builder of communism, the real Bolshevik, definitely does not need explanations,

But the reality of the USSR was such that the mass of leaders and employees in their moral portrait understood practically only external control, preferably by violence or the ruble. In terms of their competence, managers and employees could not accurately calculate the technologically complex production process; in their political training, they rather disguised themselves as communists than knew and shared the provisions of Marxist science. And a bad plan with bad directors gives rise to mismanagement and abuse. Lenin called unscientific plans "literary art", Stalin - chatter about indicative data taken from the ceiling. The plan must be scientific , and the execution of the plan must be scientific, then planning, like any other scientifically organized process, will work as it should, as objective conditions require.

Similarly, the situation is with the material motivation of labor - a significant number of workers were strongly infected with a proprietary or shop psychology. This is confirmed not by the class economic struggle of the workers, which hardly stopped during all the years of the Leninist-Stalinist leadership. The degree of influence of material stimulation by salaries and bonuses, which is preached by self-supporting, directly depends on the level of development of consciousness, and thus was significant.

Therefore, the Party was forced to reckon with the fact that a planned economy must include elements of spontaneous struggle, the rules of which come down from above. Therefore, the party set tasks in such a way that they were fulfilled. Around the way. Stalin wrote that it was necessary

“the elimination of mismanagement, the mobilization of internal resources of industry, the introduction and strengthening of self-financing in all our enterprises, the systematic reduction of costs, the strengthening of intra-industrial accumulation in all branches of industry without exception” (Speech at a conference of business executives: “New situation - new tasks of economic development”).

And self-supporting spontaneous struggle can be based only on the law of value, because whatever the rules may be, they can only express the proportions of average labor. In Soviet literature, this was called a combination of the interests of society and the interests of individual collectives. So it is quite possible to say so with the reservation that this "combination" itself is a clear demonstration of commodity-money relations , which manifest themselves in a specific form in the course of social production in the conditions of the Soviet economy. In Soviet books, this “combination” was presented as something deeply Marxist, developed by Lenin and rooted in the natural state of things. TSB (third edition) writes:

"A necessary condition for the economic activity of socialist enterprises is their economic independence within the framework of centralized state planning in accordance with the needs of social reproduction as a whole."

There is an interesting conflict here. If economic independence is caused by the needs of social production as a whole, then why are the acts of this "independence" not taken into account and included in the plan? If, for some reason, economic independence is driven into the framework of planning, which is carried out in accordance with the needs of social production as a whole, then the article is obliged to answer the question, what, in fact, caused this independence to come to life, why is it needed at all? But there will be no answer to these questions in the TSB.

It follows from this that the task of strengthening cost accounting under Stalin undoubtedly came down to combating shortcomings in personnel, partly to inciting labor motivation, compensating for the complexity of planning given the existing technological development, and most importantly, to organizing the circulation of products between the collective farm sector with the collective farm market and the city in the form of commodity circulation. The Party saw the cost accounting as a lever for transforming the plan from a clerical plan into a real plan .

No less confusing is the position of professional economists. For example, academician Dyachenko, who wrote the popular monograph “The History of the Finances of the USSR 1917-1950”, gives the following methodological setting for assessing the role of self-financing in the process of transition to full communism:

“At the stage of socialism, the need remains to use the monetary, cost form of accounting for the costs of living and materialized labor. Until; until conditions are created for expressing the costs of living and materialized labor directly in units of working time, monetary (value) accounting is objectively necessary. It allows you to measure the costs and the results obtained, to carry out economic accounting, to count and calculate, to determine the cost of production.

He thus asks himself the question of "conquering" the conditions for expressing labor costs in units of time for the purpose of accounting. It turns out to be completely nonsense, which many leftists take at face value, as if self-financing is necessary for correct accounting.

In fact, labor accounting can be kept in any units, in any quantitative expression, even in hours, even in rubles, even in USD, even in operations performed, even in products. Dyachenko completely misunderstands Stalin:

“In the second phase of communist society, the amount of labor expended on the production of products will not be measured in a roundabout way, not through the value of its forms, as is the case in commodity production, but directly and directly by the amount of time, the number of hours spent on the production of products. As for the distribution of labor, the distribution of labor between branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will lose force by that time, but by the growth of society's needs for products.

The question is not how to keep records, which Dyachenko, as a financier, cannot understand, but how to ensure the movement of elements of the production process from one state to the next in an optimal way . The principles of scientific planning express the objective laws of any production - the principle, as Marx formulated it:

“the less time a society needs to produce wheat, livestock, etc., the more time it gains for other production, material or spiritual” (Economic manuscripts 1857-1859)

or:

"All savings ultimately come down to saving time"

or more precisely:

“society must appropriately allocate its time in order to achieve production corresponding to its total needs” (“Critique of Political Economy”).

The law of value also provokes this very economy of time, but in a roundabout way , through exchange, the proportion of average labor that occurs during the exchange.

The simplest thing in the organization of production is to oppose its participants and thereby interest them in material advantages over each other, which are based on the proportion of labor expended. This is the manifestation of the law of value. No matter how you calculate the labor expended, do not take it into account, even in rubles, even in euros, even in milliseconds, it will manifest itself precisely in a commodity form.

When an individual in a household, with limited resources, performs some work, based on the principle of “higher quality in less time” (by time, we also mean the cost of raw materials, tools, which are also labor time spent in production), when such a person does something for himself, but at the same time not wastefully, but as expediently as possible, realizing that he will spend the freed time for his own benefit, then no material stimulation makes sense. In this case, he is guided by the objective requirements of the production technology itself. When there is only one person or it is a narrow team, that is, the interconnection of the elements of the production process is extremely close, the concentration is literally in one or several persons, then everything is clear as white light.

And here's how to set in motion an entire branch of industry, and even in conditions of distribution according to work, that is, according to value. This is a big and difficult practical question. Stalin pointed out:

“We have certain “leftist” elements in our party who think that it is possible to immediately switch to product exchange right off the bat. It is nonsense. How many times did individual comrades try to do this and each time they bruised their foreheads” (“On the abolition of the rationing system”).

The Party sends down to enterprises a scientific plan that takes into account all the main factors of production and, in essence, asks managers, office workers and workers to work efficiently, economically, on time, and hard, as if for themselves. And people often work as they are used to working under wage labor, under capitalism . Therefore, it is necessary to use cost accounting and coercion. Lenin said:

“Comrades, you may be surprised by this word, from the point of view of old habits, old statehood: “forced” to comply with the decree. Perhaps you will say, is it really so bad in the Soviet Republic that the execution of the will of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee must be forced. You have to force it, comrades, and it’s better to say this frankly than to hide your head under your wing and imagine that everything is going well ”(Speech at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on January 17, 1919).

Consequently, the difficulty of the transition to communist production is not, as Dyachenko put it, that, they say, there are no conditions for accounting for labor in kind, but in making sure that the production process does not depend on labor accounting at all, in the sense of opposing each other. a friend of "clumps" of value . Therefore, Stalin wrote that the labor expended on production under mature communism will be measured purely technically , and the distribution of labor will depend on the needs of society, that is, on the requirements of expanded reproduction:

“As for the distribution of labor, the distribution of labor between branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will lose force by that time, but by the growth of society’s needs for products” (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”).

To establish communist relations of production, so that each worker works as if for himself , skillfully masters technology , understands the entire cycle of production and is guided by the scientific requirements for the development of productive forces —this is the task of the struggle for communism in the field of planning and socialization. Therefore, there will be motivation under communism - not material interests, but habit, pleasure from work . And this is possible only through the transformation of the worker, employee and leader into a conscious communist creator , through the development of culture, consciousness, through the policy of culturalism, instilling Marxism.

The final generalization of the question of the application of cost accounting is given in Stalin's work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR":

“The scope of the law of value extends with us primarily to the circulation of commodities, to the exchange of commodities through purchase and sale, to the exchange mainly of goods for personal consumption. Here, in this area, the law of value retains, of course, within certain limits, the role of a regulator.

But the operation of the law of value is not limited to the sphere of commodity circulation. They also apply to manufacturing. It is true that the law of value has no regulative significance in our socialist production, but it still influences production, and this must be taken into account when directing production. The fact is that the consumer products necessary to cover the expenditure of labor power in the production process are produced in our country and sold as commodities subject to the operation of the law of value. It is precisely here that the influence of the law of value on production is revealed. In this connection, such questions as the question of cost accounting and profitability, the question of prime cost, the question of prices, etc., are of topical importance at our enterprises. Therefore, our enterprises cannot and must not do without taking into account the law of value.

Is it good? Not bad. Under our present conditions, this is really not bad, since this circumstance educates our business executives in the spirit of rational production and disciplines them. Not bad, because it teaches our business executives to count production quantities, calculate them accurately and take into account real things in production just as accurately, and not engage in chatter about "indicative data" taken from the ceiling. Not bad, because it teaches our business executives to look for, find and use hidden reserves lurking in the bowels of production, and not to trample them underfoot. Not bad, because it teaches our business executives how to systematically improve production methods, reduce the cost of production, carry out economic accounting and achieve profitability of enterprises. This is a good practical school

... In fact, the scope of the law of value in our economic system is strictly limited and put in a framework. It has already been said that the sphere of operation of commodity production under our system is limited and put within limits. The same must be said about the scope of the law of value. Undoubtedly, the absence of private ownership of the means of production and the socialization of the means of production, both in the city and in the countryside, cannot but limit the scope of the law of value and the degree of its influence on production.

... In the second phase of communist society, the amount of labor expended on the production of products will not be measured in a roundabout way, not through the value of its forms, as is the case with commodity production, but directly and directly - by the amount of time, the number of hours spent on the production of products. As regards the distribution of labor, the distribution of labor between the branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will lose force by that time, but by the growth of society's needs for products. It will be a society where production will be regulated by the needs of society, and the consideration of the needs of society will become of paramount importance for planning bodies.

... Some comrades draw the conclusion from this that the law of the planned development of the national economy and the planning of the national economy destroy the principle of profitability of production. This is completely false. The case is just the opposite. If we take profitability not from the point of view of individual enterprises or branches of production and not in the context of one year, but from the point of view of the entire national economy and in the context of, say, 10-15 years, which would be the only correct approach to the issue, temporary and unstable profitability individual enterprises or branches of production cannot be compared with the highest form of stable and constant profitability that the operation of the law of planned development of the national economy and the planning of the national economy give us, saving us from periodic economic crises,

This is a theoretical and practical "point" in the Marxist theory of cost accounting, after which all sorts of speculations in the spirit of Libreman or perestroika begin.

Cost accounting is a necessary, due to the weak development of communist production relations, an instrument for the growth of productive forces, aimed exclusively at a) material, that is, the lowest form of motivation; b) the struggle for the rational expenditure of labor; and c) the elimination of planning flaws. Therefore, a) the development of communist consciousness; b) with the highest competence of all participants in production and c) modern computerized planning, self-financing should be gradually excluded from production . Cost accounting is a survival of bourgeois production relations.

So, the third, ever-memorable, program of the CPSU proclaimed that before 1970

"a task of world-historical significance is to ensure in the Soviet Union the highest standard of living in comparison with any country of capitalism."

The proclaimed theory of peaceful coexistence attached "world-historical significance" to this task. However, it was quite possible to surpass the capitalist countries in terms of industrial output per capita, if the pace of economic development had been maintained after Stalin's death. In reality, after the Khrushchev reform of 1957, the introduction of "the system of economic management according to the territorial principle ", the growth rate of production has decreased significantly. Coal production, for example, has lost a third in growth, oil, steel, iron, electricity, cement - more than 10%.

In passing, we note that Khrushchev carried out the restoration of the Economic Councils in the amount of more than 100 institutions against 50 sectoral union and union-republican Stalinist ministries with the imposition of territorial specialization in economic management under the slogan of decentralization and the growth of public self-government, as he understood it:

“A number of abnormal phenomena prevent one from entering a communist society, having such an overly centralized system of economic management” (quoted by Pyzhikov, “Khrushchev’s Thaw”).

And today such views on the development of the first phase of communism are popular.

In short, the decline in production growth as a result of the management reform brought to life a discussion about the restructuring of the principles of planning, the culmination of which, in fact, was Lieberman's proposal in Pravda.

The market economic school as a whole reasoned in the spirit of granting enterprises, in one form or another, broad economic independence. Basically, various narrowing of the range of planned indicators was proposed. All proposals were permeated with a solution to the problem of labor motivation by arousing material interest, the development of material incentives.

The new planning system, according to economists and in the spirit of Khrushchev, should not bind enterprises with mandatory quantitative and qualitative indicators, and the planning and regulatory role of the state should be expressed mainly in the use of "economic levers", that is, market instruments. In this case, they saw the main evil in the striving of enterprises under a normal planned economy to receive underestimated planned targets. The historical and economic basis of the Soviet marketers was ignoring and denyingthe communist attitude to work, in particular, its beginnings in the USSR: the Stakhanov movement, the labor patriotic upsurge during the Great Patriotic War and various stages in the development of socialist competition, especially the aspect of mutual assistance. The theoretical basis of the Soviet marketers was bourgeois economics, the denial of the position of historical materialism about the increasing importance of the subjective factor as communism was built, and the denial of Stalin's theoretical and practical legacy. It was on such an ideological basis that the Stalinist model of planning was abandoned and new principles were put forward.

In passing, it should be noted that in the very planned organization of the economy there is a mechanism of non-material interest in labor . The rational organization of labor, the scientific organization of production on the basis of social property, makes each worker equallymeaningful. A strictly defined place in production and the direct dependence of the well-being of the worker on the result of all economic activity makes it undesirable and socially condemned by his exclusion from the labor process or the poor performance of his assigned duties. The scientific and planned organization of production in the labor process itself, even for the most monotonous and uncreative labor, shows the social significance of each operation. The absence of superfluous, socially unnecessary labor in the production process, the transparency of production mechanisms, which are veiled in the form of money under capitalism, makes each labor act socially useful, necessary, from which it is impossible to avoid without losing the financial situation of the whole society and the social status of the "deviant" himself. Awareness of the social significance of one's own activity motivates a person by itself. The grave consequences of unscrupulous labor fall on the worker not only as a material, but also as a moral burden, ostracism from society.

However, at the beginning of October 1965, the party decided on changes in planning, later called the Kosygin reform. Lieberman's principles formed the basis of that landmark resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of October 4, 1965:

“Five-year and annual plans of enterprises are developed by them on the basis of control figures established by a higher organization.

Manufacturers, based on the control figures, agree in advance with consumer enterprises or sales and trading organizations on the volume, assortment, quality and delivery time of products and form a portfolio of orders.

…

Recognize the need to expand the economic independence of industrial enterprises. In this regard, reduce the number of plan indicators approved by higher organizations for enterprises, limiting them, as a rule, to the following indicators:

for production:

the total volume of products sold at current wholesale prices. In some industries, if necessary, an indicator can be used - the volume of shipped products;

the most important types of products in physical terms (including products for export), including product quality indicators;

for labor - the general wage fund;

for finance:

the total amount of profit and profitability (to the sum of fixed assets and working capital);

payments to the budget and appropriations from the budget;

for capital construction:

the total volume of centralized capital investments, including the volume of construction and installation works;

commissioning of fixed assets and production capacities at the expense of centralized capital investments;

on the introduction of new technology - tasks for mastering the production of new types of products and for the introduction of new technological processes, comprehensive mechanization and automation of production, which are of particular importance for the development of the industry;

for material and technical supply - the volume of supplies to the enterprise of raw materials, materials and equipment distributed by a higher organization.

The indicators approved by the enterprise are determined in the annual plan, as a rule, broken down by quarters, and the indicators of production in kind, in exceptional cases, are also distributed by months, taking into account the contracts concluded by the enterprise for the supply of products.

Establish that all other indicators of the plans of enterprises are not subject to approval by higher organizations, but are developed by the enterprises themselves and used by planning bodies as calculation materials for drawing up plans.

…

Establish that enterprises independently resolve issues of production and economic activity, bearing in mind the mandatory fulfillment of the tasks of the state plan, and in particular:

plan the volume of production, the detailed range and range of products on the basis of plan assignments brought to enterprises by higher organizations, as well as orders accepted by enterprises in the order of direct relations with consumers or marketing and trading organizations;

plan and carry out, at the expense of non-centralized capital investments, measures to improve production, in particular, to replace obsolete and inefficient equipment, introduce new technological processes, methods and means of control, eliminate production bottlenecks, and other measures that increase production efficiency;

establish and expand, where it is economically feasible, long-term relationships with consumers of products and suppliers of raw materials, materials, components, equipment and other products on the basis of logistics plans;

plan labor productivity, number of employees and average wages, establish the most rational enterprise management structure;

use part of the profits and other funds left at the disposal of enterprises for material incentives for employees, social and cultural events and housing construction, for the development of production and the improvement of technology;

determine the most rational forms of material incentives, the conditions and amounts of bonuses based on industry standard provisions.

…

In the interests of the consistent implementation of self-supporting relations between enterprises, as well as between enterprises and marketing, supply, trade, agricultural, procurement and other organizations, establish that a business contract should be the main document that defines the rights and obligations of the parties for the supply of all types of products, including products, distributed centrally. In accordance with this, as a rule, to abandon the current procedure for the sale of products for quarterly, monthly and one-time orders, bearing in mind that orders for centrally distributed products should serve primarily as the basis for concluding contracts.

Contracts for the supply of products must be concluded primarily in accordance with the existing rational production and economic relations, while the manufacturer cannot violate these relations without the consent of the customer. Establish new links for the supply of centrally distributed products in agreement with the relevant sales and supply organizations. To conclude, where the parties find it expedient in the interests of stable relations, economic contracts for several years, with an annual specification of the range and quantity of products, terms and other conditions of supply.

…

Recognize the need to strengthen the role of profit in the economic stimulation of enterprises and increase the material interest of collectives and individual employees of enterprises in achieving better results. The amount of profit left at the disposal of enterprises should depend on the improvement in the results of their economic and financial activities.

Profit should be a source of formation of enterprise funds, financing of own capital investments, increase in working capital and other expenses of enterprises.

…

Establish that at the disposal of enterprises at the expense of profits and other own resources are created:

a) financial incentive fund;

b) a fund for social and cultural events and housing construction;

c) production development fund.

Unused balances of these funds are transferred to the next year and are not subject to withdrawal from the enterprise.

The material incentive fund is intended to reward employees of enterprises, remuneration for the annual results of the work of enterprises, as well as to provide one-time assistance to employees.

…

In order to increase the interest of enterprises in the best use of production fixed assets and working capital, establish deductions from profits to the budget by enterprises depending on the value of production fixed assets and working capital - payment for fixed assets and working capital.

…

Establish the following procedure for the distribution of profits received by the enterprise:

a) from the profit, the enterprise first of all pays to the budget a fee for fixed assets and working capital and fixed payments, and also pays interest on a bank loan;

b) after making the said payments, the profit of the enterprise is directed to the formation of a fund for material incentives, a fund for social and cultural events and housing construction, and a fund for the development of production. To determine the standards for deductions to these funds, profit is taken minus the payment for production fixed assets and working capital, fixed payments and interest on a bank loan;

c) the remaining part of the profit is used to repay the loan granted for capital investments (except for the loan repaid at the expense of the production development fund), finance centralized capital investments, increase own working capital and other costs within the amounts provided for by the plan, and also deductions are made to the reserve for rendering financial assistance and for other purposes in accordance with the decisions of the Government of the USSR. The difference between the total amount of profit and the specified payments and deductions, as well as a part of the profit used to cover planned costs, is sent to the budget in the form of a contribution to the free balance of profit.

At the same time, sectoral management returned, and the SNKh was liquidated, which is certainly a positive moment, since the reform of 1957 is a reform of the destruction of a single economy. However, in drawing up plans, sectoral ministries and enterprises, according to the decree, were assigned a significant role, which was a prerequisite for decentralization and sectoral isolation, and expressed the capitalist trend.

The economic management crises that the Kosygin reform caused a little later were smoothed out by the corresponding resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers of June 21, 1971, which set the target for labor productivity:

"Gosplan of the USSR, based on the tasks of increasing the efficiency of production, to provide in the five-year plan for 1971-1975 for the ministries and departments of the USSR and the union republics tasks for increasing labor productivity."

Ultimately, the new planning model also received normative consolidation in the 1977 Constitution of the USSR:

“The management of the economy is carried out on the basis of state plans for economic and social development, taking into account sectoral and territorial principles, with a combination of centralized management with economic independence and the initiative of enterprises, associations and other organizations. At the same time, economic accounting, profit, cost, other economic levers and incentives are actively used.

The position that market levers and incentives are an organic feature of "real socialism" was established in the Soviet scientific community and literature. Andropov, the godfather of perestroika, wrote in his general work:

“One can repeat again and again the fundamental idea of ​​Marx that in order to accelerate the progress of the productive forces, appropriate forms of organization of economic life are needed, but things will not move forward until this theoretical truth is translated into a concrete language of practice. At the forefront today is the task of thinking through and consistently implementing measures capable of giving greater scope for the colossal creative forces inherent in our economy. These measures must be carefully prepared and realistic, which means that in their development it is necessary to proceed unswervingly from the laws of development of the economic system of socialism. The objective nature of these laws requires getting rid of all sorts of attempts to manage the economy by methods alien to its nature. It is useful here to recall Lenin's warning about the danger

On the other hand, having agreed on the necessary measures, having taken appropriate decisions, it is unacceptable to leave the matter halfway. Whatever is decided must be carried out. This is the Leninist tradition of our Party, and it does not suit us to depart from it.

The interests of society as a whole are the most important guideline for the development of an economy based on socialist property. But from this, of course, it does not follow that, in the name of the idea of ​​the common good, socialism allegedly suppresses or ignores the interests of the personal, local, specific needs of various social groups. Not at all. The 'idea', as Marx and Engels emphasized, 'invariably put itself to shame as soon as it was separated from 'interest'. One of the most important tasks of improving our national economic mechanism is precisely to ensure that these interests are accurately taken into account, to achieve their optimal combination with the interests of the whole people, and thus to use them as a driving force for the growth of the Soviet economy, raising its efficiency, labor productivity,

Further development of the market theory of planning resulted in a " large-scale experiment " and then in a frank implantation of the market during the period of perestroika.

So, according to the reform of 1965, it is clear that not all of Lieberman's fantasies came true, but the majority. Consequently, a significant step back was taken in the development of planning in favor of imposing market relations , in fact, on the level of the NEP, but under completely different conditions and the development of productive forces and established production relations. Under Stalin, there is a consistent narrowing of the scope of the law of value, a consistent transformation of money into a means of calculation, an ever greater loss of the ability of money to turn into capital. Scientific planning learnsadministrators, managers, directors, techies to obey the objective laws of the development of production, and the expansion of the functions and significance of money, economic independence, orientation towards value values, that is, the proportions of opposing "clusters" of labor, turns these cadres into actual owners .

Scientific planning gives true freedom to all participants in production, united in a single team . Cost accounting excites the mutual struggle of the participants in production and thus mutually alienates the results of their labor.

V.A. Diapers:

“From a scientific point of view, in the USSR, after the completion of the NEP, there was no money in the full functional sense of the word. There was an object that looked like money, but as similar as a real tiger is like a "tiger" that had all its teeth and claws removed. The fact that this creature was once a tiger is evidenced only by a specific striped pattern on the skin. However, to continue the illustration, even a toothless tiger is dangerous, because if it is not castrated and a toothless tigress is allowed to give birth to a toothless tiger, then, due to genetic reasons, the tiger cub will have a full set of teeth and claws. At first, the tiger cub will be funny and playful, but over time it will turn into a seasoned PREDATOR, capable of killing the “zookeepers” themselves.

Something like this was the case with "money" in the USSR. Since the 1930s, they resembled money in shape, size and material, in terms of counterfeit protection, but functionally, for about 50 years, they lost the ability to turn into CAPITAL, i.e. into a means of ensuring a parasitic existence for the minority. Figuratively speaking, the main “fangs” and “claws” were torn out of money in the USSR, but not the sex glands. It was possible to endlessly put money in a stocking, but, before Andropov's reforms, it was practically impossible to turn it into capital and receive entrepreneurial profit from it. Those. money was taken away from its most organic function - a means of exploiting the majority. Khrushchev's "thaw" fertilized papers, and they again turned into "tigers", while Kosygin's and Andropov's reforms turned tiger cubs, i.e. director's corps of the USSR, into man-eating tigers, i.e. in the actual owners of the once planned socialist enterprises "("And again about wages ”).

Thus, the partycrats replaced the Stalinist policy of increasing labor productivity and reducing prices due to this with a policy of increasing the intensity of labor and raising prices for the sake of increasing the monetary form of profit of each individual enterprise .

At the same time, it should be noted that the reform of 1965 was not, as it is often represented by various scholastic arguments about changing the nature of labor and the spirit of consumerism (see Arkhangelskaya or Katasonova), something out of the ordinary. It was based on the existing system of cost accounting, the obviously unfeasible was thrown out of Lieberman's model within the framework of planning, but at the same time, the reform, of course, was a major step backwards.

Supporters of the opinion that the Kosygin reform became the main reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, argue something like this: since we are materialists, then we should look for the reasons in the production relations of the USSR, therefore, this is the pro-market reform that caused a revolution in the superstructure. With the same success, if the Trotskyists killed Stalin in the late 1930s and came to power, these figures would say that this was the result of the Politburo's decision "On the reorganization of industrial management" in 1929. These same vulgar Marxists are looking for factors in the development of the communist movement in the growth of productive forces. In the US and the EU, the productive forces are growing and growing, but Marxists did not really exist, and now they have not appeared.

It is difficult to imagine how the dictatorship of the working class could exist and be implemented in such a logic, for example, during the NEP. How does the dictatorship of the working class exist in the DPRK today, where approximately the same planning principles enshrined in Article 33 of the Republic's Constitution are implemented? What can we say about the PRC. In short, the idea that the reform of planning principles alone can destroy the political power of the working class is wrong. Based on the vulgar notion of the automatic role of the basis.

There is no doubt that cost accounting, and even more so any flirtation with money, is from the evil one, that the direction of development of the principles of economic management consists in moving from cost accounting to a scientific plan, to “communist directing,” which Andropov shied away from. Communism is built along the line from money and value to scientific centralism . However, the mechanics of the relationship between the base and the superstructure is such that there can be no guarantees in the base that the working class will not let go of political power.

Therefore, the imposition of self-supporting accounting, and then capitalism in perestroika, is not the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, but its course , and the course is not at all in the field of irreversible changes. The Sovbur class, which was formed in the late 1980s through the cultivation of self-financing and then capitalism, did not at all independently take power into its own hands in 1993. If the working class of the USSR had the will to suppress all hostile elements, then no results of the reforms would interfere with it.

It should be noted that along with the idiotic reform of 1957 by Khrushchev, after initiating a large-scale discussion with the participation of almost 50 million people, the sale of equipment to collective farms was undertaken. Despite the fact that Stalin, in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, in which the plan for building mature communism was outlined and normatively fixed by the 19th Party Congress, clearly pointed out the fallacy of such decisions, on April 18, 1958, the USSR Council of Ministers and the Central Committee of the VPK (b ) adopted the corresponding decision . This led to the complication of planning, the rooting of commodity relations between the countryside and the city, and reduced the mechanization of agriculture in the short term.

Generally speaking, Khrushchev's reformist activity looks more like a kind of retribution with the secretaries of the regional committees for their support against Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich. Because everything he did was permeated with the spirit of decentralization , the transfer of control “lower”, to the places.

However, the appointment of the liquidation of the MTS, the Kosygin reform, the Andropov experiments, Gorbachev's reforms as the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR would mean that without these phenomena, the working class would be guaranteed to retain its power. But this is obviously not the case. There is just a real reason, and the reforms of the CPSU were only its manifestation. If there were no reforms in the field of planning and economics, suppose that the spontaneous will of the working class would not allow, then the real reason for the restoration of capitalism would appearwould be different. In general, practically all political, economic and ideological decisions of the party after Stalin were erroneous or deeply erroneous. The above events are given only because they are the brightest and most famous in the left environment. But there was also the monetary reform of 1961, the development of virgin lands, the division of party bodies according to the production principle, and many, many other nonsense.

In the left movement, in contrast to the Kosygin reform as the cause of the collapse of the USSR, the project of a system for automated management of the economy of the USSR by Kitov-Glushkov is being cultivated, which, they say, would save the USSR from the restoration of capitalism. There is no doubt that the idea of ​​creating a nationwide computer network designed to plan and manage the economy on a national scale is a potential form of improving scientific planning and a progressive tool. However, there is even more no doubt that replacing political processes with technological ones is technocracy, not Marxism. Actually, if we assume that the introduction of OGAS was quite real, then the refusal of this implementation was definitely political. Consequently, the choice in favor of self-financing, and not in favor of OGAS, does not explain in any way what was the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, since it rests on the question of why such a choice was made.

The organization and formulation of scientific planning does not at all rest on the fundamental impossibility of carrying out planning and accounting without computer computing power. And the computerization of planning does not at all mean the establishment of communist principles of planning. Computer algorithms can be given any values, including cost ones.

(Continued in following post.)

[blindpig]

(Continued from the previous post.)

4.The October Revolution was premature

The Menshevik theory of the lack of prerequisites for a communist revolution in Russia also received a kind of renaissance. Neo-Mensheviks, in one form or another, say and hintthat the collapse of the USSR was caused precisely by the absence of those objective prerequisites that Plekhanov, Martov, Trotsky pointed out at one time. Plekhanov and Martov - putting a spoke in the wheels of the Bolshevik revolution, and Trotsky - putting a spoke in the wheels of the Bolshevik construction of communism in one single country taken. Today voices are heard that the restoration of capitalism in the USSR was the result of the prematureness of the 1917 revolution. Closely related to this anti-historical nonsense is the social democratic theory that capitalism must develop the productive forces to such an extent that the communist revolution is absolutely guaranteed. This old, dusty opportunist theory is actively fed by the bourgeoisie, arousing technocracy with its propaganda of certain aspects of scientific and technological progress in the brains of the left, liquefied without Marxism. They say that higher technology will drive capitalism to the grave by itself, let's “cheer” for the development of technology with all our might, and if not a 3D printer, then nuclear fusion will make capitalist relations impossible.

Such a theory in its various guises allows its bearers not to worry about Marxist self-education, real party work, and political struggle. In short, the bourgeoisie thus fatally hampers the development of the subjective factor of communism in capitalism and thereby guarantees the impossibility of using already overripe objective factors.

As for the contradiction between these concepts and theories, socio-historical practice and Marxist theory, this is undeniable. Lenin defined both what was necessary and sufficient to effect the transition from capitalism to communism in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century:

“Indeed, the power of the state over all major means of production, the power of the state is in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with many millions of small and tiny peasants, the provision of leadership for this proletariat in relation to the peasantry, etc.—isn’t that all What is needed in order to get out of cooperation, out of cooperation alone, which we previously dismissed as mercantile, and which, from a certain point of view, we have the right to treat now under NEP in the same way, isn’t this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of a socialist society, but this is everything necessary and sufficient for this building” (“On Cooperation”).

This ingenious theoretical proposition has been fully confirmed by the practice of NEP, industrialization, collectivization and the first phase of building communism in the USSR as a whole. Leninism was tested for strength by “exams” unprecedented in scale in world history: the Great Patriotic War and the forced restoration of the economy destroyed by the Nazis.

Only a provocateur or a dumbass would dare to assert that the level of development of the productive forces of Russia in 1917 did not allow the successful completion of the Bolshevik revolution; that the history of the USSR is not a clear confirmation of the efficiency that is impossible for a capitalist country in resolving economic, political and cultural problems, an example of social and economic progress as a whole, impossible for a capitalist country; that the pace of development of the Stalinist USSR does not prove that Soviet society has moved to a different socio-economic formation.

Idle fictions that the generations of people under whom the destruction of the USSR occurred, for the most part already born in the USSR, in any way are carriers of immature pre-revolutionary premises in the spirit of Plekhanov, are the most illogical and anti-historical falsity. All this is another bread of the Trotskyist balabolok.

The practice of the USSR and the Lenin-Stalin CPSU (b) fully confirmed the viability of the general provisions of the theory of Marxism-Leninism . Therefore, instead of the noise about the failure of Marxism, one should seriously think about the methodological and organizational personnel work of the party, since only a correctly assimilated theory can provide its uncompromising application. And without a competent Marxist leadership and competent execution of any party, only its last congress of the CPSU threatens.

5.USSR after Stalin's death became a capitalist country

A peculiar interpretation of the fact that in the mid-1950s the leadership of the CPSU was seized by Trotskyists - Khrushchev, Mikoyan - is the assertion that from the moment the revisionists seized posts in the CPSU and the government of the USSR, it became a capitalist or state capitalist state, and the leadership of the party became a gang of the new bourgeoisie. This position historically goes back to Hoxha and Mao.

So Hodge wrote:

“In the political field, Khrushchev and his group denigrated and rejected the Marxist-Leninist theory and practice of the class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat, calling it a “Stalinist perversion” and declaring the entire historical period of Stalin’s leadership “a dark, anti-democratic period of violation of socialist legality, a period of terror, murder, prisons and concentration camps. Thus, the way was opened for the elimination of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its replacement by a bureaucratic and counter-revolutionary dictatorship, born and growing of a new, "socialist" aristocracy, and all this was covered with false slogans of "democratization" and "restoration of freedom and socialist justice", which were allegedly lost , and now conquered again ... Khrushchev and his group completely liquidated the proletarian, Marxist-Leninist party, having turned it into an instrument of revisionist counter-revolution, they replaced the Leninist norms of party building with revisionist norms and, finally, declared the party a "party of the whole people." The dictatorship of the proletariat was also abolished, which was declared a stage already passed under the pretext of transforming the Soviet state into a “state of the whole people”, which is nothing but a “democratic” mask behind which hides the counter-revolutionary dictatorship of the new bourgeois class in the face of revisionist renegades. The process of restoration of capitalism in the economy began on a large scale. The announcement of "profit" as the main criterion and stimulus for economic development, the decentralization of certain vital links in economic management, the encouragement of private property tendencies, the transformation of socialist property into a means of exploiting the working people and securing large profits for the ruling stratum of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, opening the doors of the country to the free penetration of foreign capital, and as a result of all this, the ever-increasing effect of the capitalist laws of the economy, anarchy in production and competition between enterprises, a noticeable revival of the black market, speculation , bribery, abuse, etc. - these are some of the main features of the bourgeois degeneration of the Soviet economy. Along with this, the anti-Marxist course of the Khrushchevite revisionists widened the doors of the country for the unhindered penetration of the decadent bourgeois ideology and culture, for the moral decay of people, especially the younger generation,

In the early 1960s, the CCP spoke out, correctly pointing out that Khrushchev’s policy was paving the way for the restoration of capitalism, but without claiming that capitalism was already in the USSR:

“Under the guise of a ‘struggle against the cult of personality’, Khrushchev denigrates the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system, in fact paving the way for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. Completely and indiscriminately denying Stalin, Khrushchev, in essence, rejects the Marxism-Leninism that Stalin defended, opens wide scope for the revisionist trend.

Substituting the so-called “material incentives” for the socialist principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work”, Khrushchev does not reduce, but increases the difference in the incomes of an extremely small part of the people, on the one hand, and workers, peasants and ordinary intelligentsia, on the other, support for degenerates in leadership positions, provides them with the opportunity to further abuse their official position and appropriate the fruits of the labor of the Soviet people, and increases class stratification in Soviet society.

Khrushchev undermines the socialist planned economy, implements the capitalist principle of the pursuit of profit, develops capitalist free competition, and undermines the socialist property of the whole people.

Attacking the order of planning socialist agriculture, Khrushchev declares that this order is "bureaucratic" and "was not caused by necessity." Becoming a zealous student of American farmers, he advertises capitalist farming methods, encourages kulak farming, and undermines the socialist collective economy.

Khrushchev agitates for bourgeois ideology, advertises bourgeois freedom, equality, fraternity and humanity, indoctrinates the Soviet people in the spirit of the reactionary ideology of bourgeois idealism and metaphysics, as well as bourgeois individualism, humanism and pacifism, undermines socialist morality. The rotten bourgeois culture of the West has become fashionable, while socialist culture is being forced out and persecuted.

Under the guise of so-called “peaceful coexistence,” Khrushchev, in collusion with American imperialism, undermines the socialist camp and the international communist movement, opposes the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations, pursues a policy of great-power chauvinism and national egoism, and betrays proletarian internationalism. All this is being done to protect the interests of an insignificant handful of people, to put the interests of this handful above the fundamental interests of the peoples of the Soviet Union, the countries of the socialist camp and the whole world.

The line pursued by Khrushchev is a revisionist line through and through. Under the conditions of the implementation of such a line, not only the old bourgeois elements are madly activated, but also new bourgeois elements appear in large numbers from among the leading party and state workers, responsible persons of state enterprises and collective farms, the highest intelligentsia in the field of culture, art, science and technology.

At the present time in the Soviet Union not only has the number of new bourgeois elements increased unprecedentedly, but their social position has also changed radically. Before Khrushchev came to power, they did not occupy a dominant position in Soviet society, their activities were limited in every possible way and received a rebuff. And after Khrushchev came to power, as he gradually seized the leadership of the party and the state, these new bourgeois elements occupied a dominant position in the party, state, economic and cultural bodies and formed a privileged stratum in Soviet society.

This privileged stratum is now the main component of the bourgeoisie of the Soviet Union, the main social base of the Khrushchevite revisionist clique. The Khrushchevite revisionist clique is the political representative of the bourgeoisie of the Soviet Union, and especially of its privileged stratum.

The Khrushchevite revisionist clique carried out one purge after another and more than once replaced cadres on a massive scale throughout the country, both in the center and in the localities, both in the leading party and state bodies, and in economic bodies and cultural and educational institutions. Expelling those who did not inspire confidence in it, this clique planted its adherents in leading positions.

Take, for example, the Central Committee of the CPSU. According to available data, at the XX Congress of the CPSU in 1956 and the XXII Congress in 1961, about 70 percent of its members were withdrawn from the Central Committee, elected at the XIX Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1952. At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in 1961, about 50 percent of the members of the Central Committee, elected at the 20th Congress in 1956, were also withdrawn.

However, it was later stated :

"The Khrushchev-Brezhnev group completely changed the cause of communism and restored capitalism in the USSR, turning it into a social-imperialist country."

Despite all the justice of the criticism of the CCP, the PLA, Mao and Hoxha in relation to Khrushchev, despite all the respect for them as great revolutionaries, strong theorists, real leaders, but in this case they themselves revised the Marxist theory of power. And they did not notice that the removal of Khrushchev by Brezhnev was an act of class struggle and suspended, froze the process of restoring capitalism in the USSR. If Khrushchev had continued to undermine the power of the CPSU, then the restoration of capitalism in the USSR would have taken place just in time for the date of the onset of communism planned by the 22nd Congress.

This fact, of course, does not turn Brezhnev or Suslov into Marxists, does not forgive them all the sins of the XX, XXI, XXII Congresses, what they piled up in ideology, politics and economics during the Brezhnev leadership itself, but they stopped the destruction of the socialist Motherland, the development Trotskyist tendencies were temporarily cut short.

If the party makes erroneous decisions, if the party is led by opportunists or even traitors, then the working class does not immediately lose power . Yet until capitalism is restored, the dictatorship of the working class does not disappear.

Either the dictatorship of the working class or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is possible . From the fact that the working class itself, in the person of its brainless party, declares a "state of the whole people", the end of the class struggle, the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition to developed classless socialism, this will not change the essence of power. The bourgeoisie also regularly declares the absence of classes, but this does not make classes disappear. Another question is that it is beneficial for the working class in power to face the truth and designate a class enemy, while the bourgeoisie in power only needs to maintain the status quo by all means, by hook or by crook.

Therefore, the opinion that Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov and even Gorbachev were bourgeois, and the CPSU was bourgeois, is untenable.Without retreating even a millimeter from the devastating Marxist criticism of the post-Stalinist CPSU, it should also be understood that during the period of Khrushchevism, the Trotskyists, who made their way into the leadership of the party, loosened the power of the party, the economic, political development of the USSR and the countries of the Warsaw Pact was directed along a false anti-scientific path, undermined and split the international communist movement; during the leadership of the party by Brezhnev, these processes were slowed down; during the Andropov-Gorbachev period, a conscious, meaningful, active ideological and socio-economic preparation was carried out for the restoration of capitalism by sexots and renegades. In short, the work of Trotsky-Zinoviev-Bukharin-Khrushchev to create the prerequisites was continued. But myselfThe political upheaval takes place, on the scale of the historical process, all at once, through the destruction of the political domination of the working class and the establishment of the political domination of the bourgeoisie . There can be no emptiness, intermediate states here. This is the moment of a fundamental change in the relations of production between the workers themselves, brought about by the new superstructure. This historical moment was the provocation of the State Emergency Committee, after which the bourgeoisie was able to establish its political dictatorship, thereby destroying the USSR itself as a political and historical entity that was unnecessary for it.

(Continued in following post.)

[blindpig]

(Continued from previous post.)

III.The reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR
Thus, the following has been established or is self-evidently recognized above.

Firstly , that the USSR arose, grew stronger and won many victories as a state of immature, lower communism. Soviet society was in the first phase of communism. The essence of this stage lies in the construction of, in fact, complete, mature communism, in the struggle of communism with the aggressive remnants of exploitative formations, in the competition of communism with capitalism by realizing the superiority of the new production relations of communism over the commodity-money archaism, in the displacement of spontaneity by consciousness, scientific character.

Secondly , that the factor, that is, the cause, of the communist revolution is Bolshevism as a scientific trend of political thought and political action that organizes the revolutionary subject - the working class - under the conditions of the necessary maturation of all objective prerequisites: the level of development of the productive forces and the degree of their concentration. The final state-monopoly phase of capitalism is the complete material preparation for the transition to communism, that is, the necessary maturation of the objective prerequisites.

Thirdly , that in the historical period of transition from capitalism to full communism, the role of subjective processes rises to a decisive one.

Fourthly , that many historical processes in the USSR after Stalin's death pointed to the development of Soviet society away from science, away from communism, back to capitalism, therefore, communism after 1953 in the USSR objectively lost in the class struggle that unfolded in all spheres of society, including the party itself.

1.Permanent Circumstances

At the same time, many historical facts that point to the creeping process of preparations for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR were born, in a sense, by two significant objective circumstances.

The first is the external enemy, the capitalist encirclement. The struggle of the world oligarchy against communism in the USSR took place in thousands of different forms: from intervention and armed rebellion to economic and individual terror.

The second is the internal enemy, fragments of the exploiting classes, remnants of the past, the petty-bourgeois composition of the population, and so on.

However, here it is necessary to understand that the struggle of world capitalism against communism in the USSR never weakened and was a resultant objective factor.

And the internal enemy, although it aggravated the forms of its struggle, but as a general cultural development of the population, the broad masses of working people, to an ever lesser extent, had an inhibitory effect on the building of communism.

The vulgar pseudo-Marxist schematism that is observed in left-wing propaganda says this: the former peasant country was unable to build communism because of its sinful past, they say, Khrushchev is an expression of the class bourgeois line of the small owner. And this is where the whole explanation of the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR ends. Loud, short and extremely dull.

At a certain stage in the development of the inner-party struggle, Stalin called the Bukharinites agents of the kulaks. But this did not mean that the kulaks had gathered for a kulak congress and issued directives to Bukharin, or, as was depicted in the cartoons: when the leaders of the opposition spoke, a kulak sat under the podium and prompted. One must correctly understand the logic of the class struggle. The mechanics of the formation of a class position can be indirect to an extreme degree. And, by the way, the Bukharinites were in fact a bunch of spies, murderers and wreckers, groveling before foreign countries - this is a reflection not only of their class position, but also quite specificforms of struggle, indicating the mechanics of the formation of their class affiliation. Therefore, the theory and practice of supporting the kulaks by the Bukharin group was in fact a completely insignificant intermediate purely external link in the consistent implementation of the goals of international capital to destroy communism in the USSR.

Petty-bourgeoisism in the 1920s was much stronger than in the 1950s, but communism did not collapse from this, and its strength from the beginning of the 1930s, on the contrary, was actively growing.

The influence of the petty-bourgeoisness factor is also emphasized by the left by such a historical fact that on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War, many real communists gave their lives for the freedom of the Motherland and the peoples of the world. There is no doubt that this is true. However, at the same time, it must also be recognized that this fact did not have any visible effect until 1953. Moreover, the post-war years, along with the war won, most clearly show the advantages of communism, in this case: a record recovery of the economy and the highest rates of development of society, both economic and cultural. This allows us to conclude that the reference to the military losses of the communists as a significant factor in the issue under consideration is untenable.

Thus, the class struggle of the world oligarchy and the significant petty-bourgeoisness of the population were circumstances constantly acting as a force hindering communism . Since the history of the USSR is essentially two lines - ascending, victorious , from 1917 to the mid-1950s and descending, defeatist , until the final bankruptcy of the CPSU and the collapse of the USSR, therefore, the reasons should not lie in the sphere of action of the above circumstances.

2.The scope of finding the cause

Summarizing all of the above, on the basis of the Leninist-Stalinist theoretical and practical heritage, when clarifying the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, first of all, it is necessary to recognize the primacy of politics over the economy in the era of transition from capitalism to mature communism .

In private property societies, economic factors take precedence, the formation of which occurs spontaneously, regardless of the will of people. People, in this case, not understanding the essence of the application of productive forces to the substances of nature, enter into production relations blindly. It follows that these relations are formed with a significant participation of primitive social instincts, reflexes, and material interests. The resulting social conflict at the dawn of the centuries brought to life a systematic need for violence, that is, for a state that by force maintains social order. At the same time, various forms of ideological domination, justifications for private property, exploitation and violence took root.

Moreover, it is precisely capitalist production, the highest type of exploitative production, which has competition as its law, that has become strongly dependent on the development of science. And with the accumulation of applied knowledge, the prerequisites were formed for the final establishment of scientific truths in the field of social science, primarily in the field of knowledge of production relations. Thus arose the scientific theory of building communism—a society in which production relations for the first time would fully meet the objective requirements of the productive forces.

Some dogmatists will object that the productive forces of the epoch of slavery correspond objectively to the production relations of slaveholding, and also of feudalism. It turns out that if these objectors are put today in the conditions of a natural economy, given to them the tools of labor of the heyday of Rome and classical slaves in addition, then they will not establish relations of production based on scientific ideas about the most rational use of all factors of production, including, for example, , will not free the slaves and raise their level of education, but will embark on slavery with delight. As if pieces of wood and pieces of iron forbid them to use collectivist, harmonious, conflict-free production relations.

The law of the obligatory correspondence of production relations to the level of development of the productive forces actually operates in two phases: spontaneously objective and scientific. Prior to communism, this correspondence manifests itself in the form of catastrophes of the destruction of the old production relations and the old societies based on them, due to the impossibility of using new tools of labor, the impossibility of using the old means and methods of exploitation. Thus, there is a revolutionary breakdown and a change from one formation to another. Consequently, in this phase the objective correspondence of production relations to the level of development of the productive forces manifests itself exclusively in the form of an objective inconsistency with the former forms of production relations .

For seven thousand years, objective reality has "showed" mankind that the form of private property relations does not generally correspond to the social nature of the reproduction of society. In its origin it is animal, but in its manifestation it is an animal atavism. But mankind stubbornly turns a blind eye to this, and every major “kick” from the productive forces invents an ever more sophisticated form of the same private property relation, trying to deceive the objective laws of production and put off in time the inevitable annihilation of these relations. We perceive this process of changing production relations as a great progress, but in thousands of years, it will be considered a shameful and unnecessary delay in the development of humanity emerging from the bosom of nature.

The primacy of politics over economics during the period of transition from capitalism to communism was also claimed by the founders of Marxism.

Thus, Engels wrote:

“If Barthes believes that we have denied any reciprocal influence of political, etc., reflections of the economic movement on this movement itself, then he is simply fighting with windmills. He should look only at Marx's 18th Brumaire, where it is almost only about the special role played by political struggle and events, of course, within the framework of their general dependence on economic conditions; or look at Capital, for example, the section on the working day, which shows the decisive effect of legislation, which is, after all, a political act, or the section on the history of the bourgeoisie. Why then are we fighting for the political dictatorship of the proletariat if political power is economically powerless? Violence (that is, state power) is also an economic force!” (Letter to K. Schmidt, October 27, 1890).

Developing precisely this position, based on revolutionary practice, Lenin, smashing Trotsky and Bukharin, explained to the parties that

“politics cannot but have primacy over economics, to forget this means to forget the ABC of Marxism” (“Once again about trade unions, about the current situation and about the mistakes of comrades Trotsky and Bukharin”).

It follows from this that the sphere of finding the cause of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR is the sphere of functioning of the institution of political power of the dictatorship of the proletariat .

The leader of the state of the dictatorship of the working class, the leader in the system of the dictatorship of the working class, is the party and only the party. The Party is the guiding force of the dictatorship of the working class. Lenin there:

"The party, so to speak, absorbs the vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard implements the dictatorship of the proletariat."

If the party loses its prestige, loses the opportunity to give guidance on every important political, economic and cultural issue, then the system of working-class dictatorship collapses. Therefore, the power of various "people's presidents" who, with varying degrees of success, direct the apparatus of the bourgeois state for the benefit of the people, are only elements of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Stalin explained the chain of connection of the party, class, masses:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat consists of the directives of the party, plus the implementation of these directives by the mass organizations of the proletariat, plus their implementation by the population. Here we are dealing, as you see, with a whole series of transitions and intermediate stages, which constitute a far from unimportant moment in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Between the guiding instructions of the Party and their implementation lie, therefore, the will and actions of those led, the will and actions of the class, its readiness (or unwillingness) to support such instructions, its ability (or inability) to carry out these instructions, its ability (or inability) to carry out them exactly as the situation demands. It hardly needs to be proved that a party that has assumed leadership cannot but take into account the will, the state, the level of consciousness of those who are led, cannot ignore the will,

As can be seen, the society of the first phase of communism, or at least the most active part of this society, is a single organism welded together by the dictatorship of the working class .

It is clear that in this case it would be the height of absurdity to look for the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the basis. It is also clear that bad leadership leads to a loss of credibility by the party and may ultimately bring about the collapse of the dictatorship of the working class. However, the history of the bankruptcy of the CPSU showed that the institution of power in the USSR, apparently due to the old perception, was very strong even with such parsley as Gorbachev. The authority of the CPSU, despite all the blatant sabotage activities of Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites, Andropov and his fosterlings, including Gorbachev, still remained on top. The system of state power stood firmly by force of habit . To destroy the USSR, the leadership of the CPSU had to create a class of Sovburs by its own decisions of the party and remove itself from power .

Therefore, if we consider politics as the sphere of finding the cause, that is, the activity of the party as the leading force of the dictatorship of the working class, then it goes without saying that in relation to politics, to strategic goals, tactics and daily work, the party theory is primary, science is Marxism .

Communism arose as a science of society, gave the goals of the class struggle in the form of a Marxist program, gave a form of organization, gave a method of taking into account concrete historical conditions, which connected the organization, initially consisting entirely of intellectuals, with the masses. Therefore, the entire communist policy, the entire practice of the dictatorship of the working class, if it wants to be victorious, is a product of Marxist theory, is a product of the working out of a general line by Marxist theoreticians.

Socio-historical practice has unambiguously proved that

"Marx's teaching is omnipotent because it is true."

However, at the same time, history has shown that Marxism is omnipotent only when it is correctly learned by at least one person in the leadership of the party, and the majority of its members strictly obey party discipline .

So the correct question looks like this:

“In order to develop an answer to the question about the specific reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, it is necessary to identify, first of all, THEORETICAL causes of the POLITICAL crisis of the Soviet system, which entailed ECONOMIC transformations of a capitalist nature. With a different approach, the facts of economic life look like "fell from the sky"" - V.A. Podguzov (" Methodology of the study of the causes of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR ").

If we exclude the possibility of a military defeat due to military or political mistakes, then we should not talk about any objective reasons for the collapse of the USSR. Stalin at the 17th Congress:

“We must understand that the strength and prestige of our Party, Soviet, economic and all other organizations and their leaders have grown to an unprecedented degree. And precisely because their strength and authority have grown to an unprecedented degree, everything or almost everything now depends on their work. The reference to so-called objective conditions has no justification. After the correctness of the party's political line has been confirmed by the experience of a number of years, and the readiness of the workers and peasants to support this line is no longer in doubt, the role of the so-called objective conditions has been reduced to a minimum, while the role of our organizations and their leaders has become decisive, exclusive. What does it mean? This means that from now on nine-tenths of the responsibility for our breakthroughs and shortcomings in our work lies not with “objective” conditions, but with ourselves, and only with us.”

At the same time, the theoretical causes of the political crisis of the dictatorship of the working class, one way or another, are closely connected with the principles of the organizational structure of the party, with the quality of personnel. Lenin pointed out:

“It is impossible to distinguish exactly which issue is political and which is organizational. Any political issue can be organizational, and vice versa… It is impossible to mechanically separate the political from the organizational. Politics is conducted through people, and if other people write pieces of paper, nothing will come of it ... It is impossible to separate organizational questions from politics ”(Speech at the 11th Party Congress).

There were no objective internal reasons for the extinction of communism in the USSR .

3.Problems of the class struggle within the communist party
Lenin taught:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most ferocious, sharpest, most merciless war of the new class against a more powerful enemy, against the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is multiplied tenfold by its overthrow (at least in one country) and whose might consists not only in the strength of international capital, but in strength and stability international relations of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit "(" Childhood disease of "leftism" in communism).

If we compare the statements of Lenin, Stalin and their comrades-in-arms about the internal party struggle, about factionalism, about opportunism with the positions of the post-Stalinist professors, then the difference in approach to the question of the class struggle, primarily the class struggle within the party, will clearly come out .

For example, Stalin, following Lenin, pointed out that imposing a discussion on the party is one of the forms of class struggle:

“The struggle of the opposition bloc against the ‘regime’ in the party, having nothing in common with the organizational principles of Leninism, can only lead to undermining the unity of the party, to weakening the dictatorship of the proletariat and to unleashing anti-proletarian forces in the country, trying to weaken and destroy the dictatorship.

One of the means of disintegrating party discipline and intensifying the struggle within the party, the opposition bloc chose the method of an all-Union discussion, which he tried to impose (a discussion) in October of this year” (“On the Opposition Bloc”).

And further:

“At every turn in the development of the class struggle, at every intensification of the struggle and intensification of difficulties, the difference in views, in the skills and in the moods of the various sections of the proletariat must inevitably manifest itself in the form of certain disagreements in the party, and the pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology must inevitably sharpen these differences, giving them a way out in the form of a struggle within the proletarian party” (“Once More on the Social-Democratic Deviation in Our Party”).

Thus, opportunist Party members, embarking on the path of opposition, try to rely onon those sections of the party masses and the proletariat itself, which seem to them the most promising in periods of political upheavals and intensification of the class struggle from the point of view of enticing them to their side against the general line of the party. And thus the objective conditions, influencing the consciousness of the masses of the proletariat and the party masses, have an influence, in fact, on the political platform of the opposition. But this is only one way in which the class nature of the position of the intra-party faction is manifested. No less important is also the enormous force of habit, selfishness, survivals of the capitalist spirituality of the members of the opposition themselves. They consciously and purely psychologically aspire to the heights of power and glory. Giant ambitions, huge aplomb, lack of conscience and lack of knowledge of Marxism - this is a portrait of a typical active opportunist.

Lenin wrote about Trotsky:

“Trotsky is very fond of giving, ‘with a learned air of a connoisseur’, with pompous and sonorous phrases, flattering explanations for Trotsky of historical phenomena ... Right, reading such things [Trotsky’s articles], one involuntarily asks oneself whether such voices are heard from a lunatic asylum? ... Trotsky is trying to disorganize the movement and cause a split ... Trotsky therefore avoids facts and specific instructions because they mercilessly refute all his angry exclamations and pompous phrases. Of course, it is very easy to strike a pose and say: "a crude sectarian caricature" - it is very easy. Adding even more poignant, even more pompous words about "emancipation from conservative factionalism" is also not difficult. But isn't it really cheap? Is this weapon taken from the arsenal of that era, when did Trotsky shine in front of the high school students? ... The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know the figure of Trotsky well, and for them it is not worth talking about him. But the younger working-class generation does not know her, and one has to speak, for she is a typical figure for all those five groups abroad who, in fact, also vacillate between the liquidators and the party” (“On the Violation of Unity Covered by Cries of Unity”).

Needless to say, that in this Leninist characterization of Trotsky of the sample of 1914, the psychotypes of all Jews can be seen?

People on the left often do not understand that power in a class society is not only a form of violence of one class over another, but also a form of exaltation over society as a whole. Persons who are authorized to exercise power stand as ifover society, over even the class in whose interests they received their powers. Power in the strict sense cannot belong directly to the masses, nor can it be exercised directly by the masses themselves. Even if we are talking about the "masses" of a small bourgeois class. Let the reader imagine a comical situation in which state power would belong to the entire class of the bourgeoisie, not in the person of an authorized body, but in the literal sense of each individual entrepreneur. This does not happen and cannot be by the definition of political power. This is a ridiculous fantasy.

Political power is always a state that, in terms of its functions, rises above society, including, in a certain sense, above the class to which it objectively relates. Power cannot exist without the support of a class, cannot but express the interests of this or that economically antagonistic class, but it cannot exist as an attribute of its class in the sense of being “smeared” among its members. Power is an anti-rational political superstructure, which is a simple cudgel for violence against people. Power is no different from the usual instrument of violence. And the instrument of violence is a separate "thing" in the hands of the rapist, and not this rapist himself.

Of course, any absolutism of an authorized or self-appointed dictator acts exclusively within the framework of the will of the ruling class, which, for the exploiting classes, in turn, is shaped not so much by consciousness or theories as by the rigid framework of material interests within the framework of private property relations. Der Konig absolut, wenn er unseren Willen tut - the king is autocratic as long as he does our will.

If the arbitrariness of an authorized or self-appointed person, for example, the president, suddenly leads to a deterioration in the economic situation of a critical number of "respectable people", then he will have a hard time. But this fact is often realized by petty tyrants who have seized power after violating the boundaries of this will of the ruling class, during palace coups, military conspiracies, impeachments, resignations or contract executions.

Because of this specificity, power seekers aspire to high positions, deputy statuses and other high places in the social hierarchy. Often they are not so much interested in pursuing any political line as purely psychologically enjoying their high position. These primitive atavisms of animal dominance play their well-known, generally insignificant, but still significant role in the political struggle for power. And thus they play a certain role, also as a source of opportunist and renegade movements in communism.. And considering that the will of the working class, which has taken state power, rises from the dictate of material interests to some kind of theoretical formulation, aspirations for social progress in the form of communism, then the degree of freedom of authorized persons is significantly expanding.

The dictatorship of the working class is possible in general only as a product of the class's unprecedented confidence in its vanguard, its state, and especially the top of this state . If such a society properly carries out the construction of communism, then this trust develops into a conscious understanding of necessity . If such a society is marking time, then the party sooner or later loses the trust, support and system of the dictatorship of the working class, despite all its armed forces, special services, and so on, is destroyed at once and the bourgeoisie, supporters of private property, seizes power.

If we take the official theory of the CPSU after the death of Stalin, then in it the question of the purity of the ranks of the party, on the one hand, has become a purely historical question, they say, once upon a time we had opportunism, and then it didn’t. On the other hand, the question of the purity of the party's ranks has turned into unbridled moralizing on the basis of the god-building of the "moral code of the builder of communism" adopted at the 22nd Party Congress. Party cells, undeservedly hoisting over themselves the banner of the mind, honor and conscience of the era, with a gleam in their eyes sorted out minor everyday issues, mired in a swamp of petty squabbles, the cult of petty-bourgeois ambitions and permanent squabbles. And the last thing that interested the members of the CPSU was Marxism, the class struggle and the building of communism. The theoretical front, in this case, was whollyat the mercy of the accursed academicians, who under Stalin were shpuned along this front in every more or less major issue.

The Leninist-Stalinist principles of conducting the theoretical form of the class struggle lie in the fact that the guiding force is the party leadership and, in fact, the leaders of the party themselves. And Khrushchev and Brezhnev gave the program of the CPSU to "outsourcing", not to mention the daily scientific and theoretical work that paves the way for political practice. Khrushchev boasted that more than a hundred scientists worked on the third program of the CPSU for three years. Read: more than a hundred Liebermans.

Stalin, on the other hand, prepared a theoretical model of communism in his work "The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR." After that, the decision of the XIX Congress was adopted:

"1. Consider it necessary and timely to rework the existing program of the party.

2. When reworking the program, be guided by the main provisions of Comrade Stalin's work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR."

Consequently, neither the Academicians, nor even the Mitins and Kuusinens and Pospelovs, namely, Stalin wrote the party program, having a comradely exchange of opinions with his closest associates. Lenin also wrote the party program.

A careful study of the draft program, prepared by decision of the February Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1947, allows us to see a sharp contrast with Stalin's work "The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR." And this despite the leading role in the project of such a respected Marxist as Zhdanov. Consequently, the opportunism of the third program of the CPSU was not introduced into the party, and even in the ranks of its commanding staff, from outside, it budded there under Stalin. And even the closest associates misunderstood some fundamental theoretical points. Another question is that the Marxist insight and genius of the leader, his tireless personal theoretical and practical work did not allow the party to overgrow with the mugs of opportunism.

Further. In the late Soviet version of Marxist theory, the main enemy of communism is declared to be completely abstract imperialists, mostly located overseas. The glossing over of the class struggle within the country, the complete denial of the class struggle within the party, were in themselves the greatest ideological diversions of Trotskyism .

Thus, it should be recognized that the problem of the class struggle within the party is a key link in the study of the causes of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Stupidity, theoretical weakness, lack of conscience, betrayal are so closely intermingled in the history of opportunism and renegacy that they sometimes constitute such an explosive mixture of unscrupulousness that does not make it possible to accurately identify the ultimate motives of scoundrels.

4.The roots of opportunism in anthroposociogenesis
Predation is the relationship of organisms in which the predator uses the prey as food. Slavery, serfdom and hired labor are quite correctly called softened forms of cannibalism. Only a predator-exploiter consumes not the flesh of his victims, but the time of their life, thus turning people into a primitive source of his well-being and his idleness.

Parasitism - the relationship of organisms in which the parasite does not kill its host, but for a long time uses it as a habitat and food source. Parasites include viruses, pathogenic bacteria, fungi, protozoa, parasitic worms, and entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurs, unlike wolves, worms or bedbugs, enter into both these types of interaction with the proletariat simultaneously in the form of private property relations.

Opportunism in this case is rooted in the natural ability of an organism from the category of victims to adapt to the objective conditions of predatory-parasitic relationships.

As you know, at a certain stage of development, living matter arises from inanimate matter, which is much more complex and capable of special forms of movement in the form of a response to its environment. If in the material world of inanimate substances the force of action generates a counteraction, equal in strength and opposite in direction directly and instantly, then in the organic world, as it were, indirectly and through more complex forms of interaction.

Under the pressure of external conditions, any organism accumulates its internal forces of resistance not only for direct "repulsion", but also changing itself, thereby reducing the load of external conditions, adapting to them. In inanimate material nature, an analogue of adaptation in a sense is the opposition of certain substances to external pressure, for example, in the form of an increase in their density. If you hit a piece of metal with the same deforming force, then it “compensates” for the lack of internal counterforce by changing its structure in the form of an increase in density. Thus, after a few blows, the impact force and the reaction force are equalized and the deformation will stop.

In a living organism, approximately the same thing happens, only at a much higher level, and is called the body's response to an external stimulus. Plants reflect the conditions of their habitat in a primitive form of irritability. Animals, unlike plants, move independently, therefore they gradually put together complex organic apparatuses of vital activity for this function - the respiratory, digestive, circulatory and, finally, the nervous systems. As a result, the form of reflection also changed to a more complex one - reflex. Here there is already not simple irritability, but the well-known dynamics of unconditioned and conditioned reflexes, which is based on the transmission of stereotyped reactions by inheritance. Thus, memory, a direct approach to higher nervous activity, becomes the condition for the stable existence of a highly developed animal.

Memorization as a form of mental activity gives rise to the opposite with the need to act contrary to the established habit in atypical situations. This is a repetition at a new dialectical round of development of the folding of unconditioned reflexes through the acquisition and development of conditioned ones. As a result, the free orientation of the animal in space and in the material conditions of its habitat appears.

On the basis of this higher mental activity, in some species a higher form of collective life activity arose—herding. Herding gave man collectivity, and higher mental activity gave the possibility of labor. So, the great apes gradually developed dexterous hands, upright posture, including for the release of the vocal cords, and thus communication in the form of articulate speech. As a result, man created tools that gave a surplus product. The reproduction of human society has become, almost independently of external natural conditions, steadily expanded.

The transformation of nature is also a peculiar way of adapting man to his environment, but purely social. At the same time, it is clear that the former forms of adaptation, including the survival instinct, continue to play a certain role in the human psyche.

The establishment of private property relations with the development of the productive forces proves that animal atavisms are still very influential in human society. On this basis, in the conditions of the emerging extreme conflict of society, the psychology of adaptation is born .

The natural property of man - the universal property of living beings to adapt to the prevailing environmental conditions - thus manifests itself in two ways: consciously - as labor, "adaptation" through the transformation of nature, and unconsciously - as submission to nature and the prevailing social conditions.

But passively adapting to the conditions of class oppression does not mean being an opportunist. The class division of society is objective, and everyone who lives in such a society is forced to reckon with this, and therefore adapt. But when a special taste is manifested in this process, when a person moves from a passive need to adapt to an active game according to the prevailing "rules" in order to improve his position or rise above others, then personality traits are added that make a person prone to opportunism.

Accompanying opportunism, as a form of political practice, is ignorance. When an active person, including one who has been driven to the brink, does not know what it would be scientifically correct to oppose to the domination of the bourgeoisie, he objectively either slides into adaptation or falls into a desperate individualistic attack “on the system”.

Summarizing what has been said above about the mechanism of adaptation, it must be admitted that the opportunist is a kind of scavenger, sang along with the bourgeoisie, a filthy bourgeois rump .

V.A. Diapers:

“The presence of a ruling class of entrepreneurs inevitably gives rise to a layer of people who adapt to this objective reality. In turn, the presence of people who adapt to the existence of the bourgeois class makes the life of the bourgeoisie more stable and secure. A symbiosis typical of the animal world arises, similar to the symbiosis of predators and scavengers of various kinds, up to and including those busy picking out rotting food debris from the crocodile's mouth and only therefore not eaten by the crocodile.

Therefore, the dialectic of the relationship between victory and defeat in the struggle against opportunism is as follows: it is impossible to defeat opportunism without defeating the bourgeoisie, and at the same time, it is impossible to defeat the bourgeoisie without defeating opportunism. Moreover, the victory over opportunism is, in relation to the victory over the bourgeoisie, a necessary condition. Necessary but not sufficient. A sufficient condition for eradicating opportunism forever is the victory over the bourgeoisie itself. As long as the bourgeoisie exists, opportunism is inevitable. Therefore, in defining opportunism, I assert that in terms of its generic affiliation it is a kind of atavism, in its essence it is a form of social mimicry, adaptation, adaptation, in content it is a product of ignorance, both educated and slum-dwelling.

In order to defeat the bourgeoisie, in order to stop being a cash cow in the hands of others, it is necessary to surpass the exploiters in mental development. There is no other means of getting rid of opportunism, that is, of the most disguised form of servility, than enriching one's memory with the knowledge of all those riches that mankind has developed - does not exist!

Either the proletarian, with the help of the Communist Party, will surpass the bourgeoisie in understanding the laws of social development, or he will continue to “progress” in his servility.

…

Unfortunately, in most cases the opportunism of the proletariat is regarded by many as an unfortunate, temporary and not very significant misunderstanding. Meanwhile, real history and the present state of the former socialist system show that in the unity and struggle of the two opposites—revolutionary and opportunistic—in the psychology of the proletariat, opportunism, animal opportunism, has temporarily again gained the upper hand.

It is easy to imagine how productive the process of combating opportunism in the communist parties would have been if the syndrome of venality had not been embedded in the deep properties of the proletariat. Opportunism within communist parties parasitizes and develops on the opportunism of the proletariat itself, but at the same time, party opportunism is an important condition for the stability and strengthening of opportunism among the proletarians” (“On Some Methodological Problems of Analyzing the Nature of Opportunism” ) .

There is no doubt that the motivation of an opportunist is of great interest from the point of view of the struggle against opportunism.

The complex of personal qualities of a person who is conducive to opportunism and turning into an enemy of the revolution can be characterized as a symbiosis of swagger and double-dealing .

It is known that absolutely negative and absolutely positive character traits do not exist. An overlap of advantageous qualities at first glance will give a completely ugly result, and vice versa. Thus, a Marxist needs a certain balance, observance of measure. The basic moral principles excluding opportunism are absolute sincerity with oneself and comrades, heroic devotion to the cause, conscientiousness and merciless self-criticism. These are those personality traits prepared by diamatics, the configuration of which does not violate the necessary limits of measure.

The opportunist, on the other hand, is a jelly-like creature who serves the cause of the counter-revolution, as it were, due to circumstances, due to mental weakness. But every opportunist, being unexposed for a long time, in the conditions of the intensification of the class struggle, turns into an aggressive enemy of communism. He is beginning to mobilize all his forces and means in his struggle against the Party and communism. The logic of factional struggle is stronger than the will of individuals.

(Continued in following post.)

[blindpig]

5.The opportunistic degeneration of the party leadership is the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR

So, when identifying the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, it is extremely insufficient to enumerate the economic and even political reforms of the CPSU, which ultimately prepared the very revolution of the bourgeoisie. A careful examination of the activities of Khrushchev, Kosygin, Andropov, Gorbachev and Yakovlev allows us to conclude that they put into practice the trial and error method. And all their practice is some kind of trial that ended in crushing failures for the country.

As for the period of the immediate destruction of the USSR, even this task was not carried out by the wrecking leadership of the CPSU as brilliantly as Yakovlev recalled in the preface to The Black Book of Communism.

But in the end, to destroy is not to build, so the Gorbachevites were able to remove the CPSU from power, thereby removing the demoralized working class from power. Thus, the Sovburs, crystallized from shadow workers, "red directors", "Komsomol members" and party apparatchiks, with their class appetites, became a real alternative to Soviet power.

The perestroika did not proclaim anything cunning. They undermined the political hegemony of the working class with their reforms and their propaganda.

Certainly such reforms and such statements could not have been made in the 1950s or 1960s, but the Soviet society of the 1980s was already demoralized enough to believe in the most clumsy propaganda of "pluralism" or the free market.

Therefore, Khrushchev's influence on the collapse of the USSR is associated more with the discrediting of Marxism, with the ideological and theoretical undermining of the authority of Marxism, the scientific solidity of the theory and practice of Marxism, than with the transfer of MTS equipment to collective farms or even the reform of 1957.

It should be noted that all Khrushchev's sabotage was carried out within the framework of a single propaganda process - “the debunking of the personality cult of I.V. Stalin." Khrushchev thus "plowed" public consciousness, party ethics, turned the already ideologically frail intelligentsia upside down, undermined the authority of communism and the unity of the world's communist parties. But this was still not enough for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

And in the 1980s, Soviet society was already sufficiently corrupted by anti-Marxism and petty-bourgeois ideology. Gorbachev's propaganda pearls, even now, under Putin, are striking in their clumsiness.

Adviser to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU on Economics Aganbegyan said:

“Housing is not part of the market right now. I live in a large four-room apartment and pay only 20 rubles a month for it. I got this apartment from the state. When I die, my son will have it. All this is free. At the same time, there is a severe shortage of housing, and there are people living in appalling conditions. My daughter lives in a two-room apartment with a family of four. She can't get on the housing improvement waiting list because there are too many people who have worse housing conditions than her. So she's not supposed to. I have money and I am her father. I want to buy her the best apartment so that my grandson can live in better conditions. But this is impossible. You can get an apartment for free. But money can't. And this is not only the case for apartments. I want a plot of land near Moscow. I have money to pay for it. But I can't buy land. I can get such a site for free. But they may not give it to me. I have a Volvo, a good car. But there is no garage. I can't buy a garage. Nobody builds them and so on. People are willing to buy things like cars, land, better housing. But the government won't let them spend their money."

From the draft platform of the Central Committee of the CPSU for the XXVIII Congress:

“The deep sources of the crisis… false notions of socialism, the dictatorship carried out by the party-state elite on behalf of the proletariat… Let us recall the clarity of the party’s ideas in 1917: land to the peasants, power to the Soviets, factories to the workers. Why not fulfill these slogans today. After all, they are also relevant, with only a small difference - property must be taken from our administrative-party-bureaucratic team and transferred to the people, people, individuals.

Gorbachev:

“The market makes it possible to objectively and to some extent without the intervention of the bureaucracy measure the labor contribution of each producer ... outside the market economy it is impossible to implement the principle of distribution according to work ... The spirit of free enterprise should be encouraged in every possible way in society. It would seem obvious things, but in what winding ways and with what delay we come to an understanding of these truths!

“Go through deep revolutionary reforms, not through confrontation, not through a new version of civil war. Enough of the confrontation between whites and reds, blacks and blues. We are one country, one society, and within the framework of political pluralism, comparing programs in the face of the people, we must find answers that would meet the fundamental interests of the country and move it forward.

…

Put an end to the very principle of class dictatorship, finally close the seventy-year split in our society. To tear out the roots of a deep civil conflict, to create constitutional mechanisms in which relations between social strata and people are clarified not with the help of scuffle and bloodshed, but through politics.”

Can you imagine such cheap vulgarity in the 1950s or 1960s?

The very fact that the legal ban on the CPSU took place with the consent of the General Secretary, the entire composition of the Politburo, the Central Committee, and with the complete inaction of local organizations , suggests that the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR lies in the class defeat within the leadership of the CPSU. Essentially, it's a betrayal.

But what is the reason that the enemies of the people have settled right in the leadership of the CPSU?

After Stalin's death, the CPSU forgot what opportunism is, they forgot the objective law of revolutionary struggle about the irreconcilability of ideologies . Factionalism was thus considered to be some insignificant discrepancy in the understanding of Marxism, an originality of views.

And the CPSU forgot about opportunism solely because the CPSU itself went headlong into the swamp of this very opportunism.

The propaganda apparatus of the CPSU (b) and the quality of personnel has always been not up to par. Lenin wrote that there was no real "Soviet, socialist", cultural apparatus, or rather

“the elements of such an apparatus are ridiculously few, and we must remember that to create it ... we need to spend many, many, many years” (“Better less, but better”).

Lenin pointed out that at least half of the communists do not know how to fight, and many simply interfere with the struggle for communism.

Stalin said that the party activists do not own the theory of Marxism, they are trying to solve the problems facing the country in a directive, to take it in a swoop and agility.

The result of the personnel state of the Stalinist party can be estimated from the 19th Congress. In his report on the work of the Central Committee, Malenkov pointed out that

“In many Party organizations there is an underestimation of ideological work, as a result of which this work lags behind the tasks of the Party, and in a number of organizations it is in a neglected state. Ideological work is the primary duty of the Party, and underestimation of this work can cause irreparable damage to the interests of the Party and the state. We must always remember that any weakening of the influence of socialist ideology means an increase in the influence of bourgeois ideology.

... The underestimation of ideological work is largely the result of the fact that some of our leading cadres do not work to raise their consciousness, do not replenish their knowledge in the field of Marxism-Leninism, do not enrich themselves with the historical experience of the party. And without this, it is impossible to become full-fledged mature leaders. He who lags behind in ideological and political terms, lives by memorized formulas and does not feel the new, he is not able to correctly understand the internal and external situation, cannot and is not worthy to be at the head of the movement, life sooner or later will write him off. Only such a leader can rise to the height of the tasks of our Party, who constantly works on himself, creatively masters Marxism-Leninism, develops and improves in himself the qualities of a leader of the Leninist-Stalinist type.

... The task of Party organizations is to decisively put an end to the harmful underestimation of ideological work, to intensify this work in all links of the Party and the state, to untiringly expose all manifestations of ideology alien to Marxism. It is necessary to develop and improve socialist culture, science, literature, art, to direct all means of ideological and political influence, our propaganda, agitation, the press, to improve the ideological preparation of the communists, to increase the political vigilance and consciousness of the workers, peasants and intelligentsia. All our cadres, all without exception, must work to raise their ideological level, to master the rich political experience of the Party, so as not to lag behind life and stand at the height of the Party's tasks. Necessary,

It can be seen that already in 1952 there was no mention of opportunism. The struggle is being waged, as it were, against bourgeois ideology, which, of course, is formally correct, but expressed too vaguely. From the newspaper publications of the 19th Congress that have come down to us, we can conclude that the leadership of the party recognized serious gaps in the Marxist training of cadres, including commanders.

The post-Stalin period of the existence of the CPSU showed that if the Marxist party, in the conditions of a capitalist environment, does not work hard enough to educate leaders of the Leninist-Stalinist level and cut in its environment, then the building of communism stalls and, ultimately, the party degrades and collapses .

The Lenin-Stalin victorious period showed that the subjective factor of the revolution can be considered mature if the party is headed by a leader who knows Marxism and skillfully applies Marxism in organizational practice .

Of course, a more stable factor is the presence of a scientific center, consisting of comrades, approximately equal to each other in intellectual power and high moral qualities. However, the vileness of the capitalist way of life, the scum of the grafted class culture significantly hinder the development of conditions for the productive education of real communists.

Historical practice has shown that it was categorically inadequate to widely replicate and even expand the study of Marxist works .

For example, the ingenious book "A Short Course", created by Stalin taking into account specific historical propaganda tasks, was published more than 300 times in 67 languages ​​with a total circulation of almost 43 million copies. Based on the study of the "Short Course", circle work was launched with a powerful impetus, in which non-party people were also massively involved. Thus, in the 1930s and 1940s, all more or less mature supporters of Soviet power at least read the Short Course, and many studied it in good faith under the supervision and instruction of party propagandists. And indeed, no matter what copy of this book you pick up, you can immediately see that the pages were read out for holes, many have characteristic pencil marks and marginalia.

A similar situation was with the main works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Moreover, Stalin’s article, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, read out and approved by the party as the guiding article, is directly opposed in its content to the main theses of the XXII Congress, the third program of the CPSU, and in key places even the famous textbook by Ostrovityanova, Shepilov and others of 1954.

The conviction of a true Marxist in this or that theoretical proposition does not depend on party directives, opportunist programs, textbooks, articles, and the like. Consequently, there were catastrophically few people in the USSR who really understood Marxism on the basis of studying the works of the classics. The CPSU accepted with a bang both the brilliant Marxist truths of Lenin and Stalin, and opportunism, periodically turning into the idiocy of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov and Gorbachev.

Stalin only in the post-war years began to build a system for training party cadres at a level of higher requirements than during the NEP years. The low level of diamatic training of party cadres in the conditions of constant time pressure of economic tasks has become the basis for the growth of opportunism, since there is no way to cross the ideologies of antagonistic classes, Marxism and all varieties of anti-scientific positions.

The discussions unleashed by the Trotskyists after the death of Lenin and the opportunistic turn of the Communist Party after the death of Stalin proved that literally everything is decided by the presence of a competent leader, determines the direction of the development of the party, and after it the class, the state and the whole society. Of course, Lenin and Stalin had loyal comrades-in-arms who rallied around them and thus increased their strength tenfold. Stalin himself was a reliable collaborator of Lenin.

Supporters of the Stalinist course lost to Khrushchev after the death of the leader due to the fact that they all clashed with each other on a philistine, intriguing level. But if in such clashes Lenin and Stalin defeated the opportunists by the fact that in scientific terms they were head and shoulders above their competitors, including Trotsky, Zinoviev and Bukharin, and because of this they were also head and shoulders above them in organizational matters, because they knew how to convince the majority.

Lenin and Stalin at first sought to convince the minority, to create in advance, and not at the congress or plenum itself, a narrow circle of real like-minded people, to equip them with a deep understanding of the essence of political problems, to train bright orators, bright publicists in the press, to help them gain authority among the masses, and then they began to fight for the majority at plenums and congresses. And in fact, even this enlightened majority was a minority in relation to the entire population, and therefore propaganda had to be backed up legally, organizationally, politically, and most importantly, with practical results. For example, the New Economic Policy at first in gold pieces, since the middle peasants did not understand another language, collectivization - with tractors and MTS, and so on.

However, in certain cases, no genius can save against a mediocre pack that has penetrated the party solely for the sake of a career or satisfying its lust for power.

Thus, the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR was the incompetence of the members of the CPSU, especially in its leadership, in matters of practical construction of communism . In this historical situation, the factor of opportunism counteracted the factor of diamatic competence in the person of the leader. While Stalin was alive, the prerequisite for the restoration of capitalism was suppressed, and communism was being built in the USSR; after Stalin's death, neither a leader nor a competent center was found, so the opportunism factor first established itself, strengthened, and then won.

The headless, brainless CPSU held on out of habit, at the will of the working class, but the agents of imperialism shook its power, and thus capitalism in the USSR was restored. Economic reforms and, in general, all changes in the basis of the USSR served as a means of undermining the political power of the working class , as well as endless ideological diversions .

And democratic centralism was a way of multiplying and spreading opportunism within the party , a way of capturing the leadership of the CPSU .

In the organizational structure of the party, Lenin and Stalin applied a scientific approach to personnel and organization, therefore they pursued the principle of the most severe scientific centralism .

Khrushchev, Mikoyan and others, after Stalin's death, revised established practice, rejected the Leninist-Stalinist theoretical legacy on the issue of organizational building, and proclaimed party democracy. It is by voting for each other that the opportunists seize the leadership of all organizations .

The opportunism that has seized the leadership of the CPSU must be presented from two sides. First , in terms of theoretical content, it is tailism, economism, vulgar economic determinism . Because it is in the theoretical formulation of the stages passed, in the denial of the aggressiveness of communism, in flirting with the form of existence of capitalism, that is, money, that the opportunistic adaptation of the practice of the working class in the interests of the bourgeoisie is rooted. Roughly speaking, the cultivation of proletarianism, that is, the condition of people as an appendage of capital, in all forms, constitutes opportunism in its content.

Secondly , in its motivation and in the formation of an ideological constitution, it is consistent anti-Stalinism .

If you trace the movement of Trotsky's political thought, he almost always speaks in such a way as to seem as original as possible. His pre-October position could be characterized as consistent anti-Leninism, but without adhering to Menshevism in words. In the period up to 1924, on all important issues, Trotsky always said the opposite of Lenin, and actively factioned. During the mid-1920s, Trotsky opposed Stalin and other ideological centers, and after Stalin's victory over all opponents in the theoretical struggle, Trotsky now takes a position strictly opposite to Stalin. In many ways, this line of absolute ideological lack of principle is characteristic of any opportunism. To be against —that is the "ideological" basis of opportunism in the presence of a truly Marxist position.

The Khrushchevites and Gorbachevites, for the most part, were motivated precisely as fierce opponents of Stalin, they acted out of banal revenge. Just as thousands of specialist wreckers, former landlords and kulaks derailed trains, blew them up, broke them down, smashed them for completely worthless dirty reasons, so a mature opportunist in power is a synonym for a dirty trickster, a capricious dirty man, a bastard .

Moreover, during the period of Stalin's life, it was the Khrushchevites who, in hysterical fits, praised the leader, secretly, of course, hating him with all the wrinkled folds of their soul no less than Novodvorskaya and Radzinsky, which was also a kind of sabotage. It was the anti-Stalinist actors who set the tone for excessive tasteless pathos, playing on the base feelings of the crowd.

In addition, the organizational structure of the party played an important role in the theme of the maturation of the cause, since democracy is an expression of spontaneity, and therefore a stronghold of opportunism.

The chronology of the descending line of communism in the USSR is as follows. After Stalin's death, the enemies of communism, masquerading as communists, established themselves in the leadership of the party through democratic centralism. Stalin's comrades-in-arms, the Marxists, lost to Khrushchev and his group due to the fact that they all clashed with each other on a philistine, intriguing level.

Further, the Khrushchevites revised Marxism with Stalin's personality cult theory, the party's theory of the collective mind, the tactics of building communism by 1980, the communist moral code and other opportunist acts, and turned the daily government policy into a subversive undermining of the economic and ideological foundations of communist construction. The Khrushchevites deliberately split the world communist movement in order to weaken it.

Therefore, during the period of Khrushchevism, the Trotskyists who made their way into the leadership of the party shook the power of the party, the economic and political development of the USSR and the countries of the Warsaw Pact was directed along a false anti-scientific path, the international communist movement was undermined and split; during the leadership of the party by Brezhnev, these processes were slowed down; during the Andropov-Gorbachev period, a conscious, meaningful, active ideological and socio-economic preparation was carried out for the restoration of capitalism by sexots and renegades. In short, the work of Trotsky-Zinoviev-Bukharin-Khrushchev to mature the prerequisites for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR was continued.

But at the same time, all these actions were carried out, firstly , within the framework of the will and consciousness of the working class of the USSR at every historical moment, and secondly , despite the fact that the economic system of the first phase of communism was not replaced by a capitalist one. Thus, the party and the state, by their class nature, remained communist, but their policy, that is, the development of ways and means, was carried out unscientifically, incorrectly, to the detriment of the real goal of building a communist society, and in the second half of the 1980s was completely aimed at destroying the country .

However, the process of revolution and the process of counter-revolution proceed according to the diamatic law of negation of negation. A political upheaval, whether revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, takes place all at once,and the objective and subjective prerequisites for it are formed by all historical development over a relatively long time. The moment of the destruction of the Soviet working class is the political moment of its transformation into a class of proletarians, that is, the moment of changing the essence of production relations, primarily between the working people themselves. Moreover, one should not confuse the moment of legal fixation of the fact of a political coup with the moment of its real occurrence. For example, "voucherization" only legalized the destruction of the working class. After the voucherization, the combined owners of all the country's means of production became de jure owners exclusively of their labor force. But in order to step into capitalism, so that from the scattered facts of social injustice,political dictatorship . And it installs instantly.

Sovburs and imperialist agents, including having made their way into the CPSU, organized a series of civil wars and mass pogroms in the 1980s, but failed to sway the Soviet people for more than the construction of "market socialism". Moreover, it was not only in the USSR. Neither in 1956 in Hungary, nor in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, nor in 1981 in Poland, nor in 1989 in China did the bourgeoisie manage to establish capitalism because they failed in political coups. Until 1991, in the USSR, troops were still used against the democrats, but half-heartedly and bashfully. Only having managed to organize a provocation under the name of the GKChP, the bourgeoisie, almost overnight, took away political power from the CPSU. After that, the power structures already dispersed left-wing demonstrations, and in October 1993 they carried out a mass execution in the center of Moscow, thereby proving thatin August 1991, the capital came to political power at once . Then the bourgeoisie finally shook up the administrative apparatus, established its own state with an appropriate legal framework. This is how the restoration of capitalism in the USSR took place.

Identification of the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR makes it possible to develop a Marxist program that takes into account this negative experience in order, firstly , to protect the communist revolution from such defeats, secondly , to correct the theory of building communism as a whole, and thirdly , to rehabilitate the communists before the masses and the most start folding a batch of a new type. The latter question is the subject of the theory of scientific centralism .

A. Redin
14/03/2018 (fifth edition of 01/09/2019)

Reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR : 29 comments

Valery
19/03/2018 AT 20:11
Very valuable and capacious in terms of theoretical content brochure.
A real "shell fired at the head" ... not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the leftists, who talk about how the theoretical work of "Breakthrough" and "Supporters of the Breakthrough" is //the immobilization of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, which is beneficial to the bourgeoisie themselves.//

ANSWER
Redin
19/03/2018 AT 22:26
Dear friend, Valery! Of course, you were flattered with the projectile.

The brochure is essentially a generalization of those developments that are given in the journal, in particular in the articles by V.A. Podguzov. In many moments, not even a generalization, but a simple presentation , retelling.

The pamphlet also contains an introduction to the prevailing versions, especially self-supporting, because many, in fact, do not understand what it is and how it was.

The pamphlet has a well-known claim only to a more or less detailed formulation of the reason, revealed, nevertheless, in the articles of Breakthrough.

From the point of view of creative work, perhaps only the subtitle "Concise formulation of the foundations of the materialistic understanding of history" can be noted.

But thanks for the high rating! The work is written mainly to bring order to this issue in the minds of readers. So that you can give a link to a specific text on a specific issue and novice comrades.

The brochure will certainly be finalized and corrected in those moments in which inaccuracies will be identified.

ANSWER
Nicholas N.
03/24/2018 AT 18:38
Perhaps one of the most powerful modern Marxist works. Huge greetings to the author, the newspaper and a huge THANK YOU to Comrade Redin for the work done. I am not a great Marxist, but not a novice reader either, I will say that the research done looks almost exhaustive. Perhaps it contains some shortcomings, but in general - work for a solid five. Good luck!

ANSWER
Antip
10/04/2018 AT 20:13
This is very Bolshevik. To celebrate anniversaries not with a glass and ornate toasts, and even not so much with “shells fired at the head of the bourgeoisie”, as with searchlights of scientificity, illuminating the path of the struggle for freedom and happiness, the most hardworking, the most constructive, the most creative, the most modest, the most romantic, the most naive class in the history of mankind - the working class. We wish Comrade Redin, so that his work, the further, the more contributed not only to the enlightenment of modern proletarians of mental and physical labor, but also to their organization around the spokesmen for their most intimate, but, so far, insufficiently formulated views on life without exploitation, i.e. around the Breakout Supporters. Slightly paraphrasing Lenin's thought, it must be said that the daily newspaper is a mass propagandist, an agitator and organizer until its composition of authors considers all questions of being from the standpoint of the diamatics of Marxism. It's nice to know that the newspaper is only two years old, but it stands so confidently and so, not childishly, with a verb, it burns people's minds.

ANSWER
Ygor
08/09/2018 AT 12:39
This pamphlet is the best modern Marxist I have read. I don't understand why the left is hushing it up.

ANSWER
Redin
09/09/2018 AT 10:33
Thanks for the high rating.

ANSWER
Vyacheslav
31/07/2020 AT 08:47
Hello, I have a question about the decision of the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On measures to increase the production of consumer goods and food from local raw materials”, is there any additional information, I was hurt by the fact that I had to resort to decentralization, I would also like to know when the decision was canceled.
You wrote that there is little positive effect from it, is there any evidence for this?

ANSWER
Redin
01/08/2020 AT 19:32
Hello Vyacheslav!

1. This decision was canceled with the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when all artels were subordinated to the satisfaction of military and logistics needs. I don't have the details, but if you dig around, I think you can find it. As for the general vector of this resolution towards decentralization, I draw your attention to the fact that the real development of economic planning in the USSR often ran ahead, and then retreated back. Theoretically, it is clear that one should strive for the most scientific planning of the entire production, but in practice it is not always possible to correctly execute the plan. But one way or another, planning has always developed towards centralization and scientific character.

2. It had little effect in the sense that during the war years, the whole public distribution was based on the card system, which proved to be extremely effective. Of course, the "freedom" of commercial cooperation and card distribution are not very compatible things.

ANSWER
Set (@____S_E_T____)
25/09/2018 AT 08:37
Thanks, it was very informative.

What was the objective reason why by 1953 there was exactly one Marxist in the party leadership?

ANSWER
Editorial
27/09/2018 AT 19:52
What was the objective reason why by 1953 there was exactly one Marxist in the party leadership?

You exaggerate. Read this . Written by a Marxist?

Look at the events of 1953-1947. There was a struggle in the party. Molotov is a Marxist. Isn't Voroshilov a Marxist?

ANSWER
Tverdislav Porphyrogenitus
25/10/2018 AT 22:32
Being a non-partisan propagandist with 2 diplomas of a chemical engineer and a psychological engineer, as a villager he faced the facts of severe financial and psychological pressure and ridicule (1976-2018 and, possibly, further) at the Central Defense Shipbuilding Institute. And the resourcefulness of ignoring university graduates from military service by some decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers. Most party members-specialists ignored classes at the House of Political Education, sending their pretty mistresses there! So the factors of the role of national minorities in the careerist desires of power through science, especially Jews, the Internet and Kitov's cyber control with the implementation in Chile by Salvador Allende are not covered, both are defeated. The concentration factor of the pseudo-elite in the capital, the capitals of the Union republics, hero cities - plundering the provinces economically under the slogans of erasing the standard of living in the countryside and cities, with the real enslavement of the village and spurring research institute employees to harvest potatoes in the village by hand - for decades. All this does not fit with the class theory and practice of scientific sociological analysis set out in the brochure as a sociological basis for scientific analysis, especially since the author did not seem to have access to various domestic and intelligence information at the level of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st forms of admission . Especially the fact of the total backwardness of Imperial Russia-USSR-Russian Federation is still bravura.

By profession, I understand that the USSR and Russia lagged behind world progress in terms of psychology, sociology and the human factor (ergonomics), as scientific areas of world thought and practice. And the author, for some reason, does not mention the all-planetary famous domestic scientist Ivan Efremov (personal enemy of Yu.V. Andropov) with his scientific and prognostic socio-philosophical novel "The Bull's Hour", appreciated worthily by the UN Secretary-General U Thant and published by his order in the language Esperanto and further in 75 countries of the world with a circulation of more than 100 million copies. But banned in the USSR, still in the USA, and to be filmed in Hollywood, by joint secret agreement of the heads of state, supposedly ideological enemies.
The author may wish to read this scientific work on the Red Line TV channel in order to be a modern wrestler!

ANSWER
Novel
29/10/2018 AT 17:56
My God, it looks like the hemp fields are burning again in the village of Villobaggio! Good afternoon, from which ward did you come to us? Tverdislav is something new, why not Napoleon, or at least not Caesar?

ANSWER
Alexander
07/12/2018 AT 08:51
"Modern fighter" for what? For "world thought"? Your discordant presentation is confusing, and some statements suggest that you either did not read the article to the end, or did not understand it at all. You, as I understand it, are a modern fighter for everything good, against everything bad? If you want to fight for world bourgeois thought, then you have obviously made the wrong address.

ANSWER
Andrey
03/01/2019 AT 10:15
I correctly understood the main idea, the main thesis ...?
Is the construction of communism possible only through the "dictatorship of science"? (The party dictates to the masses, the scientific leader dictates to the party).
All in all, I agree with this 100%. But I see one big problem. The problem is that science itself is not capable of developing without "opportunism" in the form of a demand for constant "denial of everything", especially as regards the cutting edge of science - steps "beyond the known." And only those theories that successfully resist such "opportunism" through its denial in experience, "verification through the denial of falsification" can be considered scientific knowledge.
As long as there is no "absolute truth" - a "concrete theory of everything", it is impossible to "dictate" this "absolute truth" without going beyond the framework of scientific character - that is, without turning from a scientist into an "opportunist tyrant".
If there is an “immutable truth” in science, and Marxism as a scientific approach, then it lies in the fact that science is not “ultimate truth”, but only a way to approximate the adequacy of the reflection of objective reality by consciousness (as an activity), and itself is an INCOMPLETE reflection of such (as a state at any time).
Help me figure out what's wrong?

ANSWER
Redin
05/01/2019 AT 21:24
The mistake is that in epistemology you prefer positivism.

ANSWER
vladimir
09/01/2019 AT 20:11
Good job. I look forward to continuing. How to avoid another repetition of the collapse in the future? How to control controllers?
Sincerely, Vladimir.

ANSWER
Alexander Boyko
05/03/2019 AT 09:48
The article boils down to the fact that the cause of the collapse of the USSR was the degeneration of the leadership of the party, and in particular Khrushchev's sabotage to debunk the "cult of personality".
But what was the cause of such a rebirth? How to avoid such a rebirth in the future? Who will "guard the watchmen"?
A system is stable if it is capable of self-reproduction. The party elite created by Stalin was not reproduced in the next generations, and was reborn. How can I make sure this doesn't happen in the future?
I did not find answers to these questions.

ANSWER
Administrator
07/03/2019 AT 02:58
The answers to these questions are contained in the article "The Danger of Rebirth". Moreover, the whole concept of scientific centralism, put forward and developed by the breakthroughs, is the answer.

ANSWER
Dmitry Ivanov
27/04/2019 AT 18:36
Very strong work! On the example of such works, it is clearly seen that the rest of the leftists are very, very far from the level of "Breakthrough" (magazine and newspaper). The rest of the leftists are either delving into the Trotskyist rubbish, which has long been sorted out and thrown into the trash heap as unnecessary and harmful (RRP, LeninKru, Rabkor), or in Western European “Marxism” (Rabkor), which is also rubbish thrown into the dustbin of history a long time ago, either completely brainless actionism (Udaltsov) or economism and tailism (Popov, RKRP), or outright popso-Marxism (Buri Bulletin, StationMarks).

ANSWER
Ilya Belin
29/08/2019 AT 00:42
Promising title. Adequate start. And, sorry for the frankness, a stupid conclusion: "There were no objective internal reasons for the extinction of communism in the USSR."

Stalin: “Without theory we are death, death!” At the beginning of March 1953, Stalin called D.I. Chesnokov, a member of the newly elected Presidium of the Central Committee: “... You must soon deal with questions of further development of the theory. We can mess up something in the economy, but one way or another we will rectify the situation. If we mess up in theory, we will ruin the whole thing. Without theory, we are death, death!”

Comrade Redin, do you seriously think that the absence of a theory of building socialism is not an objective reason for the collapse of Soviet socialism?

For example, K. Marx did not think so after the collapse of the Paris Commune. Through his analysis of the collapse of the Paris Commune, Marx formulated the theory of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Isn't the absence of a theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat the objective internal cause of the collapse of the Paris Commune?

The same with the collapse of Soviet socialism. Soviet socialism, like the Paris Commune, was doomed from the start. And in both cases, the reason for the collapse is the same - the lack of a theory for building a new type of society.

Lenin adopted from Marx the theory of the class struggle and the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Based on this theory, Lenin created the Bolshevik Party and carried out the proletarian revolution. But the theory of the class struggle and the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat are theories of the destruction of bourgeois society, and by no means theories of building socialism. Of course, the classics of Marxism made certain sketches of how they see this society. But these were just sketches. Accordingly, Stalin, as the leader of the world's first state following the path of building socialism, had to lay this path blindly. And unfortunately this path was not without errors.
And today the task of the Bolsheviks is not to try to justify the name and deeds of I. Stalin, which he does not need. The task of the Bolsheviks is to analyze all the material that the collapse of Soviet socialism has provided us with, to understand the causes of this collapse, and on the basis of this understanding to formulate the very theory that Stalin spoke to Chesnokov, “Without theory, we are death, death, death.”

In my opinion, the objective internal reason for the collapse of Soviet socialism is the lack of a theory of building socialism, i.e. lack of a theory of property and a theory of freedom. That's what killed Soviet socialism. This is exactly what Stalin was talking about.

ANSWER
Redin
31/08/2019 AT 23:52
Hello Ilya.

Thanks for your feedback.

First of all, I want to note that Kosolapov invented the story about the phrase “Without a theory, we die.”

Of course, if there was no theory of building communism, this could be called an objective reason ... marking time. As, for example, happens in Cuba, Vietnam, China, Laos. To keep power in the hands of the working class, no special theory is needed; what is needed is mainly the sympathy and support of the masses of the people.

In the same quote, we are talking about the economic reasons for the collapse of the USSR - they were absent.

It is impossible to agree with you that there was no theory of building communism. It was expounded in the later works of Lenin and the works of Stalin, including the materials of the discussions and the 19th Congress. You can find a generalization of this theory and its further development in the works of V.A. Podguzov, who, on the basis of the Leninist-Stalinist heritage, formulated the absolute law of communism in a more specific way.

ANSWER
Ilya Belin
02/09/2019 AT 18:22
Hello Comrade Redin. Thanks for taking the time and replying to my comment.
A few words about your statements.

1. “First of all, I want to note that Kosolapov invented the story about the phrase “Without a theory, we die.”

You probably have some evidence that this statement is an invention of Richard Ivanovich. I have no such evidence, therefore, regarding this phrase, I proceed from the following logic.
The question is, what benefit did R.I. Kosolapov from the fact that he voiced this situation. In my opinion, none. The question arises why Comrade Kosolapov did not voice this phrase, being the editor of the Communist magazine? The answer to this question is on the surface. To become with R.I. Kosolapov, if he had voiced this position to I.V. Stalin when the CPSU was in power. I hope you understand what kind of dogs party officials would unleash on Comrade Kosolapov, who suddenly declares that the CPSU has no theory of building socialism, which means that in building socialism we are going no one knows where. After all, this is in the logic of the party nomenclature from the CPSU, pure anti-communism. The only thing that can be accused of Richard Ivanovich is cowardice, but not a lie. Although cowardice also does not pull. These were the rules of the game of a decaying society
In turn, if you provide me with evidence that this statement of Richard Ivanovich is a lie, then I am ready to listen to them and possibly accept your point of view.

2. "In the same quote, we are talking about the economic reasons for the collapse of the USSR - they were absent."

It is not entirely clear why you decided that D.I. Chesnokov, to whom R.I. Kosolapov, solved economic issues. He was an ideologue. Accordingly, if I.V. Stalin talked with D.I. Chesnokov, then nothing about economic issues. Speaking about the theory, I.V. Stalin in a conversation with D.I. Chesnokov had in mind only questions of ideology.
Perhaps on this issue, you also have some information that is not available to me. Therefore, I will be very grateful if you share this information with me.

3. “It is impossible to agree with you that there was no theory of building communism. It was expounded in the later works of Lenin and the works of Stalin, including the materials of the discussions and the 19th Congress.

I am familiar with the works of Lenin, Stalin, as well as with the materials of the 19th Congress.
But at the same time, I can assure you that with the work of K. Marx “Forms preceding capitalist production”, the letter “Answer of K. Marx to V. Zasulich” and the outlines for this letter, V.I. Lenin was not familiar. But it was "Forms ...", and not "Capital" that K. Marx considered the main work of his life. What he wrote to F. Engels in one of his letters.
Why was I.V. not familiar with this work? Stalin, I don't know. It was first published in 1941. Perhaps the war, and then the routine of restoring the country, prevented him from doing this.
If you thoughtfully compare this phrase of K. Marx: “At a certain stage of its development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or—which is only a legal expression of the latter—with the property relations within which they have so far developed,” with the above two works of K. Marx, you will understand that without knowing these works of K. Marx or V.I. Lenin, nor I.V. Stalin was not able to formulate the theory of building socialism. Well, E.V. Ilyenkov to do something worthwhile in this area ended in failure for him.
Hence the mistakes of I.V. Stalin. And one of the main mistakes was laid down in the Constitution of 1936. This Constitution recognized state and collective forms of ownership as socialist forms of ownership. And this is not so. Hence the theory of I.V. Stalin about the growth of the class struggle as socialism was built. After all, the state and collective forms of ownership do not generate socialist production relations, but rather generate bourgeois production relations. The country did not take the path of building socialism, but the path of restoring bourgeois relations. I.V. Stalin understood this, but could do nothing. Hence his words, "Without theory, we are death, death, death."

4. “Generalization of this theory and its further development can be found in the works of V.A. Podguzov, who, on the basis of the Leninist-Stalinist heritage, formulated the absolute law of communism in a more specific way.

Thank you. I will definitely check out his work.

ANSWER
Redin
02/09/2019 AT 18:45
1. Your reasoning is understandable, but we adhere to the principle of not believing rumors and information received from sources that there is no reason to trust.

2. My clarifying remark was written about your thought about the lack of theory and does not relate to the story with the phrase.

3. Your position is clear. We adhere to a different point of view, we try to compare not individual phrases or even the works of the classics, but objective history and theory as a whole.

ANSWER
Ilya Belin
02/09/2019 AT 19:08
"3. Your position is clear. We adhere to a different point of view, we try to compare not individual phrases or even the works of the classics, but objective history and theory as a whole.

"The devil is in the details, and God is in the details."
And what does objective history tell us? And she says that capitalism is in the yard. Is this objective reality not enough for you to admit that Soviet socialism followed an erroneous path of development. Not admitting mistakes makes it impossible to move forward. No wonder they say, "learn from mistakes." And how to learn from them if they are not recognized?

ANSWER
Redin
02/09/2019 AT 19:42
The mistakes that led to the death of the USSR are revealed in this work. You are free to consider anything as a mistake. Liberals, on the basis of the collapse of the USSR, for example, argue that history has refuted Marxism. If our position does not convince you personally, what can be done here? Practice will judge us.

ANSWER
Pavel Koltunov
03/21/2020 AT 00:02
=…recognize that Soviet socialism followed an erroneous path of development. =
This article by Comrade Redin is the answer—what and where to “recognize” as a mistake. Another question is why Khrushchev was tolerated for so long, especially after the "exposure of the cult of Stalin." And why did the “exposure” itself arise? I understand that. Because, as I found all this at a young age and under the explanation of the elders.
The question is what to do now in the present existence.

ANSWER
Sergey
20/12/2021 AT 16:23
Good afternoon.
It is possible that I will not receive an answer, because, I see, the article has been published for a long time and there have been no new comments for a long time.
But I hope I get it.
I myself know little about the theory of Marxism, although I would very much like to.
I thought about the reasons for the return of capitalism on my own, using facts that at least approximately claimed certainty, well, and common sense.
I am proud that the thoughts, in general, coincided! That is, without having the apparatus for analyzing your level, I reasoned in much the same way.
But my conclusion turned out to be a little different. If possible, please explain where I'm wrong. I really want to be wrong!
My conclusion practically coincides with one of the questions asked in the comments to your article.
It turns out that during the entire period of building communism under I.V. Stalin, there was only one Marxist in the country. It turns out that among his closest associates there were either opportunists or simply dishonorable people. After all, you yourself say that after his death, his closest associates practically gnawed at each other, which Khrushchev took advantage of. This makes I.V. Stalin an even greater man, but ...
It turns out that human nature is such that communism cannot be built?

ANSWER
Redin
21/12/2021 AT 12:00
Human nature is such that without the closest collectivization based on a scientific approach to social relations and scientific resolution of ALL the problems facing him, there is no future. You can beat your head against the wall for a long time and hard, but sooner or later the thought of finding the door will arise.

ANSWER
KuHoMaH
20/04/2022 AT 17:18
The link to the audio version of the brochure is not working.
Fix please.

https://prorivists.org/reason_of_counte ... ion/#part3

Google Translator