M.V. Popov and the Workers' Party of Russia: Marxism or Revisionism?
05/03/2021
Part 1
Introduction
Over the past few years, especially over the past year, there has been an increase in interest in Marxist theory. Marxist circles are re-emerging. More and more content appears on YouTube devoted to the analysis of issues of Marxist theory (dialectics, political economy, theory of socialism). One of the most famous modern popularizers of Marxism and a pioneer of Marxist propaganda on the Internet was Doctor of Philosophy, Professor M.V. Popov , who is at the same time the leader of the Workers Academy Foundation (hereinafter FRA ) and the Workers' Party of Russia (hereinafter RPR). These organizations consist of a number of teachers and scientific workers and, therefore, organizations can be considered not only as political associations, but also as a certain scientific school with the goal of carrying out separate theoretical and, accordingly, political ideas about Marxism to the masses of the population. The situation has developed that one can even talk about a certain "fan club" of Popov.
Mikhail Vasilievich Popov
This is not just about another political "sect" or the personality of Professor Popov. We are not going to get personal. We want to clarify the position of the "priest", outlined in theory and practice, which has become widespread among some supporters of Marxism.
Professor M.V. Popov is a controversial figure. We appreciate the fact that at one time he and a number of other scientists spoke out against the counter-revolution of 1991 . They turned out to be the few social scientists who defended Marxist theory and practice. We are also generally positive about the educational activities of Professor Popov in terms of popularizing the basic concepts of Marxism. One can reproach the professor for simplifications, schematism, and sometimes even idealism. But in comparison with the current professorship of liberal views, the teachers of the Workers' Academy Fund look the most advantageous, if only because they are not afraid to talk about Marxism and popularize its ideas among students.
M.V. Popov at a meeting with students of the Nevinnomyssk Institute of Economics, Management and Law / Photo from the NIEUP website
But Marxism is not just a theory. This is the unity of theory and practice. You cannot simultaneously be a Marxist behind a university department and a revisionist, a guardian outside of it. It is not enough to arouse interest in theory; it is also necessary to indicate the path of struggle in modern conditions. Therefore, giving a positive assessment of Popov's educational activities, we must carefully, thoughtfully analyze where M.V. Popov and his supporters.
Earlier, we have already discussed with Popov and his supporters on certain issues: on the "Essence of Time" movement, on the expediency of requiring the indexation of wages, etc. The most heated debate was about the assessment of the "swamp" protests. These discussions are not the result of discrepancies on individual issues. They contain fundamental contradictions with our views - contradictions in the understanding of modern society, its social base, in the class component. Attempts to analyze the ideas of Mikhail Vasilyevich were made by other leftist publicists, but they were, in our opinion, either extremely unconvincing and not on the merits of the issues , or concerned exclusively theoretical aspects of Popov's activities without proper coordination with the current policy of the RPR.
In this article, we will consider the theory and practice of the permanent leader and ideologist of the RPR, Professor M.V. Popov.
Planned content of the article:
Chapter 1. Theory.
On the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR and the reasons for the counter-revolution.
About the absence of imperialism in Russia.
About banks
About financial capital
Capital export
About modern imperialism in the world
About American "fascism for export" and the absence of the danger of fascism in Russia itself.
On the understanding of the proletariat.
About the party of the working class.
Chapter 2. Practice.
RPR history and its interaction with ROT FRONT.
Economism and underestimation of the political struggle, ignorance of work with the petty-bourgeois strata of the working people.
Struggle for shorter working hours and objections to indexing.
RPR and the modern political regime in Russia.
Part 1. On the dictatorship of the proletariat in Soviet society
Introduction
It is impossible to go forward without understanding what processes took place in the past. Comprehension of Soviet society and the restoration of capitalism is a good test for the theoretical knowledge of contemporary Russian Marxists. Questions of the theory of socialism are a significant theoretical contribution of MV Popov and his supporters to the development of Marxism. It is in this question that we will see that metaphysical approach, covered by dialectical phraseology, which will be repeated in the future. Moreover, recently it was these questions that caused a split among the supporters of the RPR, which led to the expulsion from the party of its co-founder, associate of Popov - Gerasimov Ivan Mikhailovich .
Ivan Mikhailovich Gerasimov
In his 1986 monograph "Planned resolution of the contradictions in the development of socialism as the first phase of communism"MV Popov rightly characterized socialism as incomplete communism, revealed its dialectical nature and internal contradictions, the incompatibility of socialism with commodity production and class differences. This monograph can still be recommended for study, since it proves the main idea for understanding socialism: socialism is not a static phenomenon, but a struggle between “birthmarks of capitalism” and the transition of socialism to full communism. This is expressed in the contradictions noted by the professor. One can argue about the wording, but the very essence of the contradictions is stated quite accurately. During the restoration of capitalism, Professor M.V. Popov, unlike many of his colleagues, took a progressive position and spokeone of the opponents of "perestroika" and the subsequent counter-revolution. After the events of 1991 Popov seemed to be standing on previous positions critique of market socialism theory, revealed contradictions in socialist society and so forth. In an article written jointly with M.V.Popovym I.M.Gerasimovym in the post-Soviet era, rightly points out that "communism, we can say it becomes twice. First it leaves capitalism, which results in its first phase - socialism. Then communism develops from itself, that is, on its own basis, and as a result of this development, freeing itself from the traces of capitalism, it passes into its highest phase - complete communism ” [1].
Later, in assessing the counterrevolution in the USSR, M.V. Popov slipped towards outright idealism.
One methodologically important component is the consideration of socialism not as an independent socio-economic formation, but as the lowest stage of the communist formation. Socialism, no matter how different it may be from complete communism, still carries all the features of a communist society, but in an undeveloped form. Social ownership of the means of production, a planned economic system, the interests of the working man, overcoming commodity production and the abolition of classes - these are the main positions in which socialism directly acts as the beginning of the communist formation. And, on the contrary, since socialism is only the lowest phase of communism, if socialism is not consciously developed into full communism, it will inevitably slide into capitalism.
K. Marx on the contradictory nature of socialism arising from its transitional nature as the lowest phase of communism
Speaking about socialism as the lowest phase of communism, let us turn to the most famous and widespread work of Marx devoted to this issue - " Critique of the Gotha Program ." In it, Marx gives a general description of the lower and higher phases of the communist formation. Thus, characterizing the lower phase of the communist formation, Marx writes:
“We are not dealing here with a communist society that has developed on its own basis, but, on the contrary, with such a society that has just emerged from just a capitalist society and which, therefore, in all respects, in economic, moral and intellectual terms, still retains birthmarks of the old society, from the depths of which it emerged. Accordingly, each individual producer receives back from society, after all deductions, exactly as much as he himself gives him. What he gave to society is his individual labor share. For example, a public working day is the sum of individual working hours; the individual working time of each individual producer is the part of the social working day delivered to him, his share in it. He receives a receipt from society that that such and such a quantity of labor has been delivered to them (minus his labor for the benefit of public funds), and according to this receipt he receives from the public stocks such a quantity of articles of consumption on which the same amount of labor has been expended. The same amount of labor that he gave to society in one form, he receives back in another form "[2].
We deliberately cited such a long quote to show that, according to Marx, the first phase of communism does not mean "complete democracy" and the removal of all possible contradictions. Of course, in socialism, as an already emerging communism, one can distinguish enduring features such as public ownership of the means of production, planned economy, distribution according to the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work." But besides the enduring, socialism is also distinguished by the fact that it is the first, undeveloped, and, consequently, unfinished phase of the communist formation. Precisely due to the fact that communism in its first, lowest phase has just emerged from the depths of capitalism, that it cannot yet ensure complete social equality and carry out distribution "according to needs", society under socialism (the lowest phase of communism) functions according to the principle "according to work." To implement the principle "according to work" there is still a need to determine the measure of labor and the measure of consumption. This, in turn, leads to the preservation of formal equality, formal legal relations and equal in form, "bourgeois" in the principle of regulation. At the stage of socialism, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is still preserved, which determines the measure of labor and the measure of consumption, and also ensures accounting and control of production, and fights against petty-bourgeois relapses in public consciousness. "Bourgeois" on the principle of regulation. At the stage of socialism, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is still preserved, which determines the measure of labor and the measure of consumption, and also ensures accounting and control of production, and fights against petty-bourgeois relapses in public consciousness. "Bourgeois" on the principle of regulation. At the stage of socialism, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is still preserved, which determines the measure of labor and the measure of consumption, and also ensures accounting and control of production, and fights against petty-bourgeois relapses in public consciousness.
Painting "Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels". Artist G. Gordon. Canvas, oil. 1975 year
For the classics, socialism and communism were not just a frozen state, but a process of struggle, the process of transforming the old into the new, the process of the elimination of classes and the emergence of a classless and commodityless social formation. Here you can recall a statement from an earlier work by Marx and Engels - "German Ideology" , where they wrote:
“Communism for us is not a state to be established, not an ideal with which reality must conform. We call communism a real movement that destroys the current state ” [3].
In other words, in the presence of certain signs: public property, a planned economy, the power of the proletariat, in terms of their implementation there is no sterile pure socialism, but there is a struggle of tendencies in it. Hence, socialism can be accompanied at the initial stage by such rudiments of the transition period as the preservation of commodity production within the framework of two forms of socialist ownership of the means of production, the presence of a "shadow economy", etc.
The same should be attributed to the superstructure of socialism - the political system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Within the framework of this dictatorship, there is a constant struggle: a return to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the development of the dictatorship of the proletariat until the state withers away completely. The determining factor that separates the dictatorship of this or that class is who appropriates the surplus product, in whose hands the ownership of the means of production. As long as the political system of the dictatorship of the proletariat (we emphasize: not individual actions of the leadership, but precisely the system of political institutions of proletarian power, formed in the course of a long class struggle) contributes to the development and protection of public ownership of the means of production, this property contributes to the advancement towards socialism and communism. As long as power ensures the real domination of the working class in society, we have the dictatorship of the proletariat with its characteristic set of contradictions. Within the framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the tendency for its degeneration or the tendency for the withering away of the state and the formation of a society without classes may dominate. The leadership of the state can commit actions that are contrary to the interests of the proletariat, can contribute to the development of socialism into full communism. There are many options. The main thing is that as long as the means of production are in the hands of the working people and the political system ensures this, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As soon as the means of production are transferred to the bourgeoisie, we get the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in its most diverse forms. Within the framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the tendency for its degeneration or the tendency for the withering away of the state and the formation of a society without classes may dominate. The leadership of the state can commit actions that are contrary to the interests of the proletariat, can contribute to the development of socialism into full communism. There are many options. The main thing is that as long as the means of production are in the hands of the working people and the political system ensures this, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As soon as the means of production are transferred to the bourgeoisie, we get the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in its most diverse forms. Within the framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the tendency for its degeneration or the tendency for the withering away of the state and the formation of a society without classes may dominate. The leadership of the state can commit actions that are contrary to the interests of the proletariat, can contribute to the development of socialism into full communism. There are many options. The main thing is that as long as the means of production are in the hands of the working people and the political system ensures this, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As soon as the means of production are transferred to the bourgeoisie, we get the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in its most diverse forms. that as long as the means of production are in the hands of the working people and the political system ensures this, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As soon as the means of production are transferred to the bourgeoisie, we get the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in its most diverse forms. that as long as the means of production are in the hands of the working people and the political system ensures this, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As soon as the means of production are transferred to the bourgeoisie, we get the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in its most diverse forms.
From this point of view, the dictatorship of the proletariat existed from 1917 until "perestroika" (with the dominance of various tendencies, contradictions, etc.). After "perestroika", it is fair to speak of the counter-revolution of 1991 , which finally restored capitalism, and in 1993 the remnants of the Soviet power that existed by inertia were destroyed (in fact, the then Supreme Soviet was no longer Soviet power).
M.V. Popov on the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR and the counter-revolution
What does M.V. Popov say? Some time ago, on the RPR website, an article appeared, now excluded from the RPR, functionary I.M. Gerasimov (at that time a member of the RPR Ideological Commission), in which he described the main stages of the degeneration of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In our opinion, on the whole, Gerasimov's conclusions were fair. In the article, the author writes:
“In the USSR from 1917 to 1989 there was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The abandonment in 1936 of the organizational form of the dictatorship of the proletariat made the political domination of the working class unstable, but could not by itself lead to the restoration of capitalism. At the same time, due to, among other things, objective reasons, the course was curtailed to reduce working hours, to involve workers in management .... After the death of J.V. Stalin, there were practically no Marxists left in the leadership of the party and state. This made it easier for Khrushchev to undermine the economy and ideology. But the restoration of capitalism and even obvious attempts at such a restoration, following the example of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, did not lead. Nevertheless, even after Khrushchev, the course was purposefully pursued to eliminate the working class as a subject of political life, to strengthen the moment of marketability in a planned economy,
In this interpretation, everything seems to be clear. One can argue about the formulations, about individual proofs of the author's thesis, but the idea itself is correct: there was a dictatorship of the proletariat, there were different tendencies in its development (in particular, the political reform of the Soviets of 1936 is critically assessed), but they could finally end it only after the restoration of capitalism, when ownership of the means of production passed to the bourgeoisie, and the working class was finally deprived of power.
In response to the article, in his note, M.V. Popov expressed a number of thoughts that, in our opinion, betray in him an idealist and schematic in matters of understanding history. Let us read carefully and trace the train of thought of the professor, which very well illustrate all the metaphysical and idealistic nature of his views.
With regard to the "perestroika reforms" Popov writes:
“But right is the will of the ruling class, elevated into law. This means that by this time the bourgeois class was already in power, that is, there was already a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. When could she appear? Obviously, when the top of the ruling party degenerated and began to oppose what the party had previously sworn to. Immediately after Stalin's death, his closest associate Beria was killed, and at the twentieth congress of the CPSU no one rebuffed Khrushchev's slanderous report directed against the deserved leader of the party and the working class, J.V. Stalin. It became possible to prepare a political counter-revolution, which took place at the XXII Congress and consisted in a radical change in the CPSU program and rejection of both the goal of socialist production and the main thing in Marxism - the dictatorship of the proletariat. The composition of the congress was chosen so that no one has defended the main Marxist positions and since 1961 the CPSU cannot be considered a communist party, and being ruling, it can no longer exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat, but can only implement the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The establishment of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie led to the fact that the bourgeois state began to carry out the transition from socialism to capitalism, which ended in 1991 ”.
And just below, he continues:
“As soon as the ruling party degenerated and became a bourgeois party, the single state monopoly ceased to be a form of public property and became a form of state private property, that is, the private property of the nascent bourgeois class. If in order to preserve the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is necessary for government officials to pay the wages of the worker, then the officials, who began to receive incomes much more than the workers, began to receive surplus value in excess of the worker's wages and become a collective capitalist. "
Speech by N.S. Khrushchev at the XX Congress of the CPSU
So, first, the professor sets out purely scholastic arguments based on logical constructions that are far from reality (just like with the thesis about the absence of banks in Russia):
“Law is the will of the ruling class, elevated into law. It means that by this time the bourgeois class was already in power, that is, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie already existed . "
As you can see, the argument is postulated rather than empirically substantiated. We see no facts, no analysis of social structure, no historical examples. It's just that we are offered a certain formal-logical structure, from which the conclusion required by M.V. Popov should follow. Speaking at the heart of the question: the fact that law is the will of the ruling class, elevated into law, does not cause controversy. But this does not mean that the reforms (legal norms conducive to the approach of the bourgeois counter-revolution) were accepted directly by the bourgeoisie. One does not follow from the other with iron necessity. Law raises the will of a class into law, but another class or another stratum interested in becoming a class, which was a significant part of the nomenklatura, interested in the dismantling of socialism, can also carry out direct erection. preventing her from taking ownership of the means of production. Very often, for example, the feudal class, under the pressure of the class struggle, erected the will of the bourgeoisie into law, while the bourgeoisie, under the pressure of the class struggle of the proletariat, as exemplified by the USSR, was forced to some extent to raise the will of the proletariat into law. After the Great October Revolution, the bourgeoisie of the Western capitalist countries was forced to make serious concessions to the working class, which, incidentally, was the result of the class struggle of the proletariat of the Western countries and the socialist example of the USSR. Speaking about the USSR, you need to understand that in the economic and political systems there was a struggle of tendencies, the carriers of which were, among other things, certain strata of the nomenklatura. And it was socialism that did not suit them by preventing them from obtaining ownership of the means of production. The feudal class, under the pressure of the class struggle, erected the will of the bourgeoisie into law, while the bourgeoisie, under the pressure of the class struggle of the proletariat, as exemplified by the USSR, was forced to some extent to raise the will of the proletariat into law. After the Great October Revolution, the bourgeoisie of the Western capitalist countries was forced to make serious concessions to the working class, which, incidentally, was the result of the class struggle of the proletariat of the Western countries and the socialist example of the USSR. Speaking about the USSR, you need to understand that in the economic and political systems there was a struggle of tendencies, the carriers of which were, among other things, certain strata of the nomenklatura. And it was socialism that did not suit them by preventing them from obtaining ownership of the means of production. The feudal class, under the pressure of the class struggle, erected the will of the bourgeoisie into law, while the bourgeoisie, under the pressure of the class struggle of the proletariat, as exemplified by the USSR, was forced to some extent to raise the will of the proletariat into law. After the Great October Revolution, the bourgeoisie of the Western capitalist countries was forced to make serious concessions to the working class, which, incidentally, was the result of the class struggle of the proletariat of the Western countries and the socialist example of the USSR. Speaking about the USSR, you need to understand that in the economic and political systems there was a struggle of tendencies, the carriers of which were, among other things, certain strata of the nomenklatura. And it was socialism that did not suit them by preventing them from obtaining ownership of the means of production. on the example of the USSR, it was forced to some extent to raise the will of the proletariat into law. After the Great October Revolution, the bourgeoisie of the Western capitalist countries was forced to make serious concessions to the working class, which, incidentally, was the result of the class struggle of the proletariat of the Western countries and the socialist example of the USSR. Speaking about the USSR, you need to understand that in the economic and political systems there was a struggle of tendencies, the carriers of which were, among other things, certain strata of the nomenklatura. And it was socialism that did not suit them by preventing them from obtaining ownership of the means of production. on the example of the USSR, it was forced to some extent to raise the will of the proletariat into law. After the Great October Revolution, the bourgeoisie of the Western capitalist countries was forced to make serious concessions to the working class, which, incidentally, was the result of the class struggle of the proletariat of the Western countries and the socialist example of the USSR. Speaking about the USSR, you need to understand that in the economic and political systems there was a struggle of tendencies, the carriers of which were, among other things, certain strata of the nomenklatura. And it was socialism that did not suit them by preventing them from obtaining ownership of the means of production. was the result of the class struggle of the proletariat of Western countries and the socialist example of the USSR. Speaking about the USSR, you need to understand that in the economic and political systems there was a struggle of tendencies, the carriers of which were, among other things, certain strata of the nomenklatura. And it was socialism that did not suit them by preventing them from obtaining ownership of the means of production. was the result of the class struggle of the proletariat of Western countries and the socialist example of the USSR. Speaking about the USSR, you need to understand that in the economic and political systems there was a struggle of tendencies, the carriers of which were, among other things, certain strata of the nomenklatura. And it was socialism that did not suit them by preventing them from obtaining ownership of the means of production.
Thus, on the contrary, "perestroika" began not because the bourgeoisie was in power, but precisely because there was no bourgeoisie, but there were social strata interested in becoming the bourgeoisie. These social strata arose as a result of the duality of Soviet society, the dual nature of socialism, containing the contradiction between the development of full communism and the strengthening of the elements pulling into capitalism. Professor Popov, instead of a dialectical and historical consideration of socialism and its political superstructure - the dictatorship of the proletariat, followed the path of scholastic logical twists and turns: since law is the will of the ruling class that has been elevated into law and the interests of the bourgeoisie were elevated into law, then the bourgeois class was dominant.
Further, Popov asks about the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie: "When could it have appeared?"
"Obviously, when the top of the ruling party degenerated and began to oppose what the party had sworn to before." That is, according to Popov, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie did not appear as a result of a new class coming to power, which was the result of changes in the economic basis and social structure of society, but as a result of the "degeneration of the party." That is, it is enough for a party to simply “be reborn” - and we immediately have a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
When did the counter-revolution take place, according to the "dialectician" Popov?
"It became possible to prepare a political counter-revolution, which took place at the XXII Congress and consisted in a radical change in the program of the CPSU and the rejection of both the goal of socialist production and the main thing in Marxism - the dictatorship of the proletariat . " That is, from Popov's point of view, again, it is enough just to change the party program, to remove from the program the words about the dictatorship of the proletariat - and automatically the dictatorship of the proletariat is replaced by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? According to this logic, if the provisions on the "rule of law" are removed from the modern Constitution and replaced by the "dictatorship of the proletariat", will the dictatorship of the proletariat be automatically established?
In general, admiration for records in documents is a feature of the "priest's" methodology. So, examining the experience of China, Popov repeatedly saw socialist elements in it and actively argued this by referring to the program and charter of the CPC, arguing that China is undergoing a transition from capitalism to socialism as the lowest phase of communism. But after all, from the fact that we write something down or remove it from the program, reality itself will not change. The elimination of the dictatorship of the proletariat from the program, and later from the Constitution, and its replacement with an amorphous "socialist state of the whole people" is an indisputable revisionism, testifying to the ideological degeneration of the party. But to conclude from this that the verbal proclamation "abolished" the dictatorship of the proletariat as such is to fall into the most frank historical idealism.
First, such revisionism itself as the proclamation of a "state of the whole people" and the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat was a consequence of the ongoing struggle within the very dictatorship of the proletariat, ultimately, the struggle between communist and capitalist tendencies. It would be nice to analyze the growth of the shadow sector in the economy, the growth of capitalist elements within the political and economic systems of the USSR. But M.V. Popov, there is nothing of the kind. For him it all comes down to scholastic juggling with quotes and verbal balancing act.
Secondly, M.V. Popov does not seem to see that the revisionist XXII Congress of the CPSU could not abolish the entire economic and political system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which consisted not in a simple name, but in the Soviet system of power and in the domination of public ownership of the means of production. from which stemmed the basic rights of workers, which were still enshrined in Soviet legislation and in practice, for the most part, were realized. It is possible and necessary to talk about the tendency of degeneration and restoration, but it is clearly premature and erroneous to talk about the counter-revolution itself at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU. It turns out that all the gains of the revolution can be crossed out by writing a revisionist party program? It turns out that in order to carry out a counterrevolutionary coup, the mere fact of the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat being recorded in the program is sufficient? Is this reasoning not crude idealism? It should be noted that such idealism in methodology in 2018 led Popov tosupport of the frank pro-Kremlin spoiler Maxim Suraikin : after all, his program wrote about the "dictatorship of the proletariat"!
Maxim Suraykin
Moving from scholastic arguments to more substantive ones, M.V. Popov actually takes the position of the Maoists and other supporters of the idea that there was state capitalism in the USSR. Starting from the quotation of V. I. Lenin that “socialism is nothing more than a state-capitalist monopoly, turned to the benefit of the entire people and so far ceased to be a capitalist monopoly,” Popov asserts: “As soon as the ruling party was reborn and became a party bourgeois, a single state monopoly has ceased to be a form of public property and has become a form of state private property, that is, the private property of the emerging bourgeois class "... And again, neither figures, nor facts, nor even a cursory explanation of the reasons for the degeneration of the party from the nature of social relations themselves, and not just entries in programs and constitutions. There is a postulation of a certain formal logical scheme (formally, because dialectical logic proceeds from the study of reality in all the variety of its contradictions, and formal logic appeals with concepts and their correlations, which is what Popov does), and then the "necessary" conclusion is made. Again we see idealism. Instead of a dialectical-materialistic study of the real contradictions of Soviet society (which was done by the same Popov in his 1986 monograph), the process of the formation of communism in the USSR is schematized: before the “degeneration of the party” and “abolition” of the dictatorship of the proletariat and “after”. It turns out that public property in our country is not abolished by its seizure into private hands, but a simple "degeneration of the party." By this logic, we can say that ifHugo Chavez or Salvador Allende proclaimed the desire to build socialism, practically without encroaching on the foundations of the political system of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then the dictatorship of the proletariat is automatically established? In addition, the question remains completely uncovered: why did the party degenerate? After all, there was socialism. According to Popov's logic, one can agree to the point that socialism has not existed since the 1930s, but there was a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Further, Popov tries to bring the economic basis to his words.
"If, in order to preserve the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is necessary for government officials to pay the workers' wages, then the officials, who began to receive incomes much more than the workers, began to receive surplus value in excess of the worker's wages and become a collective capitalist."...
But, firstly, wages, significantly higher than the wages of a worker, were also received under V.I. Lenin, when the Soviet government was forced to attract bourgeois specialists desperately needed by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and under J.V. Stalin ( Molotov spoke about this problem in his conversations with the writer Chuev ). But Popov for some reason hesitates to say that under Stalin there was a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Another question is that it did not exist, since the bureaucracy performed its functions in the interests of the working class and contributed to the advancement of society towards socialism and communism. But the problem of inequality in wages was already there. So, according to Popov's logic, there was no dictatorship of the proletariat already under Stalin?
Secondly, the difference in income and different places in the system of social division of labor (manager - executor) do not mean capitalist appropriation of surplus value. Social stratification existed not only under capitalism. In Soviet society, there was also a separate social stratum of managers, but this was not yet the bourgeois class, since the ownership of the means of production continued to remain with the working people. The social character of ownership of the means of production in the USSR was expressed, in particular, in the functioning of social consumption funds, which returned the results of labor to the working people of the USSR in the form of free social guarantees and rights. That is, although socialist property relations have undergone negative changes (shadow economy, growth of social stratification, conservation of the social division of labor), but in general they continued to survive and function. And the essence of "perestroika" was precisely the abolition of socialist production relations, the remnants of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie already existed, then "perestroika" would simply not be needed. And this abolition took place exactly when the social strata arose, strengthened and felt a certain strength, interested in this (the top of the nomenklatura and the “shadow”), striving to turn from social strata into a full-fledged ruling class of the bourgeoisie. This means that socio-economic changes in the basis and class structure of Soviet society led to a gradual degeneration of the party and counter-revolution, culminating in the restoration of capitalism in our country, and not vice versa, as in Popov. And the essence of "perestroika" was precisely the abolition of socialist production relations, the remnants of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie already existed, then "perestroika" would simply not be needed. And this abolition took place exactly when the social strata arose, strengthened and felt a certain strength, interested in this (the top of the nomenklatura and the “shadow”), striving to turn from social strata into a full-fledged ruling class of the bourgeoisie. This means that socio-economic changes in the basis and class structure of Soviet society led to a gradual degeneration of the party and counter-revolution, culminating in the restoration of capitalism in our country, and not vice versa, as in Popov. And the essence of "perestroika" was precisely the abolition of socialist production relations, the remnants of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie already existed, then "perestroika" would simply not be needed. And this abolition took place exactly when the social strata arose, strengthened and felt a certain strength, interested in this (the top of the nomenklatura and the “shadow”), striving to turn from social strata into a full-fledged ruling class of the bourgeoisie. This means that socio-economic changes in the basis and class structure of Soviet society led to a gradual degeneration of the party and counter-revolution, culminating in the restoration of capitalism in our country, and not vice versa, as in Popov. then "perestroika" would simply not be needed. And this abolition took place exactly when the social strata arose, strengthened and felt a certain strength, interested in this (the top of the nomenklatura and the “shadow”), striving to turn from social strata into a full-fledged ruling class of the bourgeoisie. This means that socio-economic changes in the basis and class structure of Soviet society led to a gradual degeneration of the party and counter-revolution, culminating in the restoration of capitalism in our country, and not vice versa, as in Popov. then "perestroika" would simply not be needed. And this abolition took place exactly when the social strata arose, strengthened and felt a certain strength, interested in this (the top of the nomenklatura and the “shadow”), striving to turn from social strata into a full-fledged ruling class of the bourgeoisie. This means that socio-economic changes in the basis and class structure of Soviet society led to a gradual degeneration of the party and counter-revolution, culminating in the restoration of capitalism in our country, and not vice versa, as in Popov.
And who benefits from exposing Soviet society as a state capitalist? That's right, the class opponents of the proletariat. After all, the bourgeoisie is ready to do anything to devalue and nullify the real practical experience of building communism in our country. Popov, having generally correct theoretical starting positions, defended by him in the Soviet years, in the issue of analyzing counterrevolution, slipped to an idealistic point of view. It turns out that the whole point is in the degeneration of the party, in the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat on paper , and that was enough for the bourgeoisie to win.
Conclusion
We have analyzed above the views of M.V. Popov on the essence of the Soviet state in the 1960s - 1980s. and the reasons for the 1991 counter-revolution in the USSR. It turned out that they are completely devoid of the dialectical-materialistic approach. The eminent professor actually translates an idealistic point of view: a change in the system of relations prevailing in society occurs with a simple stroke of the pen and an appropriate note (be it the Program of the CPSU or the constitution of the state). This approach has nothing to do with the materialist understanding of history and is an expression of historical idealism disguised as Marxism.
On the example of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR, one can trace how M.V. Popov and his supporters, despite all the dialectical visibility of their terminology, in the most obvious metaphysical way substantiate their dubious theoretical propositions. First, a thesis or definition is given, which bears an a priori character, then a formal-logical conclusion is derived from this thesis and the conclusion "necessary" for the author is drawn. Figures, facts, an integrated approach are completely absent. This must be remembered, since it is with the help of such methods that the representatives of this school will substantiate the most dense revisionism and protection in matters of economics and politics. This is how they will deny the presence of banks in Russia., and through the denial of banks, they will deny the danger of fascism in Russia; just starting from formal and logical definitions in the absence of a real study of real practice, Popov and his associates will lead to the conclusion about the need to support the Russian bourgeoisie against "American fascism for export" , but more on this in the following parts.
To be continued.
Roman Osin ,
candidate of philosophical sciences,
member of the Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the RKWP
Links
[1] - Popov M.V., Gerasimov I.M. Contradictions in the development of socialism and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR // Marxism and Modernity No. 1-2. 2001. S. 25.
[2] - K. Marx Criticism of the Gotha program // K. Marx and F. Engels Works. Ed. 2nd. T. 19. S. 18.
[3] - Marx K. and Engels F. Selected works in 9 volumes. T. 2.P. 33.
List of sources
Discussion with RPR on the issue of "swamp protests"
The professor who is timeless
To the criticism of the bourgeois professor
Planned resolution of the contradictions in the development of socialism as the first phase of communism M.V. Popov // Leningrad, Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1986 //
Video archive. M.V. Popov at the Congress of the Communist Party of the RSFSR in 1990
There is something to support Suraykin (Elections-2018). M.V. Popov, ideological commission of the RPR Central Committee 03/13/2018
Popov M.V. Stages of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR
Gerasimov I.M. USSR 60s - 80s: Transition of the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie?
Popov M.V., Gerasimov, I.M. Contradictions in the development of socialism and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR // Marxism and Modernity No. 1-2. 2001.
K. Marx and F. Engels. Selected Works in 9 Volumes. T. 2.
https://www.rotfront.su/m-v-popov-i-rab ... ssii-mark/
Google Translator
Academics, meh.