At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, mass parties, first of all socialist orientation. Among them are the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Socialist Party in France, the Italian Socialist Party, etc. The social base of these parties was primarily workers; subsequently it began to expand at the expense of other layers - the intelligentsia, office workers, farmers.
A characteristic feature of socialist parties was their ideological orientation: party members were united by a common class worldview, religion or nationalism. The new socialist movements were revolutionary, they considered the socialist alternative to capitalism as quite real. This was due in particular to the fact that the programs of many social democratic parties were based on the ideas of Marxism, which proclaimed the inevitability of the death of capitalist society. At the beginning of the 20th century. these parties became a political force competing with the leading bourgeois parties.
Already from the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. the teachings of K. Marx began to be revised both “from the left” and “from the right.” As a result, at the beginning of the 20th century. In the social democratic movement, two opposing directions emerged, which diverged on key issues for Marxism: class struggle, revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat.
Bolshevism
The “left” direction at this time was associated with V.I. Lenin, who became the head of the Bolshevik wing of Russian Social Democracy. The revision and addition of Marxist teaching made by V.I. Lenin and his associates was so radical that it is customary to talk about the creation of a new ideological and political movement - Bolshevism.Material from the site
Ideas of E. Bernstein
The revision “from the right” provided for the rejection of revolutionary forms of transition to a more perfect social structure of society and the development of a reformist path of transformation. The fundamentals of reformist doctrine were outlined E. Bernstein(1850-1932), leader and ideologist of the Social Democratic Party of Germany.
E. Bernstein rejected the scientific justification of socialism, seeing in it an ethical ideal, and also questioned the doctrine of the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism, the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He put forward a program for reforming capitalism; he believed that due to the constant improvement of the living conditions of workers, the negative features of the capitalist system would be smoothed out. His aphorism is well known, illustrating the goals of reformism: “The ultimate goal is nothing, movement is everything.”
- “We didn’t have socialism”
- “Then return what was!”
From wall folklore in Poland?
What kind of system was there in the USSR? This is not an idle question, especially now, at the hour of triumph of the counter-revolution in the country that is the cradle of the revolution! What kind of system did we have anyway? How can you call something in which Soviet people lived for 70 years, Eastern Europeans for 45 years, and Cubans and North Koreans still live in?
The answers given are very different. Here are perhaps the most basic of them.
1) It was socialism - a monstrous socio-political system, endowed with only shortcomings, incapable of any evolution for the better! “Deviation” from the “normal” (i.e. capitalist) path of development of society.
This is the position of bourgeois ideologists. It should be noted here that, for example, Marx and Engels, while criticizing capitalism, still recognized its positive and progressive features in comparison with feudalism. Because they were great thinkers, and not paid agitators of the bourgeois system.
2) It was socialism - built entirely and completely. The first phase of communism.
This was the official position in the post-Stalin period. Its big drawback was that it did not take into account the real lag in socio-economic level from the main imperialist metropolises of most countries that had embarked on the difficult task of building socialism.
Really existing social shortcomings and simply mistakes of the communist parties (both pro-Soviet orientation and Chinese, Albanian, Yugoslav and other comrades) at the helm of power were also ignored.
Under the sweet assurances that socialism had entered its highest phase and that the restoration of capitalism was impossible, there was a revision of many provisions of Marxism, an increase in negative phenomena in the economy, social life, etc. All these unfortunate miscalculations ultimately resulted in the sad doomsday of counter-revolution in Eastern Europe in 1989, in the USSR in 1991, and the gradual creep into capitalism in China and Vietnam.
3) It was not socialism, but -:
c) "red fascism"
e) “eastern despotism”, etc.
These and other similar “theories” - created mainly by all sorts of sophists and defrauders from Marxism - have, of course, little in common with reality! If these gentlemen have the audacity to call the complete destruction of private property, the bourgeoisie as a class, the destruction of the entire bourgeois state from head to toe “capitalism” or some of its varieties (“state”, “neo-Asian”, “Eastern-despotic” ") - then these sophist gentlemen clearly have problems simply with understanding Marxism and the foundations of dialectics, or even just problems with their heads!
4) Socialism was generally built, but then “spoiled.”
Some Marxist movements, parties and groups also claim this position. At the same time, they associate the “damage” of socialism in the USSR or other countries (for example, in China) with some “bad” person or event. So, for example, the Maoists and Khojaists begin to “damage” socialism in the USSR from the day of the death of J.V. Stalin and the 20th Congress of the CPSU. In turn, many anti-Stalinists (Trotskyists, Eurocommunists, etc.) associate the “damage” of socialism with Stalin and blame him for all the shortcomings. I would like to answer all this by saying that one, even a “very bad” person, still cannot “spoil” socialism so much that because of this, against “spoiled” socialism it is necessary to block with the forces of the darkest reaction, as was the case with the Trotskyists. And fellow Maoists (or Hoxhaists) would like to note that real historical experience has shown that even the “bad” and “spoiled” Brezhnev socialism was still much better than the current “free market” capitalism.
5) Socialism was built, but not completed -
"Socialism was built, but as its first, early, initial stage."
Being in the position of a “besieged fortress,” socialism in the USSR could not help but be the same as it was in the USSR and some other countries under Stalin, Brezhnev, Mao, Honecker, Hoxha, and Fidel Castro. Not understanding this means not understanding the foundations of dialectics and the dialectical understanding of history at all, and simply not giving a damn about all those wonderful people - revolutionaries, communists, etc. - who gave so much strength, blood and even their lives for the embodiment of the best ideal of humanity.
But the first phase in itself was not enough! After the initial, “mobilization”, “Stalinist” socialism, the socialism of people’s democracy, the socialism of popular participation, was sure to come. Unfortunately, in the USSR and many other countries the process of real, socialist democratization of socialism - the transfer of all power into the hands of the Workers' Councils - has slowed down very much. All sorts of “democratic” dissidents and other currency singers of imperialism did not fail to take advantage of this, as did the direct forces of external reaction and imperialism themselves, which in the 70-80s sharply increased their imperialist pressure on the USSR and other countries of real socialism (remember the notorious Polish "Solidarity" and launched a monstrous-scale information and ideological campaign against the USSR and the entire camp of socialism!
It is precisely this position that many modern prominent Marxists lean towards - Sam Marcy, many theorists of the Marxist Platform (V. Isaychikov, Vazyulin, Kurashvili, etc.). Our Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Front of Ukraine stands on the same position.
You and I have to not only restore socialism in all its former greatness and beauty, but also elevate it to an even higher stage - both economically and politically. To the stage of socialism of real people's democracy and popular participation!
Editor's note
A short article by Kharkov student A. Dudko, for all its “educational” content, nevertheless touches on the main points of debate in the communist and anti-communist environment about the nature of Soviet socialism. In this way, she compares favorably with the pack of the majority of doctors of science, who, not out of ignorance, but out of bias, in their analyzes “forget” those points of view that they have nothing with which to refute.
The epigraph of the article shows that since this question has become a “fence”, equating it to “fairytale” questions like “go there, I don’t know where, take that, I don’t know what”; then dealing with this issue means not indulging in idle debate among theorists about essences or substances. It is clear: since the theoretical question has been put on the fence, this is the strongest criticism against communist ideologists (in soft pronunciation - “ideologists”?). Moreover, if several years ago the ideologists had some justification - there was supposedly no theory - now, after publications in our magazine, it is impossible to say so - the class nature of Soviet socialism is outlined quite accurately, as well as the reasons for its defeat. Ideologists - read and understand, there is no need to reinvent the wheel...
If the conscientious student Dudko more or less figured out the question posed (but, as we will show, not quite), then party theorists of the communist movement, as a rule, cannot make even such an analysis.
It should be noted that Dudko attributed to one point 3:
"3) It was not socialism, but -:
a) “state capitalism” (Trotskyists T. Cliff, Callinicos, “left-wing communists” - Bordiga, Pannekoek, Korsch, etc.),
b) "bureaucratic collectivism"
c) "red fascism"
d) "neo-Asian mode of production"
e) “oriental despotism”, etc.”
In fact, it is necessary to divide into at least three independent groups, two of which are directly opposite to each other: “Goskap” (sub-group a) and “traditional society” - subgroups d) and e), to which group 1 must be added; formulations like: “red fascism”, “bureaucratic collectivism” are very far from scientific and are rather purely propaganda fictions, while the Goskapists and “traditionalists”
They try to emphasize the scientific nature of their positions.
It should be added that formulations such as “neo-Asian mode of production” or “oriental despotism” fall under the liberal interpretation of the development of society, popular in the West, in which the stage of “traditional society” (feudalism in our understanding) is followed by a “modern” society " (capitalist; then the story stops). In this interpretation, the August counter-revolution is an analogue of the Great French Revolution, which destroyed the “traditional” society, and the role of Robespierre and Danton in it was played (please do not fall from your chairs) by Yeltsin and Gaidar. That is, based on this interpretation, the USSR and socialist countries have not yet lived up to capitalism, and only the counter-revolutions of the late 80s and early 90s introduced these societies into the category of “modern” (capitalist).
“Goskapovtsy”, unlike liberals, believe that in the USSR and socialist countries there was capitalism at the state level, the most socially developed, when all the productive forces in the country were socialized, but put under the control of a new class: “bureaucracy”, “class-apparatus” , and so on. stories of single-use “condom classes” invented specifically for this case. The fact that some Goskapists are ready to unite with the liberals not only in anathemas of Soviet socialism, but also in their assessments of socialism as a Goskap with social-feudal remnants, indicates the frailty of their theoretical premises right now, after the collapse of the USSR, when they cannot explain the most obvious contradiction in their constructions: why the most progressive capitalism - state capitalism, the highest form of capitalism, was replaced in the USSR by forms of the most primitive capitalism of primitive accumulation:
And they are completely unaware that it was the August counter-revolution that transformed the USSR into two dozen countries of state capitalism, when at the first stage all the main means of production in the republics belonged to the state - but already to the bourgeois state. Only through rapid privatization did these state capitalist states turn into simply capitalist ones, with elements of the most primitive forms and stages of capitalism (in some republics these processes took place more slowly - for example, in Belarus, and without “shock therapy” but by gradual suffocation). By the way, this example of the temporary existence of the state cap once again indicates its unstable nature; if the general tendency is that state capitalism is the threshold of socialism, then with the collapse of Soviet petty-bourgeois socialism, state capitalism was a transitional phase to capitalism.
It is not for nothing that Chubais and Gaidar were so eager for privatization at any cost - on the one hand, they needed to strengthen capitalism in general, and, secondly, playing the role of servants-compradors of transnational capital (mainly American), they sought to prevent strengthening Russia and other former Soviet republics as countries of genuine state capitalism, which could be a strong competitor to transnational corporations. Hence all the attacks of imperialist (pro-American) forces on state-capitalist Belarus, which is slowly being privatized... However, as a result, according to a comprehensive indicator of the quality of life calculated by the UN, Belarus, poor in mineral resources, ranks higher than Russia, rich in raw materials ( but below the level of the USSR).
While the accuracy of this indicator is questionable for countries that differ greatly, especially in individual components, for historically close Russia and Belarus this indicator is quite acceptable for mutual comparison. This advantage was provided to Belarus by a higher phase of development of capitalism.
However, the collapse of state-capitalist relations in Latin American countries, including previously rich countries like Argentina, shows that this advantage is temporary.
And the fact that all the concepts of both Goskapists and liberals do not have materialistic support in the form of class analysis, in the form of an analysis of real production relations, unites them into a single category of unscientific hypotheses.
Two small clarifications.
First. If Boris Pavlovich Kurashvili was at one time a member of the OPD “Marxist Platform” and took an active part in its practical activities (despite the fact that his theoretical views on some issues justifiably aroused a critical attitude), then V.A. Vazyulin participated in the work The MP (as well as in the practical work of other parties operating after the August counter-revolution) did not accept it.
Second. The point of view of Soviet socialism as an unfinished socialism, the further development of which required the expansion of democracy for the working people and the destruction of bureaucratic arbitrariness, indeed prevailed in the “Marxist Platform” in the first years of its existence. However, further development of this issue (correctly, but superficially, resolved earlier) showed that the class content of Soviet socialism at first was a joint dictatorship of the working class and the peasantry (petty bourgeoisie), which then degenerated into a petty-bourgeois dictatorship.
The constant disintegration of the petty bourgeoisie (individualism) into the working class and the bourgeoisie led to the fact that the revived bourgeoisie in the USSR managed to carry out a counter-revolution. The necessity - or just the probability of this stage of counter-revolutionary degeneration - has not yet been confirmed by historical experience, since in China and some socialist countries petty-bourgeois socialism still exists and develops.
The task of theorists for the further development of this concept is to find out whether such a development of petty-bourgeois socialism was possible, in which, with the stratification of the petty bourgeoisie, the working class would win, or whether this phase is incapable of independent socialist development and the revival of socialism will be possible only after the death of petty-bourgeois socialism.
And our task - the task of the working class - is not to restore petty-bourgeois socialism, which naturally suffered defeat, but to overthrow the rubbish of capitalism and establish proletarian socialism - the first phase of communism. In the first stages, we will not only restore many forms of former socialism - its best forms, which carried within them a progressive principle, a beginning capable of development - but we will also breathe into these former forms a new, proletarian spirit.
The dictatorship of the proletariat will replace the dictatorship of capital, democracy for the majority will replace democracy for the money bags, and then it itself will disappear, dissolve along with the semi-state of the working class.
Today, even among philosophers, there are few who correctly understand the essence of HUMANITY'S EVOLUTION. What can we say about people who are far from philosophy. However, if there is at least one person who owns the Truth, there is hope that other people will also be able to know it.
Contemporary Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, in his recently published article “The Subtle Cool of Revolution,” gave a hint of how he sees the course of human evolution. He is confident that the revolution that took place in Russia in 1917 was predetermined and carried out not only by people thirsting for change in society, but also by the forces of Mother Nature. Dugin wrote: “This was the will of our land. It was fulfilled, and we have no reason to turn our faces away from the bloody madness of our ancestors. They did everything right. Yes, bloody, yes, excessive, yes, too much. But it was impossible otherwise. We justify all excesses and do not regret anything. They (=we) had to do what they did. They (=we) could not do otherwise. And we will have to do everything again. And in exactly the same way, regardless of the price, as then. If we want to be Russian, remain Russian, become Russian..."
To a large extent, in my opinion, A. Dugin is right, and I will explain why.
He is right both in the fact that Higher Powers were involved in the revolutionary transformations in Russia, and in the fact that in the near future Russia will indeed face a new great shock. The latter can be called whatever you like: another revolution, a major popular revolt, a new Great Patriotic War against foreign invaders, etc.
Today it is important for everyone to understand that this coming shock is as inevitable as the arrival of spring after winter, like the change of night and day. Anyone who has comprehended the Laws of Nature even to a minimal extent knows that life on earth is not an autonomous process, it does not happen on its own, and man is not at all the king of nature. This was a monstrous delusion of the militant atheists.
Man is only an integral part of living Nature, in which the main active force is the Spirit. The same Spirit about whom the Messiah Christ once said that He is God. ( “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”
(John 4:24)).
The Mahatmas of India have long explained the periodic upheavals in societies in this way:
(“Agni Yoga”).
The above is true both for an individual and for any community.
Let's ask ourselves: why a century ago in Russia could a series of revolutions happen one after another?
Is it only because the Marxist Jews really wanted this?
Not at all. The latter was only an accompanying factor - a detonator of a social explosion.
100 years ago, the Russian Empire was able to accumulate so many internal problems and contradictions that, like in a steam boiler, internal pressure began to grow sharply. People who lived in the Russian Empire felt on a spiritual level that the society in which they lived was not fair, and it needed qualitative transformations.
There was widespread illiteracy among the population, which was 82.5% rural. Only a small part of society was educated.
The most terrible scourge of Russia was legalized slavery, with which the empire lived for many centuries and which was abolished no more than 150 years ago, and not at all by the good will of the tsar. Tsar Alexander II was forced to take this step by circumstances - the beginning of “peasant unrest”. The fact that this shameful phenomenon was called “serfdom” in Rus' did not in any way change its essence. In fact, it was a form of slavery. A slave owner-landowner could sell his serfs to another landowner, he could kill any serf without incurring any punishment for it, except perhaps paying a fine to the state treasury.
Well, and most importantly, society was dominated by a religion that did not rightfully bear the name of Christ, was adapted by the clergy to the slave system and had a slave-owning god at its head. According to this religion, all subjects of the Russian Empire were called “servants of God,” despite the fact that the Bible contains the following words of Christ spoken to his Christian disciples: “You are My friends if you do what I command you. I no longer call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have told you everything that I have heard from My Father...”(John 15:15).
At the same time, the Church did not give the subject people a correct idea of the main force operating in Nature - the Holy Spirit. The only time clergy preferred to ornately tell people about the Spirit was when they retold the biblical tale about the virgin birth of the mother of Jesus Christ, Mary. They described the Holy Spirit himself in the form of a dove - a bird well known to everyone.
These factors: the monstrous lie of the Church spreading obscurantism and the terrible social injustice that reigned in society pushed the Russian people to the fact that in 1917 they followed the lead of the Jewish revolutionaries, who vied with each other in promising all their followers “mountains of gold”: freedom, equality and fraternity.
As you know, instead of what was promised, these devil worshipers brought the Russian people the death of millions of compatriots, devastation and hunger. The main executioner of the people of Russia then became Leiba Trotsky (Bronstein), who carried out the order of world Zionism for the physical destruction of the Russian Empire.
The revival of Russia occurred thanks to two geniuses - Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. The first was a theoretician of building a socialist state on the ruins of Russia - the world's first state of workers and peasants, the second was a brilliant practitioner who brought Lenin's ideas to life. Stalin became the foreman of socialism. Thanks to his talent, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was built.
What did socialism give to the former peoples of the Russian Empire? First of all, total illiteracy of the population was eliminated in the shortest possible time. Everyone could study for absolutely free to become anyone they wanted and become anyone, be it a worker or an academician. At the same time, the electrification and industrialization of the Soviet Union was carried out in record time.
For all its advantages, the strong and powerful state built under the leadership of Stalin could not be completely fair and complete. It could not be so if only because the false religion dominant in the Russian Empire was replaced by militant atheism.
Having separated the Church from the state, the Communist Party of the USSR placed its bet on the education of morality in man, on the awakening of his conscience, without explaining the nature of conscience, without revealing the secret that human conscience has a direct connection with the Spirit that governs Nature.
Thus, guided by conscience, Soviet people had to build their relations with other citizens in a socialist state.
On these principles, the state of the USSR could have existed for an indefinitely long time if their antipodes, people without conscience, had not lived in it, along with people of conscience.
Having united in a “wolf pack”, people without honor and conscience were able to one day secretly and surreptitiously destroy the state built by the people under the leadership of Stalin. This happened 38 years after the death of the great leader.
Incredible, but true: the last President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, today openly, without hiding, tells everyone that he went to the highest level of power in the country with only one goal - to destroy the socialist state, destroy the Communist Party and bring Western values to Russia.
Here is the speech of this Judas at a seminar at the American University in Turkey.
“The goal of my whole life was the destruction of communism, the intolerable dictatorship over people. I was fully supported by my wife, who understood the need for this even earlier than I did. It was to achieve this goal that I used my position in the party and country. That is why my wife kept pushing me to consistently occupy a higher and higher position in the country. When I personally became acquainted with the West, I realized that I could not retreat from my goal. And to achieve it, I had to replace the entire leadership of the CPSU and the USSR, as well as the leadership in all socialist countries...
I managed to find associates in realizing these goals. Among them, a special place is occupied by A.N. Yakovlev and E.A. Shevardnadze, whose services to our common cause are simply invaluable.
A world without communism will look better. After the year 2000, there will be an era of peace and shared prosperity. But there is still a force in the world that will slow down our movement towards peace and creation. I mean China..."(Newspaper “USVIT” (“Zarya”) No. 24, 1999, Slovakia).
Over the past 11 years since 2000, as I see it, the world has not become better. On the contrary, the Jews—Zionist Jews professing faith in the devil—have established themselves in power in Russia again, as in 1917. They took a direct part in the collapse of the USSR and created an oligarchic power in Russia. The result of their rule was that in Russia we again have devastation, poverty, hunger, high mortality, millions of street children and elderly people abandoned to the mercy of fate.
Of course, this is a clear imbalance in the system of relationships between society and the Spirit that governs nature. And if we take into account that the USSR was destroyed by people without honor and conscience through the betrayal of the last head of state, contrary to the will of the people, then today we can say with confidence that Russia is destined to return through a shock to the path of socialism as the most fair form of coexistence of citizens.
Of course, this will be a different socialism, more just due to the introduction of all people to the knowledge of the Higher Powers that control nature.
In September 2011, I had the opportunity to write the book that Vanga prophesied about. The “Fire Bible,” giving the reader an elementary idea of the Spirit that controls Nature, was born in less than a month. I immediately posted it on the Internet, and for two months now it has been distributed free of charge throughout Russia. I am sure that the time will come when people all over the world will read it. This is how real prophecies come true.
The second prophecy I want to talk about was made by Joseph Stalin before the outbreak of World War II in 1939. It was preserved in the archives of the USSR Ambassador to Sweden Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai.
Here it is.
“...Many of the affairs of our party and people will be distorted and spat upon, first of all abroad, and in our country too. Zionism, striving for world domination, will brutally take revenge on us for our successes and achievements. He still views Russia as a barbaric country, as a raw material appendage. And my name will also be slandered and slandered. Many atrocities will be attributed to me. World Zionism will strive with all its might to destroy our Union so that Russia can never rise again. The strength of the USSR is in the friendship of peoples. The spearhead of the struggle will be aimed, first of all, at breaking this friendship, at separating the outskirts from Russia. Here we must admit that we have not done everything yet. There is still a large field of work here. Nationalism will raise its head with particular force. It will suppress internationalism and patriotism for a while, only for a while. National groups within nations and conflicts will arise. Many pygmy leaders will appear, traitors within their nations. In general, in the future, development will take more complex and even frantic paths, the turns will be extremely sharp. Things are heading to the point where the East will become agitated. Sharp contradictions with the West will arise. And yet, no matter how events develop, time will pass, and the eyes of new generations will be turned to the deeds and victories of our socialist Fatherland. New generations will come year after year. They will once again raise the banner of their fathers and grandfathers and give us full credit. They will build their future on our past..."
Very soon - on December 4, 2011, elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the VI convocation will take place.
Which party gets the most votes will determine in whose hands the power in the country will be.
In the time remaining before the elections, the party in power - United Russia - does not hesitate to openly bribe voters, since its leadership understands that their time is running out. Cast your vote for “ED” in the elections and get 1,500 rubles! - so yesterday in the hero city of Murmansk in the Zhemchug Shopping Center there was a brisk buying of votes from the electorate.
On October 24, 2011, the mayor of Izhevsk and member of the General Council of the United Russia party Denis Agashin, during a meeting with representatives of veteran organizations, openly said that funding for these movements would continue only if their representatives cast their votes in the State Duma elections for the party in power.
The veterans filmed this blackmail and posted the video on the Internet. Here is the video. "That's terrible!",- Izhevsk veterans are outraged.
This is not horror yet, I want to point out. The real horror will begin for the party in power when it sees that on December 4, Russian citizens will cast the overwhelming majority of their votes in favor of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and the communists, the same ones who were once betrayed by President M. Gorbachev and his gang, will win the elections.
Since the party in power - "United Russia" - does not exist on its own, but with the support of the West and at its direction, there may be several options for the development of subsequent events, and the most terrible of them is a world war.
Already today, all the world's media have announced the news that Israel plans to start a war with Iran in December and in this matter the United States will support the Jews.
It seems to me that the beginning of this event is directly related to the results of the elections in Russia. A number of media sources claim that the war will not be limited only to the territory of Iran. There is a very high probability that all developed countries will be drawn into a new world war.
On this occasion, back on October 18, I wrote an article “They still want to unleash the Third World War. Jews must become its arsonists and firewood at the same time.” I posted it here:
It was not without reason that I started my new article with philosophy and with an explanation that man is only a small part of living Nature, in which the main active force is the Spirit.
And it is not for nothing that I quoted the statement of the Mahatmas of India: “Happiness is lost in the world, for happiness is in the Spirit. Those who turn away from the Spirit must experience misfortune, for otherwise how can they return?”
Considering Israel’s stated above intention to start a war with Iran in December, which the West, of course, will try to expand to the scale of a world war, in the hope that it will write off the entire astronomical US debt, not only elections await us all.
There is a high probability that a severe test awaits us all. In order to survive in it, we simply must unite as one and begin to live according to conscience and truth in harmony with the Spirit, as Christ bequeathed. Only then will we be happy. There is no other option for us. "This is the will of our land, - philosopher Alexander Dugin wrote about this, - they (=we) had to do what they did. They (=we) could not do otherwise. And we will have to do everything again. And in exactly the same way, regardless of the price, as then. If we want to be Russian, remain Russian, become Russian..."
Questions of ideology. The impossibility of restoring socialism
Patriots in modern Russia are as popular as democrats at the end of perestroika. Evidence of this is the marginalization of former democrats (those who remained faithful to their ideals and are now renamed by the public as liberals), and Putin’s rating, which has consistently exceeded the 80% mark in recent years. Even critics of the current Russian government prefer to criticize it from ultra-patriotic positions.
The main ideological directions in the patriotic environment are:
- Nationalism (in some cases reaching the point of Nazism).
- Monarchism (in various manifestations, from nostalgia for the Romanov Empire, to dreams of recreating a class monarchy legitimized by Zemsky Councils, and even to a vague attraction to a neo-pagan chiefdom).
- Marxism (including all already tested types and forms, as well as attempts to synthesize something new, more appropriate to the modern moment).
We will analyze the problems of nationalists and monarchists in the following materials, and now we will turn to Marxist (communist, socialist) ideas. Ultimately, they are the most popular in modern Russian society and seem easy to implement to many (it is enough for the authorities to show their will).
The popularity of these ideas is understandable:
Firstly, society, disappointed in the democrats (liberals), whose ideas dominated in the 90s and were antagonistic to the Marxist ones, logically tried to return to the old experience, which the liberals could not refute.
Secondly, the very idea of the revival of Russia presupposes its return to natural borders. At the same time, the socialist idea of a voluntary union of free peoples clearly outperforms the pure imperial idea. Imperialism in the public consciousness has long been equated with imperialism (violent seizure, suppression), and the broad masses still equate empire and monarchy, that is, a state structure that presupposes social inequality and class privileges (at least, this is how the broad masses perceive it ). The restoration of the “fraternal family of the peoples of the USSR” is perceived as the restoration of trampled justice for everyone - the restoration of a man-made paradise on Earth.
Third, the generation of 40-year-olds and older who remember the USSR is uncomfortable with the fact that the dismantling of the socialist state did not lead to the promised prosperity, but rather caused a long period of impoverishment of the population, humiliation of the state and civil wars, as in Russia itself (October 1993 - Moscow and two Chechen), as well as in most other fragments of the USSR.
Survey data, as well as numerous discussions on social networks and the media, indicate that a significant part of the population views Putin’s activities, as head of state and architect of the current political system, as an attempt extended over time to restore the Soviet state.
Hence the outbursts of dissatisfaction with his disrespectful statements about Lenin’s activities. Hence the periodically spreading “conspiracy theories”, the authors of which either assure us that Putin is in cahoots with the Rothschilds (as an option with the Rockefellers), or swear that the United States completely controls him, because they know “where his money is,” or worry that in the Kremlin “there was a coup a long time ago” and “the liberals are using Putin as a puppet.” All these are attempts to explain (albeit from the standpoint of cosmic stupidity) why Putin did not recreate the USSR in 15 years.
In a similar way, the authors of “conspiracy theories” based on the idea of restoring a socialist state explain Russia’s policy in the Donbass. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, “foreign deposits”, “one hundred thousand palaces” and the “liberal-oligarchic conspiracy” are also present there. They are only directed against the “rebellious people of Donbass,” who supposedly “began to build a new socialist Russia.” A diagram is drawn according to which the “liberal-oligarchic Kremlin regime,” in collusion with the American imperialists and Ukrainian Nazis, is strangling the “socialist revolution” in Donbass, since it allegedly threatens all of them.
The fact that in Donbass, as in Russia and Ukraine, there are also social expectations, but there is not even a hint of a socialist revolution, interests few people. Ideologically bruised people are almost never able to objectively assess reality. Only great political strategists such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao were able to flexibly change ideological dogmas, adapting them to the needs of reality. But this is why we are now talking about Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, because they all had little in common with classical Marxism (from which they grew), but they completely fit into objective reality.
So, modern reality indicates that, despite all the objectively existing nostalgia for the USSR and the public demand for social justice, the restoration of a socialist state is impossible. By the way, Putin spoke honestly about this, repeatedly emphasizing that restoring the USSR in its previous form is unrealistic. In this thesis, as in any programmatic political formulation, every word is important. It’s not just that the re-creation of the USSR is unrealistic, but in its previous form. That is, Russia does not refuse some other form of integration (for example, the same Eurasian Union). The return of Crimea indicates that, under certain conditions, Moscow can restore its direct sovereignty over lost territories inhabited by Russians. But it is impossible to recreate the federation of socialist republics that the USSR was. That is, it is not integration that is impossible, but the restoration of socialism as a state ideology.
Why? After all, it would seem that it couldn’t be simpler. The idea is popular. There is successful experience in socialist state building (it is only the 25th year since the collapse of the USSR and the dismantling of socialism), the theoretical foundations are well developed, and there are a dime a dozen new theorists. So why not? Well, at least taking into account the mistakes of the past and not exactly in the same form as it was, but in a somewhat modernized form. As some neo-Marxists say, “with private property, with a modern economy, but with social justice.”
The fact is that the creation of a social bourgeois state in modern Russia is not only possible, but is being successfully carried out. But there is no restoration of socialism (namely socialism, and not its opportunistic modifications designed to provide the next “communist” or “socialist” party with representation in the bourgeois parliament). Society itself does not want this, although it is not aware of it.
In fact, today the “socialist” aspirations of the public are exactly the same as the “democratic” ones during late perestroika. The terms have changed, but not the wishes of the people. Then the people had social stability, complete social security (guaranteed free education, including higher education, medicine, an apartment from the state, guaranteed employment, a real right to choose a profession, a real right to rest, guaranteed pensions at a decent level, etc.) . But he wanted more (jeans and a Playboy magazine in every kiosk, two hundred types of sausage and six hundred types of beer, tomatoes in winter and persimmons in summer, change a car every year, travel abroad whenever I want, and, like an olive in a cocktail, be able to become a billionaire).
Everything that the people wanted from capitalism was given to them. As it should not be for everyone, there are clochards in Paris too. But what Soviet socialism provided was lost. Now the people want to return what was lost. But he does not want to part with what he received. During the era of perestroika, the desire to work as under socialism and live as under capitalism was called a “democratic choice”; now this seems to be a return to the lost “socialist paradise”. The main idea has not changed. Six hundred types of beer and Soviet state paternalism must coexist in one bottle.
But this is just impossible. Both socialism and capitalism are systems. And each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, each system is limited in maneuver by its basic foundations, beyond which it cannot break out under any circumstances. Socialism just cannot “modernize” and become “a little” capitalism, just as capitalism cannot exist without private ownership of the means of production and the right to make profit from this property. Capitalism even tries to limit the possibility of using property “for other purposes.” Taxes on property, inheritance, land, etc. This is why they are introduced so that the owner does not rest on his laurels, living off the wealth accumulated by previous generations or himself, but would be forced, under the threat of ruin, to constantly ensure that the property works and makes a profit. In the same way, constant inflation, which is an integral companion of the capitalist economy, forces accumulated money to be put into circulation (and not consumed) (turning it into capital).
In turn, socialism is also limited by certain rigid boundaries inherent (to one degree or another) in all existing and existing socialist states. If these boundaries are blurred, then the state is quickly losing its socialist content. It was in this way that perestroika, starting under the slogans of “socialism with a human face”, “return to Leninist principles”, “European socialism” and “convergence” (the merging of capitalism and socialism into one system that combines the advantages and sweeps aside the shortcomings of both base ones) quickly resulted in a simple restoration of capitalism.
And this is not an isolated case. This rule is. “Yugoslav socialism”, which allowed private property, died in the same way. The “Bolivarian socialism” of Chavez-Maduro is also failing. Even the conditional “Chinese socialism”, with all the rigidity of state control, which involves executions not only of corrupt bureaucrats, but also of errant businessmen, is not able to cope with either the massive export of capital or the openly subversive activities of stock exchange players, whose desire to maximize profits causes damage not only the financial and economic interests of the state, but also its security.
Why can’t we combine all the good features of the two systems in one bottle and leave out all the bad ones?
For the same reason that it is impossible to combine the qualities of a Formula 1 car and an executive limousine in one model.
These are two different systems aimed at solving different strategic problems. The task of the capitalist state is to create conditions for rapid growth of capital at any cost. Not industry, not wealth - capital. If for this it is necessary to eliminate Indians who “ineffectively” use the lands they occupy, then in a few decades they will disappear, literally dissolving in time and space, millions. If the population of the colonies is “not efficient”, then in a couple of years millions of Irish or Indians will die of hunger, if the population of their own country “does not fit into the market” - nothing personal, just business. If money can be made out of thin air, with the help of stock market speculation, capital is sent there, banks stop financing the real sector of the economy, national industry dies, production is transferred to other countries, but GDP grows, and capital prospers. The social function is, in principle, not immanent in the capitalist state. It begins to be interested in social problems only when and only to the extent that they begin to threaten the well-being of capital and it is not possible to solve them by traditional force. Ideally, the world of luxury villas and the world of bidonvilles simply should not intersect, existing in parallel realities.
The state apparatus is built and functions accordingly. Its task is to suppress everything that interferes with the growth of capital and to maximally support rapidly growing capital. Well, the ability of owners of billion-dollar fortunes to corrupt government officials makes it easy to amend laws in cases where it is not advisable to directly prescribe the relevant norms in them.
Hence the theory of the state - the “night watchman”, to whom society allocates exactly as much as it considers necessary for maintenance. In fact, it is capital, and not society, that decides how much, for what needs, and most importantly from what sources to allocate to the state. Therefore, all the most successful (from a capitalist point of view) financial and economic decisions (“Thatcherism”, “Reaganomics”) led to a reduction in the tax burden on capital and to its increase on employees. And the state, the “night watchman,” does not seek to interfere in the private life of its citizens, monitor their morality, cultivate taste, etc. as long as it does not pose a threat to the interests of capital.
In general, the “night watchman” state has fewer tasks and fewer functions than the socialist state. In fact, its main function is to protect the existing state of affairs from external and internal attacks.
In turn, a socialist state must provide citizens with not just a fair distribution of income, but a whole range of social services. To do this, it needs significantly more resources than a capitalist state. Therefore, salaries in the USSR were lower than in the West, but almost the entire social sphere (paid in the West) was financed by the state.
But, in order to fulfill its functions of creating and developing infrastructure, industrial enterprises, and constantly improving the general standard of living of the population, the socialist state needs complete control over production. You cannot buy a car plant and produce Mercedes, not because Mercedes is a bad car. You just need to first provide everyone with Zhiguli cars. From the point of view of a socialist state, updating the model range of the same cars every two or three years is an unacceptable waste of resources. Classic Zhiguli cars still carry their owners normally in all regions and climatic zones of not only Russia, but also the former USSR. And they take you where you need to go. A Mercedes is much more comfortable, but it’s easier to provide everyone with a Zhiguli.
What’s the point of coming up with a new design for men’s suits or women’s dresses every year if they can be worn for two, three, or even five years? From the point of view of a socialist state, throwing away good clothes just because they are out of fashion is uneconomical. In the end, logic dictates that the longer a thing lasts, the better it is, and the saved resources, both public and personal, can be spent on something useful.
If, in such conditions, a private owner (capitalist) works next to state-owned enterprises, he will easily win their competition simply by updating the assortment more often, albeit at the expense of quality. It doesn’t matter, because no one will file a claim against you because the car you sold broke down after five years, if your client is determined to change the car every two to three years.
Given the unlimited possibility of developing private business, parallel to state-owned enterprises, the public sector will very quickly be squeezed out of a number of industries (trade, light industry, food industry, etc.). Supporters of “modernized socialism” say it’s no big deal. The capitalist will work in those industries in which he is stronger, and the socialist state will do what he does better - defense industry, heavy industry, search and extraction of minerals.
This, however, is not realistic. In fact, Lenin wrote about this, warning that any small private property daily, hourly gives rise to large ones. A generic feature of capitalism is the desire to increase the volume of capital. If your business does not develop, does not grow, then it is dying. Before our eyes, post-Soviet business, starting with stalls, eateries and semi-handicraft workshops, captured commanding heights in the economy in a matter of years. The state will not be able to legally restrict business. He will penetrate into areas of activity that interest him either through lobbying - convincing society and the state with the help of the media that he will be a more effective owner, or by corrupting officials and deputies. If the obstacle turns out to be insurmountable, he will begin to fight the state. Expansion is the way of life of capital. Without mastering his country, he cannot move further and loses to foreign competitors. Therefore, capital will always primarily fight against the public sector.
In addition, in one of his many definitions of communism, Lenin argued that it is accounting and control. Undoubtedly, one of the main competitive advantages of a socialist state is its ability to quickly mobilize enormous resources and unlimited maneuver with them. The first place here is the ability to maneuver precisely with labor resources. The great construction projects of communism became possible primarily because the USSR was able to supply them with the necessary number of workers and relevant specialists in the shortest possible time. At the same time, the costs turned out to be significantly lower, and the pace of creation of new infrastructure was significantly higher than under capitalism.
Why? Because the capitalist state can build Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and the BAM, and repeat any of the Soviet “constructions of the century.” But, first, he will need to create acceptable conditions for life, recreation and entertainment there, and then lure the required number of workers and specialists with higher salaries. Since they will come with their families, it is necessary to provide jobs for their wives, schools and preschool institutions for their children.
In the 70s, the socialist state sent people to BAM in the same way as in the 30s to build a “garden city.” First, into the taiga and into a tent. Then build barracks for yourself, and in a few years comfortable housing will begin to appear, followed by social institutions, etc. In order to be able to manage labor resources in this way, it is necessary to completely control all jobs. If you can find alternative work outside the public sector, it is extremely difficult for you to make an offer you cannot refuse.
Thus, the coexistence of the socialist and capitalist sectors in the economy of the same state leads to the rapid destruction of the socialist sector. The capitalist will dump, lure away the best personnel, corrupt the authorities, but he will destroy the competitor. Any capital strives for a monopoly position that allows it to extract maximum profit.
As the capitalist sector grows, the socialist state will lose the resources (material and human) that allow it to fulfill its basic social function. We also saw this at the end of perestroika and in the dashing 90s, when the Constitution still obliged the state to provide social security no less than in the USSR, but the state no longer had the resources to implement it.
Let's move on. It was no coincidence that in the USSR they limited the size of dachas and personal plots and engaged in seemingly petty regulation of personal consumption. As we defined above, a socialist state must ensure a fair (as close to equal as possible) distribution of income. But there are always and everywhere people who prefer to increase their income (including through illegal means) and not share it with the state.
How to catch all kinds of speculators, shop workers and other citizens who do not share the ideals of socialism? It is not written on them that they have already fallen out of the system of state control and are no longer financially dependent on the jobs provided by the state. Today it may seem to us that the harsh struggle of the USSR against violations of socialist legality in the economic sphere is a quirk. But that's not true. After all, we are talking about creating the rudiments of a parallel economy, a capitalist one at that. If you don’t fight it, it will grow and destroy both the socialist economy and the state itself (this is what happened in the 80s).
In the USSR there was the concept of “unearned income”. Receiving unearned income entailed criminal penalties. But if you can build any houses you want and own any plots of land, then how can you determine whether the dacha was built with unearned income or whether its owner is simply an outstanding master and built himself a three-story palace with his own hands? Limiting, rationing and unifying consumption levels made it easier to combat economic crimes. A house that was too big or a car that was too expensive was a marker for the relevant authorities, who could ask the question: “What money was used to buy all this?” And unlike a modern capitalist state, it was not the prosecutor who had to prove that the money was stolen, but the owner of the dacha who had to prove that he had earned everything honestly.
The second function of unification is to demonstrate status. In the USSR, a miner or highly skilled worker earned more than an ordinary member of the Central Committee. But the standard of living of even district-level managers was still higher than that of ordinary production leaders. This was ensured through various types of benefits, including the issue of quickly obtaining more spacious and high-quality housing in houses with an improved layout. And this is also natural. After all, if everyone is equal and a simple worker can ensure the standard of living of a major official, then how to ensure the selection of qualified specialists for the civil service? After all, for this you need to study much longer. And have any talents. And the higher the position, the higher the responsibility, and the working hours are irregular, and weekends are not guaranteed. And at the factory I defended my shift - I’m free.
If you just pay a lot to an official, you need to provide him with the opportunity to spend this money. But he doesn’t need ten Zhiguli cars, twenty Dnepr or Minsk refrigerators and a hundred Mayak or Jupiter tape recorders. He will need more expensive, but also better quality goods. The industry does not produce its own - it must be purchased abroad. If such goods appear on free sale, then not only officials will buy them and more and more of them will be needed. Own enterprises will lose the market. The budget will receive less revenue and the social function of the state will again be under threat. If scarce goods are distributed among those who are entitled, then why should they pay more if the state already distributes, allocating to whom it is due and what is due?
Finally, the presence of a multi-structure economy also presupposes a multi-party system. Each structure must be provided with political representation, otherwise the citizens involved in it are deprived of their rights. And even without political representation, it is impossible to coordinate state policy, to build it in such a way that it does not harm any large social group, provoking it to fight against the state.
But how is it possible in a state in which socialism is the official ideology (after all, it is precisely the consolidation of the state status of ideology that ideologically concerned citizens now demand from the Russian government) allow the existence of bourgeois (or simply non-socialist) parties? What if they come to power in the elections? What kind of society will they build? And how will this relate to the state nature of socialist ideology?
We saw how. After the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution, which secured the monopoly of the CPSU on power, the USSR collapsed within less than two years. And this is logical - in an ideological state, the party is the backbone of the system. If a party’s monopoly on power is contested, then the state nature of ideology is also contested (another party has a different ideology). Consequently, one-party system (or quasi-multi-party system, when all parties are twin brothers, and one of them is the main one) is an inevitable feature of a socialist state.
Summarize. An attempt to introduce socialism in the form of a state ideology will require:
- Liquidation of first large, and then all private enterprises.
- Establishing a state monopoly on economic activity.
- Establishment of a state monopoly on foreign trade.
- Lack of legal opportunity to find work outside the public sector (the state is the only employer).
- Unification and rationing of the distribution of goods (prestigious goods, quality services, etc.) under state control.
- Introduction of one-party system and ideological control of the ruling party over society.
These measures can be implemented in a more or less strict form, but they are mandatory, because without their implementation, the socialist state, firstly, will not be able to perform the functions of social protection and fair distribution that society expects from it. And, secondly, it will quickly degenerate into capitalism again.
I very much doubt that the majority of citizens of the Russian Federation today are ready to give up their usual standard of living and lifestyle in order to return to a society of social justice. I'll say it again. The population wants Soviet stability and predictability. But it wants all this to be ensured under new conditions, without the actual dismantling of the capitalist state. And this is impossible.
Another evidence of the correctness of my assessment of the true aspirations of the population and the true nature of their social demands is the fact that not a single one of the communist and socialist parties existing in Russia, except perhaps completely marginal ones that do not have a single chance of becoming a serious political force, acts from real communist Leninist revolutionary positions. Systemic and most non-systemic Marxists prefer to sit in the bourgeois parliament. That is, from the position of Marx-Lenin-Stalin, they are opportunists who have integrated themselves into the bourgeois political system and are supported by the voter in this.
Meanwhile, today hardly anyone can doubt that (unlike the communists themselves, who repeatedly and not only in the USSR allowed the peaceful restoration of capitalism) the change from the bourgeois system to the socialist one without a revolution is impossible. The level of violence may be high or low, but the revolutionary nature of change is inevitable. After all, it is necessary to change the constitutional foundations of the existing statehood, which recognizes the “sacred right of private property,” to new ones, according to which private ownership of the means of production is unacceptable in principle, and the rest of the property (including real estate) is defined as “personal property,” which implies a ban on its use for the purpose of profit, that is, the creation of capital.
So, there is no revolutionary vanguard, which a true communist party should be.
The lower classes really want to live in the old way, only as it was at all times, in all countries and under all authorities, they would like additional bonuses in the form of the Soviet system of social guarantees.
The top not only can manage in the old way, but have just gotten the hang of it and manage very effectively.
There is no revolutionary situation and is not expected. There is no revolutionary party and is not expected.
Spontaneous “people's communism” is a common phenomenon for any era. It always exists, is always utopian and has never influenced anything.
Therefore, the restoration of a state in which socialism (communism) would be the official “only true” ideology in the foreseeable future (at least until the end of the unfolding global systemic crisis) is impossible. And it is unknown what ideologies will be relevant in the post-crisis world. Some suggest that humanity may even return to enlightened feudalism (or to some new form of class society).
The only problem associated with ideologized groups of accentuated individuals is their attempts to use the Donbass as a testing ground for their social structures, with the aim of subsequently transferring them to Russia. The results are negative for Donbass, for Russia and for the “ideologists” themselves. However, as at least primary order is established in the DPR/LPR, their (“ideologists”)’s influence on the life of the republics decreases.
This applies not only to communists, but also to nationalists and monarchists, whose ideas and the reasons for their impracticability we will consider in the next material.
Main theses of the program of candidates of the COMMUNIST PARTY
COMMUNISTS OF RUSSIA
in the elections of deputies of the Moscow City Duma
Comrades!
Our voters are working people, ordinary residents of Moscow.
Our main opponent is rich pro-government self-nominated candidates.
We inform you about the main theses of our program:
Deputies from the Bolshevik Communist Party of Russia Communists of Russia in the Moscow City Duma will seek:
1. Electoral legislation reforms. Increasing the number of Moscow City Duma deputies to 100 people. It is wrong that a huge metropolis has only 50 deputies. It is difficult for residents to interact with their representatives when there are so few of them. We will work to reduce the number of signatures required to register a candidate to 1 percent of county residents.
2. Adoption of the Law on intra-city referendums on all issues that affect the interests of Muscovites - landscaping, new construction, renovation measures, etc.
3. Changes in legislation that would provide that during the construction of new microdistricts the availability of parking should be provided on the principle of one parking space per apartment.
4. In the field of housing and communal services, it is necessary to introduce changes to legislation so that a one state management company. It is necessary to remove countless small and fraudulent management companies and irresponsible intermediaries from the housing and communal services market. Tariffs for housing and communal services in Moscow are clearly too high and the Moscow City Duma must do everything to lower them and to create a transparent and understandable system for calculating housing and communal services tariffs and for their payment.
5. The most important task is the fight against corruption in the field of public procurement. Candidates of the Communist Party The Communists of Russia propose not only to strengthen control over tenders, but also to simplify as much as possible the procedure for access to participation in tenders for any individual entrepreneur in order to stop the vicious practice of distributing contracts “among their own”, which is beloved by some officials.
6. Changes in the regional legislative framework relating to educational institutions. In particular, it is necessary to reduce the bureaucratic burden on teachers - the teacher should teach, and not fill out endless reports. The same applies to the work of doctors.
7. It is necessary to correct the sad consequences of medical reform. carried out by the capitalist government in Moscow. Today, the waiting list for a patient at a public medical institution ranges from 2 weeks to 1.5 months. It is necessary to allocate serious funds to increase the number of public hospitals and clinics. In general, a subject law is needed on guaranteed access of city residents to free medical care.
8. Adoption of the Law on measures to stimulate the development of high-tech industries in Moscow, providing, in particular, priority employment for these industries of graduates from universities in the capital.
9. It is necessary to take legislative measures to monitor compliance with the intended purpose of electronic payments and fines collected from the population in connection with numerous complaints from citizens.
10. Must be accepted subject law on measures to ensure environmental safety of Moscow. In particular, in the field of development of public transport, it is necessary to legislatively provide for priority for the purchase and use of rolling stock running on electricity.
11. It is necessary to provide a legislative basis for the restoration of state taxi fleets in Moscow with fixed prices and, most importantly, with strict selection criteria for drivers. Moscow metro fares should be reduced.
12. Required by law stop the harmful practice of transferring buildings, land plots, and cultural objects of the capital to religious institutions
13. Adopt a special subject law on the Protection of monuments and symbols, historical names of the Soviet era in Moscow
14. Seek acceptance Decisions of the Moscow City Duma on the dismantling of the Solzhenitsyn monument in the city of Moscow.
15. Legislatively simplify the procedure for city authorities to approve mass protests, demonstrations and rallies. Strengthen parliamentary control over compliance with the law by law enforcement agencies in Moscow, incl. in relation to participants in rallies and mass demonstrations in the capital.
Communist Party Communists of Russia - Protest Party! We are fighting for Another Moscow! For the Moscow City Duma without bourgeois parties!
TEN STALIN'S STRIKES ON CAPITALISM
General Election Program of the COMMUNIST
RUSSIAN COMMUNIST PARTIES
Comrade! Today, only one of all the political parties existing in the country actually raises the historical question of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the return of Soviet power. This is a party of real communists - the COMMUNIQUE PARTY COMMUNISTS OF RUSSIA, operating today under the leadership of Maxim Aleksandrovich Suraikin, who is popularly called Comrade MAXIM.
THE RUSSIA COMMUNIST PARTY is a political force that consistently opposes all pro-government capitalist forces and attempts at liberal revenge on the part of the pro-Western fifth column, national traitors who have built their hornets' nests in many government offices.
The Communist Party of Russia will deliver 10 Stalinist blows to ugly capitalism
FIRST HIT.
We WILL NATIONALIZE and transfer UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT:
Banking system;
Basic sectors of the real sector of the economy
Railway transport;
Department of Housing and Utilities;
Health and education institutions;
A state monopoly on wine, vodka and tobacco products will be introduced.
We will support all forms of farming in rural areas - collective, personal, farms, restore the system of collective and state farms and support socially significant small and medium-sized enterprises. We will restore large-scale agricultural production in rural areas, revive Soviet-style social infrastructure, and support such areas as seed farming and livestock breeding. We will strike the hands of speculators, the so-called intermediaries who do not allow rural workers to reach the mass consumer directly with their products.
SECOND STRIKE.
We will adopt a nationwide program to FIGHT UNEMPLOYMENT. We will propose a new Labor Code based on the best principles of the Soviet Labor Code. The difference in the income of skilled workers and the director of an enterprise, as well as employees and the head of an institution, will be established by law by no more than 5 times, and between the minimum and maximum wages by no more than 10 times.
THIRD STRIKE.
We will introduce a FIRM PRICE POLICY FOR BASIC food products and consumer goods. An emergency food security law will be passed. We will solve the problem of resellers by introducing direct restrictions on commodity margins and a state system for supplying the population with essential goods. Prices for bread, milk, meat, eggs, domestic vegetables and fruits will be specifically regulated by the state and will not directly depend on fluctuations in global market conditions. We will limit payments for housing and communal services to 10% of the total family income. From January 1, 2017, we will establish a minimum wage of 70,000 rubles, an average labor pension of 40,000 rubles, with mandatory annual indexation to inflation. The humiliating dollarization of the Russian economy will be stopped.
FOURTH STRIKE.
One of the main state priorities will be the state program for the massive construction of FREE SOCIAL HOUSING, indicating the standard per sq. m. meters per year. In each region, with the support of the state, a schedule will be approved for the free provision of modern housing to veterans, disabled people, pensioners, large families, workers, and youth. Non-profit housing construction should become the cornerstone of a new social policy. Families that do not have a plot of land will receive it for use for an unlimited period.
FIFTH STRIKE.
We will return Soviet norms of SOCIAL POLICY to our lives. The principle “All the best goes to children” must be proclaimed again! We will return the opportunity for free mass children's recreation in summer camps and free classes in sports sections and other children's institutions for creative interests. The child care benefit will be tied to the average salary in the country, the rights of women on maternity leave will be guaranteed and their observance will be under special state control. We will legally prohibit charging parents for children to attend schools and kindergartens.
We will put an end to bullying of pensioners. Pensioners, veterans, children of war - these are the people who restored the country after the destruction of the hard times of war, preserved the power of the State, and took care of Russia for future generations. In the Russian Federation, regular indexation of pensions and social benefits will be carried out not lower than the actual inflation in the country. It will be established by law that working pensioners are paid both wages and pensions in full.
SIXTH STRIKE.
THE RUSSIA COMMUNIST PARTY defends the restoration of the Soviet education system, its free and accessible nature. Our slogan: “The Soviet education system is the best in the world”! Domestic science will receive decisive support. We will direct powerful investments in the field of microelectronics, we will support talented scientists working in the field of robotics. It is necessary to qualitatively reconsider the volumes and procedure for financing the development of domestic scientists. 40% of the total volume of scientific institutes should be structures involved in innovation. We will conduct an official investigation into the disastrous reforms that are destroying the Academy of Sciences and will bring those responsible for this disaster to justice.
SEVENTH STRIKE.
We will create an effective system of FIGHT AGAINST CRIME, CORRUPTION AND PUBLIC THEFT, a system of comprehensive PEOPLE'S CONTROL over the safety of public property. Thrown back into capitalism, Russia is again faced with one of its main old problems - corruption. To combat this evil, it is necessary to reintroduce the institution of confiscation of illegally acquired property.
Today, crime has reared its head again. To defeat it, you must act decisively. For crimes such as murder, espionage, and major theft of state property, it is necessary to apply the death penalty in exceptional cases. Emergency measures will be introduced against currency speculators, penalties for organizing prostitution, drug distribution, and the production of counterfeit alcohol and similar products will be tightened to the maximum. It is necessary to re-establish the People's Control Committees. We will introduce a progressive taxation scale, starting with those whose income exceeds 3 million rubles. per year at current prices and tax on luxury goods.
EIGHTH STRIKE.
Capitalism destroys national culture, instilling a cult of profit, violence and depravity. We will immediately take the strictest measures, including closure, against media outlets that pursue this policy. Responsibility will be introduced for denigrating the history of our country, its government and public figures, including the Soviet period.
In the Russian Federation, wide access to theaters, cinemas, museums, and concert halls will be provided for the working majority, low-income groups of the population, pensioners, and youth.
A new Soviet-spirited concept of national policy will be developed, proclaiming equality and friendship of peoples, internationalism, patriotism, and respect for work. A comprehensive program for the patriotic education of youth will be developed and the pioneer organization will be recreated.
NINTH STRIKE.
Respecting the feelings of all believers and promoting the preservation of cultural monuments of religious significance, the Communist Party of Communists of Russia at the same time stands categorically AGAINST the INTERVENTION OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE LIFE OF SOCIETY. Religion in the Russian Federation is separated from the state. And we will ensure strict compliance with the Constitution’s norms on the secular foundations of the state. The country will launch large-scale education of the masses based on a scientific worldview.
TENTH STRIKE.
We will continue the patriotic orientation of Russian FOREIGN POLICY. At the same time, its core will be to defend the interests of the working people. It is necessary to fill fraternal ties with all former Soviet republics, all territories that gravitate towards Russia historically and politically with real content. A defensive alliance of anti-imperialist states will be restored along the lines of the Warsaw Pact. Today our main goal is the restoration of the Union State with a socialist and Soviet perspective.
THE RUSSIA COMMUNIST PARTY IS A FAITHFUL AND RELIABLE DEFENDER OF THE WORKERS!
WE WILL RETURN SOVIET POWER!
WE WILL BACK SOCIALISM!
WE WILL RETURN THE USSR!
LENIN AND STALIN ARE OUR BANNER!
TOGETHER WITH THE PEOPLE - WE WILL WIN!
