The bourgeois counter-revolution is a blow to women's equality. Bourgeois counter-revolution in the USSR. Stalin and the Stalinist Opposition
Let's just say that the topic is big and very painful for many. It requires detailed consideration, and the framework of a small brochure will not do here.
Therefore, we will speak as briefly as possible, citing for the most part the conclusions from what is already known to the research group of the KRD "Working Way". For detailed explanations on this issue, see a separate large publication on the bourgeois counter-revolution in the USSR, which is scheduled for release at the end of 2014-beginning of 2015.
First, not only Gorbachev's perestroika directly, i.e., should be called bourgeois counter-revolution. the period of the USSR from 1985 to 1991, as is usually done in the leftist and near-communist environment. Perestroika was only the final stage of the counter-revolution. And the counter-revolution began much earlier - in 1953 with the "creeping counter-revolution", which for more than thirty years perfectly prepared Soviet society for the restoration of capitalist relations in the USSR, which was carried out during Perestroika.
In this connection, the history of the USSR can be divided into 2 stages:
Stage 1 - the period of growth of the socialist revolution (from October 1917 to mid-1953), when Soviet society purposefully and consciously moved towards communism, destroying capitalist production relations and actively developing socialist production relations.
Stage 2 - the period of the bourgeois counter-revolution (from mid-1953 to December 1991), when the movement towards communism began to slow down more and more, and bourgeois phenomena and trends in Soviet society began to grow and intensify. By 1985, the newly resurgent exploiting class of the bourgeoisie in the USSR had grown so strong that it moved to decisive action. Over the next few years, he was able to finally wrest political power from the hands of the Soviet working class and legitimize other property relations in the country, thereby restoring the capitalist mode of production in the USSR.
Secondly, revisionism became the "Trojan horse" of capitalism in the USSR. It was with its help that under the guise of Marxism-Leninism, bourgeois ideas were gradually implanted in Soviet society, and the dialectical-materialist worldview of the Soviet workers and, first of all, the working class and its vanguard - the communists was replaced by false idealism and mechanism, which are the basis of the bourgeois worldview, class position bourgeoisie.
Here we should remind our readers that the economy of a socialist society is the result of the conscious activity of people. Socialist relations of production do not arise spontaneously, like the production relations of class societies, which arise by themselves within the previous socio-economic formations, being a natural consequence of the growth of their productive forces. The socialist economy is built by the people themselves, systematically and systematically in accordance with the objective laws of social development, transforming and organizing in a new way the productive forces that capitalism left them as a legacy, developing their socialist productive forces on this basis. And knowledge of the objective laws of social development gives nothing but the revolutionary theory of a progressive social class - the working class, i.e. Marxism-Leninism. (Revolutionary means transforming the world).
Whence it directly follows that the economy, as well as the policy of a socialist country, is directly determined by the ideology of this country - its correspondence to Marxism-Leninism, which is nothing more than the worldview of the class that dominates under socialism - the working class.
The bearer and guardian of Marxism-Leninism is the Communist Party, the political organization of the working class. The Communist Party is the leading and guiding force of the working class and the entire socialist society, it is the main and most important organ of the dictatorship of the proletariat, indicating exactly where the country should go in order to reach communism, to the complete destruction of class society and the construction of a classless society in its place.
Therefore, any deviation from Marxism-Leninism is always a concession to the class enemy - the bourgeoisie, and it inevitably affects not only the party itself, but also all spheres of socialist society - its politics, economy, social sphere and the consciousness of its citizens.
This is the first moment. Second important point.
Socialism is not a stable and definitively established system; in its essence, it is still only a transition to a new social system following capitalism - communism. Like any social system, socialism is not a state, but a process. This means that the class struggle is still going on in socialist society, insofar as classes still exist in it (the class struggle cannot but go on under socialism, since this is not communism, but only a transition to it!). It is this struggle that is the source of the development of socialist society, its main driving force.
In this class struggle, the working class can only win if it knows exactly what is going on. If he is guided in his actions not by illusions and abstract ideas that came to someone's head, but by objective reality, which can be correctly reflected and known only by being guided by a dialectical-materialistic approach to the study of social events and phenomena. And such an approach is the basis of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory, of truly scientific knowledge.
Those. ideology (in the above sense) acquires colossal significance in a socialist society. It is she who determines exactly where the socialist society will move - forward to communism or back to capitalism.
It is no coincidence that the struggle in the sphere of ideology, in the theoretical sphere, has been going on in the party from the very beginning of its formation and, especially in an acute form, since the victory of the working class in October 1917. It could not be otherwise. The classes leaving the historical arena never give up without a fight. Moreover, the bourgeoisie, the last exploiting class in the history of human society, could not help but resist with all its might, overthrown by those whom it had previously oppressed - the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasantry.
After the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the conquest of political power in the country by the working class, the bourgeois class in the USSR used all forms of struggle - military, political and economic, but was defeated everywhere. What was left for him? Only the sphere of ideology, the sphere of revolutionary theory, distorted and replaced by bourgeois ideas, could count on the revival of capitalist relations in the country. It was a long way, but after the victory of the USSR in the Second World War, there simply did not exist.
The direction of the main blow of the bourgeois elements (both preserved from the old times and newly emerging in connection with the existence of commodity-money relations in Soviet society) was the Communist Party as the main bearer and guardian of revolutionary theory. To destroy the ties that bound the Party with the working masses, to undermine the confidence of the masses in it, to emasculate the revolutionary, transforming essence of Marxism-Leninism in order to prevent the final liquidation of all relations of production still preserved from capitalism, and, above all, commodity-money - that is which became the main goal of the class enemy, who learned how to perfectly disguise himself under the guise of a "Bolshevik devoted to the working class", a "loyal Leninist" and a "convinced communist".
Until March 1953, the representatives of true Marxism-Leninism managed to successfully fight against all revisionist trends in the party - the high authority of I.V. Stalin and his deep knowledge of Marxist-Leninist theory played an important role here. But after his death, when the class struggle in the party flared up with renewed vigor, the victory, unfortunately, went to the revisionists - the conductors of bourgeois ideology in the labor movement.
The answer to the question why the revisionists then in 1953 were able to defeat the Marxist-Leninists, to be honest, is not completely clear to us. Much is already known to our research group, but there are also questions that we still do not have answers to, including because there is very little information on this period in the history of the USSR and many archives of this period of time are still closed.
But what caused the bourgeois counter-revolution in the USSR, and why the class enemy launched a decisive offensive precisely after the death of Stalin in 1953, and not earlier and not later, we know for sure. And this is not at all a "struggle for power in the leadership of the USSR," as modern ideologists of the bourgeoisie like to explain what was happening in the Soviet country at that time.
That is, the struggle for dominance in the party, and hence for influence on the politics and economy of the Soviet Union, of course, took place, only this struggle was not a struggle of individuals for their personal power, it was a struggle of classes. Specific actors expressed not so much their will as the will of those classes and strata of Soviet society that they represented.
Practically destroyed in previous years by the dictatorship of the proletariat, but constantly reborn again due to the preservation of commodity production in the country, the exploiting class of the bourgeoisie fought for its survival against the working class, which owned political and economic power in the USSR. It is precisely in this way and in no other way, from the positions of Marxism-Leninism, that what happened in the spring and summer of 1953 and up to 1957 in the party leadership of the USSR is explained. And this is precisely the reason for Khrushchev's "unexpected" anti-Stalinist internal policy, which marked the beginning of the creation in the USSR of the conditions necessary for the active revival and strengthening of the bourgeoisie - the exploiting class, which, 30 years later, during Perestroika, was already able to openly declare its claims to political power in the country .
As for the time of the beginning of the bourgeois counter-revolution, the point is not that "the tyrant died, and the whole of Soviet society was finally able to breathe freely," as they try to explain to us the inner-party struggle in the CPSU in the mid-1950s. bourgeois ideologists.
Even if Stalin had been alive, the remaining bourgeois elements in the country, a significant part of which, as we now know, worked in the party and state authorities of the USSR, would still go on the offensive. It is another matter that the revisionists would then have little chance of victory. And here again, the point is not the authoritarianism of the Soviet leader, who, generally speaking, did not exist, because authoritarianism rests on force, on coercion, and Stalin's power was based on his highest authority in the party and Soviet society, on the endless trust of the working masses in him , on his deep knowledge of Marxist-Leninist theory and vast experience in the fight against counter-revolution in general and revisionism in particular.
So what made the barely alive, practically destroyed class enemy counterattack the Soviet working class in the spring and summer of 1953?
One event that happened in the Soviet Union about half a year before Stalin's death, but which now, for obvious reasons, is rarely mentioned, and if they are mentioned, they never say the main thing, talking about secondary things. But the event is of colossal significance. Let's just say one thing - if then in 1953 the bourgeois counter-revolution had not begun in the USSR, if the revisionists had not won then in the CPSU, we would definitely live under communism today, and the world could well look different. At least, on the verge of a new world imperialist war, as it is now, he would not stand.
So what happened in 1952? Just another congress of the Communist Party, the 19th in a row. But what! No less important for the history of the party and the entire USSR, and comparable in importance only to the X, XIV or XV Congresses, which at one time launched the NEP, the industrialization and collectivization of the country - processes of gigantic historical significance, without which there would be no Great USSR.
The XIX Congress of the CPSU was held on October 5-14, 1952. And the main issue at it was not to discuss what the party and the Soviet people had done more than 13 years since the last XVIII Congress of the CPSU (b) (March 1939) and not to expand the composition of the Central Committee and the Politburo, renamed the Presidium, as the "Great Soviet encyclopedia" (1969-1978), and a discussion of the conditions for the transition of Soviet society to communism!
These conditions were indicated by I.V. Stalin in the work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR", written shortly before the congress following the results of the economic discussion in 1951.
In particular, among other conditions (the predominant development of the production of means of production and the reduction of working hours of the working people), it was said in it that in order to pass to communism, it was necessary to raise collective farm property to the level of public property and replace commodity circulation with a system of product exchange. Moreover, it was especially noted that for the USSR these are not issues of the distant future, but the task of today, since these preserved "birthmarks of capitalism" - commodity production and collective collective farm ownership are already hindering the country's economic development. Remember, this was 1952.
The 19th Congress fully agreed with Stalin's position and decided: on the basis of Stalin's proposals, and at the next congress to adopt a new Party Program, which would indicate specific paths for the transition of Soviet society to communism.
Considering that until now all the programs adopted by the party have been strictly carried out, for the bourgeois elements in the USSR this meant nothing more than complete and final death without any hope of revival.
Why? Yes, because thereby the very foundation of capitalism was destroyed - commodity production and those remnants of the market that still existed in the USSR! This means that the money would be destroyed! They would simply not be needed! And how can one exploit and accumulate capital if there is no market, no commodity, no money? Where are the opportunities for capitalist relations here? They are not - they disappear completely!
One of the conditions indicated by Stalin - the reduction of the working hours of the Soviet workers directly threatened the well-being of the party and economic bureaucracy, which managed to find a way to settle comfortably within the framework of a socialist society.
The question of the survival of the bourgeois elements and the party and economic officials adjoining them in their class essence, from among those who were most concerned about their own well-being, stood squarely. Under no circumstances should the development of the country be allowed to develop along the path approved by the congress.
And how to do it, because Stalin's ideas were supported by the whole congress, in fact, the whole party, and therefore the entire working class of the country of Soviets? How can you "turn the steering wheel" in the other direction in these conditions?
It is impossible to act openly - the working masses will not support it. There was only one thing left - to act by cunning. And here, as is not the first time in the history of the world revolutionary movement, opportunism and its manifestation in ideology - revisionism - come to the rescue.
Revisionism replaces the Marxist-Leninist theory with bourgeois ideas, at the same time accusing the real Marxist-Leninists and, first of all, Stalin, who proposed such a "vile" idea as the transition to communism, of all mortal sins.
Let us explain to our readers what revisionism is, so that they can understand what has been said.
Revisionism is an opportunist trend within the revolutionary working-class movement, which, under the pretext of creative comprehension of the phenomena of reality, carries out a revision of the fundamental provisions of Marxist-Leninist theory confirmed by practice.
A distinction is made between right-wing revisionism, which replaces Marxist propositions with bourgeois-reformist views, and left-wing revisionism, which replaces them with anarchist, Blanquist, voluntarist attitudes.
In its origin, revisionism is the result of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois influence on the revolutionary working-class movement, and in its class nature it is one of the forms of the ideology of the petty bourgeoisie, the "labor aristocracy", relatively well-to-do hired workers from among the employees and the intelligentsia (the so-called "middle class").
In its social function, revisionism acts as a conductor of the influence of the bourgeoisie in the revolutionary workers' movement.
The methodological basis of revisionism is an eclectic mixture of subjectivism, dogmatism, mechanistic materialism, as well as schematism and one-sidedness. (TSB)
Since revisionism is opportunism in ideology, in the field of theory, replacing the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism with subjectivist ideas that are safe and useful for the bourgeoisie, a few words should also be said about opportunism, because without this it will not be entirely clear how the revisionists managed to deceive the Soviet working class.
Opportunism (French opportunisme, from Latin opportunus - convenient, profitable) in the labor movement, theory and practice, contrary to the real interests of the working class, pushing the labor movement onto a path beneficial to the bourgeoisie. Opportunism, directly or indirectly, through conciliation and open capitulation, or through unjustified and provocative actions, adapts and subordinates the working-class movement to the interests of its class enemies.
Opportunism appears together with the development of the revolutionary movement of the working class in the second half of the 19th century. Initially, its ideological basis was various forms of pre-Marxist socialism, and its tactics were borrowed from liberal reformists, as well as from various anarchist groups ...
After the victory of Marxism in the working-class movement, opportunism changes its ideological garb and, as a rule, comes forward under the guise of Marxist phrases.
By its class nature, opportunism within the revolutionary working-class movement is a manifestation of petty-bourgeois ideology and politics; theoretically, it reveals itself now as revisionism, now as dogmatism; in organizational terms, it turns out to be either liquidationism or sectarianism (both of them disintegrate the party and destroy its ties with the masses - approx. L.S.); in the direction of its influences on the revolutionary movement, it appears now as right, now as left opportunism; at the same time, one type of opportunism can develop into another. (TSB)
This is the last quality of opportunism - the ability of its left and right varieties to turn into each other (and hence of left and right revisionism) V. I. Lenin and J. V. Stalin specifically pointed out. And it was precisely this process that took place at the initial stage of the development of the bourgeois counter-revolution in the USSR, when one type of revisionism smoothly flowed into another.
If from mid-1953 to October 1964 (the period of Soviet history known as the "Khrushchev thaw") the ideas of "left" revisionism in the form of Trotskyism dominated the party leadership, then from October 1964 to March 1985 (i.e. n. "era of stagnation"), bourgeois influence increased significantly and the leading role in the worldview of the party began to play "right" revisionism in its most diverse forms. Let us recall that Trotskyism and "right" revisionism are forms of Menshevism.
The worldview of Trotskyism is mechanistic materialism. In public life, Trotskyism is characterized by bright subjectivism, a misunderstanding of the dialectics of social development, schematism and dogmatism in assessing events and phenomena, adventurism and unexpected concessions to the bourgeoisie in politics, voluntarism and “cavalry attacks in the field of economics,” TSB reports on Trotskyism. As you can see, Khrushchev's personality and his policies are reflected quite accurately - all of the above was manifested quite clearly in his policy.
The philosophical basis of "right" revisionism is idealism and mechanism. In public life - the denial of the contradictory nature of development, dogmatism, subjectivism, the substitution of a sober consideration of objective conditions with admiration for spontaneous economic development, petty reforms instead of a revolutionary transformation of reality, the denial of the class struggle under socialism, the class essence of a socialist state and the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat up to the complete construction of a communist society , a concession to the bourgeoisie in all areas.
How did the decade of the triumph of Trotskyism in the ideology of the party affect the economy and public life of the USSR?
On all those points that were indicated by Stalin as the conditions necessary for the country's further movement towards communism, they did exactly the opposite.
The priority development of the production of means of production, although they were still talking from high tribunes, in fact, they began to pay much more attention to the production of consumer goods, arguing this with the typical Trotskyist sophism that supposedly the satisfaction of the needs of Soviet citizens can only be achieved by an abundance of goods. This mechanistic concept was even reflected in the seven-year national economic plan of the USSR (1959-1965).
At first they tried to destroy collective collective farm property with the voluntarism characteristic of Trotskyism by force - by decree, starting with small collective farms. But Potov, seeing that such a policy only led to a drop in agricultural production, shied away in the opposite direction, selling the means of production (tractors and other agricultural equipment previously owned by the state-owned MTS) to the collective farms and declaring that collective-farm cooperative ownership would continue right up to communism itself. ! The latter was even indicated in the Party Program adopted at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in 1961, which cannot be called anything other than a "revisionist program".
Elements of the market began to be introduced into the Soviet economy. An important criterion for the activity of state and collective-farm cooperative enterprises began to be considered profitability. Commodity-money relations were not only preserved, but also significantly strengthened. No serious measures were taken to reduce the working day and involve workers in government. On the contrary, the vector of the cultural and educational policy of the Soviet state has changed by 180 degrees. Now the Soviet working class was diverted from politics in every possible way and tried to close it within the boundaries of everyday life, material security and family relations.
And in order to provide an ideological basis for this, the Party Program of 1961 already mentioned above stated that there was no longer any class struggle in Soviet society, and the Soviet state had become the state of the entire Soviet people. In the same place, the Soviets were called public organizations, and not the most important part of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as Lenin and Stalin considered them.
At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, the Charter of the Party, adopted in the latest edition by the 19th Congress of the CPSU, was also amended. The rights of rank and file members of the party were significantly curtailed, and the party leadership, respectively, increased. In this way, the party bureaucracy of the revisionist CPSU, the locomotive of the counter-revolution, defended itself well from possible encroachments on its power, along the way creating all the conditions for the emergence and development of the bourgeois class in the country.
During the "epoch of stagnation" (from October 1964 to March 1985), which the modern Russian layman considers the "golden time" of the USSR, all the above phenomena in the public life of the Soviet Union were significantly strengthened. The contradictions that Stalin warned about back in 1952, against the backdrop of Khrushchev's economic policy, escalated to the limit, practically driving the country's agricultural industry into a crisis.
However, the revisionists did not even think of abandoning what held back the development of the country - commodity-money relations, because it was sacred. On the contrary, they tried to cure themselves of the elements of capitalist production relations that had not yet been outlived in socialist society ... by the market!
Kosygin's economic reform, which provided significant economic independence to enterprises, started because of the impossibility of organizing full-fledged centralized planning of the entire national economy of the country, did not want to reckon with the source of all problems in the Soviet economy - the presence in the country of collective farm-cooperative property, which just did not allow planning within the framework of the entire national economy of the USSR.
But Stalin pointed to this specifically. But by that time, no one had read his works, they were issued in libraries only with special permission, and his very name was actually banned. Marxism-Leninism, after a decade of intensive propagandistic processing by revisionist ideas, from textbooks to articles in the main theoretical journals of the USSR "Kommunist" and "Problems of Philosophy", was already known to few, if at all. Communism for the Soviet workers became a distant and abstract dream, and they cared little about what the Soviet government was doing there in the economy.
On the other hand, this economic reform was very important for the rising Soviet bourgeoisie, whose interests were increasingly expressed by the party and economic leadership of the country, which was left virtually without the control of the working people. Opportunities to snatch a piece of the state pie from the bourgeois elements in the USSR, thanks to this reform, became much greater.
What are the results of the Kosygin reform of 1965?
She failed. Which, as we now understand, was quite natural. The socialist economy cannot be treated with capitalism. The end result is capitalism. Or, at the very least, it will get much worse. This has long been proven theoretically. Now, unfortunately, it has also been tested in practice.
If the results of the first five-year plan after the start of the Kosygin reform (the 8th five-year plan, 1965-1970) were not bad, in 1966-1979. the average annual growth rate of national income in the USSR was 6.1%, then in the future such negative consequences manifested themselves, due to which the reform, in fact, had to be curtailed. A tendency towards rising prices (in fact, inflation!), the desire of enterprises to increase production costs in every possible way and avoid the introduction of new equipment and technologies, the pursuit of profitability at the expense of product quality, increasing imbalance in the economy, insurmountable stagnation in agriculture, the inability to develop unprofitable, but necessary the national economy of the country, directions - this is an incomplete list of what the Kosygin reform led to. "These were not reforms, but a road to nowhere ..." - one of the Soviet economists correctly noted later.
The development of the Soviet country in the 70s. slowed down even more. And against this background, Stalin's successes in the economy began to seem simply fabulous, unreal. But on the other hand, the shadow economy (in fact, capitalist) grew by leaps and bounds, already exerting a tangible impact on the social life of the USSR.
What about the Soviet society - did it not notice what was happening?
Recall that the party, as the leading and guiding force of Soviet society, set the tone in all areas of the country's public life - from the economy to science and culture. Since revisionism in all its forms and forms was presented by the party leadership as pure Marxism-Leninism, and the authority of the party in Soviet society after the numerous victories of the USSR (from the October Revolution to the Great Patriotic War and the post-war restoration of the national economy) was the highest, then the objections to such Few had replacements. Unless only those who owned the Marxist-Leninist theory at a high level. And there were, unfortunately, very few such people in the country already in Khrushchev's time. And then they were quickly isolated, depriving them of the opportunity to expose their class enemies in public.
In Brezhnev’s time, they simply had nowhere to come from, because Marxism-Leninism was no longer taught in universities and party schools, instead of Marxism-Leninism they drove revisionism into their heads, the consequences of which we still feel when listening to the speeches of former Soviet social scientists, often from head to toe. heads hung with honorary scientific regalia and titles. By the 70s, there was simply no one to figure out what was really happening in the country.
These two first stages of the bourgeois counter-revolution in the USSR - the "Khrushchev thaw" and the "era of stagnation" - we called the period of "creeping counter-revolution", since it was carried out secretly, secretly even from the overwhelming majority of party members. Lacking proper political knowledge, ordinary communists, who sincerely considered themselves real Marxist-Leninists, could not figure out what was happening in time, and as a result they became toys in the hands of the bourgeoisie growing in the country and world capital.
During these three decades, the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, while retaining its name, was gradually replaced by petty-bourgeois ideology, which was reflected in all spheres of social life in the USSR - in politics, economics, science and culture, and, most importantly, in the minds of Soviet people, which later became the most important a condition for the success of Gorbachev's “Perestroika.
The working class in this period of Soviet history was more and more removed from the administration of the state. Workers were gradually accustomed to the idea that they only need to work at their workplace, and others will think for them and run the country - "those who are supposed to do this according to their position." It was instilled into the Soviet working people that there was no longer any class struggle in Soviet society, that the revolutionary period had long since ended, that all the enemies of the people had been defeated, and therefore the Soviet state was the state of all the people.
It was the same ideology, which no longer had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism, with which Soviet society approached Perestroika ...
The final stage of the counter-revolution - Perestroika and its results
In March 1985, MS Gorbachev occupied the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU through undercover intrigues, and from that moment a new phase of bourgeois counter-revolution began in the Soviet Union - an active one, known as "Perestroika".
The class of the bourgeoisie, which has grown up again in the post-Stalin USSR, has grown so strong over the decades of the triumph of revisionism and directly related changes in the economic life of the country that it no longer considered it necessary to hide, and went on the offensive. In the course of Perestroika, political power was completely wrested from the hands of the Soviet working class, and the victorious bourgeois class began to purposefully carry out the dismantling of socialist production relations in the country. By March 14, 1990, the process of restoring capitalism in the USSR was basically completed and even legalized, and then this social system only settled comfortably on the territory recaptured from socialism, subordinating all aspects of Soviet life to the old capitalist production relations.
A lot has been written about Perestroika, both in Russian and foreign literature. Another thing is that there is still no full-fledged study that could rightfully be called scientific. Yes, and it could not appear until it was precisely clarified from the Marxist positions what exactly happened in the USSR in the period preceding Perestroika, the same one that we wrote about in the previous chapter, since these processes are closely interconnected, and there is no way to separate one phenomenon from another. it is forbidden.
Modern bourgeois reference books and encyclopedias give a fairly detailed chronology of perestroika events. But one should not trust the way they interpret them, since the most important thing - the class content of the events that took place in the USSR, is not in their interpretation.
For example, the same Wikipedia, the main source of knowledge for young Russians, divides the Perestroika period into 3 stages, at the same time characterizing these stages as follows:
1) March 1985 - January 1987 The initial stage, when the existing shortcomings of the social system began to be openly recognized in the country and some attempts were made to correct it.
2) January 1987 - June 1989 The period of attempts to reform the system in the spirit of "democratic socialism". Vicki considers the January plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU to be the beginning of perestroika, at which perestroika was declared the direction of development of the Soviet state.
3) June 1989 - September 1991 The final stage, when the main idea is no longer the "improvement of socialism", but the building of democracy and a market economy of the capitalist type.
In general, Wikipedia clearly and unequivocally carries out the following idea: Soviet society and the economy of the USSR by the mid-80s. turned out to be in a state of deep crisis, and all attempts by the country's leadership to eliminate this crisis did not lead to anything. In this connection, the Soviet Union had, they say, to return to capitalism, since the socialist system turned out to be unviable.
This conclusion is not new and actually repeats what has been stated in many Russian bourgeois publications, ranging from school and university textbooks to articles in scientific journals of the Russian Federation. It can be said that this is the general and fundamental thesis of the ideologists of the bourgeoisie in relation to Perestroika, invented specifically to be introduced into the consciousness of the Russian population.
In fact, everything was completely different - and the content of the events was different, and the goals of those who led the "perestroika" process in the USSR were also different.
No attempts were made to really improve the Soviet socialist system! Although, of course, there was something to improve - the Soviet political and economic system was far from ideal and in it, as in any living and real system, there were contradictions. But the whole point is that from the very beginning of Perestroika, the actions of the "perestroika" were subordinated to one goal - the destruction of socialist production relations in the country and the restoration of capitalist production relations, which were required by the growing bourgeois class in the USSR for further development!
As for the "economic crisis" in the USSR, which is sometimes called "economic collapse" by bourgeois sources, the following must be said - there could be no question of any crisis in the pre-perestroika USSR, if we keep in mind those economic crises that regularly capitalist countries are "sick".
Continued by source
Surely, there will be found a great many people who, after reading the title of this article, will exclaim with surprise: “But how is it? The number of people who agree with the statement that in 1991/93. a bourgeois counter-revolution took place in the Soviet Union, which restored capitalism, i.e. dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, will be much smaller. And a very small number of people who understand what a "social class", "class interests" and the struggle of these interests are, will agree with the statement that there has always been a bourgeois class in the USSR.
1. THE BOURGEOISIE IN THE USSR DID NOT DISAPPEAR ANYWHERE(a little boring, be patient)
The Russian proletarian revolution of 1917, led by the vanguard of the proletariat, the Bolshevik Party, removed the bourgeois class from power and replaced it with the proletariat class at the top of the social pyramid. As is the case with any revolution. Then there was the "triumphant march of Soviet power" and a long cruel bloody war against the world imperialist interventionists and Russian collaborators, who were completely supported overseas.
The revolutionary people won the war and defended Soviet power. The bourgeois class was repeatedly defeated, dispersed, and for the most part destroyed in the course of hostilities. But not completely destroyed. A class of military action cannot be destroyed. It is impossible to ban it, cancel it, etc. Any class disappears extremely slowly and gradually, and only when the process of social production, production relations, change so much that the representatives of the disappearing class simply have no place in them.
The proletarian revolution removed the bourgeoisie from power. The revolution does just that and nothing more. It does not destroy anything old and does not create anything new. The revolution, removing the old class from power, only changes social conditions in such a way that people have the opportunity to build a new, more perfect, qualitatively new society on the basis of the existing old social order. The Russian proletarian revolution removed the main obstacle - the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but did not destroy either the bourgeois class or, most importantly, the conditions for its revival.
What is the difference between the class struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie before and after the proletarian revolution? In the pre-revolutionary period, the proletariat fights the bourgeoisie with the aim of removing it from power, depriving the bourgeois class of dominance in society. The bourgeois class also suppresses the proletariat with the help of the state of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. After the revolution, the struggle continues, but the situation changes exactly the opposite. The proletariat is already suppressing the bourgeois class with the help of the state, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Why exactly revolutionary? Yes, because simply suppressing the bourgeois class without creating new production is pointless. Only by creating a new, socialist mode of social production on the basis of the old one can we effectively combat the constant attacks from the old. In other words, you can't stand still. It is necessary to move, and the refusal to move towards the new will automatically turn into a movement towards the restoration of the old.
What is the dictatorship of the proletariat? This is not a government worker at all. This is power in the interests of the proletariat. Power, which has as its goal the construction of socialism, and then communism. That is, the goal of its activity is the creation of a new, socialist mode of social production, in which there is no place for the bourgeoisie. And, most importantly, not just declaring this goal in words and program documents, but constantly, hourly realizing this goal in practice. Constantly moving forward towards socialism. There can be no stop. Stop automatically means the beginning of the movement back to the restoration of capitalism.
CONCLUSION: The bourgeois class in the USSR has not disappeared and could not disappear. He was deprived of dominance, defeated and dispelled, he hid like a mouse under a broom, but did not disappear. It was represented by separate disunited representatives of the old bourgeoisie, individual businessmen, speculators, plunderers, etc., and the possibility of its new organization and strengthening was in the majority of people, in the form of the old bourgeois consciousness. But, suppressed by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the bourgeois class sat quietly in dark corners or worked, under the complete control of the proletarian dictatorship, for the good of building a new socialist society. He did only what he was allowed by the new government. Any, even the most insignificant attempts to play not in the interests of the proletariat and movement towards socialism, were immediately and harshly suppressed by the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Socialism was successfully created in the country, the consciousness of people was changing, and as we moved forward, towards socialism, the bourgeois class slowly faded away, dissolved, like a haze that fooled society for a long time .... This was until the Khrushchev Trotskyist the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat disappeared. The proletariat has ceased to suppress the bourgeois class by its dictatorship.
2. BOURGEOSIS IN THE USSR AFTER THE KHRUSHCHEV COUP
2.1. "Mafia" in the USSR
I'll start from afar. Militia lieutenant colonel from the All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR Alexander Gurov, in his famous interviews with Yuri Shchekochikhin "The lion is preparing to jump" and "The lion has jumped" in the Literary Gazette, speaking about the genesis of the mafia in the USSR, calls the following stages of its formation:
The first signs of the mafia appeared in our country when the economic mechanism began to straighten out, that is, under N. S. Khrushchev. Although the scale of its activities were ridiculous by today's standards: in 1958-1959, the average damage from economic crimes in the RSFSR averaged one and a half to two million. Now a successful apartment thief has a similar annual income.
In the seventies it became a social phenomenon. It was then, remember, that this foreign word itself began to be increasingly used in our everyday vocabulary. It would seem, not to the point: well, what kind of "mafia" in the housing office? What kind of mafia is in the department? What is the "Cosa Nostra" in the Krasnodar Territory Committee? Laughter and nothing more. Rather, we put into this word our bitterness from the social injustice that we observe almost daily - from the inability to break through bureaucratic walls, from the discrepancy between propaganda and the realities of life.
But a new thing also appeared: Koreiko came out of the underground! Those who used to be embarrassed of their legitimate millions began to openly invest them in Mercedes, in diamond necklaces, in mansions that were already being erected in front of everyone. (What was there to be afraid of some beer shawl magnate, if both the leaders of the country and their children boasted of collections of jewelry). It was then that we began to whisper in desperation: well, the mafia! ("The lion jumped", 1988)
This is not the mafia, my dear. It is the bourgeois class, having recovered from the destroyed dictatorship of the proletariat, raised its muzzle up and began to pump economic, and then political muscles, poisoning everything around with its ideology. Well, a few more quotes from that interview with A. Gurov.
From whom did this "Soviet mafia" that carried out the bourgeois counter-revolution come about, out of criminal thieves, shadow workers, speculators, or out of bureaucrats? The answer is simple. The "mafia", that is, the class of the bourgeoisie that carried out the counter-revolution, consisted of underground businessmen interested in the destruction of socialism, in the overthrow of Soviet power and the restoration of capitalism, and from that part of the party and state officials who were closely connected with them, bribed by them, fed from the fact that she patronized them in their crimes against Soviet property, which perceived their interests as its own and felt itself to be one class with them. From the very beginning of Soviet power until the death of Stalin, until the anti-socialist Khrushchev coup, there was a bureaucracy, there were underground businessmen and underground capitalist relations. All of them are the legacy of capitalism. All of them have one class essence, one private property consciousness. But under Lenin and Stalin, their dictatorship of the proletariat crushed, and then they abandoned it and stopped crushing ....
As early as 1920, Lenin, after the victory over Wrangel, named "the struggle against bureaucracy and red tape in Soviet institutions" as the primary task of the party after the victory over Wrangel (Lenin, "Notes on the Immediate Tasks of the Party"). Lenin understood what a danger the bureaucracy posed to the USSR, what a terrible creature it was. So - already at the very beginning of Soviet power, this reptile tried to raise its head. And Lenin already then understood that she had to be mercilessly crushed and not give her the slightest descent. Lenin treated criminals against socialist property in the same way: as malicious enemies of the working people. This was already mentioned in the first decrees of Soviet power. Stalin also stood on the same positions. He said that the bureaucrats are, in fact, undermining the dictatorship of the working class. And he treated them with the same hatred as Lenin. No softer than Lenin, he looked at self-seekers, grabbers, swindlers and plunderers of socialist property. Later, under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the attitude towards these characters changes dramatically. These are no longer class enemies - but only misguided, staggering, stumbled. There is no longer the former proletarian irreconcilability and determination to fight to the end, to complete victory over the vile private property element. Instead, vulgar philistine indulgence, pliability, almost complacency reigns everywhere in society: they say, we are all people, we are all people, who among us is not a sinner. With this vile condescension, the Trotskyists breed and multiply private property scum, create a heavenly life for it, allow it to poison and corrupt the entire society.
The reasons for all this become clear if we remember that Khrushchev's goal was to undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat. To do this, the Trotskyist clique had to hide the fact of the ongoing class struggle within Soviet society. The Trotskyists declared that in Soviet society the class struggle was over, that the Soviet working people no longer had class enemies inside the country, and that therefore, instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a "state of the whole people" had come.
2.2. A bit of political economy in relation to the bourgeois class in the USSR.
What does capital need to exist? - raw materials for goods, machine tools and equipment for their production, labor force and the possibility of selling goods for cash on the market. What kind of bourgeoisie is without a market? (c) - without a market it is impossible in any way. Everything begins with him and everything ends with him. All capitalism revolves around him.
Raw materials for goods had to be stolen from the Soviet state. Machine tools are more difficult. They were not sold or leased to private ownership. But they could be written off from the balance of the plant for a bribe, they could be used after hours, and so on. It was more difficult with the labor force, but if outwardly a private enterprise looked like an ordinary Soviet one, which, again, it was quite possible to portray by agreeing with whom it was necessary, then it never occurred to the workers of this enterprise to check its accounting to find out who its true owner. The workers of such an enterprise were absolutely convinced that they were working in a state-owned enterprise. The sale of goods was quite possible in the USSR. commodity-money relations still existed in the consumer sphere. It is in this area that the shadow business (ie the bourgeois class, "mafia") just found its niche, producing consumer goods that are in high demand. Private trade in the USSR was prohibited, but it was quite possible to “negotiate” with the management of the stores. But here's the problem: prices in the USSR were regulated by the state and were not market prices.
Soviet production, with its huge volumes, was quite content with small trade margins on goods. But the bourgeoisie, even though his production costs were extremely low (he simply stole them: electricity, water, etc. from the Soviet people) could not compete with Soviet industry. After all, the meaning of his existence, as a bourgeois, is profit. Only an increased demand for a particular product could help to get it in larger quantities - then the product could be sold at a price higher than the state price. A "black market" has emerged. Quite often, an artificial shortage was created and it was possible not to produce anything at all, but simply to redistribute the high-demand goods produced by Soviet enterprises in a special way so that the vast majority of it ended up on the black market, where it was already sold at repeatedly inflated prices. Surely this is only a small fraction of the schemes by which the bourgeoisie profited. In addition, in the USSR there was not only a victorious and free working class, but also an exploited class - a class of proletarians who worked for the shadow economy. But since they lived in the USSR, they had a standard of living that was no different from the standard of living of all other Soviet workers. They simply did not suspect that they were being exploited by someone.
Since the socialist mode of production was dominant in the USSR, in the USSR the formation of capital proceeded with the following features:
b) As a bureaucratic-corrupt capital (corruption, embezzlement of public funds through registration, foreign trade fraud, etc.)
c) Capital in the USSR arose and developed in industries producing food and consumer goods or raw materials for them.
d) All other branches of Soviet industry were non-commodity and, consequently, capitalist relations could not arise in these branches, just as the exploitation of the proletariat could not take place there.
Conclusion: In a non-commodity, socialist mode of production, capital and the bourgeois cannot live. Capitalism cannot exist without a free market and commodity-money relations.
3. HOW THEY KILLED SOCIALISM. THREE DIRECTIONS OF IMPACT.
3.1. Causes of the 1953 attack bourgeoisie of the USSR to the proletarian dictatorship.
The most important, primary direction of the main blow of the bourgeois elements (both preserved from old times and newly emerging in connection with the existence of commodity-money relations in Soviet society) became the Communist Party as the main bearer and guardian of revolutionary theory.
First, the CPSU was killed. Khrushchev's Trotskyist coup in 1953, brought to power in the Central Committee expressing the interests of the petty-bourgeois strata of the population, the party and Soviet bureaucracy. If the party of the proletariat had not been killed, turning it into the parties of the bourgeoisie (and there is no third way, either-or,), the bourgeoisie would not have succeeded.
I am sure that if Stalin were alive, the bourgeoisie of the USSR that survived in the country would still go on the offensive. But the chances at the bottom would be small. And the point is not in the authoritarianism of the Soviet leader, which did not exist, for authoritarianism rests on force, on coercion, and Stalin's power was based on his highest authority in the party and Soviet society, on the endless trust of the working masses in him, on his deep knowledge of Marxist Leninist theory and vast experience in the fight against counter-revolution.
So what made the barely alive, practically destroyed class enemy counterattack the Soviet working class in the spring and summer of 1953?
One event that happened in the Soviet Union about half a year before Stalin's death, but which now, for obvious reasons, is rarely mentioned, and if they are mentioned, they never say the main thing, talking about secondary things. This event is the next XIX Congress of the Communist Party. In terms of the significance of the decisions taken, it can only be compared with the X, XIV or XV Congresses, which at one time launched the NEP, the industrialization and collectivization of the country - processes of gigantic historical significance, without which there would be no Great USSR.
One of the serious stumbling blocks in disputes between pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet (yes, there are some, I mean rejection of the Union) anti-liberals of the left wing today is the attitude towards the USSR of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev period, some of the realities of which the pro-Soviet ones usually reproach.
In a nutshell, anti-liberal patriots who dislike the USSR in today's Russian Federation argue their rejection of Soviet socialism by the social structure that they found as teenagers and youths and that looked unacceptable to them, which they would not want to repeat in the new post- liberal sovereign and prosperous Russia, which everyone would like to see on the site of the current colony.
All the obvious (especially against the backdrop of Putin's peripheral colonial capitalism) pluses of the socialist Soviet system fade for them in comparison with these minuses, forcing them to reject the socialist path of development as such when discussing the topic - "where should we go, having done away with the 27-year-old liberal- comprador occupation that has come since the counter-revolution of 1991?
I was looking for arguments for a long time, but I found them, briefly and precisely formulated, by chance, in a material that did not promise any discoveries, it would seem, which I share with you for discussion ...
The main ideological postulate of the article: "Stalinism is an integral part of Marxism."
The main idea is about the inner-party coup that took place simultaneously with the assassination of Stalin, carried out by the majority of the Central Committee of the CPSU, formed from the secretaries of the republics and regions, which, under the conditions of a one-party system, led to a bourgeois coup d'état.
From which it follows that in 1953 the bourgeois counter-revolution in the face of the collective capitalist, the Central Committee of the CPSU, won in the USSR with a further rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which automatically meant the establishment of a bourgeois dictatorship.
All further actions of the ruling class, the highest party nomenklatura, were aimed at creating conditions for the final victory of the counter-revolution: restoration in place of state capitalism - its private property form.
The article, as you probably already understood, is debatable, read and argue -
..Left-wing organizations, large and small, that recognize the role of Stalin in the communist movement, there are many. But they were all traumatized by Khrushchev's Trotskyism, which under the guise of fighting the "cult of personality" threw Stalinism out of Marxism. Take an interest in their platforms. Everyone has Marxism-Leninism. Where is Stalinism?
It was precisely the exclusion of Stalinism from ideology that led to the fact that Marxism itself among our leftists, without its most important component, fell apart into separate fragments, which now the "communist" Fuhrers are trying to glue into one whole, but they get only a sickening-looking mosaic that cannot even be adapted to today's political realities.
Hence, as a result, the infection of the left masses with the ideas of the need for the theoretical development of Marxism in order to bring it into line with the “weather outside the window”. And the emergence of new "Marxes", such as the famous Podguzov, the inventor of "scientific centralism". I am not even talking about S.E. Kurginyan, who crosses Marxism with metaphysics. It is not even interesting to figure out who they are, these "Marxes", frostbitten swindlers or schizophrenics who have not yet been covered by psychiatric help.
Of course, we are not against the development of Marxism as a science. Any science without development perishes. The only question is what, when, why and to whom to develop. What can be developed today in Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, if this doctrine covers the stage of transition from the construction of socialism to the beginning of the construction of communism? Is it possible that we have such “weather” outside the window that we are at the stage of formation of a communist state and we need theoretical research for its formation?
Of course, we are aware of the statement attributed to Stalin: “Without a theory, we will die.” Our "Marxists", the likes of whom Iosif Vissarionovich aptly called obscurantists, rush about with this statement like idiots with a harmonica, pretending to be a symphony orchestra.
We have no eccentrics in the Movement who believe in this anecdote told by the "outstanding" philosopher Chesnokov. Allegedly, Stalin personally called him on the phone and instructed him to study theory. Only the most natural idiot can believe that the greatest theoretician of Marxism, who developed the Marxist-Leninist theory, lamented the absence of a theory. There are plenty of these idiots among our leftists who believe in Chesnokov.
In reality, the world has not changed since the beginning of the 1950s, when Stalinism took shape as part of Marxism, except that world imperialism in its static, decaying stage continues to accumulate contradictions.
Even the confrontation between the two systems, capitalist and socialist, has not gone away. The main political events in the world take place not in the struggle of the Russian Federation, one of the parts of world imperialism, with the United States, but in the confrontation of the socialist camp, the PRC and its allies, with imperialism. You just need to wipe the lenses of your glasses, spattered with the saliva of false patriotism, to see it.
Of course, this position of ours causes the most vicious hostility on the part of almost all existing leftist organizations and their leaders. Added to this is our attitude towards the post-Stalinist USSR as a non-socialist state in principle.
Apologists for Brezhnev's socialism invented and threw into the masses the theory of the degeneration of socialism in the USSR as a result of the economic reforms of Kosygin-Lieberman. A kind of Bernsteinianism on the contrary.
It was without Stalinism that they had to go to a dizzying trick to explain the reasons for the collapse of the USSR.
They began to adapt the processes in the feudal states to the processes in the Soviet Union, where the bourgeois class was first formed, and then bourgeois revolutions took place. And even such an emerging bourgeoisie was found in the USSR - shadow shop workers.
Those. small groups of criminal speculators who did not own the means of production, engaged in elementary theft, without their own political organization and no influence, became the emerging capitalist class among them.
They even forgot how the authorities during the period of Andropovism dealt with these “capitalists” in a revealing way, so that they would not get under their feet.
As a result of these studies, an outstanding result in terms of the degree of "scientific" was obtained: in 1991, an anti-communist coup took place that eliminated socialism and the USSR. This "coup" was especially noticeable in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Azerbaijan.
Who was turned over there, I wonder if the first secretaries of the republican communist parties, members of the Central Committee of the CPSU, became the presidents of these republics? And how could one not notice the process of formation of Borka Yeltsin, a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU, an "oppositionist", with his transfer from Sverdlovsk to Moscow, with his presentation as an antipode to Gorbachev?
Who would benefit as a future head of state from a controlled wino who, on command, handed over the post to the next “manager”? Unless, of course, you believe that an alcoholic is all a cool charisma, as you were drawn ... then okay. It's useless to argue with believers...
But it is necessary to point out the main points.
For example, that we are convinced that an internal party coup took place simultaneously with the assassination of Stalin, carried out by the majority of the Central Committee of the CPSU, formed from the secretaries of the republics and regions, which, under the conditions of a one-party system, led to an instant and state coup.
And this coup was bourgeois, in 1953 the bourgeois counter-revolution won in the person of the collective capitalist - the Central Committee of the CPSU. Hence the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which automatically meant the establishment of a bourgeois dictatorship. As a sign of this - the armed suppression of workers' demonstrations in Novocherkassk.
All further actions of the ruling class, the highest party nomenklatura, were aimed at creating conditions for the final victory of the counter-revolution: restoration in place of state capitalism - its private property form.
Still striking is the short-sightedness of our obscurantists, whose eyes were blurred by Khrushchev's report at the 20th Congress.
In fact, this report is just one of the episodes of the struggle of the Trotskyist Central Committee with Stalin's supporters, who were no longer in power, but in power structures, who, after speaking out against Nikita in 1957, began to be called the "anti-party group."
But the main events did not take place at all at the 20th Congress. It was the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on the “anti-party group”, the 21st congress, at which the moment of their removal from government bodies was fixed, the 22nd congress of the CPSU, at which, under the guise of adopting a program for building communism, the final “farewell” to Stalinism took place, t .e. and with Marxism, the reprisal against the already dead Stalin and the “anti-party group” was completed.
Here, a program of super-industrialization was adopted according to Trotsky's plan, when the rate of development of growth in the production of means of production over the growth in the production of consumer goods, determined by Stalin's 19th congress at 2%, was blown out to 20%, which eventually led to the bankruptcy of the USSR economy, ceased to satisfy the people in its state of deficit, and the creation of prerequisites for privatization.
And so far, no one, except us, has made any effort to restore the good name of those people, Stalin's comrades-in-arms, who to the last resisted the anti-communist coup, who were slandered by presenting conformist members of the "anti-party group": Malenkov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich. It was the resistance of these people to the Khrushchev bastards that forced the Central Committee of the CPSU to publicly subject them to obstruction at the 21st and 22nd congresses, which in itself was the recognition of the Central Committee of involvement in the counter-revolutionary coup.
This doomed resistance of the “anti-party members” was their feat...
---
Actually, it is stated so clearly and logically that no additions are required, and it becomes clear why the organ of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the direct heir to the CPSU, refused to publish the material, as was said in the preamble to it.
The main thing that I would single out and emphasize is the attitude towards the post-Stalinist USSR as a state that is not socialist in principle.
This removes all questions for the USSR, which turned into a state moving towards state capitalism after the death of Stalin and the seizure of power by Khrushchev, and then the accession of Brezhnev.
That is, speaking about the socialist path of development and focusing on the USSR as a historical model, discussing its advantages and disadvantages, successes and defeats, we must keep in mind the Soviet Union of the Stalinist period, which was the only fully Soviet socialist state, after death him losing ground and transforming into what he had become at the time of his collapse.
In a tougher version, a bourgeois coup took place in the USSR in 1953, and all its further development from that moment inevitably led to what happened in the late 80s and early 90s.
The CPSU, of course, at the same time ceased to be a communist party, in any case, the Central Committee of the CPSU became, at a minimum, an opportunist and revisionist group of the Trotskyist persuasion, which, by the way, perfectly explains the sudden degeneration of Gorbachev's communists into Yeltsin's capitalists ...
Do you agree with this statement, which we can use in further discussions as an axiomatic one?
P.S.
I think it is very useful to deepen the understanding of some aspects of what was the difference between Stalin's and Khrushchev's socialism, the style of governing the country, the managerial paradigm, with the external immutability of the system, it seems, this very curious old interview can become - 
The vast majority of people have finally come to the realization of what happened in October 1993. Under the cover, supposedly, of the will of the people and with the blessing of the West, primarily the United States, there was a throw of the new government to a state of almost dictatorial lawlessness, which is confirmed not only by the new Constitution, but also by the very spirit of life, where money and violence rule. For their sake, a massacre was arranged. But there was another meaning in all this: when the executive branch staggered, it preferred to kill openly, kill by the thousands, cripple the consciousness of the people with the most obscene television in the world, the most corrupt newspapers, illegal lawsuits in order to preserve their own personal power - the power of the SUPER-RICH NOBODIES.
... It was an act of civil war, but why, then, does it cause such indignation? After all, a civil war is, so to speak, a mutual thing, striking equally in all directions. But the fact of the matter is that there was a massacre ...
Everything became possible with the patience of the people. The people did not fight back when prices shot up 10, 100, 1000 times! It was pure robbery, madness, but the people demolished, kept silent ... The people remained silent when the pickets at the Ostankino tower were crushed, and blood was shed. The people silently and humbly endure more and more oppression over themselves, but what oppression: terrible, without justification and examples in the history of crime.
And the cautious, previously fearful authorities began to acquire an insolent, murderous and violent character.
What is going on? Some insignificant parodies of people arrange life - our life, brazenly trampling on our will and mercilessly, savagely stepping on our throats. And we demolish everything, demolish everything without exception - any abuse. Some kind of general clouding of reason, loss of a sense of reality and fascination, humility, insensitivity to evil. Yes, there will be no better fate, is it really unclear ...
... That night I began to fall asleep - and suddenly remembered that the toilet, where I looked seven weeks ago (on the first floor of the House of Soviets, from the entrance number twenty; I had to put myself in order for the last time before speaking live on the Parliamentary hour") - one of those in which the corpses of the defenders of the House of Soviets were stacked. First, the dead were piled up, and then, when the wounded were brought in and finished off, they were added to that pile of corpses. The dead lay up to the ceiling. Blood flowed up to the ankle ... The very place for a walk for Gaidar, Chernomyrdin, Erin, Grachev, Barsukov ... well, their "master" ...
… "Internationalism" is the word that paints our past. But true internationalists are the owners of capital, large and small. All over the world they constitute a single brotherhood, for which peoples, including their own people, are only an unfortunate hindrance in increasing wealth, which gives truly unlimited power over people, peoples and states.
In this internationalist brotherhood of the rich there is perfect mutual understanding, organic community and cruelty, callousness to any form of struggle of working people for a decent life...
At the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, there was an active destruction of the USSR and the countries of the socialist camp by agents of Western imperialism who seized power and counter-revolutionaries in the CPSU. During the period of Khrushchevism and stagnation, when elements of the market were introduced in the Soviet planned economy, the party, in its composition and legally, was separated by contra from the Soviet working people, and in the cultural and ideological superstructure, revisionism and narrow-mindedness were planted, led to the fact that in the early nineties among the majority of the peaceful working population did not turn out to be politically literate, capable of resisting the counter-revolutionary actions of the cadres, a lot of blood was shed. The power of the exploiters rests on lies and violence. But they cannot crush the labor movement. What has the power of the capitalists given us except hopeless poverty, devastation, hopelessness, empty promises? By now developing anti-communist hysteria, the bourgeoisie is showing what it fears, what it hates most of all - communism. For this ideology is a direct path to the liberation of the working people from wage slavery, the gravedigger of the last exploiting class in history. Consider the issue of Soviet Romania. How were socialist relations of production destroyed there? What forces supported the coup and why did the working class of the republic not stand up for Ceausescu? What and how does Romania live today?
These days, Romania is celebrating the anniversary of the riots from December 16 to 25, 1989, which turned into a bloody massacre and ended with the overthrow of the Chairman of the State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania (SRR), Nicolae Ceausescu. For the past 20 years, many people in Romania have been associated with a continuous process of impoverishment. If the number of the poor in the country is declining, it is only due to emigration. Unemployment in the country is increasing every year. At the political level, there are simply no measures to combat poverty. 76% of Romanians cannot even dream of a holiday away from home. 49% do not have a personal car, and 19% of citizens are not able to buy meat, chicken or fish. Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Latvia top the poverty pedestal in Europe. But once the same Hungary made locomotives. The Latvian SSR made first-class musical centers, tape recorders and other equipment. But all this has sunk into oblivion... In 1989, under the influence of Gorbachev's perestroika, a wave of coups swept through the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. All of them were presented by the Western media as a spontaneous protest of the population against the communist dictatorship. But these protests were well organized by the United States. as an operation to destroy the socialist community and create conditions for expanding the zone of responsibility of the North Atlantic Alliance to the east. NATO was torn inland, to the east of Europe and the Soviet Union, the capitalists were eager to consolidate the results achieved with bloodshed. However, if in Poland, the GDR, Czechoslovakia, the coups were relatively peaceful, then in Romania the “anti-communist revolution” became bloody. Today, more and more Romanians are convinced that the so-called Romanian “revolution” of 1989, as a result of which the “revolutionaries” killed more than a thousand people, was a well-orchestrated anti-government rebellion and was supported by capital from the West. Surrounded by Ceausescu, there was a group of counter-revolutionary conspirators who wanted to legalize private property and rule in his place. Having taken control of the media, the traitors spread false rumors about some pro-government terrorists killing demonstrators. When the city of Timisoara rebelled, some of whose inhabitants protested against the arrest by the state security authorities of Laszlo Tekes, bishop of the Reformed Church, an ethnic Hungarian and a member of the Hungarian counter-revolutionary underground in Romania, Ceausescu ordered the use of force against the rebels. However, on December 22, 1989, the army, being processed by the fifth column, went over to the side of the demonstrators. There were armed clashes between regular army troops and the forces of the state security service "Securitate". When the military seized the building of the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party and the Ceausescu couple was detained, the leaders of the conspirators demanded their speedy execution.
According to the results of the next investigation, the fourth in a row, the military prosecutor of Romania, Marian Lazar, said: “It was definitely a sabotage ... which led to numerous deaths, injuries and economic damage.” And in general, there are a lot of questions that are difficult to find the answer even today. “Most of the documents from those days have been destroyed as evidence that the sabotage really took place ... I don’t think that as long as the most important participants in those events are alive, we will be able to find out the truth about what happened,” says the editor-in-chief of the Digi24 TV channel, which specializes in investigation of the bloody events of 1989 by Oan Despa.
Iliescu was the leader of the National Salvation Front (FNS), a political party quickly concocted after the overthrow of Ceausescu. As president, Iliescu showed the fascist essence of the new regime: he suppressed any civil resistance, using the services of people, with reinforcement. Dissatisfied with the policy of the authorities under Iliescu, they were dispersed with blood and victims ... One of the leaders of the protesters, Miron Cozma, was sentenced to 18 years in prison. To know how to strike against the occupation regime. The West strengthened its positions, and presented the terrorist actions of the new government as a triumph of democracy over communism.
Under Iliescu, the fascists raised their heads in Bucharest, and rumors about the “Greater Romania” of the times of Hitler’s ally conductor Antonescu, who had a hand in the emergence of nationalist forces in Moldova and Moldova’s attack on Transnistria, began again.
Traian Basescu, the President of Romania in 2004-2014, came from the Federal Tax Service, who supported Viktor Yushchenko’s “orange” coup d’état in Kiev in 2004, and then, by a dubious decision of the International Court of Justice, took rich wealth from a weakened Ukraine. minerals shelf near Zmeiny Island in the Black Sea. Under Basescu, Romania also claimed the Ukrainian island of Maikan on the Danube and set a course for the absorption of the Republic of Moldova by Romania.
Today Romania is a member of the EU and NATO, the economy depends entirely on the Western masters. Thousands of people are forced to leave the country for at least some meager earnings ... Here it is, the sad result of the bloody farce, which is called the "Anti-Communist Revolution".
