Текст книги "Почему не состоялся коммунизм? (Кто виноват? Что делать? Куда идти?) / Why has the communism still not turned out? (Who is guilty? What should be done? Where to go?)"

As stated above we have convinced that consumer market problems in this country (poor quality of goods, deficiency, disproportions of pricing, hierarchy in a wages and many other things) are consequence of incorrect regulation of a labour market. The constant suit between the worker and factory management about the price of work, that suit displayed itself both by downturn of work-quotas from one side and overcoming the work-rates from another, was the best improvement of market’s existence. The commodity market simply suffered from the wrong organization of a labour one.

But here Gaydar (meant E. Gaydar who was in 1991–92 the Russian prime-minister and the maim initiator of liberal reforms in Russia) has come “great and awful” and has solemnly “entered” us into the market. Truly he ́d better study an available socialist market himself and learn to manage and regulate it. Without silly lamentations – the market will place everything on its places (T: – that phrase sounded in Russia as an invocation in the 90-s of XX century) – but meeting the needs the concrete worker. To prevent the alienation, misappropriation and accumulation of toiler’s work by the latent grabbers. And that Egor (T: – Russian equivalent for George, meant E. Gaydar, see above) did nothing useful, but he had wished the glory however, then repudiated from Communism and crucified the Marxism.

Still what Marxism and communism one could speak about while people haven’t yet left the animal kingdom when the person’ stomach demand every moment: “Suppress one’s neighbour!”, when nobody wants to consider other people interests and to wait for common happiness?

And, you, Gaydar – you are not the scientist. Otherwise, you would see, that the infringement of needs led to their activization, to growth of public contradictions, instead of to the growth of labour productivity.

Certainly, the Marxism has burnt its fingers with the Human Being problem. The same thing one could observe nowadays as well looking at frightening consequences of liberal reforms. Gaydar’s forgery has given freedom not to people (alas!) but to swines and villains, had allowed them to plunder everything and everybody and had relieved them of any responsibility.

May be you do think that all people on the Globe are born as human beings, don ́t you? Nothing of the sort! Most persons are quite near the primitive tribe level. Surely the opportunities, attributes and means have changed, but the essence, purposes and passions have remained the same. The patrimonial accessory creates only a basis, but does not guarantee the humanity inside the human beings. One should turn into the Human Being every day and every hour, should prove it to himself and to others overcoming the animal consumer egocentrism and improving the ability for creation. It ́s exactly the ability for creation that differs the human being from the animals.

You wished to make better, didn ́t you? What was the result? Look before you leap. Having replaced a science with subjectivity and eclecticism, you have destroyed continuity of social progress and depreciated the life and efforts of numerous generations. How many people have been ruined by you, Gaydar and Chubays (T: A. Chubays was one of the key figures in Russuian politics in 1991–2008, the “father” of Russian privatization)? How many people have died due to undereating, bad life conditions, illnesses, depression? How many persons weren’t born, hasn’t matured and realized themselves? I think you (T: – the author here goes on addressing E. Gaydar and other politicians of liberal orientation) “have won” the historical dispute with reprisals 1937–1939 – never before this country lost so much people in a peace time. Nevertheless you continue to smile lovely and represent yourselves as incomprehensible intellectuals. You do not wish to recognize and even to understand, that you have politically succeed only due to your recipes have appeared are favourable to bureaucracy. And not in the least because of liberalism being a highway of mankind progress. Your deceit has turned out to be favourable to “tops”. Here is the very secret of your “revolutionary” success.

However, let’s return to our muttons. So, why people has dumped a superstructure and why has it not pleased? The privileges? But the rulers have them in all times, and people has got used to it… Command administration methods? – One could hardly find the different way in terms of a material interest absence… Bureaucracy methods in consideration of complaints, requests and offers? But in fact everything has being done according to the common rules, and the rules seemed to be the same for everybody… The defects of distributive system? – Let one shows the place in the Globe where is no such defects. Alas, all these nasty things very became habitual long time ago and because of them anybody would not rush under tanks tracks.

The people have rushed in fight because they wished to live better. They always wish and work for that. But every time everything turns out vainly. The people start working more and more, suffering and hoping. Vainly again. They change the methods and the tactics, start to apply meanness and a deceit, but suddenly it appears the results do not justify expenses. The time comes – the cover is broken from a boiler and people lay down on rails, build barricades on the squares and protect the parliament with their hands bare. What a villain should one be to send the tanks to crush such people and to provide a barbed wire for to calm them down, to force the police and the army be involved?

Some communists name those events the “counterrevolution”, and two years later the democrats in similar situation called “to crush a reptile”. What bosh! People who were neither communists nor democrats, who knew nothing about basis and superstructure, they simply wished to live better. It was them whom the wise rulers had to think about. Still the rulers hadn’t thought about the people, they thought only about their own pockets and chests and so were dethroned. It’s the heart of the problem.

Still what has happened? Why and when had the communist rulers ceased to care of people?

It is necessary to name things by their proper names, to call a spade a spade for to understand something. The socialist revolution combined efforts both of communistic leaders and the vast masses of working people. During an epoch of struggle for power and preparation of revolution all revolutionaries were equal, and it was great! Well, but afterwards the leaders were starting to turn into the rulers. When the Revolution won immediately the system of New Power had been built. In this majestic hierarchy of party, state and administrative posts, ex-revolutionary leaders appeared… to be the usual people with their weaknesses and problems. The contradiction between abilities and needs that they tried to overcome in one or another way also started to break them. And they turned out to be the rivals.

They struggled for interests of other people earlier, afterwards they started to struggle for their own interests that is for the power. As so class struggle still proceeding during that period, it could simply be confused with trivial career struggle which has widely extended in system of New Power. During that epoch the great number of inner-party fights occurred. The factions, coalitions, ideological platforms… The main leader (T: – the general secretary of Communist Party, here meant I. Stalin) should watch more closely the temperature in the hearth, reducing the heat of those fights when it was necessary. But Stalin himself was an inveterate fighter more likely capable to add the fat into the fire, than to reconcile someone.

Surely he couldn’t completely stop this struggle, it would proceed in any case. Still as the supreme ruler he had to keep it within definite limits and to avoid spontaneous strengthening and transition in a “class” channel. Really the fight against the enemies and the rivalry between the party comrades (for instance for better results) are quite apart. The rivalry of the second kind was exactly the reason of moving new ruler mentality’ from the romantic care about the people to trivial egoism. It’s quite natural.

Still it was not a tragedy yet. Let somebody show the system since ancient pharaons till nowadays that would be crowned with the ruler who thought more about the people and less about himself. There was maybe sometimes a handful. As for suffering for the other people – this way is for fewest from a few. Jesus, for instance. For this very reason the masses have idolized him. Just those who are in the bottom think of people much more than those on the top.

But when human needs accrue, and rulers grow rabid due to consumer ambitions then people begins to build barricades. Barricades 1991 rooted in 1936 when I. Stalin addressing the VII-th Emergency Congress of Soviets spoke about the project of the new Constitution.

According to the doctrine of Marxism-leninism (A: – this item should be the object of special attention), the socialism should leave a transition period as a classless society. To confirm, I intend to make some quotations to exclude any charge in any juggling of theoretical principal propositions and the historical facts.

Here you are. K. Marx: ”The dictatorship itself makes only transition to destruction of any classes, and to a society without classes” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected works, V. 28, p. 427). In other words after the dictatorship the society comes into the classless status.

F. Engels “The Proletariat takes the power and transforms means of production first of all into a state ownership. And so starts destroying itself as proletariat, all class distinctions and class contrasts, as well as the state as the state”(Ibid, V. 19, p. 224; V. 20, p. 291) More shortly: a capture of authority and nationalization of means of production is the very process of utter annihilation of classes.

Let’s proceed. V. I. Lenin “Everyone knows, that the Marxism is a theoretical substantiation of abolishment of classes”(V. I. Lenin, Complete works, V. 40, p. 303). Neither more nor less than it was said.

“Domination of vanguard of all workers (the proletariat) is necessary for this transitive time for utter annihilation of classes” (Ibid, V. 37, p. 87).

“The society which have still remained a class difference between working and the peasant inside it, none could not name neither communistic, nor a socialist one” (Ibid, V. 38,p. 353).

“We carried on class struggle and our purpose – abolishment of classes” (Ibid, V. 40, p. 304).

“The socialism starts there where there are no classes when all means of production are in hands of workers” (Ibid, V. 42, p. 307).

“First a dictatorship of proletariat comes and therefore a classless society does” (Ibid, V. 43, p. 100).

Lenin it was expressed even more categorically in one of the speeches to workers. “Now, passing through the hall, I have met the poster with an inscription: ‘The Empire of workers and peasants won’t end ever’. When I have read through this strange poster…, I have thought: what a misunderstanding and wrong understanding, concerning truisms and basic foundations we could discover sometimes. In fact if only the power of workers and peasants would not end, it meant that never socialism would be itself as the socialism is the very abolishment of classes. Still if only there are workers and there are peasants while there are different classes, no one could speak about a socialism” (Ibid, V.43, p. 130)…

Those foundations have been entered in the Party Program, 1919. Till the certain time those approaches were also shared by Stalin. In his brochure “The problems of Leninism” in 1926 he call the dictatorship of proletariat “the power… for abolishment of classes, for transition to the society without any classes, to a socialist society” (I. V. Stalin, Collected works, V. 8, p. 30). The very same ideas he spoke about addressing the XVII-th Party Congress in 1934: “Let’s consider the problem of classless socialist society construction… XVII Party Conference proposed we were going to the classless socialist society creation” (Ibid, V. 13, p. 350)…

All seemed to be going well, in accordance with the Party Program and historical logic. Indeed if you have annihilated slave-owning and the slave-owners as a class, whether could you keep the slave? Certainly you couldn’t! Whose slave would be the slave if the slave-owner had finished his social existence? If the serfdom is abrogated, whether somebody can keep the landlord and the serf as classes? No one could as well. The peasants will remain, but they wouldn’t be a class of a feudal society. They would be a strata disintegrating on farm laborers and “kulaks” (T: this term used in Russian language for to emphasize the well-to-do peasant). The class of lend-lord would disintegrate (declassed) in its own way.

Let’s look now, how has the class structure of the society changed if the capitalists eliminated? Could somebody keep the wage labour and hired workers? In other words – the proletariat? Whether could be the exploited if there were not the exploiters any more? The class eliminating is not an eliminating of people as some could think, the class eliminating means the reorientation, the total change in ownership structure. As the Marxist doctrine had been constantly repeating for years, the classes of one formation come into existence together and disappear at the same time. The classes are formed from the strata, consist of the strata and turn back into the strata after finishing their existence. That is the dialectics. So it was the key point. The mankind has been suffering through all its history from class split, class yoke and class battles and the getting rid of problems connected with the classes was dreamed about as one of the main revolution tasks.

All of a sudden less the three years after XVII-th Party Congress, Stalin declared the won socialism supposed to be a “class society”, including “quite new working class”, “the quite new Soviet peasantry” and as well “the quite new strata – the Soviet intelligentsia” (T: this term uses in Russian language for to emphasize the intellectuals). (I. Stalin, The problems of Leninism, 11-th ed., p. 548–550)

Why? What for? The answer comes immediately, ten pages below: “I had to recognize, that New Constitution project upholds indeed a mode of dictatorship of working class as well as leadership position of the Communist Party of the USSR” (Ibid, p. 561).

All becomes extremely clear: Stalin needs the classes for to keep the dictatorship of proletariat and accordingly his own position on its apex. If only he according to doctrine recognized the socialism classless society, the dictatorship of proletariat would be cancelled, at least its repressive components as NKVD (T: – meant the secret policy), detection and surveillance, GULAG (T: – meant the system of concentration reformatory camps) would be dismantled. So it was necessary to change system of the government as a whole just because the classless society would be ruled unlike the class one.

After the socialism has won the state, according to doctrine, has starting dying off and yielding to the total democratization and self-government. No classes – no suppression, isn’t it? For the first time in history the opportunity has occurred without “secret services aimed against the co-citizens”. Lenin wrote persistently about this point in “The state and the revolution”. This moment seemed to turn out the start-point of person role expansion in historical process. The every personality not exclusively the nomenclature one. Well still in the case Stalin could find himself in a situation of quite legitimate rivalry. Such situation was out of his plans. So he retouched the Marxist doctrine to mask his own aim. Having not that piece of job done he would face the truly nonsense: the class dictatorship without any class existence. On the contrary the above-mentioned falsification (T: – the theoretical conservation of classes) had assisted him to make a slim latent coup, the second one after he took the position of Communist party General Secretary.

In other words he had usurped the power. So afterwards he could any his rival be treated as the class enemy and just put him into prison.

Still nobody can play hide-and-seek with the history and the incorrect decision turns around in thousand current and future excesses and breaks.

So as well the society has declared to be the “class” one again; the dictatorship and the corresponding ideology automatically proceeded as well as the repression machine did. Since all conflicts (interpersonal, ethnic etc.) were considered as class ones. All the consequences followed. Accordingly, the intestine career fights flared up with new force and persistence, with use of tools and instrument of the state power. In addition if the repression machine proceed functioning they proceed to look for enemies and “find” them or simply fabricate ones.

So in that paradoxical manner after the socialism had won the catchall repressions were coming instead of human relations harmonization. They were applied primarily not to the workers but to those who fought for their own benefit. The concurrency among them has turned to the fierce fight that involved the NKVD (T: – see above) repressive machine. Stalin himself had by no means not sanctioned it, he had rather provoked it. The people were fighting against each other and mixed (intentionally, sometimes) the interpersonal conflicts with the class ones having the state and repressive institutions involved.

The number of “repressioners”, those who put the repressions into effect does astonish more than the mass character of repressed that was the favorite item of stalinism critics. It really was not the malicious will of the leader or not “congenital bloodthirstiness” of Bolsheviks which led to a tragedy the cruel and senseless as well. The repressions appeared as the continuation of “class struggle” in classless society.

That distortion finally resulted in distortion of socialism itself, in the wretchedness of the very society foundations. It appeared that Stalin himself didn’t except such effect, but he could not recognize himself guilty and latent betrayal of Marxism. To his credit be it said that he had corrected mush in practices of his leadership despite his own mistakes in theory. Alas, it was impossible having deformed one position, to not break all integrity the Weltanschauung concept. The dialectics of world progress as the clue in this doctrine, cannot be cancelled by anybody, even Stalin.

Having kept the concept and dictatorship of proletariat itself though it had become objectively unnecessary, Stalin has from the very beginning created a situation of contradiction between superstructure and socialist basis, thus having held down its subsequent development. Not totally but he put in its development the deformed and distorted components, transformed it to a phenomenon was obsessed with fixed quantitive indexes. Meanwhile the socialism was developing not as the living social organism but as rigid construction. The command system of ruling without feedback, total regulation of all and everything, absence of freedom of discussions had resulted in an improbable pressure of work and the wasted vastest efforts. Stalin, having closed all administrative communications on himself, allowed to be unique thinking and deciding person only to himself. As for others – they were free to compete among themselves. He had forgotten, that nobody was eternal, and the subsequent rulers, would put struggle on the first place, having removed care of the people somewhere on boondocks of public practice. The followers thought only of how to squeeze more out of people and how to drive into their communist paradise on peoples hump. Some day it had to stop.

When the apex of power pyramid was occupied by N. Khrushchev (the CPSU General Secretary in 1956–1965, took the first after Stalin attempt to reform the Soviet political system), his personal distinguishing feature had left an appreciable imprint on administrative system of the country. And that was all – nothing more. No foundations were revised, no theoretical rethinking was done. All Khrushchev’ innovations followed his emotions instead of his intellect and consequently basic changes had not been generated. All what had been done it was holding up to shame Stalin’s idolizing and cult of personality and condemnation of reprisals as “unreasonable”. In fact the whole situation was the same – the Stalin’s falsification of Marxism continued to remain firm. The so-called “the entire-people state” appeared in the Program of Communism construction, has kept all attributes of class dictatorship and structurally has not changed. So the cult had just changed the family name and the reprisals had dressed other cloth. During Khrushchev’ epoch the dissidents were not be shooted or exiled due to “mistakes”, but were expelled from a Party and dismissed, in other words were starved to death.

The superstructure remained in fact unsullied. The society of social justice and equality for the sake of which the true Leninists struggled and worked, endowing health and even a life itself, was crossed out by the bureaucratic nomenclature which had fostered by Stalin and been reliably tied by system of privileges. Whatever reforms were planed all of them had been broken about a stronghold of this system or sank in a pathos chatter. It is important to note, that in Khruschev years the latent polarization of the nomenclature on leninists and stalinists took place. Interpersonal concurrent conflicts turned into the struggle between the clans and groups resulted in the Kruschev political defeat.

The epoch of the “zastoy” (T: – this term used in Russia to determine the period of stagnation during the years of Leonid Brezhnev’ ruling, 1965–1982) that has put in our history afterwards as a victory of the most conservative part of Soviet elite, was the period of boundless connivance when the omnipotent bureaucracy has once again changed a surname of a cult and on this background has completely untied its hands. Without further ado the bureaucracy constantly covering Brezhnev’s breast with stars and awards, pursued exclusively its own ends and gradually knitted with shadow economy which just to the moment started to grow.

That period was the most long because the career rivalry had a little weakened due to huge material compensation that bureaucracy found in the field of economic permissiveness. The desired results could be attained much more faster out-of-struggle than inside it. Supporting a mode of permissiveness, Brezhnev has adhered the nomenclature more strongly, than Stalin through the privileges and fear. It did are Brezhnev years when the conflict between the ruling circles and the working peoples had been precisely designated. “The tops” were standing shoulder to shoulder against ”the bottoms” holding in fat hands the slogan of “economical economy” for people and thinking only about impetuous enrichment for themselves. Afterwards the agony of nomenclature bureaucratic socialism had begun and appeared the turn leaders dying one behind another – the tragic symbol of full degeneration of dictatorship of proletariat in dictatorship of officials.

Certainly workers are absolutely unguilty of constructing that dictatorship which was created by Stalin and which the all subsequent party leaders parasitized on. That power wasn’t workers power. As well as they were not the class already and so could not resist to forces hostile to them. Thus the socialism built only technically hasn’t been created as the social-economic formation supplied with corresponding superstructure and based upon the self-government, total democracy and freedom. The socialism hadn’t been defeated in struggle against the exterior antagonists (let the American imperialism stop trying to misappropriate the victory), the socialism has just because not followed up. Due to distortions of its inner-development founded not upon Marxist doctrine itself but on the very Stalinist version of that doctrine.

Stalin usurped the power, deformed the socialism and discredited it. Having declared himself the main standard-bearer he turned out the main grave-digger of socialism. It was exactly Stalinism which not to stood the test of time, of the historical practices. As for the socialism it was broken down in latent struggle among the ruling circles and also in struggle between “the tops” and “the bottoms” for their part of consumer well-fare. Not due to falsity of communist idea in the whole but because of the nation had been leaded by the consumers. Instead of all-round development of socialism they fought mainly for better and greater consumption for themselves. The global war of consuming ambitions initiated by Stalin had finally swallowed the socialism. The Communists would dissociate themselves from Stalin and from Stalinism years ago and apologize to co-citizens and the whole mankind for its unreasonable authoritarianism under the red communist banner.