Translated by communist-ml.ru

The political impotence of liberal and left-wing opposition is expressed in the same old tricks. Liberals want maximally show Putin’s regime in the negative, anti-democratic color. The Left want to show their arch-revolutionary spirit, to run into the real «battle» with the bourgeois police car, in the face of Special Police Force. Liberals always work under all circumstances, as their political line financially depends on the Western capital. It is important for them to create a reason for work of the Western media, colorfully capture pictures and videos of their «achievements» and take a political stance. In essence, they and their program — it is a bourgeois fuss appendage between «national» capital and their Western partners. A foreign imperialist pays for the liberal opposition, which, however, among the local petty-bourgeois intellectuals has social roots, then to use it as the arguments in the political and economic bargaining.

Leftist opposition — Udaltsov & Co. is the left part of the same petty-bourgeois intellectuals, who decided to play in the revolution and stood under the liberal slogans, allegedly in attempt to deepen the protest. The blurring of their positions and promiscuity of their opinions directly mixes Udaltsov’s followers and their friends of Russian Young Communist League (b) with the Liberals. And if the leaders as Udaltsov likely directly sold themselves out liberals, the ordinary left opposition, which came «to fight» for democracy with the Special Designation police Detachment while was sold only indirectly.

Among the Russian Young Communist League (b) there is a belief, that in any protest it is necessary to participate in the forefront, moving it forward. They make quite reasonable attempts to justify their participation, spending stupid historical analogies and pulling their narrow-minded theoretical layouts under the current situation.

The reason for existence of petty communism and democratic half-communism of Udaltsov is the fact of petty bourgeoisie existence — a special layer which serves as a buffer between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The petty-bourgeois mentality inherent to each proletarian who only thinks it is better to settle, infected by miserliness and careerism, creates the illusion that we can make significant changes without any special efforts and a radical demolition of the existing system. A passive type of thinking is the ordinary petty modern philistinism.

So a philistine forms a political core group of the opposition. If he thinks in a reformist way, it is a liberal. If he thinks revolutionary — it is leftist.

In fact, any public outrage takes a well-trodden path of the bourgeoisie, as all the conditions dictated by the current economic conditions, from which comes a political struggle, as a result of emotional disturbance and ideological mediation of these conditions. Since the masses outrage because of everyday perception of the surrounding social reality, the results of perturbations cannot go beyond the existing social system. Thus, any movement can be considered petit bourgeois, but it is important not only where and how the masses go, it is important who goes and how he is organized. We criticize the opposition for where and how it leads, so we call it a purely petty prostitute in the service of the Western imperialists, or opposition local small and medium capital. The fact, that opposition simply does not stand up the criticism how it is represented in the social composition and how it is organized. This is a thrash of opposition, composed of a few half-dead organizations with loose programs, organized around social networks and around welfare of the bourgeoisie, who were supported by urban youth and petty bourgeoisie of Moscow. This is a socio-political complexion of opposition.

If the labor movement, which consists of proletarians of the physical labor, since they are well-organized, could appear massively with similar political issues (fairness of elections, anti-corruption, against Putin), then we would be required to keep the explanatory work. Then, perhaps, would stand the actual question of the participation with the aim to turn workers from the path of stupid haggling of unclear political demands without any hints on a positive result. But the workers are smarter than our opponents, so that they understand the futility of this fuss. Yes, they are infected with despair and feel meaningless of any struggle, but it does not mean that we have to cure them calling to get involved in any fighting. Despair is, exactly, that they are not satisfied by any struggle.

While the voice of real communists, who are calling first of all to make war against the bourgeoisie in the ideological front, to clean Marxism and apply it to the working masses to create the Communist Party is not on the paper, not in the compromise with opportunism, and indeed truly not will be heard, civil activism and any other liberal opposition fighting the petty bourgeoisie will confuse activity of the proletariat.

The actualization of ideological struggle is due to several things: firstly, the proletariat is silent, it waits until the communists would bring an organization; secondly, we have had exactly the ideological defeat for the proletariat minds; thirdly, it is necessary to dissociate the opportunism completely based on the developed Communist ideology, which is highly responsive for working class problems.

Let’s take, for example, the content of opposition struggle, and answer the question in what way it meets the interests of proletariat? Opposition requires fair elections. Are there really conscious workers who believe in honesty of bourgeois elections? It is even uncomfortable to write for the workers that fair elections are not possible till the question of property is not resolved. Bourgeoisie buys everything — elections, if they «honestly» choose someone who is not the right person, after they will buy an incumbent deputy. They will buy a judge and a panel. Everything is subject of sale. What kind of honesty is in question? About honest contest of money? So, the proletarian’s money is barely enough to cover his family expenses, he doesn’t care about the contest. And can somebody be honest in the market? Market and money competition – this is a priori a deceit. It is awkward to propagandize an obvious thing.

Opposition demands the leaving of Putin. Is it not clear that Putin — is the manager of the big monopolistic bourgeoisie? If to remove Putin and put somebody at his place, what will change? It is clear that those who scream about this, want to take Putin’s place to have a possibility to take an advantage. The proletariat always has a benefit from destabilization of bourgeoisie, the bourgeois government and its state, but to put as the main objective Putin’s leaving that allegedly create a crisis — is too hasty wishful thinking. The proletariat has neither the strength to pull down Putin nor the organization to hold the power. And to get involved in the liberal fray against Putin with a known beforehand zero result – it is an exchange of principles, nothing more. Luting of true goals pursued by the proletarian class.

The opposition wants to overcome a corruption. This point may be the most interesting, because often the active proletarians «knock against» the fight against red tape. The fact, that the Communists and thus working class are not against the corruption of bourgeois system. The corruption it is a way to ensure the loyalty of apparatus consisting of bourgeoisie state performers. Now the bourgeoisie transformed into a big monopoly and launched an anti-corruption campaign against authorities, which is no longer a useful tool for the interests of a small group of oligarchs. Thus, the less corruption in the Russian Federation — the stronger a bourgeois dictatorship. Moreover, the corruption of power is favorable for revolutionary movement in purely utilitarian terms and for an ordinary proletarian it is easier to give a bribe to particular performer, than to feed a crowd of anti-bribetakers.

The working class must be strongly against corruption of its power, because under socialism the corrupt official is a direct agent of the bourgeoisie.

There is also a petty bourgeois myth that government officials, as a special caste of managers, allegedly exploited the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This follows from a misunderstanding of the bourgeois state essence, as an apparatus of violence in the service of the entrepreneurial class. In the end, private owners dictate their conditions for the state, because their direct appointees are selected in the legislative and judicial authorities, and appointed to the executive authorities. State for strong players — it is just a tool and an arbitrator, who expresses common class interests. But for the small and medium entrepreneurs, shopkeepers and artisans, the state – it is a terrible enemy, which pushes them by taxes and regulated bank rates for loans and does not come up to the big bourgeois. Their view it is an above mentioned myth.

The entire opposition struggle is simple fuss about petty and impossible demands. The market creates corruption, Putin’s walk off will not loosen the capitalism and fair elections in a class society sound as nonsense in the service of the bourgeois order, in the spirit of abstract liberalism. Theoretically, the issue of protest is more broadly: «For the bourgeois-democratic revolution». But do we struggle against the remnants of feudalism? Against the landlords, who consolidate the development of capitalism productive forces? It is absurd. May be bourgeois-democratic demands set against the fascist regime? There is also no a direct open dictatorship of imperialism and it couldn’t be yet. While the rest of bourgeoisie fascism spills only from time to time, as in any capitalist society. Again there is a theoretical ignorance to sum theoretical basis for tail-ism in practice. To be afraid of admitting the situation, to refuse to work on the theory, learning and to get up to the liberals and anarchists tail (i.e. in the street fighting to support the anti-fascists) — it is the fate of the Left.