Translated by Ekaterina Smirnova
The problem is still not solved
As you know, since the collapse of the First International, all created communist parties declined after a while and left the historical stage. However, one fallen party was replaced by new ones and, in spite of repressions, terror and persecution, the parties with communist names exist today all over the world, except those countries where European colonialism and religion do their best to stop the cultural development of people. The European experience of the last decade shows that the expansion of red flags at demonstrations of European workers is caused only by capitalism itself, and, especially, for a wonder, by American one.
Anticommunists do not understand a simple thing. The complete destruction of the communist movement needs liquidation of its cause: the institute of hired mental and manual labor, i.e., the exploitation of a man by a businessman.
Actually it would be great if communism directly comes from capitalism as capitalism directly comes from slavery and feudalism, being another advanced form of parasitism. Communism is a product and dialectic negation of capitalism and all types of exploitative, parasitic social orders. Historical originality of communism, its fundamental difference even with primitive communism makes the fight for communism quite complicated in theory and in practice, destined to the intense resistance of all parasitic forces.
The classics of Marxism, in due time, made a lot of research work, specified some historical reasons of the Internationals collapse. Certainly, decisions and organizational arrangements were made, but none of it led to the desired result. Collapse of the communist parties occurred long before accomplishment of its historical mission.
Each following collapse proves that the main “antidote” is still not found, and the question remains: what will happen first — the worldwide victory of communism or the destruction of human civilization in the third World War, started by the oligarchs for redistribution of already divided world. Anyway, the oligarchs do not waste time and do their best to start a world war being fully prepared.
You have to be completely unscrupulous person to think that the classics of Marxism had to give future communists all answers concerning the theory of party construction, so that there will be nothing for future generations of party members but to be proud of their leaders, to quote them and to use blindly CENTURY-OLD methods of the party building. The classics seriously hoped that the next generation of the communists will develop the theory deeply and particularly. But the theory development is inexcusably ignored by the existing communist movement.
The constitution stands in a way of some “communists”
Not long ago, First Secretary of the RCWP (Russian Communist Workers’ Party, http://www.rkrp.ru) V. Tyulkin and President of the Labor Academy Fund M. Popov have issued a common paper, 40% of which consists of randomly selected quotations from Marxism-Leninism classics and… Bukharin. And since 30% of the text, on the average, belongs to Tyulkin, and 30% belongs to Popov, the paper is quite eclectic. If we do not take into account such formal phrases, as “Lenin learned… said… specified… wrote…” or “as stated in the USSR Constitution of 1936…”, it turns out that no more than 25% of meaningful phrases belong to the authors.
The meaning of the paper of Tyulkin and Popov lies in the following thesis. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the CPSU [the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] in 1991 was caused by… the USSR Constitution of 1936, which, supposedly, abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat [this refers to the fact that the elections by production districts were replaced by the elections by territorial districts. In fact, cancellation of production principle changed nothing, as the overwhelming majority of deputies continued to be nominated by the industrial proletariat, or particularly, by the enterprises workers — translator’s note].
The authors pretend they do not understand that the “guilt” of the USSR Constitution of 1936 could be proven only if all the following general secretaries of the CPSU led the party according to the Stalin Constitution. During 55 years after Stalin’s death, five general secretaries of the CPSU, replacing and blaming each other one by one, changing the party program and the USSR Constitution, however, if we believe Tyulkin and Popov, blindly and strictly, especially Khrushchev, followed the Stalin Constitution till August 19, 1991 and therefore led to the collapse of the party, to a big surprise for CIA and the United States.
Of course, the authors may say they meant only that Stalin’s refusal of proletariat dictatorship in the Soviet Union was premature. But if there was the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1936, it would mean the restoration of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. However, even the official economist Popov would never say that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie was restored in the Soviet Union in 1936. This way it turns out: the dictatorship of the proletariat is liquidated, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not restored, then, it is to assume that the authors, as Trotsky, blame the CPSU in establishing its own dictatorship.
Therefore, we have to admit that, firstly, the leaders of the RCWP and the Labor Academy Fund, stand on the Trotsky-Khrushchev’s position in the estimation of the CPSU history, and secondly, they think that dictatorship of the proletariat and the election of deputies to the Soviets by production districts are the same. And this is an absolute khvostism [following in the tail] and misunderstanding of dialectic essence of the working class dictatorship [we recommend to read about the dictatorship of the proletariat “The Foundations of Leninism”, “The Questions of Leninism”, “Questions and Answers” by Joseph Stalin — translator’s note].
Before that only dissidents used such logic in the description of the CPSU history. It may be enough to Popov and Tyulkin, instead of covering the issue in a hurry, to reflect on the question, for example, why the Communists need a constitution, if there is a scientific theory and based on it party program. But the leaders of the RCWP and many of today’s Left fall in truisms: “How come? All civilized countries have a constitution, and why can’t we be as good as them?” Many members of the Communist parties who fight for classless society, do not notice the absurd in their own actions when admire constitutionalism born by the defects of the class society. These comrades collect signatures required by the bourgeois constitution, bring the lists to the Ministry of Justice, beg for the registration to participate in the bourgeois parliament, mourn, if the officials do not give them registration documents, which breaks the democratic principles, as many members of the party think.
The members of the left parties, admiring the constitution, have to understand that the constitution, both in form and in content was created by slave owners, not the Bolsheviks. Originally it is detailed indulgence for the force institutions to maintain the order beneficial for the oligarchs only.
It is known that the earliest constitutions and bills were always ratified by the minority of the population, ignoring opinions and interests of the majority, for example, slaves, children, women, population of the colonies, aborigines, illiterate segment of society, infidels, etc.
Historically, the constitution is a document maintaining by coercion the existing class order, and the maximum benefit of this order always goes to the oligarchs. In particular, even a bright representative of American oligarchs Zbigniew Brzezinski was shocked by the effects that covered America after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1990 — he said in his interview for Komsomolskaya Pravda, — the salary of American companies top-management was only 70 times more than the salary of the average American. Now, this difference increased to 325 times.
What can we say about the intellectual and moral qualities of Brzezinski, if he knew that the difference in payment between higher and lower positions in the Soviet Union did not exceed three times, and the difference in the US was 70 times even at that time? Apparently it was not too difficult to guess that US oligarchs were fighting against the Soviet Union exactly to get rid of all upper limits of income.
But the income gap is not all. The Left must understand that the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights did not stop the practice of Lynch courts or scalping white invaders by the Indians and did not prohibit white men to bury thousands of killed Indians in the ditches. The Bill of Rights, as century-old history of the US shows, did not mind the crucifixion of Obama’s countrymen. This constitution was conceived and stated in such a way that, finally, most of the Indians were buried, and the rest were herded into reservations, the Negros were burned on crosses for a hundred years, and no one was invited to Nuremberg or The Hague to be in charge for that, but the US prisons are still the world leaders in capacity, amount and degree of isolation of prisoners, full of mostly “colored” youth and representatives of the poor. And the oligarchs continue to pay off by money and lawyers. Therefore, only the naive person can see the power of constitution to guarantee someone something democratic.
The constitution is a documentary proof of antagonism in pre-communist social orders based on private property. The constitutions are legal allusions on the fact that eating each other antagonistic classes, clans, nations and religions are restrained only by the power of police, army and prisons, that in the civil, legal society based on the private property, EVERYBODY is ready to destroy EVERYONE, but the rules of the game and the power institutions stated by the constitution, slightly slow down and regulate this process.
But why do the communists have to write the constitutions?
As for the Soviet Union in 1936, it is necessary to take into account that the consciousness of the USSR population just began to come out of age-old traditions of aggressive class relations. At least, an excellent Kremlin dreamer [expression of Herbert Wells, which is considered in Russia to be ironic to the writer, because it shows a very bad understanding of Lenin and his plans of building of socialism, which have been successfully completed — translator’s note] and an optimist, Lenin, supposed that elimination of petty bourgeois anachronism in people minds will take decades, and perhaps a century. Many facts showed that in the mind of some Soviet people of those years remained parasitic “values” of exploiting society. Nothing else can explain Ukrainian SS divisions or “Vlasov Army” [Army of the traitor General Vlasov], which mainly consisted of ethnic Russians — supporters of kulaks [bourgeois peasants] revival in Russia.
That is why the Bolshevik version of the USSR Constitution contains Marxist provisions about destruction of society division into classes and, therefore, for the first time in human history, Marxism as a science has become a settled law, which sooner or later makes constitution unnecessary. The same as professional doctor does not follow the rules of law, but relies entirely on the scientific truth, communist society members interact with each other on the basis of scientific knowledge of the objective laws of these interactions.
According to objective laws, liquidation of class society, first of all, requires EVERY born child to perceive the heights of contemporary culture. That is why it was the USSR (not England, for example), that liquidated the centuries-old mass illiteracy and established a tradition, according to which, for example, Timiryazev, Tsiolkovsky, Pavlov, Zhukovsky, Kapitsa periodically gave academic lectures to representatives of a completely non-academic circles of the Soviet workers, competently involving them into the highest science achievements.
The Bolshevik Party had to develop their own constitutions, i.e. to resolve LEGAL problem, specific only to the class society, not because of the communism building, and not even because of the massive class of small peasant bourgeoisie, but because of the fact that a large mass of peasants, proletarians and intellectuals were not ready to thoroughly investigate Marxism.
In Tsarist Russia, as in all civilized countries of that time, uneducated or far from science philistine was the majority of the population. He did not understand scientific language of communism, and therefore perceived the science-based rules of community life mostly by coercion.
The feudal-bourgeois rulers of Russia even more than their European blood relatives, always tried hard to get rid of peasants, proletarians, foreigners and women in the higher educational institutions of Russia. And the order in the country was maintained, if not by the Inquisition, but by the church, the oprichnina, the Secret Offices, the gendarmerie, the deportation, the hard labor in exile, the mass floggings, the hanging and the executions. It is difficult to find among the Russian tsars the one, who was not trying to prove that he is able to exploit his servants better than his European crowned relatives. There has always been the competition in tyranny between the monarchs.
Five peasant wars and three Russian revolutions convincingly proved that the Russian tsars tyrannized peoples of Russia harder than their relatives, England Queens and German emperors. Moreover, exactly tsarist Russia, not the United States, played the role of European gendarme in the 19th century. That is why before Lomonosov Russia did not have its own scientists in the field of mathematics, physics, chemistry, philosophy, political economy, and was famous only by generals, wooden architecture, icons and fairy tales.
It is a small surprise that in the world culture the tsarist Russia for a long time was known by people of art (from Rublev to Petipa), not by scientists and engineers. This way Russian public conscience before the Bolsheviks had a rich artistic tradition, but low, according to its influence, technical and scientific tradition. The philosophical tradition vegetated for centuries in theology.
One of the objective reasons that most of the intellectuals become just artistic, lies in the fact that scientific and theoretical type of consciousness is more complicated to learn, and artistic type of consciousness is mostly based on natural instincts, on emotions, it easily creates in a person the illusion of his exclusiveness. Those who had inborn artistic potential usually started early to be thirsty for glory and popularity. Among these glory hunters were Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Nureyev, Rostropovich, Rasputin, Astafyev, Zhvanetsky, Khazanov, Bykovs, Belovs, Baklanov, Nagibin, Granin, Iskander, Yerofeyev, and many other anti-Soviets and anti-communists.
Solzhenitsyn’s book Russia under Avalanche is the best literary monument to a man and all dissidents, whose conscience was strangled by vanity and ignorance. This literary “Moses” who had been leading the dissidents for forty years and led them into market democracy and, demonstrating unprecedented dishonesty, asks indignantly: “Is there in the world history such a massive betrayal of its sons by Motherland, how instantly we left the sixth of the Russian people beyond the borders of Russia without any protection and care?” For real, the history does not know the betrayal on this scale. But the name of the Nobel Laureate, who made more than anyone else for these betrayers formation, she knows exactly. Solzhenitsyn.
But when the lack of scientific consciousness is compensated by good conscience, society gets Lermontov, Pushkin, Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky, Tolstoy, Gorky, Andreev, Mayakovsky, Sholokhov, Jalil, Rozhdestvensky, Gamzatov, Karpov, Prokhanov. But in the current market conditions, artistic talent hardly ever combines with moral and political purity.
Therefore, taking into account the gap in the scientific level of public conscious, the party had to include middle peasants and artistic intellectuals into building non-exploiting society by more familiar to them, legally enforceable standards of conduct. Even today, there is no evidence in the information space that even one member of intelligentsia have studied Science of Logic by Hegel and, therefore, got rid of disordered, chaotic “way of thinking”. The Communist Party had to appeal to legal tools because of the dissident spirit of intellectuals, which extremely gets in the way of a new man, who is free of political show-off, self-obsession, who is passionate about creating new, non-antagonistic society.
Reading books and memoirs of many writers of that time — Bunin, Oseev and Aleksey Tolstoy, even Bulgakov or Platonov — it was easy to saw how much they suffered from the absence of bourgeois charms of life, such as oysters, champagne with pineapples, “rooms” with prostitutes, opportunity to overspend while millions of workers and peasants were in giant material austerity, among backwardness and destruction left by the tsarism, the imperialistic war, the white band and 14 civilized countries-interventionists.
If you took any repentance of White Guard ex-supporter, which changed sides and became a simple representative of the Soviet artistic intelligentsia, if you got acquainted with the current self-assessment of his behavior under socialism, you would see that, on the one hand, he “created” socialist realism, and on the other hand, he needed up-to-the-minute popularity and recognition from the party leaders. Under socialism they accepted awards from Stalin and Brezhnev, under capitalism — from Yeltsin, “crying with joy” every time. In one of his recent books, defector V. Aksenov mockingly quotes enthusiastic poem of young Yevtushenko about… Stalin, demonstrating by that lick-spittling of his rival.
But those who under socialism did not have a chance to gain popularity because of absolutely mean abilities, now say that they proudly and bravely did not make a deal with the “regime” and as if it was the reason they could not publish their works. Although, after fall of the regime most of them did not create anything worthwhile or anything at all.
Many artistic intellectuals, talking about “the state of law”, the popular phrase during Perestroika, have not understood that every provision of law is a form of personality averaging. Therefore, while each citizen is an individual (sometimes microscopic), at the same time, this individual is free in civil society only within the constitution, not his potential in science and art.
Is Charlie Chaplin, Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs were not crushed by the US Constitution? Is the tragic end of Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston not bright demonstration of “civil society” nature, that can not guarantee to a talented man right to life in the market constitutional state.
They may say that the Soviet model of socialism also dealt with intellectuals hardly and cruelly. Yes, but the fact is that all representatives of the Soviet punitive authorities and the party leaders of NKVD era were born and educated not in communism, but in a religious, feudal and bourgeois-democratic Russia, and for them a prison, hard labor, gallows, firing squad and a war were absolutely everyday occurrence. In his memoirs, Kerensky specified that the first officers of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (the Cheka), until the mid-30s, consisted of ex-nobles, gendarme officers, “professionals” who joined the Bolsheviks after Kerensky dispersed the gendarmerie. And it is hard to wait for sentiments of these gendarmes, taking to account their mentality. It was necessary to control them and to punish. Many people complain about the informing against others, supposedly prevailed in the Soviet society. And who reported on whom? There is even no need to delve in archives of the KGB. Until 1937 only one category of people in the USSR could fluently and convincingly write reports to the authorities — pre-revolutionary intellectuals. Why ALL Bolsheviks went through the prison and hard labor? Because all of them were systematically informed against. Could the informant be rectified for ten years after the revolution? No.
The constitution and science, philistines and communists
“Dulles’ Plan”, and born by this plan the Fulbright Program, the works of Gene Sharp, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Krieble Institute, whose work during “perestroika” in USSR was so fruitful that the brain of a modern Russian intellectual still perceives anything related to communist science and practice as something meaningless in general, although the decisions and actions of democratically elected presidents prone to alcohol, whether it’s Nixon, Yeltsin or Bush, and verdicts of randomly selected jury, or the laws passes by the lobbyists in the parliament, like a lamb accepts as legal, regardless of its irrational and criminal character. They think that the solution, found in the fight at the Duma tribune, more lawful, civilized, democratic, than the solution, found by the genius near the lake Razliv [a reference to the fundamental work of Lenin “The State and Revolution”].
Democratic journalists, for example from Novaya Gazeta [the voice of Russian liberals], seem inadequate when systematically scream about the widespread corruption, about catastrophic moral decadence, about organized crime and police atrocities, at the same time, do not want to understand that all these deformities are the result of market constitutional democracy, which they protect from the communists. These deformities are caused by the market constitutionality as the darkness is caused by the sunset. Many intellectuals do not understand that everything that they face today and call the most abusive epithets is a product of their free choice, the inevitable consequence of the constitutional system of any class society. Because of these and many other objective reasons, the constitution can not be the basic document for the formation of the communist behavior. The constitution is a palliative, whose existence caused by the ignorance of the exploited.
Strictly speaking, the 1936 Constitution was written not for the communists but by the communist for the undereducated segment of the population. The constitution just certifies the fact that there is a long way to communism, and that it is necessary to build current social relations taking into account the heterogeneity of society, including the use of violence to persons resistant to the implementation of scientifically verified program of communism building.
Therefore, under socialism it takes place the opposite construction of value system, which requires the power protection. The bourgeois constitution declares private property to be sacred and inviolable. The socialist constitution declares public property to be science-based and priority protected. And then, according to the experience of many international interventions against the Soviet Union, the principle “who wins” works, both domestically and in international relations. Marxists have never concealed or hidden this inevitable necessity of the first phase of communism.
Tyulkin and Popov never wondered if the Russian proletariat could build socialism before 1936 without the theory of Marxism-Leninism. It is a pity. The answer is obvious. NO, he could not! Therefore, what should the communists be guided by first of all? By the theory of Marxism or the constitution? It is clear that, without the development of the theory, the communist can not adequately improve the constitution and life at the local level, especially considering the rapidly changing situation and conditions of communism building. Only philistine can be satisfied by the constitution. But the communist can and should be guided ENTIRELY by scientific ideology.
For example, Trotsky’s attitude to scientific theory and its role in the authority of the party, was clearly demonstrated in his article in the newspaper Pravda dated April 23, 1920:
“Lenin, — Trotsky wrote, — is all in revolutionary action. His scientific work is only a preparation for action”.
And then we see absolutely Trotskyist ideological sabotage. “If he [Lenin] did not published in the past a single book, he would forever go down in history as the leader of the proletarian revolution, the founder of the III International”. It is hard to think up bigger nonsense.
Or is it possible? At least while reading the paper of Tyulkin and Popov, you start to doubt.
It is obvious that exactly the books of Lenin proved to young revolutionaries, that there was a real candidate for a leader among them. Stalin finally won Trotsky because he was definitely more qualified Leninist, creative thinker, who left behind all his opportunistic enemies, especially in theoretical form of the class struggle. As history showed, without Stalin neither Beria or Molotov or Kaganovich could stand against even a liberal-primitivist Khrushchev. And Khrushchev himself could oppose Stalin only a few years after his death.
It is anti-scientific to address the problems of the “proletarian dictatorship” without asking such questions as: were the USSR Constitutions of 1918 and 1924 and production principle in the Soviets elections the key factors in Stalin’s victory over all forms of Trotskyism and imperialism until 1936 or vice versa, only the rational application of Marxism theory by Stalin in the changing historical situation made it possible to develop the legal conditions when the working class dictatorship in the USSR practically eliminated the system of big bourgeois tyranny and let the party neutralize the opportunist leaders who used terroristic and diversionary methods of defending their “point of view”? What did Stalin address to in difficult situation? The text of the constitution or the works of the classics of Marxism? Where did he find victorious answers to current problems — in the constitution or in Marxism?
Even the simple fact that for the first seven years of socialism building in the USSR two constitutions were adopted, shows how quickly legal norms became obsolete, how often they should have been changed for bringing the law into accordance with the political achievements. But being adopted, the constitution turns into a thing of the past, it is ossified, and life goes forward rapidly.
Certainly, the question arises, why are the constitutions of many developed capitalist countries so stable? Only because conservatism is a critical need of the oligarchs turned into uncrowned emperors who found a successful constitutional way to preserve their inherited power for centuries, declaring that the cause of all troubles is publicly elected presidents and prime ministers. Philistines and all today’s left do not understand it.
In the years of perestroika they shouted “Down with Gorbachev!”, then ten years screamed “Yeltsin’s gang on trial!”, now ten years struggling with Putin “regime”, to the delight of the oligarchs, who only occasionally and pointlessly are mentioned in the left-wing press. And voting of deceived investors and depositors for oligarch Prokhorov is not treatable.
It follows from the content of the paper that Tyulkin and especially Popov never asked the question: is it possible to consider communism as the sum of communisms built at all enterprises of the country under the guidance of the Soviets, elected by production principle? Or, can the proletariat hope for long dictatorship, questioning the leading role of the scientific vanguard — the Communist Party? Irrationality of these suggestions could help the authors to move to the science direction. But most of today’s left do not understand that dialectic materialism is, first of all, the method, which requires the ability to ask YOURSELF important questions, the method of competent dispute… with your own STUPIDITY, which much easier than wisdom is born by immature consciousness.
Marxism assumes that the building of communism is a matter of all working people of the USSR under the dictatorship of the WORKING CLASS of the whole country, ignoring any of their professional, national or religious interests and accepting the leading role of the communist vanguard only, if, of course, it is as such.
The proletariat, the party leadership, the constitution and the counter-revolution
It is strange that Popov and Tyulkin, trying to investigate the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat, ignore the thing that almost all the works of Lenin start with a profound analysis of the HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE. And concerning this issue, the international practice shows that the proletariat weakness in all countries of the socialist block appeared when and where the communist parties were weak. Strictly speaking, they were communist in name only. I.e. at first the party had degraded or failed to become the Communist Party, and after that the dictatorship of the proletariat disappeared. That is why socialism in Eastern Europe was established later, but fell earlier than in the USSR.
We must not forget that the proletarian class, objectively, as the most revolutionary class in the epoch of capitalism domination, at the same time, consists of the most uneducated sellers of “labor power”. Quite close to the proletarians of physical labor are all kinds of deceived sharers, investors and depositors of mental labor.
Without real communist vanguard, as shown by the centuries-old practice, the proletariat is able only to compromise with the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the proletarians of mental labor, more than the proletarians of physical labor, see only advantage in their vendibility and do not even blush when they sell themselves. And the more expensive they are sold, the more they love themselves.
The facts proves the reactionary character of the proletarian struggle without communist component. Strikes of the trade unions helped Pinochet to come to power in Chile. Strikes directed by the trade union “Solidarity” led to the fall of socialism in Poland. Strikes in 1990 led to the collapse of the USSR and proved destruction character of trade unions when party influence weakens. And all this happened in spite of the fact that the trade union committees and the Soviets of labor collectives were formed by the labor collectives themselves. Today low political efficiency of the proletarians, left without the leadership of communists, is brightly illustrated by the behavior of the proletarian masses in Arab countries, whose “victory” is already used by clericals and American oligarchs.
But Tyulkin and Popov do not mention these history lessons. Also they do not say that the reason of wage SLAVERY of proletarians during several centuries is their absolute non-ability to win by themselves the constitution of exploitative society. Unfortunately they still do not know how to do it, as well as the leaders of the RCWP.
In a strange way, these authors do not try to explain to yourself and to others dialectically contradictory essence of the dictatorship of the working class. Because the loss of the bourgeoisie its exploiting potentials is proportional only to the decrease of proletarian qualities of the proletariat. Only those people become and remain proletarians, who are not allowed by the capitalist system to develop to something more than cheap appendix of a machine. The key to the victory of communism is not to make impossible for bourgeoisie to exploit proletarians but the hard work of the communists to erase from the proletarians the reason of their plight — ignorance. Lenin in theory and Stalin in practice raised the most of the factory workers in the USSR at the unprecedented social height. It is enough to say that all large factories in the USSR had institutions on fundamental training of engineers from workers in a particular industry. It can be considered as a mistake, that these factory institutions did not have Marxism-Leninism departments.
If we take into account the international importance of communism building in the USSR by 1936, against domination of colonial democracy and fascism in the world, then, in the triumphal conditions of the second five-year plan, when for the first time in human history, more than one-third of the state budget was spent on science, culture and education, and defense spending went to the last place in the budget, when the education of peasantry class was accomplished, in these conditions, the adoption of another USSR Constitution and changes in the electoral law played a role of effective act of propaganda in foreign policy, to complicate the work of West propaganda machine, presenting the fight against the bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union as something that does not correspond to the legal norms of civilized society, as something lawless.
According to the laws of the distribution and acquisition of information, even the rumor that the Soviet Union adopted a new constitution caused criticism in the bourgeois press and led to the increased interest of really progressive and thinking part of bourgeois society. No doubt that this political act, against fascist aggression in Spain, increased the pro-Soviet sentiment in the world and influenced positively on the position of the masses in some imperialist countries of market democracy after the attack of Nazi Europe on the Soviet Union.
The use of legal and, in fact, bourgeois procedures in the USSR, familiar to the mentality of the Western philistine, led to the fact, that, for example, a talented, bourgeois writer Lion Feuchtwanger, who personally attended the public trial in 1937, was forced to admit that, not only logic and facts of the case, not only dozens of personal confessions of the accused, but also from the point of view of the bourgeois legal procedure, the trial of the Trotskyists left no doubts in its legitimacy, i.e. in the guilt of the accused. Feuchtwanger carefully looked for the signs of beatings or tortures or effects of psychotropic drugs in the behavior of the defendants, but found no evidences and this way complicated a lot his further life in the West. But today only few intellectuals can boast that they have read the book of Lion Feuchtwanger.
So, tactical maneuvers in law made by the party and the real changes in class characteristics of the Soviet population had not only internal, but also some positive international importance. Today, it seems to be completely idiotic to represent SCIENTIFIC, absolutely innovative, unprecedented work of communism building in the 30s — i.e., creating objective conditions for the WITHERING AWAY of the classes, the state and the law — not as the exclusive competence of the Communist Party, but as the achievement of the deputies elected in the factories. Flirtation with the proletarian masses has nothing in common with the fundamental party policy in working environment.
Of course, Marxism has always insisted on the necessity to develop mass political initiative of the population, but this requirement denies leaving it “to their own fate”, i.e. diminishing the role of the Communist party in this development. In his work A Great Beginning Lenin wrote about the most important goal of the PARTY, of the full support of labor collectives initiatives, focusing on the fact that the point was not in Subbotniks popularization, but in the development of the science-based initiative of workers. But only absolutely qualified communists can bring scientific character to the workers initiative.
There are the opportunists who try to separate the proletariat and the communists. For this purpose they can use the constitution, which places Roman slave law above the science. But the Stalin Constitution legislatively placed the science above the law and proclaimed the scientific worldview the only criterion of morality and the law itself.
The party, the constitution and the first phase of communism
From the internal point of view, the 1936 Constitution was adopted in the year when the big bourgeoisie in Russia had already been entirely liquidated as a class and had to leave the country or to make living by mental or physical labor as all regular people. The ex-bourgeoisie in the USSR had nothing left but defected by money mentality and natural for that uncovered greed. In the new situation the party was out of the routine legal work, giving it to the hands of the institutions set by the constitution, but which finally got socialist features and content, practically free from traditions of feudal-market corruption. Members of the party were in the minority in every Soviet institution, but it was exactly the thirties when the personal responsibility of the Communists was more than ever, and the trials of 1937 and 1938 made the party for a while, really consolidated and authoritative.
The Great Patriotic War showed that ALL soviet socialist science-based party institutions, examined in detail by the CPSU long before the adoption of the 1936 Constitution, were enshrined in 1936 ONLY legally, as already established forms, demonstrated an unprecedented survivability and efficiency in the tragic 1941.
By 1936 the population of the USSR, of course, became a socially consolidated, not perfect yet, but it was almost completely free of absolute power of the parasitic elements. Then the whole nation became the Soviet workers, and not just the industrial workers. Endemic illiteracy, kulaks, organized gangs, profiteers in grain surpluses, private traders, unemployed and homeless were eliminated. Socialist-minded engineering and scientific intellectuals were educated. As the result, conscious industrial and scientific-technical sabotage of the intellectuals, raised by the market relations, not completely, but seriously decreased.
Nevertheless, the character of economic development was determined, first of all, by the level of competency of the USSR Academy of Sciences and giant, according to global standards, scientific and design institutions in all sectors of the social production. In power industry, engineering, aviation, the country reached the necessary production level, that was competitive enough to determine the victory of the USSR in the war against the whole Nazi Europe.
The majority of urban and rural workers, after living for a while under socialism, understood the material and nonmaterial benefits, which building of communism leads to. Neither in Tambov region, nor in Kuban region, nor in Central Asia no one had to be persuaded to lay down arms, to join collective farms or to use the machine and tractor stations. As it turned out on the trial of 1938, the right-wing opposition already in 1936 lost the hope for anti-Soviet mass protests, and hoped only for a plot.
Most of the young people had no more doubts in the simple Communist truth. From now, the development of each individual will depend, first of all, on the development of the productive forces of the entire society, on the development of labor productivity, rather than on the intensity of his personal labor. Welfare of citizens will grow under steady reduction of the working day and the working week, under stable wages, free accommodation, education, medicine and sport, under steady decrease of all prices and reduction of the retirement age. The workers saw plainly this perspective. Now everybody knows which expired products of mass poisoning under rising prices are fed to today’s voters.
In this condition, as historical practice showed, the counter-revolution in the USSR remained only in the form of conspiracy: in the Central Committee of the CPSU and in some Central Committees of the union republics, in the NKVD, among leaders of trade unions, senior military commanders and staff of People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs.
Perhaps the most exact explanation of such conspirators nature was made by Dostoevsky in his Demons by demonstrating a gallery of mentally defective and morally damaged middle class, literate, but obsessed by political devilry, primarily because they never had a chance for even temporary self-affirmation or public recognition in any field. Maria Spiridonova, Trotsky, Bukharin, Yagoda, Tukhachevsky, Yezhov, Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin… were such “demons”. Conceit, misanthropy, lack of conscience and creative principles — these are the main features of character of the party opponents.
Nevertheless, we can say that the building of communism, the authority of the CPSU among industrial workers, students and schoolchildren was so real in 1936 that allowed socialism resist to betrayal of “demons” among the leaders of the CPSU and military commanders, to mass harmful repressions of Yagoda and Yezhov, to invasion of fascist Europe.
As it is known, a little earlier, market democracy in Italy and Germany fell under the attack of internal fascism. Bourgeois democracy in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Greece, Yugoslavia rapidly fell under the attack of external fascism and fascizated themselves. British colonial democracy was hanging by a thread. The Soviet system, facing the cruel attack of the entire world fascism, defeated.
Basis of the dictatorship of the working class
Each USSR Constitution is a document, which only fix the party experience in the development of the rights, duties and freedoms of citizens under objective and consistent weakening of the exploiting class, but an insufficient level of development of productive forces to switch the whole society from legal to a scientific basis. It is easy to note that, due to the organizational principles developed by the Party in the Stalin era and reflected in the Constitution of the USSR, the country, up to the Kosygin reform [pro-market reform of Khrushchev-Brezhnev — translator’s note], showed the highest in human history rate of development, especially in the field of culture, science and technology.
Seems like it is enough to read The Communist Manifesto, to understand finally that the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply impossible without LEADING role of its vanguard, or the real communist party. As shown by two hundred year history, no matter how intensive the economic struggle of the proletariat is, it CAN NOT lead the proletariat to the dictatorship. The dictatorship of the working class is possible as soon as the proletariat is guided by its vanguard, possessing uncompromisingly scientific knowledge. That is why, while fighting for the purge of the Party, for scientific uncompromising of the party, Lenin at the same time demanded of the Communists to learn “to merge with the masses to a certain degree”.
While reading the works of Tyulkin and Popov it turns out that the place of the Soviets formation, but not the role of communists, forms the communist qualities of the Soviets. As if a deputy is elected at a macaroni factory, it is reliable, and if he is elected according to the place of residence, it is vague. It is a strange “logic”. As if a badly working deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, for example, of defense, could be easily recalled by the workers of macaroni factory, but the tenants of the house № 8 can not do this, especially if, for example, the chief of the General Staff lives in this house.
Lenin conclusively proved in the theory and the practice confirmed that the Soviets organized by the production principle, but led by the Mensheviks and supporters of the “socialist market”, will necessarily become an appendix of the bourgeois regime, that the Bolshevist direction of the Soviets is the most important. At the same time it was a period when the concentration of the communists at factories was higher than at the place of residence, and mobilization of workers for the fight against the Whiteguards and interventionists took place directly on the plants. It was natural that the Soviets were formed according to this principle. But in 1936, legally, there was no bourgeoisie at the place of residence or at the place of work. Most of the population did not put into question the role of the CPSU in the organization of election campaigns, in the control of deputies qualities and their activities. Never, no country of the market world took overeating deputies, peculators and “party bastards” to court with the same severity and inevitability, as in the USSR in the 30s.
Who should today’s proletarians follow?
It may be asked, why masses do not follow Proriv? [“Proriv” in Russian means “breakthrough”, http://www.proriv.ru — translator’s note]. First of all, we are not a party, but a small solid team of litterateurs. However, as soon as we release the journal regularly, for a decade already, more and more people read us, and less and less people abuse, then we can be identified as active workers, and not meaningless protesters. Secondly, we will immediately transform into a party as soon as the number of solid and tried Marxists, working with us will reach the desired, planned level. But we will never compromise on the quality. And if we do not achieve this minimum, it means, objectively, that we have not yet matured as Marxists, to the delight of the enemies. But, in any case, we will not mistake the wish for the reality and run to the Ministry of Justice to register.
Our principle: at first, there should be few dozens of educated Marxist-Leninists, unafraid to rough work, proven in long-term, daily, effective WORK with people, and only then we can start talking about the building of the party.
The experience of all parties, created after the CPSU, showed that the principle — “at first — the party with the communist name, and then, somehow, we will form the complete Communist Party” — does not work. That is why, Proriv chooses the other way. At first we will make all necessary and possible efforts to create a strong, scientifically-based, many times proven basis, and only then we will lead the building of the working class party. Just parties of “elephants” and “donkeys” are created easily and at once.
In spite of the obviously positive attitude towards Stalin and Lenin, demonstrated today by most Russians in the opinion polls, they understand that the leaders are physically dead, and people, quoting them, of course, are good, but by their lengthy quotations they just show the lack in today’s communist parties of qualified professionals in dialectic materialism, who are able to go forward and aim for something bigger, as Lenin demanded.
Will any practical conscious worker, any conscience developed intellectual join the party, which is led by people who are not able to prove the truth creatively, independently, based on the up-to-date material without quotation on each occasion? They do not join and will not join. Even Peter I in the 18th century, required his contemporaries to speak without notes.
Dogmatism and economism, propagated by the leaders of the RCWP and President of the Labor Academy Fund, led to the predictable results. The existing working-class movement in Russia is infected not only by economism, but its natural consequence — rabid anarcho-syndicalism. The proof of separation of some proletarians from Marxism in general, and from the RCWP in particular, is the ultimatum, made by the electrician, some S.T., addressed to the RCWP.
“Good afternoon! — S.T. writes — I am an electrician of high qualification. Will your party transfer plants and factories into the ownership of the working class? Not into the ownership of nation, because nation is not only workers, not into the ownership of the state because the state is a bourgeois machine of oppression and humiliation.
Today’s workers, especially workers of mineral resources and energy sectors are high-level professionals, who are able to operate without parasitic oligarchs and we do not need the party bureaucracy of the Khrushchev type. DOES THE PROGRAM OF YOUR PARTY PRESCRIBE TO GIVE FACTORIES TO WORKERS? S.T.”
The worker put a silly, but point-blank question. And the RCWP replies on this anarcho-syndicalism of politically immature proletarian, first of all, by proletarian trade-unionism. It turns out that the RCWP encourage “all working people to unite behind the working class and its party”, although in the line above the author of the response, Solovyov Oleg, Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCWP on the workers’ movement, tells the worker that the party is only fighting for the proletariat to become a struggling class, i.e. in fact, the class, which could unite “struggling workers”, DO NOT EXIST. It is a very distinct invitation, like in a joke: “Come to the party. Thank you, I will come and what is the address? Let’s dispense with formalities, come just like that, without any address”.
As a result this policy of the RCWP, its flirtation with the trade unions, the propaganda of economism led to bad consequences. And it’s not a matter of the selfish worker or the fact that among today’s proletarians he is not alone. The trouble is that today’s communist parties for the last twenty years have not prepared the propagandists, who could honestly, competently, clearly explain to the workers the essence of the communist doctrine.
If Proriv received such letter, we would not flirt with the author. We would honestly explain to the worker, and to the readers that, firstly, he is today at the position of a traitor to the working class interests, and secondly, that he demonstrates his ignorance, i.e. he does not know that the experience of proletariat ownership of factories was negative and ineffective in many developed market countries and especially in the former socialist Yugoslavia, which now is totally worthless, with no sovereignty and any meaning in the life of Europe. Not just once nor twice in the history the factories fell into the hands of the assured proletarians and quickly went bankrupt.
If you read carefully the letter of the worker, it is clear that the author is a little bit greedy and coward. It is also clear that the author is indifferent to suffering of others, that only personal satiety and personal material wealth is interesting for him. But he gets right that there are no oligarchs who will give the factories to the “fighters” like him. Not today, not tomorrow. But this worker sees the way the oligarch Prokhorov, who owns such factories, lives. He wants the same.
Moreover the worker have heard somewhere that the Communists are going to take enterprises from the oligarchs. What if it works? The worker does not know how the communists are going to do that, and according to the letter, he is not going to participate. But as the communists succeeded at once, he realizes that they will do it again. And if so, he can try to take their word and as soon as the communists expropriate oligarchs, they immediately will give the enterprises to workers. The communists themselves will step aside, passively watching how workers bankrupt their enterprise. And the most important — no one has the right to ask for food from the workers. Neither the children, nor the disabled, nor the elderly.
Over the last twenty years the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the RCWP did nothing for the theoretical form of the class struggle, but played parliamentarism, economism, Labourism and signatures collection. They still have no time for communism and formation of the working class from existing proletarians.
That is why, unfortunately, current anarcho-syndicalists do not understand that if workers can not take plants from the oligarchs themselves, the communists, who know how and why private ownership of the principal means of production is nationalized, they have no reason to give national wealth in the hands of politically illiterate speculators. And there is no need to cast pearls before the petty bourgeoisie, who do not dream of workers brotherhood in the struggle for universal happiness, i.e. Communism, but dream of personal wealth only. Before uniting with someone, at first, it is necessary to give scientific explanations.
So is there a guarantee against degeneration and collapse of the Communist Party
Therefore, we can say that, Marxism managed to prove that progressive development of communist organizations and the dictatorship of the working class are unavoidable, and at the same time, this theoretical concept and objective laws were not enough for individuals raised and educated in the centuries-old feudal-bourgeois traditions. It’s unfortunate that, for the same reason, the pedagogical community of the USSR rejected achievements of pedagogical systems of Makarenko and Frunze on the communist education of the youth. Almost the entire system of education in the USSR was built by bourgeois teachers of secondary and high schools on the basis of the most primitive elements of Ushinsky pedagogical system.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt, that the most important practical and theoretical contribution to the development of the world communist movement in the 20th century made the CPSU of Leninist-Stalinist period. In the 1950-s the USSR was closer than any other nation of the world to the practice of Communism building. This experience was the most representative, the most substantive, the most dynamic, the most useful. As the example of a “classical British capitalism” was enough to discover the absolute economic laws of motion of the capitalist system in general, this experience was enough to specify the absolute laws of the Communist Party and communist society development. The strength of Stalin’s socialism in the USSR was enough to get through a decade of Khrushchev’s primitivism and twenty years of Brezhnev’s stagnation, and at the same time to hold the status of a superpower, having military-strategic parity with NATO.
The analysis of the CPSU history leads to the conclusion that the history has two branches — ascending and descending.
The existence of the ASCENDING branch in the history of the CPSU is proved by the constant growth of the authority and influence of the Bolsheviks among the working class and the peasantry, by the failures of many force action efforts taken by the oligarchs all over the world to defeat the Soviet Union. It turned out that even the joint military power of the Entente and Germany with Poland, all Russian nobility and the bourgeoisie, was not enough to overthrow the power of the Bolshevist Soviets at the beginning of its formation. During this period, neither economic blockade nor sabotage of the nobles, intellectuals, Western experts nor corruptive effect of the New Economic Policy (NEP) did not bring the results desired by the international anti-communism.
The existence of the ASCENDING branch in the history of the CPSU is also proved by the victory of the USSR in the war against European fascism, while democratic colonial countries of the West condoned fascism for years.
Until the mid-60s, i.e. until Kosygin reform, nobody in the world could say about the scientific, educational and technological backwardness of the Soviet Union. Research in near-Earth space still use Soviet technologies of the 50s, while the American lunar and near-Earth programs collapsed, burying 16 astronauts, i.e. four died American astronauts versus one died Soviet cosmonaut. Today, all countries deliver the astronauts on the ISS, using, practically, the Soviet space rockets, although, the number of the satellites, crashed into the ocean naturally grows as far as Russia turns into the market country.
However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the CPSU prove the existence of the DESCENDING branch in the history of the party. And if we focus on the “economic” indicators, we will have to admit that its systematic decline began with Khrushchev’s seven-year plan, became stable with the beginning of the Kosygin reform and crashed after Andropov’s election as General Secretary of the CPSU, i.e. since initiated by him the transit of the USSR economy to the principle of cost accounting, which meant the full restoration of capitalism and the market in the USSR with all the following destructive consequences.
Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the main aspect, specific to the CPSU on the ascending phase, but for some reason had no influence on the organizational strategy within the party. However, it is clear that the weakening of a certain factor, which played a role of political immunity against opportunism on the ascending phase, led to the growth of opportunism, that turn into the party content.
It stands to reason that by 1938 the CPSU was the only party, that was able to keep for a whole decade the highest degree of centralism, based on the scientific approach to all problems solution. There were almost no people in the leading bodies of the party, who consciously and purposefully were fighting for another organizational policy. Speaking about structure, the party really began to get rid of any organized forms of the rightism and leftism. This fact played a crucial role in the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War, in the organization of the fast recovery of socialist production and the systematic reduction of prices. Without the real centralism in the control of complex social systems there could be no effective results.
But the practice has proved that this unity was temporary and, as soon as Stalin died, the leading bodies of the party again turned into the battle arena for, in simple words, the two main approaches in the party. Formally it looked like a confrontation between pro-Stalinist and anti-Stalinist approaches. In fact, it was a conflict of insufficiently competent and completely incompetent elements in the party. Ironically, but in the process of this confrontation the most incompetent wing within the party defeated.
In brief the communist society means the society, organized in strict accordance with the requirements of the objective laws of development. Therefore, when we say the communist world outlook we mean, first of all, the scientific world understanding and when we say the scientific world understanding, we mean only the communist world outlook, not the ideology appeared out of thin air like many religious, nationalist and racial ideologies. The communist world outlook is not an ideology in its original meaning, although this particular word was used in the CPSU and democratic literature.
The communist world outlook, or the scientific world understanding, is as WIDE as possible, not limited by any dogmas and prejudices, opened to the steady development, the system of scientific TRUTHS, formulated theoretically, proven and used in practice.
The communist world outlook has not been spread over the planet yet because of a subjective historical fact. From slavery till modern democratic and oligarchic capitalism, the main concern of the ruling clans has been cultivation of total mass illiteracy and cretinism of narrow specialization among so-called intellectuals caused by the Bologna process, which creates the audience of stupid TV shows.
But the scientific world outlook does not depend on the Communist Party membership. It is scrupulous study of the objective universe that will inevitably lead a person to the conclusion of an idiotic organization of modern society and of the objective conditions which already allow to build a society with absolutely harmonious relations between people, i.e. the communist society.
Therefore, in spite of the fact that today any member of the Communist Party is called a communist, unfortunately, not every member of the Communist Party is a communist in fact. It is easy to become a member of the existing Communist Party, but it is very difficult to become a real communist with scientific world understanding.
Many ambitious young people, who are mentally lazy from childhood, do not master the theory of Marxism-Leninism, which is the cornerstone of scientific world outlook. They hurry to join the Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Mother Party is the Russian Communist Workers’ Party, http://www.rkrp.ru), and feed their ego by becoming a member of its Central Committee, or even funnier, the chairman of the ideological commission. These young communists do not understand that if the world understanding is not scientific enough, it is always the anti-communist one. It explains, for example, the mass participation of the Soviet miners, metallurgists, transport workers (many of them were members of the Young Communist League) in strikes in 1990, i.e. in the destruction of socialism in the USSR.
The world understanding cannot be at the same time scientific and non-communist. If an individual says that he is an anti-communist, it is caused, first of all, by unscientific character of his consciousness. There are as many anti-scientific ideologies as fairy tales. It is proved by a lot of political parties, religious confessions, ufologic “discoveries” and contradictory economic doctrines. It is well-known, that there is only one scientific truth, in any field of knowledge and activity.
The brain,which knows the multiplication table, cannot give false answers in multiplication unless it is forced to mistake.
There is no political party in the world except the communist one, which declares the intention to conduct its activity on the scientific basis. The leaders of non-communist parties, on the contrary, do not even mention this, because bringing a scientific point of view in the mass consciousness will inevitably lead the society to reasonable renunciation of the bourgeois parliamentary system, the oligarchs and the religious hierarchy. So, it is obvious why today’s parties are called, for example, the party of Grigory Yavlinsky, the party of Zhirinovsky, the party of Zyuganov, the party of Putin. Only a party, which consists of under-educated members and led by agnostics becomes the party of its leader’s name.
Lenin and Stalin also could not avoid it, when theoretically unprepared members of the Communist Party (and Lenin many times wrote about this) called themselves the Leninists, then the Stalinists, then the Trotskyites. They did not have the required level of knowledge and, therefore, in each historical sharp turn they moved several times from one leader to another, demonstrating their duplicity. Herculean efforts of Lenin and Stalin were required to prove proletarians that every political step was scientifically reasoned.
Stalin honestly and self-critically wrote in some of his writings that sometimes he also misunderstood some Lenin’s proposals, which later proved its genius. One of the reasons why Stalin understood the teachings of Lenin better than his competitors, was the fact that, even in extremely hard conditions of exile in Turukhansk region, Stalin, unlike Bukharin and other future opponents, intensively studied and this let him realize the changes, unprecedented in the human history, and make the international position of the USSR strong, like never before.
It looks more sensible when the party members call themselves the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks, the Otzovists or the Centrists, the Left Communists or the Right-wing Opposition, indicating this way the loyalty to the leader and understanding the content of their position. However, factionalism in the party is always caused by illiteracy of the party members. Now, when some comrades, advertising themselves, say that exactly they are “the party of Lenin and Stalin”, they prove their scientific and theoretical organizational weakness, use the great names, hoping by cheap citation to win authority in the eyes of the workers.
Of course, the names of Lenin and Stalin worth everyday praises, but not in the case of self-styled appropriation.
Strictly speaking, there is no party in the world today, which has the right to call itself the communist and especially the Leninist-Stalinist one, because in today’s world information space, there are, first of all, no periodical, no theoretical center, no person, which scientific authority could be acknowledged by most participants of the left movement, and secondly, none of the modern communist parties has the necessary influence on the real proletarian movement in any country in the world. There are some positive facts in this direction, but extremely insignificant.
Some cases looks like an absurd. For example. Not long ago, one of the youth organization, the Revolutionary Communist Youth League (the RCYL), has published a draft of their so-called program, which, according to the authors’ point of view, should become the basis for the registration of one more communist party. The authors inform that “the Revolutionary Communist Youth League would greatly appreciate the feedback and criticisms, that we ask you to leave in the comments on the website…”.
So they say: we are not very sure that what we write is correct, and we are too lazy to prepare scientific cadres, moreover we do not even know how to do it, so the RCYL would greatly appreciate the comments and criticisms, especially, if they are sent by liberals, democrats or showmen. Give us some ideas. We will show you how democratic, flexible and attractive we are.
Many of today’s young communists do not understand that the Communist Party is not a debating club, but an organization of the vanguard type. It should have nothing in common with khvostism (following in the tail) because the communists MUST KNOW the objective laws of social development better than members of any other proletarian parties, and must be ready to act as a qualified “pilots”, “navigators” and skilled “captains” in any political “storm”, instead of asking God knows whom for help to prepare good program.
But once the ideologists of the RCYL ask for advice, why not to suggest them to study scrupulously the theory of Marxism.
Can members of the RCYL write an adequate communist program if they have not yet SUCCESSFULLY MASTERED Capital by Marx? No, they can’t. And can they understand completely Capital without scrutinizing Science of Logic by Hegel? Lenin have said that it is definitely impossible. Is there any evidence that the RCYL members follow the precept of Lenin to youth: to learn communism? There are no such evidences. But they, who deny this Lenin’s precept and cannot create any serious newspaper or a website uniting proletarians of mental and physical labor, they are trying to write the program of the Communist Party, after Lenin developed the primary orientations of two implemented party programs. It is enough to take a close look at the work of Lenin “Left-Wing Communism”, An Infantile Disorder to rely on Lenin’s experience, develop it, and not to engage in political babble.
Those who have studied the history of the formation of the Bolshevik program of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (the RSDLP) remember that Lenin actively stood for the creation of a daily newspaper and on the basis of its publications to organize a united Marxist party in Russia. Lenin proposed to make a common Program of action, because it was obvious that The Communist Manifesto was not enough for the productive communist movement in Russia. Being a modest person, Lenin proposed to comrades, already known for their great experience in political activity, to write a draft of a Program. However, after reading these drafts, Lenin had to write on his own the scientifically based Program, which he did not change with the help of accidental advisors and reviewers, and defended it at the Second Congress of the RSDLP as the only correct and substantiated Marxist Program.
Every writer and politician, if he really attends to the problem of creating a party based on the scientific world understanding, MUST work on his own with the text and edit it until, like Marx and Lenin, he is satisfied with its scientific perfection.
It is one thing to offer the subject for public discussion, for example, the economic problems of socialism in the USSR, but the party, which presents its program for the public discussion, looks idiotic.
However, the CPSU of Khrushchev period and other democratic parties, due to the lack of intellect and conscience, repeatedly introduced for public discussion its ill-considered projects. Failed experience of the CPSU teaches that after “collective mind” prevailed in the party under the leadership of illiterate Khrushchev, the new program of the CPSU and all decisions of the party in that period had deeply eclectic character and opportunistic content. After Khrushchev, the most significant documents systematically became the subject of “public discussion”, and therefore lost its vanguard scientific content and strategic importance, being overwhelmed with high-sounding slogans, good intentions and opportunistic “truths”.
Consultations, or voting, or public opinion do not make a document scientific if the author of the text and voters do not have uncompromising scientific world understanding.
It may be argued that the decision will be correct if this is the discussion of SPECIALISTS, whose competence has no doubts among them. However, it does not GUARANTEE that officially acknowledged experts, who respect the competence of each other, are real experts. For example, how can a modern filmmaker determine the degree of competence of an engineer and how can a lawyer determine the competence of a technologist?
The presidents and the prime ministers, participating today in the G8 (Group of Eight) and the G20 (Group of Twenty), are elected by democratic procedures, and their “competence”, firstly, is approved by the majority of votes according to the constitution, and secondly, nevertheless, it requires a lot of advisers and referents in all spheres. It is hard to imagine Reagan, Bush and Yeltsin without their advisers. Perhaps, these elected state leaders respect each other’s opinions, but, as we see, year after year, their exchange of views and trivial resolutions do not lead to the improvement of the economic situation in the world. They always reach a consensus and demonstrate their competence in only one thing, in the organization of coups, economic blockades and bombardments in their former colonies. It is much easier to be competent in the field of destruction.
The editors of Proriv are sure that if, as an experiment, there are all the living Nobel laureates in economics at the negotiating table for unlimited time, and they get all necessary information at their request, then, even following carefully the democratic procedure of decision making, whatever the majority of the laureates vote for, the resolution will not be, firstly, obligatory for anyone, and secondly, will not have any positive results. It is mainly because all modern Nobel laureates in economics are litterateurs, who match their solutions to the “answer at the end of the textbook” and receive the prize only for that.
It may be argued that experts in the field of economics exist, and large firms headhunt and hire these experts in the field of management, famous for the practical results and theoretical writings. Is not ALL companies in pursuit of success do that?
But is there in the world the companies and the countries that have not been in pre-bankruptcy or bankruptcy situation?
Does ALL companies have funds to buy the best managers? Does not buying managers and specialists by one company mean a conscious reduction in the effectiveness of the other parts of social production?
Therefore, such practice leads to ineffective, certainly uncompetitive, low quality of management in the significant part of the market system, which is the second important condition for crises. French and German oligarchs got such one-sided preference, when they created the euro zone, planning to strangle Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and other their competitors, according to the cannibalistic theories of absolute and relative trade advantages.
The successful companies have always been aimed to DESTROY competitors on a global scale, to cause their losses and turn their multi-billion expenses into wasted money. And if some companies win, then there are no reasons to suggest that the losing company had the competent economists.
But the strangulation of the economic environment is the core of the market democracy, because it is only death throe of a competitor where the winner, the real market democrat, finds the animal satisfaction. “Better a belly will burst” – this market joke is all true. Transnational corporations stand for the same ideological position. This market world outlook is the basis of Dulles’ Plan, the Fulbright Program, the concept of Gene Sharp and activity of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the theory of Golden Billion and cannibalistic concept of “sustainable development”, strategies of nuclear war, color revolutions and the Arab spring.
Scientific world understanding as an important criterion for humanization of an individual
Animals behave like animals just because of their psyche. Rare animal does not foul where he eats. Taming changes the animal psyche so that a man can use them. For example, training dumb submission. Animals as well as many types of employees, of course, do not understand this and, therefore, slave all their lives till they turn into beefsteaks or unemployed.
The widespread increase of the retirement age in the countries of developed market democracy is the result of dumb submission of wage working class of the West, who were watching with interest in due times the struggle of the American monopolists against the Soviet Union and, in particular, against the Soviet pension system, which forced the western businessmen set up in the developed market countries the retirement ages, similar to the Soviet ones.
It is known that the brains of different animals are developed differently. But even the brains of a dolphin and a monkey are not able to form the world outlook. These animals react adequately on music, take actions with the buttons of Japanese electronics, but they are not able for scientific world understanding.
Having scientific world view is the potential privilege of every man, but that is not used by the majority of individuals due to the defects of modern social order, education according to the Bologna process and, consequently, chronic mental laziness of most people.
All physiologically healthy people, unlike animals, have a wide or narrow world outlook, i.e. the ability to keep in consciousness much more than just biological needs, looking forward up to infinity and consciously building new social models, at first, in the mind, then, in the practice or… unscrupulously adapting to up-to-the-minute requirements of the Parliament or the Church.
Depending on the degree of adequacy of the world concept and its depth, people are divided into the conservatives, the innovators and the philistines. The harmonious social order let the last two categories of people successfully realize their big and small models of happiness. But the market economy force the philistines, as well as many creative people, to work under the tyranny of the conservatives, or the persons with very primitive, narrow, commodity-money world outlook. Therefore, the philistines and the innovators in the market democracy are doomed to tragic turns of fate caused by the unpredictable miscounts of the conservatives, i.e. representatives of big business.
The existence of anti-communists, including those with university degrees, only shows their ideological disability, hypertrophy of one and atrophy of other zones of memory and logic in the brain.
It is easy to understand the social reasons of poor world outlook of most businessmen. Not only small and medium entrepreneurs, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the drug lords and their heirs do not have any scientific education (including the economic one), but also the business leaders of developed countries, especially the children of oligarchs, who inherited large business of their parents. Their parasitic existence since childhood determined narrow horizon of their minds. Harvard and Stanford just make these children conceited, rather than give them scientific knowledge.
Some modern physicists, who have mastered the mathematical tools, but disregard the achievements of the Hegelian dialectic, and who are satisfied, at best, with the philosophy of Machism, completely forget about scientific scrupulosity, creative and objective logical thinking. Therefore, mostly, they cannot clearly explain the essence of physical phenomena, turning science into some kind of faith, which the majority can master only in the form of memorization.
There are no examples in the history when an individual would have scientific world understanding and at the same time would be one-sided, passive, anti-social, reactionary and non-productive person. Activity of such people at all times formed new scientific tendencies and the concepts of a better social order. Religious bishops and the Nazis burned at the stake many people with scientific world understanding and their books to slow down the progress of mankind in their own self-interest.
The most significant marks in the history of mankind were left by well-rounded people with wide and deep scientific world understanding: Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Descartes, Marx, Mendeleev, Lenin, Stalin, Kurchatov, Korolev.
While the construction of communism in the USSR was led by the people with a wide scientific world understanding, like Lenin, Stalin, Frunze and Kirov, Kuibyshev, Dzerzhinsky, Ordzhonikidze, Beria, Molotov, Kalinin — the USSR developed toward communism, accompanied by the victories in the political struggle and in the wars, by successes in education and employment of population, by achievements in ballet, chess, space and peaceful use of the atom.
But, after the party was headed by the people with petty-bourgeois world outlook, like Khrushchev, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yakovlev and Yeltsin, the Communist Party was becoming more and more bourgeois, although after Stalin’s death, his socialist model withstood more than 35 years of travesty of science.
It is necessary to understand that a member of the Communist Party does not get the scientific world understanding together with the party card. It is the result of the selfless, intense, creative, intellectual work. Without it a member of the party is no more than just a member, regardless of the post, which he managed to get, using defects and loopholes typical for democratic centralism. Such a member of the party can play only the role of Herostratus.
The communist world outlook does not oppose itself to any particular science as some kind of a special science. Vice versa, having the communist world outlook means, first of all, to possess all the intellectual wealth created by MANKIND during its existence, and to estimate adequately even those discoveries, which slowed the progress of mankind, and, moreover, all those discoveries which in fact were the parts of social progress.
For example, the discovery of atomic energy was certainly a progressive moment in the history of mankind, but thanks to the philosophical and ideological weakness of Bohr, Fermi, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Roosevelt and Truman, atomic energy in the hands of the American imperialists, who surpassed in their cynicism Roman, Spanish, Portuguese, French, British and Dutch colonialists and slavers, became, of course, the weapon of momentary destruction of thousands of Japanese WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
From the communist point of view this issue does not differ from those which lies in the fields of engineering, computer science or medicine. Implementation of the scientific approach in any field of human activity, i.e. using the system of knowledge of mankind, brings wonderful, progressive results.
So why is it impossible to combine economics and politics with science as it happens, for example, in aircraft or in electronics? It would be useful to find out why the oligarchs all over the world, together with the fascists, the liberal and ordinary democrats, the leaders of all religious denominations oppose this simple issue so hysterically, mostly in arms.
Why doctors, air traffic controllers must and businessmen absolutely must not (by law!) follow the requirements of science, unless they are forced to by the tax policy and criminal prosecution. Why Keynes, Marshall, Samuelson or Leontief did not say any good words about the pyramid schemes, but undereducated entrepreneurs continue to build insane pyramid schemes.
Certainly, this is an “open secret”.
The market economy is drifting on “the big Kondratiev waves” just because the businessmen all over the world, as well as the feudal lords, had and still have the right not to know, and not to take into account the requirements of science. Moreover, they actively fight against science-based economy, and want to keep it the market one forever.
And unfortunately it is not only magnates and bishops, who fight against the scientific organization of all society, but also illiterate proletarians of mental and physical labor, who defend the market democracy on the Bolotnaya square, although exactly this mass suffer most of all from the fact that the current world market community, together with ALL its political and financial institutions, operates on the basis of faith in luck.
All market theory glorifies the right of entrepreneurs for this faith, calling their IGNORANCE “the risks”.
Shakespeare would have envied the scenarists of the play, which is played for many years in front of billion “viewers”, who continue to believe that there is honor in taking risks. They cannot understand that risk is a result of BUSINESSMEN ignorance, combined with their sadism.
Private ownership of the basic means of existence as a consequence of the animal world perception
For billion years the life on Earth was primarily the struggle of individuals and their associations for existence, which was first of all the struggle for food. Only by eating, i.e. by POSSESSING something completely and entirely, by making the eaten INACCESSIBLE for others, this being could keep living, enjoying the feel of fullness. For thousand years satiety was fixing in the psyche of living beings as a basis for confidence in the near future. Human beings inherited this sense as the system of instincts, reflexes, emotions, which are much stronger than thirst for knowledge or libido, and which do not fade away but strengthen in the market-type individuals and become the only joy for them after curiosity and libido are gone.
Centuries passed. The feudal lords replaced the slave owners, the financiers replaced the feudal lords, only their animal motivation to turn into private property more and more means of existence, lands and water (to feel full for awhile) did not change at all. No wonder Soros in one of his books The Crisis of Global Capitalism calls himself a stomach without size. He fights for the open society only to satisfy his personal need for global financial domination. It looks schizoid, but it is true.
Since the Egyptian Pharaohs, the idea of world domination changed persons and methods, but never left the class of secular and religious magnates. Today in business and religious spheres it is impossible to find anyone who would refuse to portion the global “pie”. Generally, only the unexpected bankruptcy during the crisis or a bullet of competitor can stop a businessman on the way to this goal. And before that none of them sets any limits for growth. They never suffer from the lack of appetite.
Collecting money, like a dog in the manger, businessmen all over the world by their ignorance and obtuseness, by their collapses and defaults, doom hundred millions of children and adults to suffer from DAILY HUNGER, forcing them to choose between starvation and extreme forms of humiliation. Private property in ALL major means of production every year leave hundred millions of people without a job in the market world and therefore without means of living.
Stealing bread by proletarians, who yesterday were quite hard-working, and today are fired out because of businessmen failures, makes necessary to increase constantly the police force, the means of control over people’s behavior, the number of lawyers and prisons. However, the modern society, due to the catastrophic scientific and theoretical decay, pays on its own for this gigantic political structure, including the police and the army, keeping wage workers and liberal philistines in the current system of economic and legal relations of private property. Naive search of market justice in parliamentarism leads this blockheads to the beating on the Bolotnaya square by the police, which they paid for, with the help of clubs, made special for this purpose.
Only communist, or science-based system of material production, by excluding the feeling of HUNGER from social life, and especially from CHILDREN’S life, can create the objective CONDITIONS to liquidate the dictatorship of instincts in the psyche of the billions of people, caused by millennial hunger. The world wars, tectonic, technological disasters and market democratic reforms showed that it is hunger that awakens and intensifies animal instincts in people.
Certainly, the theory and practice of communism are not limited to a victory over hunger, but the mental and intellectual revival of a Man is impossible without this victory and the abolition of all known historical systems of private property.
Someone may say — But what about the Holodomor under the communists?
Firstly, it was under the communists, and many strong anti-communists among them, but not under communism. Only BUILT communism can exclude hunger from people’s life. It has been built nowhere yet. That is why millions of people in all civilized countries are condemned to permanent hunger. Secondly, even during the trial of Bukharin in 1938, it became clear to everyone, including the enemies of communism, that the Holodomor in the thirties in the USSR was a diversion (as well as the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station in 1986), organized by the opponents of Stalin and communism. Thirdly, and this is the most important, mass hunger and hunger pandemics synchronizing with the droughts, the floods, the wars, then with the Great Depression, happen DAILY in ALL civilized countries based on the private property and, in particular, on the neo-colonial private property, i.e. on the neo-slaveowning property. This property is the reason why the oligarchs sponsor the Arab springs.
It is the society based on the private property, which generated such military strategy as complete blockade of cities and entire countries, whose inhabitants, to the delight of the invaders, gradually died and today are dying of hunger. Children and the elderly have always been the first victims of such strategy.
The history of mankind would not turn into the history of class struggle, if the class of private owners did not compel multi-million class of direct producers to the painful and humiliating hunger in terms of goods abundance.
The high labor intensity in the civilized countries is based only on the fear of hunger. Everyday hunger of million inhabitants of developed market democracies results in mass individual theft and massive citywide riots lasting many days. Therefore, the bourgeois countries are not here to shout about three-year episode in the history of the USSR, associated with hunger in some regions of the USSR, organized by supporters of the reconstruction of private ownership of land in the USSR and foreign special services agents … It is tragicomic, when the former European colonialists, slavers and modern neo-Nazis blame communism in the Holodomor during collectivization in the USSR.
It seems that the law of population growth under the capitalist form of PRIVATE PROPERTY, discovered by Malthus (although he failed to explain the REASONS of this law) is decisively confirmed many times: the more CAPITALISM develops, the less chances there are to rescue society from growing mass famine, the more the contrast is between gluttony of the world’s population minority and growing forced asceticism of the majority. However, the stories about the famine under socialism are trying to mask the reality of daily mass holodomor in the developed countries of the West against the overflowing shops.
In brief the ultimate goal of the ECONOMIC part of the Communist Party program is the destruction of ATAVISTIC form of the RELATIONS between people concerning the appropriation of material and intellectual living conditions of an individual and society as a whole. Or, in other words, the aim of the communist transforming activity in the field of reproduction of the material conditions of human existence is the destruction of relations between people as the owners of the means of society existence and individual development. Or in short, the aim of the communist practice is the destruction of private property as the animal form of RELATIONS between people.
Without destruction of relations between people based on private property, it is impossible to say that the history of upright mammals has ended and the real history of mankind has began.
This simple, long revealed truth has not yet become a guideline only because thousand years of slavery, feudalism, and, especially, market capitalism, did so much for dumbing down and dehumanizing the entire nations of upright mammals that if they know there is nothing human in them, but they have the power of a lion, the vigilance of an eagle, the appetite of a shark, the quickness of a lizard, the stomach of an elephant and the sting of a cobra – it would be quite enough for the deep self-esteem of many today’s market nations.
Therefore, to destroy private property as a form of relations between people, it is necessary, as a MINIMUM, to achieve the abundance of material goods, so that human consciousness is free from psychopathic expectations of a “rainy day”, always caused by an acute shortage of basic material goods, especially food, necessary for the normal existence of human beings.
However, the idea of an ABUNDANCE of material goods should not be like it appears in the mind of philistines. It is necessary to develop the scientific and theoretical consciousness of a capable part of the world’s population so that the manufacturing of the planet’s natural resources could optimally guarantee the material basis for a happy life of every person, but not the GDP growth rate or the average rate of oligarchs profits. Getting rid of market capitalism does not mean to outstrip its gluttony.
Of course, it is not possible to turn at once the idea of a rational lifestyle into the strong belief of all people. Today many individuals dream of the aggressive SURFEIT in everything: from shopping addiction to alcohol, from overeating to drug dependence, from domestic sadism to religious terrorism.
Science must set an optimum in opposition to animal norms and today’s consumption, and it is impossible to achieve this optimum by the blind market mechanisms and relations. In other words, the standards of the intellectual and material consumption corresponding to the objective laws of a happy people’s life, cannot become the guiding standards before they are scrupulously developed by science and implemented into educational programs, into the work of educational institutions at all levels.
The age-long practice has proved that even massive narrow-specialized polytechnic education does not help to build the society of global harmony. Society, as a socially organized form of matter, is worth to be the subject of a prioritized scientific research, without any opposition of natural and social sciences.
But the complexity of this task also lies in the fact that the economics, except for religion, is the last area of human activity, where agnostics still prevail. These agnostics consciously fight against the scientific approach, because the victory of the scientific approach to the organization of the economy will make obvious that the oligarchs are completely useless and harmful in material production as well as the patriarchs in the spiritual life.
Because of these and many others consequences of the domination of private property relations, the economic program of the party of scientific world outlook must include the evidences of reactionary nature of private property relations and the maturity of the factors that allow to replace private ownership by more progressive, scientifically organized system of economic relations between people on the production and consumption of the social labor products and natural resources.
Lenin wrote in due time, that state monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism. At present time, state monopoly capitalism is accompanied with the dominance of transnational and multinational corporations, the IMF, the WTO, the FRS, the EBRD, the rating agencies and audit firms, which prove the insufficiency of free market relations and the necessity and inevitability of supramarket and supranational systems assuring minimum stability of the world economy, which outgrew the classic market relations of Adam Smith period. It is necessary only to force these supramarket international systems not to work for the United States oligarchs only, but to realize its potential in the interest of harmonious and peaceful development of the entire earth community.
Violence as an essential condition of private property existence
It is known that Duhring explained the origin of private property as a result of violence. Marx and Engels convincingly proved the falsity of this assumption and explained the reasons of private ownership origin as the development of the society basis. It means the changes in the essence of the relations of production between people on the basis of the increased facilities of the means of production, that helped people to produce the products, quantity and quality of which significantly exceeded reasonable personal material and spiritual needs of a thinking man. For example, the pyramids of Egypt and Mexico, the Great Wall of China, religious temples, aircraft carriers.
Those who read Capital, Volume I by Marx to the end, know the specific role which relations of violence played in the development and in the millennial domination of exploitative forms of private property.
Differences in education and intellectual development of people led to their relative isolation in the form of two basic classes of society: the class of owners of the means of existence and the class of poor who have nothing but their body, ability to work and their children, or the class of future slaves.
Many hundred thousand years the institution of large private property did not arise, because no matter how much you violate a person, how much you beat him, a man was not able to make any food surplus or even a simple Chinese porcelain vase, anything that would cause thirst for stealing, grabbing and meaningless accumulation. But once a man had learned to make pretentious comfort things — immediately surfeit, the usurpation of the means of production, and the expropriation of the manufactured products became widespread.
Soon the class, which concentrated in his hands all the basic means of production and existence of society, understood that this favorable situation may last for a long time, if on the one hand, to keep the direct producers illiterate and religious, and on the other hand, to create a special apparatus, the state, which will hold by the FORCE of arms uneducated direct producers from the actions in favor of more fair and more rational distribution of material and spiritual values, produced by all working people.
And because the slave-owning, feudal and especially the capitalist forms of private property remain only because of advanced VIOLENCE institutions, it is clear that the theory and practice of the communist movement must have a scientific view on the role of the violence system in the protection of the global market capitalist economy, and must outline existing objective and subjective conditions, which development will free humanity from political oppression, tyranny of gendarmerie and wars.
Institutions, authorities and religious and secular relations, which by force compel people to carry out the functions imposed on them, without taking into account the physiological and spiritual needs of the individuals, against their will, are called POWER. Modern dictionaries and textbooks do not pay a lot of attention to the meaning of this term and the essence of this phenomenon, even though all history of the politics consists of the use of power, i.e. the machinery of people coercion for reaching, first of all, the personal mercantile and other misanthropic aims of oligarchs.
In the full sense of the word, POWER is unlimited VIOLENCE against the person. But the fact that modern power in all civilized countries is limited a little in its ability to fill the ditches by Indians bodies, to build Auschwitz and Salaspils, to exercise the right of the seignior, to burn publicly heretics and thousands of “witches” at the stake, it is the victory of the working people, their fight against the tyranny of the authorities, against the permissiveness of oligarchs and religious elite.
Communist world outlook is the only scientific ideology of complete liquidation of power and, therefore, violence from the social being.
Institution of power, i.e. real and potential use of FORCE to make people execute the will of others, appeared only in the places where primitive society was divided into mostly physical and mostly mental work and, therefore, where the institution of private ownership of the basic means of existing and production was formed. As far as the secular and religious nobility became more enlightened, all their intellectual potential was aimed at the consolidation of their power to retain and increase the economic inequality in society.
In some places, for example, in central Africa, in the central part of South America, in central Australia, where millions of people for million years did not expand the institution of private ownership of the basic means of society existence, first of all, of land and water, where people continue to live with vulgar, but adequate, communal and materialistic views, i.e. without detailed myths of official religion, there are still no institutions of political power, no prisons, no corrupt police or tyranny in the form of democracy.
However there were places where the non-labor form of private property and the principle of unlimited concentration of material resources in the hands of few individuals were declared inviolable. In that places, very soon, owners of such form of property, i.e. holders of higher economic and political power, had to be treated as holy, sacred and untouchable.
Everywhere, where the institution of private property was developed better, where personal mystical beliefs were suppressed by religious “teachings”, there was slavery and people were used as instruments of labor in the production process, often without any compensation for their physiological losses without giving them any rights, for example, as Negroes in the United States.
These were the slave owners, who for obvious reasons, for the first time in the history of mankind, stated religious and secular “reasons” and legal norms of power, in the end, calling them democratic. According to these norms and democratic LAWS, the certain part of population had to bear their cross, to chisel the stone, to fight in wars, to be executed for the fear in a battle, to be quartered, impaled, eaten by predators, to be killed in a fight of gladiators, poisoned, burned for disbelieving in a collection of articles under the title “gospel”, to be hanged, shot, convicted for a stolen cheeseburger, to get the electric chair for an uncommitted crime, finally, to be “hit”, sometimes by the POWER itself.
According to the laws of logic, it is impossible to prove that there is a BIG private ownership of the means of production, which deprives the rest of society of the access not only to the subjects of labor, but even to a simple bread, that in spite of functioning institutions and organizations of political POWER, i.e. giant enforcement apparatus, at the same time, there is supposed to be freedom…
The meaning of the word FREEDOM is opposite to the word POWER and used to define a position of EVERY person in society, where nobody cannot force this person to do anything, as this person cannot force any other individual to do anything, especially against the will. Freedom is such a position of EVERY individual in society, when a person takes any obligations, restrictions, up to complete self-sacrifice, but only on his OWN, science-based decisions. Such self-sacrifice differs from the religious one, because it is not dedicated to absolutely false aims.
Therefore, the most important direction of the communist activity, which will lead to FREEDOM of every individual from abuse of any other individual, according to the requirement of science consists in dissolution of all organizations and institutions of POWER over the individual. Nobody, except the communists, do not raise such a question and cannot raise.
A degree of human freedom is directly proportional to the development level of conditions for self-realization of EVERY individual, and is inversely proportional to the development level of institutions of violence.
As a result of successful completion of the transition from capitalism to socialism, as a result of reduction of private ownership of the means of production and circulation to totally insignificant size (shoe repair, production of nesting dolls, basketry), it was enough to have in the Soviet Union until 1953 a ridiculously small and economical, practical, incorruptible (in comparison with the FBI, the DHS, the CIA of the USA) apparatus of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Ministry of State Security to identify and neutralize thieves, provocateurs, foreign agents, without paying for giant, market, corrupt and hungry for money apparatus of the MIA and the FSS of Russia today, and the system of total surveillance of all citizens, as well as the huge production of clubs, kilometers of barbed wire, cisterns of tear gas and other means of society democratization.
It is enough to compare the number of people involved to maintain order at demonstrations in the USSR with the number of people and the cost of their equipment, involved by democratic Russian Federation to ensure the police order at the demonstration of ten thousand people, to understand where humanity is moving towards complete freedom and where the police is the only and the last condition for the existence of oligarchs and the capitalist “order”.
Private property of the oligarchs exists as long as there are legions of police, who for the average wage and risking their lives, protect great treasures of others, from time to time, being caught on extortion and drug trade, protection racket, etc. In this sense, only the profession of a cash-in-transit guard is funnier than the profession of a policeman. They also deliver hundred millions of other people’s money for ridiculous wage, and often lose their lives to save the money, stolen by others.
The practice of the Soviet Union has convincingly proved that as reasonable material welfare and wide range of leisure activities became available for an ever-growing number of workers, the organized crime decreased and therefore the Soviet socialist, of course totalitarian, police worked without clubs, weapons, bulletproof vests, tear gas or water cannons.
And vice-versa, when the Democrats and entrepreneurs (or black-marketeers, false-coiners, currency profiteers) revived in the USSR and senseless values (diamonds, gold jewelry, ancient icons) accumulated in their hands, the organized crime (which hunted for these values) revived exactly to the same degree, the police became stronger, and idlers, sadists, and bribe-takers rushed there.
Only the communist transforming activity can lead society to the complete abolition of the institution of political POWER because many necessary objective historical conditions are already established for this. Everything necessary for FREEDOM of individual, which may be explained and understood according to the laws of logic, is already created.
Even in America, stratification of “free” American society into the Forbes list and stupid plebs began to cause strong irritation even of Brzezinski, and as for Murdoch and Madoff, who were non-triable before, they were brought to responsibility for trying to do everything that came into their ignorant heads.
The work on achievement of really free life for ALL people will go faster after people begin to understand that the existence of all ills of modern society, namely economic bankruptcy, crime and prostitution all over the world, have three reasons.
Firstly, the existence of the class of private property owners.
Secondly, the existence of force institutions, protecting them, i.e. power, which supports permissiveness of incompetent entrepreneurs.
Thirdly, the existence of population, which altruistically creates private property for oligarchs and mindlessly votes in elections for the guarantors of the Constitution, who foredoom people to self-destruction.
Why cannot millions of people still gain absolute freedom, if even a police officer does not like authority over him?
Power in its absolute form appears as open tyranny. Power in its civilized form, or tyranny, comfortably exists under the name of democracy. Until recently, ALL laws enacted in the democratic society PROFICIENTLY served the tyranny of entrepreneurs, providing stability for the Morgans, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Fords, the Vickers, the Krupps, the Wallenbergs clans, and allowing despots like Caesar, Mussolini, Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman, Yeltsin, Bush to come to power by legal procedure. After dissolution of the Soviet Union there were no election campaigns in just democratized Russia where billionaires did not stand for to make their capital not only on the hundred thousands of their wage slaves, but on all the Russians and guest workers.
The word democracy is translated as government of people. But only oligarchs clearly understand the role, that institutions of democracy and its procedures play in consolidation of BIG CAPITAL power, and the role of ordinary people, who like flock of sheep every morning, overcoming fatigue, sickness, hatred of their profession, hurry to their workplace and fall into a terrible depression from the words about forthcoming recession, i.e. the weakening of the business activity of their employers.
One has only to think about the trial over the general manager of France Telecom in the summer of 2012 and his highly paid service to the interests of his owners, which forced scores of people to commit suicide. Moreover, this sadist turned these employees into silent lambs, threatening them with future bankruptcy of the owner. And this happened in the country, where these employees once a year sing Marseillaise together with the oligarchs.
There are strange people that will rebel against the way the question is put, and will demonstrate their respect for the demos. And this is not only about oligarchs, police and prison guard officials. A modern intellectual cannot imagine a society without pastors, where the science-based laws of community life are fulfilled by people because they KNOW, UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT them as absolutely rational NECESSITY.
A modern intellectual strongly believes that market democracy, and its institutions and relations of power, is the only possible and perfect form of social life organization, all other forms compared to this one are reactionary and utopian.
Many modern citizens adore their right to put the bulletin into the box every few years for a presidential candidate. Just a few days later the majority of voters understand that this time they have also made a mistake, but keep being sure that next time, or six years later, they will hit it right, and vote for the one who, for unknown reason, will faithfully serve his voters.
Tremble, presidential candidates! The demos is going to… vote.
Many people do not understand that market democracy is the most cynical, but subtly propagated and therefore, not causing conscious disgust among the masses, the form of POWER organization aimed at supremacy of the class of oligarchs, first of all, financial capital representatives, i.e. the moral and professional freaks, over billions of deceived people, who, for some reason, are inspired by the possibility to vote.
People have not still realized that their “power” lasts just few seconds, while they put the bulletin for their candidate into the box with a sense of contempt for the other candidate.
That makes sense when democracy does not seem suspicious for most people. But when democracy is idealized by the people who call themselves the communists, spend decades on signatures collection and litigate the right to be registered in the Ministry of Justice, it is clear that diamatic [hereinafter, diamatics means the method of dialectical materialism — translator’s note] method of thinking is totally absent in the minds of most today’s left.
Democracy was invented by SLAVE OWNERS in the golden age of slavery and ensured for CENTURIES the stability of oligarchs POWER of that era. Democracy was used in the elections of emperors, kings, czars, doges, feudal authorities, bishops of all denominations and presidents under capitalism. Only these historical facts could make left intellectuals more skeptic about democracy as a basis of liberty, equality and fraternity. But there is no understanding of this issue in the leftist circles.
If a significant part of the intellectuals, along with the ability to memorize formulas and anecdotes, had the ability to think independently, they would wonder WHY the oligarchs of the world prone to tyrannical, hereditary and clannish types of their property (or billions of their wage slaves) management, AT THE SAME TIME, spread democracy in politics all over the world so hard, even with the help of weapons? But most of the today’s intellectuals do not ask such questions because they used to only memorize and repeat after Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of the colonial empire, characterized by more than 300 years of colonialism, slave trade and piracy, that —
“Democracy is the worst form of government unless you compare it to all the rest“.
There is another version of his statement:
“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (Speech in the House of Commons. November 11, 1947).
Today’s intellectuals do not want to see in these phrases three things. The first thing is that democracy is the worst form of government. The second one is WHO (?) governs, and the third one is that this comparison is made by the lord and convinced feudal, a cynic with true English sense of humor, who, for obvious reasons, does not specify whom he means, when he says: “unless YOU compare”. Whom does he mean? The House of Lords or the British miners, the unemployed or the Ulster Protestants? For whom, and in comparison with what, is democracy better?
The reader may ask himself: “When did the English lords begin to get the biggest profits in the world? Before enclosure and creation of unemployment, before the mass expulsion of peasants from their lands or after all lords at once recognized democracy and parliamentarism instead of feudal absolutism, and quickly formed the irremovable House of Lords?”
And then everything in the statement of Churchill will fit together.
The essence of democracy
In his paper What is democracy? professor Nisnevich writes that, although —
“…in political science there is even such an independent direction as the theory of democracy, there is still no unified acknowledged definition or understanding of democracy and the essence of this political category. So L. Diamond notes that “theoretical and empirical literature on democracy (and its amount increases very fast) contains so much conceptual confusion and disorder that D. Koller and St. Lewicki managed to detect more than 550 “subspecies” of democracy”. Such a situation is objectively determined by the fact that democracy, as any social phenomenon, continuously transforms with the political and historical development of civilization. Moreover, democracy is multifaceted and can be viewed and interpreted in such diverse aspects as the political-institutional, procedural, cultural and axiological ones”.
Theorists of the RCYL using just Machist methodology could list more, if they pay attention not only to the subspecies, but also to the “families”, “kinds”, “types”, “groups” and “subgroups” of democracies. But it is hard to believe that the variety of these subspecies is determined by the objective reasons, and not by subjective guile of the minority and subjective ignorance of the majority.
If the today’s left used the Marxist methodology, they would know without a historical journey that any social phenomenon arises and exists primarily as the unity of opposites, and that this unity causes their struggle and the development of the phenomenon through the negation of the negation. They would know that the general dominates the particular and specific differences do not cancel the ESSENCE of the phenomenon, which does not change until there is the phenomenon itself.
There is no doubt for diamatically-read people that democracy, as a form of political organization of society, according to the laws of diamatics, will disappear. But this belief caused by confidence in the genius of Marx, does not excuse the Marxists from the duty to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the “mechanism” and the reasons of the objective process.
The unity of which opposites do cause democracy?
Why are there still thimble-riggers and their successors, financial magnates like Morgan, Rothschild, Rockefeller and Madoff? Just because mentally underdeveloped individuals, like investors and depositors, trust them and act according to their suggestions. Dealing with thimble-riggers (as well as with bankers), they are absolutely sure (with money as yet) that by CHOOSING one of three thimbles, even with their eyes closed, they have at least a 33% chance to guess where the ball is.
However, only the thimble-rigger knows exactly that there is no ball under any of the thimbles. It is the secret and the essence of his craft. A today’s voter again and again, to the last penny, choose the empty cup of three empty cups and for thousand years do not understand why he cannot win, although at the university he had the highest mark at probability theory.
It is the same with banks, investment companies, pyramid schemes, real estate offices, etc. They also offer all simpletons to CHOOSE a bank or a fund and to give their money for the PROMISE to return the money with interest.
At the beginning of the 1990s banks offered up to 1200% per annum. Certainly, there were depositors who believed these banks. They chose the bank and were very surprised to find out next day that this good bank “suddenly”… disappeared.
Oligarchs of slavery era were awfully inventive because they, first of all, correctly estimated intellectual weakness of population and, secondly, realized that giving people the right of choice (from branches of power to usurers) is safe for them, because the basis of ordinary voter’s logic is his incompetence, which excludes rational choice in his interests.
Since then, the right to choose the best of the worst options replaced for masses the NEED for thinking, understanding the difference between the essence and the phenomenon and developing a strategy to achieve their OWN goals, rather than being a mindless tool in the hands of egoists.
Thus, from the point of view of dialectical materialism, democracy arose, in general, as a result of the unity of opposites, in this particular case, the literate meanness of oligarchs, i.e. smaller part of the population, and terrible ignorance of overwhelming masses.
Centuries after the origin of democracy showed that the unity of opposites is a condition for the existence of the slave-owning, feudal, capitalist republics, which lead to splendid rights of ruling minority and self-destructive responsibilities of ignorant majority.
It follows that democracy will not die until the ignorance of majority is liquidated.
System of representative government elections demonstrates incompetence, mental incapacity and political blindness of everyone who chooses a powerful guide.
The degree of democratic institutions development and the level of democratic performances, better than mass behavior at football matches show the extent and the depth of the ignorance of the masses. The more active and bright an election campaign in the given country is, the more obvious that the voters of the country are very suggestible, and the organizers of the election campaigns see this clearly. And who will win, for example, Obama or Clinton, Gates or McCain, this small detail is completely insignificant for the oligarchs. After the election it is clear that these irreconcilable “opponents” work well together and execute one program in the interests of the American oligarchs. If the oligarchs are disappointed with their proteges, they just shoot them, as for example Kennedy brothers and five more American presidents in the US.
From time to time, in those countries where the masses, on the one hand, begin to understand that the elected person, at best, acts in his own self-interest, and on the other hand, begin to realize their own interests, they make “revolutions”, for example, the color ones, and acknowledge as leaders those who do not demonstratively fight for political power and look like a decent and talented leaders in the struggle for the overthrow of the previous regime. Moreover, these “elections” are held without any democratic procedures but, by direct mass activity of citizens, taking arms against the old regime. However, because of the ineradicable ignorance, the masses which has proven their absolute power, agree again to representative democracy and false promises. This is the scenario of most color revolutions, including the Arab Spring, which escalates into civil wars and fragmentation of countries.
Therefore, the democratic choice is a procedure, where some slightly educated competitors, necessarily devoid of conscience, offer to elect THEMSELVES as herders of people. Yeltsin, Navalny, Prokhorov were ready to guide people for forty years like Moses, without disclosing details of the route, without any guarantees, basing just on the compulsory blind trust. This is the essence of democracy.
Hundreds of years all electoral systems are organized so that people have to choose from suggested, and not what they need or what promises them a GUARANTEED benefit.
However, even this is not the most important thing. The majority of the demos still does not understand that if you are educated and smart, you DO NOT HAVE TO elect, you can be elected, even in the market democracy, as a leader, may be a temporary one, but still. But if you are not educated or intellectually developed, then your destiny is just to choose from suggested candidates, and deceive yourself that you also mean something.
In other words, modern democracy exists when and where the little group of quite educated people opposes undeveloped masses, objectively unable to understand the intricacies of civilized, law-based society, and therefore forced to believe the promises of silver-tongue orators and choose the best of the worst. Experience has taught the ruling class that the most important thing in democracy is to create in the minds of the masses the illusion that they are also power, although it is necessary to hide from them, that the voters are not a legislative, executive or judiciary powers, but dictators for a moment, the MOMENT of the “secret” ballot. That’s all.
But the democratic illusion turned out to be stronger than alcoholic or drug delirium, that needs a lot of intellectual strengths to give it up forever. But people are not SMART enough to see beyond the illusion of democracy the tyranny of oligarchs.
The reactionary nature of the election procedure at all times lies not in the fact that not competent enough citizens elect brilliant and honest politicians who have proved their unique ability to manage, but in the fact that incompetent masses again and again participate in maintaining the institution of POWER over them, by changing political “scapegoats” one after another.
Today, for a wonder, most philistines do not see the connection between constant increase of their living costs and the right of entrepreneurs to raise prices, but blame the “scapegoats”, like governments and presidents. Mass media shows this nonsense during each rise in prices. They say, what is this worthless government doing? Even the endless trials in all democratic countries of presidents, prime ministers and governors on the corruption charges do not let the masses understand that a bribe is a payment to the democratically elected top politicians for staying away of oligarchs affairs. For example, what will Medvedev get if land privatization starts? Nothing. And is there a personal interest of the oligarchs in the land privatization? Yes! And it is huge. Is it hard for Medvedev to form in the near future his election fund? No.
Our philistines, who read nothing except cheap novels, both among liberals and patriots, do not know that prices in market economy are set only by sellers, and buyers are free to choose: to buy or not to buy. This is the only “freedom” of modern mass consumers. If you ask them who fuels inflation, they will blame the government, without understanding that inflation is the rise in prices and nothing more, and lead to reduce the purchasing power of wages, which is explained, for simpletons, as a mythical decline in the purchasing power of a note.
The demos and mass media do not connect any fluctuations in stock indexes with poverty of intellect and meanness of key speculators and entrepreneurs, but connect it with the government’s machinations and demand to change it. They do not even guess that only calculating entrepreneurs are behind all voters tragedies.
Private mass media and free journalists, paid by the oligarchs, professionally enough create the feeling of the demos that publications reflect people’s opinion. The demos feels a sense of revengeful satisfaction from the fact that he says without restraints the worst words, either in kitchens or at meetings, about worthless prime ministers, presidents, ministers of economy and finance, and mass media just echo the voice of the demos. Only PR-specialists and political strategists, such as Gene Sharp, know exactly, how they, puppet masters, by propaganda technologies form an opinion of the demos, and decide how and what to broadcast through mass media, including the Internet, so that the demos could think that his opinion was born in his own “free” mind.
Therefore, the editorial board of Proriv has no reason to say anything good about democracy, because, throughout its history, it has served only to strengthen the POWER of minority over the demos and reduce tension, caused by the tyranny of oligarchs. Democratic procedure has no other content, except legalization and legitimation of POWER institution. A politician is replaced by another one only to keep the illusion that generations of the demos influence on power, so that updated political machine of coercion could defend the main provision of all market democracy constitutions: “Private property is sacred and inviolable”. It can be deprived by competitors, gambled away and drunk away, but it remains sacred and unavailable for the demos only, or oligarchs will loose their milch cow.
As already noted, the most necessary condition for democracy in any field and in any era is to maintain ignorance of the demos and to give him rights and possibility to choose one of three empty… “thimbles”.
If, for any historical reason, every person receives a harmonious development and education, such society will no longer need a guide, especially the political one, and the class of thimble-riggers will disappear, the prehistory of humanity will end and the history of rational mankind will begin.
Certainly, adherents of the democratic theater of the absurd understand that and will continue to build educational and legal institutions, to create new mystical “teachings” of cosmology so that this triumph of incompetence, i.e. elections, could continue for many hundreds of years.
That is why the absolute economic law of communism is all-round and comprehensive development of EVERY individual, so that EVERYONE, from the cradle, could develop his creative abilities and have ALL necessary conditions to put into practice all his talents, so that the NECESSITY of EVERY individual to serve the society could be based on the necessity of the WHOLE of society to guarantee the development of EVERY individual. And it should be clearly specified in the program of the party of scientific world outlook.
Therefore, today’s missile and nuclear society faces a dilemma: to develop the society through the development of EVERY person and thus to develop the needs, leading to further self-improvement of EVERY individual, or spread oligarchic sick standards of gastronomic, material, financial, sexual, power excesses, which create states of outsiders and haters, hordes of shopaholics, losers, homeless, thieves, millions of policeman and the army, i.e. the modern demos, who have almost chosen… a new world war.
What is inner-party democracy?
What is still misunderstood by many members of the communist movement in the teachings of Lenin and the practice of democratic centralism?
It remains misunderstood, first of all, that democratic centralism was a form of necessary compromise between science and ignorance and immorality, dictated by the specific objective and subjective historical circumstances of Tsarist Russia and its wild imperialism, militarism, mass poverty and Social-Democratic circles. Like any compromise, democratic centralism should not be and cannot be considered as a fundamental, long-term principle of the party building. Strictly speaking, Lenin and Stalin did not consider democratic centralism as the guiding principle of the party building. It was acceptable only at the stage of creating a new party of scientific and materialistic type, but the essence of this party type did not need anything democratic at all.
But why do the party, proclaiming the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and fighting for being the vanguard of the working class, need DEMOCRATIC centralism in the inner-party life? Only low moral character of the party members may let them submit to the majority, or primitive brutal force, as well as businessmen and oligarchs, as well as members of any criminal group, as well as the Greek demos.
Those who have studied the history of the Athenian and Roman democracies know that the institution of submission of the majority to the minority is the most savage way of being vanquished, when the key factor in winning civil wars of that era was a simple majority. After dozens of civil wars and untold losses ancient society finally realized this law and, from time to time, calculated the supporters of one or another group of aristocrats to clarify in advance who had more supporters and therefore, had a certain chance of victory in the civil war or in the brawl as in the Ukrainian parliament.
Today’s party bureaucrats got their leading positions in the party not by their theoretical level, not by the quality of the work done, not by real achievements in propaganda and organizational activity, but by unscrupulous using of the democratic majority of masses, allowing opportunists promote each other to the directing bodies of the party and, like a cancer, time after time, to destroy one by one the Internationals and emerging everywhere the communist parties.
Most current members of the parties with communist names do not realize that the real Communist Party do NOT decide any issues on the basis of formal procedures. According to diamatics the truth is always concrete, and solving the problem by a majority vote is practical, but primitive.
The world historical practice demonstrated that imperialism never managed to ruin communism in the USSR in open conflict, but opportunism easily made this “work” after Stalin’s death, because to become an opportunist, it is necessary, first of all, to know nothing, except the left phrases. Ignorance of party members is the destructive power serving imperialism, which makes the communist (in name) party the anti-communist one by the mechanism of democratic centralism.
Ignorance, or militant opportunism, which gets the party leadership through the mechanism of democratic centralism, is the main organizational reason of ALL collapses of ALL Internationals and the communist parties.
By the beginning of the 20th century, to the time of the RSDLP, Russia was overflown with petty-bourgeois ignorance, narrow-minded revolutionism, ineffective terrorism of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and venal economism. However, these Russian “features” were not unique. They are typical for all countries and nations with market economies. As evidenced by the regular strikes, confrontations of demonstrators with the police and the Nazis, periodic pogroms, turning into mass vandalism and looting, acts of terrorism and mass shootings, taking place in schools, offices, cinemas and temples of all civilized countries of the West.
But at the end of 19th century in Russia, thanks to the great personal success of some intellectuals in learning the Marxist theory, it was possible to direct the struggle of Russian proletarians to the victorious way. But such persons like Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Frunze do not appear in the political arena in every country, every year… Mass actions of the proletariat in 1917 led to the appropriate result only in one country, in Russia (rather than in France or England) just because of coincidence of objective and subjective factors.
Proletarian protests after 1991, for example, in Europe, cannot give anything to workers, because in the “Western countries”, after the death of Engels, the market competition in science extremely reduced the number of scientists, who are able to think “not for sale”.
Of course, a social revolution does not happen at the will of an individual. A revolution under objective factors is possible only as a result of creative subjective activity of the masses. But, at the same time, a revolution cannot happen without strategic leadership of outstanding personality. There are no social revolutions among baboons, or ants, primarily because of the absolute absence of enlightened individuals, although there are masses of humiliated “bottoms” and small number of “tops” [reference to the Lenin’s phrase“the bottoms don’t want and the tops cannot live in the old way” – translator’s note].
Vladimir Ulyanov became Lenin with his political skills and abilities as a result of the personal targeted, intense, very honest, unprecedented, especially by volume, theoretical, organizational and propagandist PRACTICE. Quite literally, after Lenin and Stalin, unfortunately, there was no person in Russia who could make a comparable intellectual and altruistic feat. For decades, all orators honored deceased Lenin, but none of them was going to do their best in science as Lenin did.
It is to be explained why people who claimed leadership in the communist movement, especially after Stalin, did not have enough CONSCIENCE to understand WHOM they replace in the labor and communist movement and what duties this “place” imposes upon them. Many leaders today think that vote counting is enough to take the top positions in the party and to lead in the manner of Gorbachev: “We need to start doing something, and then increase it more and more”.
Members of the parties with communist names are not confused by the fact that elections of presidents in bourgeois states and today’s elections of General Secretary of the Communist Party have no fundamental differences. Are these figures so similar to use the same procedures to elect them?
A member of the Communist Party, supposed to be its leader, HAS NO MORAL RIGHT to have lower theoretical level than Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin had, or to be less hard-working than they were.
Any revolution is, first of all, a qualitative change in the character of RELATIONS between people. Without improving the quality of thinking, it is impossible to improve the quality of social relations between people. Without cultural revolution in thinking, communism is impossible. Practice has shown that even multiple increase in productivity of the means of production does not automatically lead to radical improvement of social relations. Capitalist social being corresponds only to capitalist mass consciousness. The growth of material welfare under the market economy and unscientific consciousness leads only to the growth of philistines with overweight. Skinny philistines have something to strive for, obese philistines have something to fight against.
Therefore, only communists, who have ALREADY made the cultural revolution in THEIR mind can lead the cultural revolution of the proletarians of mental and physical labor. Today it is the main slogan for communists, but unknown or forgotten by the members of the parties with communist names.
According to modern ethnography and archeology people of primitive communal communism had very low and therefore very steady level of abilities and skills development, so ties of blood brotherhood and minimum of rivalry or hostility prevailed in their relations for thousand years.
But developed class society consciously does everything to REDUCE the level of intellectual development of most demos, or to keep it at the level of the TV show characters. As a result, the class of the poor and the indigent becomes the class of upright bipedals, almost incapable of thinking exceeding the school tests. The vast majority of the market demos, and much less the proletariat of developed countries, are not able to work out by themselves the science-based strategy to achieve their own interests. That is why throughout the history of class society, the educated classes, in a democratic or theocratic way, lead the deceived demos.
Under the objective factor of social revolution in one country or another, from time to time, the subjective factor appears, i.e. authoritative, educated enough personality with a high level of conscience, outstanding organizational skills to create the political party of the exploited class, i.e. the party of the proletariat, and, with its help to organize the working class, that can remove the class of entrepreneurs from political power.
But revolutions are not made by the masses, who can only trust their leaders, but by the class, that UNDERSTANDS his leaders, because in particular these leaders sincerely want it and work on it.
Because there is no mechanical synchrony in objective and subjective factors of the revolution in market economy, because capitalism faces uneven development of everything, the communist theory already in 1847 announced the ERA (but not one-act impulse) of revolutions and counter-revolutions, which started by the Paris Commune in 1871, continued in 1905 and 1917 in Russia, but which, according to Lenin, “may last for centuries”, first of all, due to the stable ignorance and the petty-bourgeois views in the mass consciousness.
In this era, each move on the way to communism was associated with the activity of the INTELLECTUALS: Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Kalinin, Kirov and Frunze in Russia; Mao Zedong in China; Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam; Kim Il Sung in Korea; Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru in India; Jose Marti, Fidel Castro in Cuba; Nelson Mandela in South Africa; Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, etc.
Today many people do not realize that one-act worldwide social revolution is just preferred theoretical model of the most desirable scenario. But even in The Manifesto, after scrupulous reading, it is easy to find a statement about the possibility of revolution not in all, but only in the developed capitalist countries. Lenin’s theory and practice proved that the communist revolution is able to go forward in the way of social progress even “in one country, taken singly”, having great influence on the course of human history.
However, every counter-revolution of this epoch is also connected with the name of one or another well-read “Herostratus”: Mussolini in Italy; Franco in Spain; Hitler in Germany; Pinochet in Chile; Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, Likhachev, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Yeltsin, Gaidar, Chubais, Nemtsov, Sobchak … in Russia.
In other words, counter-revolution is not made by a person, but every counter-revolution is provoked by well-known moral monsters with well-known names.
Actually oligarchs are very uncharismatic individuals. As a rule, they are like Midas with donkey’s ears, eaten up by greed, megalomania and misanthropy. This cause their thirst for self-affirmation by buying yachts, which are ten meters longer than the royal one, or ten-ton cars with tank engines, etc. Like all insignificant, despised, talentless people, they have to act in politics underhandedly, with the help of corrupted persons, puppet presidents and prime ministers. To implement their plans they need someone servile, but spectacular, who is obsessed with fame and attributes of power, and can raise to riots Munich beer lovers, Manezh Square, Maidan, Tahrir and Bolotnaya Square…
But, despite the fact that to become a servant of an oligarch, i.e. anti-communist, is much easier than to become a communist, dissidents for decades unsuccessfully tried to raise USSR people to the counter-revolution, earning a huge number of dollars, including through the Nobel Committee. But everything was in vain. Meanness of dissidents (like Solzhenitsyn, Bonner, Alexeyeva, Sharansky) caused disgust among the majority of thinking people, until Yeltsin appeared, who impressed by his charisma. Yeltsin’s charm lasted for several days of August 1991, but soon EVERYONE saw that he was just a buffoon, more ridiculous than all buffoons who ever entered the Kremlin. And it was possible to do anything behind his back.
To accomplish the communist revolution, both charisma and buffoon skills are contraindicated. Moreover, even sincere readiness of the leader for self-sacrifice is not enough for it. The masses today are flocking to the squares, driven by their own, individual interests, to a certain extent provoked by mass media, by their own personal hatred of the regime, but after listening to the modern leaders, they conclude: “We will not follow them. They are not the leaders we will risk our lives for”.
That is why over the past decade, none of parties, including the RCWP (the Russian Communist Workers’ Party), could collect even 50,000 signatures. The regime turned out to be so compassionate to losers, that allowed everyone to create parties of 500 members.
Mass movement, their attack on capital, is absolutely not enough for the communist revolution. Creative, enlightened, conscious participation of proletarians of mental and physical labor is the key for accomplishing the communist-type revolution.
There are no compromises in scientific world outlook: either the provisions of the strategy fully correspond to the objective reality, and are confirmed by all social practice, or it is not science and not the strategy.
It should be noted that the community of educated people is not equal to the term “scientific world”. A real scientist, who confirms his knowledge in practice, absolutely does not need either a bureaucratic (Nobel) or a democratic procedure, including secret ballot, for approving his discovery. He also does not need to find out what incompetent outside observers or journalists think about this.
Gaining an insight into more and more complicated notions and absolute truths, those who have scientific world understanding become more and more categorical, and their conclusions become invariant and therefore uncompromising.
However, the uncompromising and doubtless nature of scientific truths does not exclude compromises between INDIVIDUALS, most of whom do not have any scientific knowledge, but are guided by honest misbeliefs. In this case, it will take some TIME, probably an EPOCH, to re-educate the majority of those who are honestly-mistaken, to bring scientifically grounded truths into their minds.
But in order to educate the masses, the educator must be educated himself.
Learned scientific truths become a cause of action for the leaders and the masses, who turn, by the power of knowledge, into irresistible and CONSTRUCTIVE political force, because organized, convinced proletarian masses from the very beginning know what they fight for.
In all the colored and Arab revolutions of our time, the masses have no science-based idea of the nightmare, which the “victory” on the Maidan and Tahrir, in Tbilisi, Baghdad, Tripoli, Benghazi and Damascus will bring for them and their children.
In most historical cases, the ruling classes used the honest misbeliefs of the masses and directed their energy to the wrong way. Therefore, as in the case of the Dutch, English, French, the first and the second Russian bourgeois democratic revolutions, during perestroika in the USSR, organizers of these “revolutions” filled the conscience of mistaken masses with false slogans, which did not contain any ULTIMATE AIMS of these organizers. Only slogans of overthrow, but no constructive strategic proposals, were offered to the masses. The masses overthrew kings, tsars, the Central Committee of the CPSU and … turned into easy prey of oligarchs and various thimble-riggers.
Any democratic or market revolution can be accomplished by the most ignorant masses, without any science and contrary to its prescriptions.
The communist revolution is a synonym for science-based and organized progress, similar to development of the periodic table by Mendeleev. Without being occurred in the consciousness of an individual and the masses, revolution cannot happen in practice. Any human practice is a product of consciousness, completeness of reality reflection.
Therefore, ideally, the party of the scientific world outlook cannot rely on the principles of democracy, even the centralist one, since the truth in science is established not by voting, but by conscientiousness, i.e. by accurate and uncompromising scientific research and the ability of the masses to learn, creatively revise, and not just memorize the truths.
However, at the beginning of the 20th century, the situation with the quality of cadres in the Social-Democratic movement of Russia, did not allow, at first, to include in the Charter of the RSDLP strict requirements to the members of the party, which had just been established. As practice showed, firstly, most of the participants in the Social-Democratic movement did not understand the meaning, and therefore, feared the word “communism”, preferring not to use it, and secondly, as it became clear during the split of the Russian Social-Democracy into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, all leaders of the Mensheviks, even Plekhanov, did not fully learn diamatics, or, in other words, they did not know the methodology of scientific thinking in general, although they could retell something from Hegel without understanding its meaning. That is why Lenin also had to scrutinize dialectics twice. At first, when he was young, he studied the works of Plekhanov, and later, once again, he read the original works of Hegel and Marx to avoid Plekhanov’s mistakes and inexcusable simplifications in the practical realization of revolutionary tasks.
Strictly speaking, the Mensheviks suffered from the lack of education and double-dealing, and they went to the proletarian revolution, as further practice showed, first of all for a career, because in estates Russia a political career was an elusive dream for them, and secondly, for the democratic market socialism, without thinking seriously about communism.
Lenin saw this historical disadvantage of the Social-Democratic movement, and having undisputed and unprecedented authority among some activists of the Russian working-class movement, developed a compromise version of the Party Rules, where science-based discipline of centralism satisfied the need of the future Mensheviks for leadership and empty talks, i.e. for democracy. This trick was called democratic centralism.
Lenin hoped that with the help of centralism, he would be able to neutralize the influence of market democracy procedures used in the inner-party life. This method worked at the moment of the party creation, but later led to a lot of difficulties in inner-Party life, up to the complete collapse of the CPSU.
If Lenin had told all the leaders of the Social-Democratic organizations in Russia before the congress that he would, for a long time, rule the whole party SOLELY, and therefore the whole proletarian movement of Russia, then neither Polish, nor Lithuanian, nor Jewish, nor Georgian Social-Democrats would have gone to the congress. But vanity, self-confidence and primitive thinking of the democracy followers in the party, that were adequately estimated by Lenin’s diamatic thinking in their contradictions, played simultaneously its positive historical role. Separate circles united “de jure” by the fact of arrival at the congress.
Today no one denies that Lenin was the leader objectively, and he held this position throughout his political life not by voting but by wisdom, and ensured the grandiose success of the Bolshevik Party in Russia and huge influence on the whole world. If some of his contemporaries knew diamatics better and had less nationalistic survivals and conceit, they would easily notice how deep and informative Iskra was, how wisely it covered all the most difficult issues of the day, how much more this newspaper could give under Lenin’s leadership to the working-class movement of Russia. But no, the Mensheviks by voting removed Lenin from the post of editor-in-chief and appointed instead of Lenin another editor-in-chief. This is the anecdotal force of democratic centralism!
There have already been such a curious situation, when the publisher threatened Marx that if he did not pass for press Capital in time, the publisher would entrust this work to another author.
What happened to Iskra with the new editor? It became meaningless, and therefore quickly lost any influence on readers. And only those newspapers, where Lenin worked, acquired real authority among proletarians and intellectuals with developed conscience.
In response to Lenin’s articles and actions aimed at unconditional centralism in the party for the achievement of program goals, Plekhanov wrote the article What is not to be done? with very ridiculous final.
“We are obliged, — writes Plekhanov, — to avoid everything that could cause new splits in our midst …Now we must strongly protect our unity. Our party must keep it on pain of a complete loss of political trust. If we have new splits, the workers, who, as everyone knows, were quite confused by our previous conflicts, will not understand us any more, and we will show the world the sad and ridiculous scene of a staff left by the army and demoralized by internal struggle”.
It is easy to see that instead of intensifying the explanatory work among the proletarians, Plekhanov declares the artificial unity of the party, or the unity of fools and wise, the economists, the revisionists and the Marxists. Plekhanov was sure that political trust of proletarians could be won by illusive well-being in the party, and not by guarantees of the real science-based unity of the party.
“Don’t be afraid… some optimistic comrades say, — Plekhanov sneered at Lenin, — the future still belongs to us, and our party will cope with all difficulties. We reply to this that we are also sure in the future triumph of Russian Social-Democracy, but this certainty does not release us from self-criticism. The triumph of our party will be based on the complex of conditions, some of which will have positive meaning and some of them will have negative one. It would be extremely bad if the algebraic sum of our practical activity had a minus as a result…There is another type of optimists between us who have not clearly understood the present state of affairs. These optimists are convinced that new splits would be more useful than harmful for our party. There are no arguments in support of this strange opinion, except that the Russian Social-Democracy has strongly developed in recent years, when it was riven by differences and disputes. At the same time, they do not take into account that this disputes did not accelerate the growth of Social-Democracy, but slowed it. They forget, besides, that the less significant differences between the members of the party are, the more harmful the splits, caused by such differences, are. When we fought against the “economists”, every intelligent person could easily understand what caused this struggle. And now our unity is so strong that a new split would not have any serious reason and would seem understandable only for silly people. That is why it would damage the trust in our party much stronger than the previous, also very harmful, splits. Everything flows, everything changes. Our methods of activity also cannot remain unchanged… and it would be ridiculous and very bad if we do not meet the requirements of political weather. Consistent Marxists cannot be and, of course, will not be the utopians of centralism”.
In this expression, the “utopians of centralism”, we can clearly see Plekhanov the renegade. Superficial knowledge of dialectical materialism led Plekhanov to an absolutely distorted understanding of the party’s growth problem. For Plekhanov, as for all today’s leaders of the parties with communist names, the number of members, their formal unity, is much more important than the QUALITY of the party. Plekhanov opposed the “utopianism” of centralism, first of all because he was not the first figure at the center of the party structure. It was enough for him if there was a pluralism of opinions in the party, like under Gorbachev in the CPSU, but if he, Plekhanov, would be acknowledged by all the factions as a “secretary general”. And everything would be fine.
Thus, as we see, Plekhanov accuses Lenin of the “utopianism” of centralism and tries to fight against it, but if we judge by the content of the Lenin’s works (What Is To Be Done and One Step Forward, Two Steps Back), we will have to admit that Lenin, when it comes to the building of the party, is a science-based centralist.
The stereotypes of class society, learned by the future Social-Democrats during their religious education, in churches and synagogues, and historical examples of the long stay of crowned nobody at the tops of Russian political system, made social democrats unreasonably claim leading positions in the party.
Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, as well as Plekhanov, systematically fought against Lenin. They wrote many idiotic articles trying to convince workers of the failure of Lenin’s strategy and tactics, many times they tried to use the mechanism of democratic centralism to overthrow Lenin from the official positions posts, but could not understand a simple thing: Lenin was the objective leader of the working-class movement of Russia and the whole world.
Seems like they should be glad, that the greatest intellect of their time considers them to be the comrades. But no. Consumed with envy, with desire to get the highest posts in the editorial board, in the party, or perhaps in the state, these comrades turned into scoundrels through the voting procedure, and Bukharin, who once prepared an attempt on Lenin, colorfully told this in the court in 1938.
As it is known, Kamenev and Zinoviev fought against Lenin in the most important, October period of his activity in 1917. They also carried on the struggle against him during the Peace of Brest-Litovsk and the NEP periods. But when Lenin became seriously ill and could not attend the Twelfth Party Congress, when, therefore, Kamenev and Zinoviev no longer consider him as a rival, they were first who praised Lenin to the skies, realizing that now their shameless flattery towards Lenin would strengthen their personal power in the party.
Lenin knew the true value of such “comrades”. He saw, more clearly than many of them, the tendency of the capitalism development in Russia and the tendency of the contradictory development of Social-Democracy. The inevitability of a close social upheaval required, instead of separate circles, building of the united vanguard party of the proletarian class, ready for the coordination of its future actions. It was necessary to explain to the proletarian movement the action plan. Only united party could do this awareness-raising and organizational work.
The forthcoming bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, strong chance of overthrowing tsarism, the inevitable involvement of the proletarians by the capitalists in the fulfillment of THIS task, made it necessary and possible to mobilize the proletarian masses to solve not only the bourgeois tasks of the coming anti-monarchist revolution (which also worked for the communists), but to change the vector of the proletarian struggle to the struggle against the victorious bourgeoisie, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class.
Therefore, despite the uneven scientific qualification of the Russian Social-Democracy, and the varying degree of their sincerity, Lenin saw the possibility, through concessions to their democratic cretinism, to focus the work of the separate groups of Social-Democracy into one propaganda and organizational direction. The content of the articles and books of that period shows that Lenin considered his personal scientific qualification, the level of education of his associates, enough to neutralize the most opportunist-minded Social-Democrats, to take them under kind of centralized, personal control, and to direct vacillating Russian Social-Democrats. In this case, propaganda and agitation among proletarians, for some time, could be conducted in a unified direction, without disagreements in the proletarian movement.
But the Mensheviks also felt that Lenin objectively had no equal among the Social-Democrats in the quality of scientific and propaganda work, and therefore they did everything possible to reduce the productivity of Lenin’s work by making him resign from the Iskra editorial board through the method of democratic centralism. They accused Lenin of “Bonapartism”, pretending that they did not see, that the reason for the growth of Lenin’s authority was sincerity, literacy, productivity and quality of his mental labor, but not his elective intrigues.
Nevertheless, Lenin understood, that under current tense and dynamic historical conditions his personal moral difficulties did not matter, and it was necessary to form in the proletarian movement skills of coordination and awareness of strategic goals and actions, so that the proletariat of Russia had united vanguard, which could set goals for the all-Russian proletarian movement, and guarantee its victory due to the highly scientific character of the Program of the one and united proletarian party in Russia.
And in order to achieve this goal, it was necessary, for a while, to restrict the “pluralism” of opinions and stop the propagandistic disagreement at least in the Russian Social-Democratic movement. Lenin believed that, in spite of the versatility of the Mensheviks in the polemic, they were BOUND to be defeated in the eyes of the proletarians. It was important not to re-educate the Mensheviks, but to generate controversy with the Mensheviks before the eyes of the proletarians, to attract progressive workers, to CONVINCE them that the Menshevik’s position was wrong and to lead them to the only one scientifically based conclusion.
It may be comical, but polemic and participation in the election of the governing bodies of the congress, the opportunity to talk and to be elected, turned out to be very attractive for typical Social-Democrats. They took this democratic bait and arrived at the Second Congress of the RSDLP, trying to lobby the principle of autonomy for the circles, unlimited democracy in the party, in order to draw more “economists”, revisionists and other stupid philistines, lovers of endless debates and fans of spontaneity in the proletarian movement.
The objective diamatics, applied by Lenin in the conception of the congress, also gave birth to a genial paradox. Opponents of centralism gathered at… the JOINT Congress, which thereby became the center of attention of everyone engaged in politics and, therefore, unwillingly, they made a rod for themselves, playing into the hands of centralism.
Social-Democratic movement in Russia made a giant step forward in the centralization of the proletarian movement. Henceforth, even an illiterate worker had a clearer idea of the directions of “leaders” and factions vacillations about the strategic line of Bolshevism.
But at the congress the tradition of irresponsible rhetoric in the Russian Social-Democracy was so strong that, in the voting on the first paragraph of the Party Rules, Lenin lost to Martov and his supporters. This defeat confirmed the absolute accuracy of characteristics given by Lenin to the Russian Social-Democracy. Voting against the obligatory work of party members in one of its organizations, the Mensheviks consciously fought for raising the degree of anarchism in the RSDLP.
But, in the voting on the Party Program, the Lenin’s version was approved and, most importantly, despite the following staggering of the Mensheviks, despite all the inner-party splits and vacillations, Lenin’s scientific, organizational and tactical genius let the ONE, discussed and democratically voted, Party Program, appear in Russia, which turned for the proletarian movement into a guide, into a criterion for other leaders and parties evaluation.
And, as is well-known, before that Social-Democrats could only create countless separate circles and organizations, national sects, issue leaflets, manifestos, which EXCLUDED the scientific enlightenment and uniting the Russian proletariat, and doomed it to an useless waste of time and efforts.
However, the history proved that the Program, voted and approved by the Congress, is a necessary, but absolutely insufficient success factor in the real working, communist movement.
People who have not creatively learned Marxism-Leninism in full are NOT ABLE to implement such a Program, which is a concise, concentrated summary of DIAMATICS of social progress. The program of the party is written for the party, and it is necessary to know the diamatics completely in order to convincingly and in detail get the meaning of the program provisions across to the workers’ mind. In other words, without knowing the diamatics, it is impossible to understand anything in brief schematic formulations of a really communist program.
A person without diamatic thinking, who writes the communist program, is even more comical. This diamatic ignorance of the authors, reflected in the content of the “post-Leninist” programs, led the CPSU, the CPRF (the Communist Party of the Russian Federation), the RCWP, the RCYL… either to collapse or to a disgraceful state.
Despite the fact that at the Third Congress of the RSDLP Lenin’s formulation was approved in the Party Rules, the Mensheviks and other opportunists always used democracy only to the detriment of centralism, forcing stupid discussions in the most inappropriate time for disputes in history. It was at the time of the October uprising and during the signing of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk with Germany. It was at the time of the Civil War, when Trotsky and his team forced a party discussion on … the trade unions. Therefore, as it turned out, it was much easier to adopt the united program, than to make the party really united.
The communist movement can grow only by scientific knowledge, and no compromises in this direction are possible. Either the communists will be the scientific vanguard of proletarians, or the party members will be mental idlers.
The desire of illiterate babblers to get into the Central Committee, the Central Control Commission, the central organs, and boundless chatter typical for the period of the RSDLP formation and for Khrushchev and Gorbachev periods were even more destructive under creation of the RCWP and at all stages of its decay. Sessionism, endless discussions and empty statements reduced to zero the effectiveness of this party activity in real proletarian ranks, leading to numerous and irretrievable splits and atrophy of all its organizations and authorities.
If for the first 14 years of existence the Bolsheviks managed to carry out the October political upheaval, if for the next 20 years after the revolution the Bolshevik Party managed to almost completely realize the provisions of the Leninist program and ensure the formation of the dictatorship of the working class in Soviet Russia, by 1937 to turn the USSR into a powerful technological power, it is quite obvious that for the same 20 years, the CPRF and the RCWP, in conditions of incredible for capitalism freedom of speech, have fulfilled NO program goals.
One may ask, what is the reason of this tragic difference?
First of all, the fact that democratic centralism dominated in the post-Stalin CPSU, the CPRF, the RCWP and, therefore, there was absolutely no chance of leading the party in the direction of science-based centralism.
Why is the core group of the magazine Proriv still small? Because most articles sent to the editorial board contain catastrophic theoretical mistakes. Why the small editorial board of the magazine Proriv and its technical staff keep integrity, unity and issued more scientific-theoretical and journalistic publications than Sovetsky Soyuz (tr. Soviet Union), the magazine of the Central Committee of the RCWP? Because every activist of Proriv constantly improves his scientific level and, consequently, we argue more with our own gaps in education than with each other. Moreover, the stronger the activists of Proriv progress in learning diamatics, the less internal disputes we have and more unitedly solve all external problems. To everyone who does not agree with the position of the magazine Proriv, formulated in its first issue, we immediately give a free rein.
The Prorivists have realized long ago that truth is born not in an argument with whoever, but only in the intense search for truth by the competent persons, i.e. by those who know accurately the subject and the METHOD. Another approach to the search for truth leads to logical mistakes only.
Mental laziness, and therefore the lack of diamatic education of the members of today’s left parties members, inevitably result in their Machist “methodology” (they do not even know this, hoping that they are intuitive, mentally lazy, ill-read, but dialecticians). And so they, instead of the specific historical approach, only rewrite for the hundredth time what was written at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th centuries, never asking themselves the question: why more than a hundred years ago a pioneer said, wrote and did just like that, and no other way. Or, at least they could ask themselves, why Lenin needed this stratagem: to form in the party not just democracy or centralism, but democratic centralism. What kind of diamatic contradictions were resolved in the mind of a genius, leading him precisely to this formulation?
From the scientific point of view, it is ridiculous to talk about the need for democracy and even democratic centralism in the party of the scientific world outlook. At least they could ask why the oligarchs around the world, who hated the CPSU and the USSR, applauded Gorbachev for his efforts to democratize the CPSU and the USSR? Why was the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee welcomed with open arms by all the most reactionary presidents, prime ministers and chancellors of the world, including Reagan, Thatcher and Kohl? Why was only Gorbachev so popular among these servants of imperialism, and not Yeltsin or even Gaidar with Chubais?
Only because the imperialists knew that democracy led only to the destruction of the system of scientific government of society. The struggle of Khrushchev for the “collective mind of the party”, the struggle of Andropov for democracy in planning, i.e. for self-financing in economics, the struggle of Gorbachev for the democratization of inner-party life, as a consequence of the ignorance of these General Secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee, was a grandiose gift to the imperialists of the whole world. Imperialists liked Gorbachev because he was predictable and governed in his actions on breaking up the CPSU and the USSR. And Yeltsin, Gaidar and Chubais were disliked for being incompetent, i.е. for the fact that they did not succeed in complete destroying their rival, the bourgeois market Russia, although this could happen.
One may say, that is it, since everything was concentrated in the arms of the general secretaries of the CPSU, then their stupidity led to devastating consequences. Our opponents do not see that Gorbachev’s voluntary refusal from centralism in the party showed that the party mass, like in the days of Lenin, was not able to hold the victorious line in politics independently, without real leaders. It would seem that everyone realized the meanness, the insignificance of Gorbachev. But how poor the preparation of the other party members was, that when everything became possible, only a few thousand communists tried to organize the Movement of the Communist Initiative (the MCI). Giving more freedom to the party masses only led to the victory of petty-bourgeoisness in politics, especially in the national republics. Remember, at the 28th Congress of the CPSU, two-thirds of stupid congress delegates voted for market reform in the USSR.
Thus proletarians cease to be wage slaves, illiterates, prostitutes and Nazis only when they are united with their vanguard, and the vanguard is armed with the KNOWLEDGE of science-based and tested laws of social development.
Therefore, there is advice to all young leftists: if you want to fight forever and in vain, then follow the principles of democracy, like Plekhanov, Trotsky, Bukharin, Khrushchev, Andropov, Gorbachev, Zyuganov, Anpilov, Tyulkin, Udaltsov and Batov did, to the delight of the oligarchs of the whole world.
If you want to win in the struggle for a long, happy, dignified life, in a period optimally conditioned by the objective factors — then stand for science-based centralism. It is difficult, time-consuming, but guaranteed.
The Bolsheviks needed democracy only at the first stage of the party creation, for the involvement in the movement, for the FORMAL discipline of the party members, who at that time belonged to the exploited masses, and had petty-bourgeois values. If not, yesterday’s agricultural laborers and middle peasants would not turn into kulaks [bourgeois peasants], and yesterday’s proletarians, turning into trade union leaders, would not sell out to their masters and fascists. But intellectuals, peasants and proletarians have dual nature. Industrial proletarians are characterized by this duality and double-dealing in a less degree than the proletarians of mental labor and peasants.
But on the days when these lines were written, the miners of the Kemerovo region asked Medvedev… to increase their working day from six to eight hours. It shows how primitive the brains of today’s miners are. They do not even understand that now the owners of the mines will fire 30% of their comrades, increase a little the wages of the rest workers, transferring the wages of the dismissed to the mines owners profit. Of course, this is the most disgraceful moment in the history of the world working-class movement, but the consequences of this folly will thoroughly clear the brains of the fired miners, who have recently believed that there is nothing more important than beer after work.
It feels especially ashamed for these wage slaves of the 21st century, because at the end of the 18th century and at the end of the 19th century, workers demanded from the capitalists, firstly, to reduce the working day and, secondly, to increase wages under a shorter working day. They wanted to live. They knew the price of free time. Today it seems to the workers that they can earn, sacrificing their priceless health and life.
Few of them now understand that if socialism in the USSR was not destroyed by miners’ strikes in 1990, today the whole population of the country would have free accommodation, and the working day in all sectors would be no more than 4 hours a day, with a two-month paid vacation, with, figuratively speaking, the same wages, with free education, medicine, free public transport, children’s pre-school institutions, sanatoriums, tourist camps, without terrorism, religious obscurantism, nationalism, fascism and organized crime.
But the proletariat without a real Communist Party, becomes a self-destructive force. Only the history of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party is enough to disprove the view of the proletariat as an self-developing revolutionary force, especially a communist one. The proletarians throughout Europe produced weapons against the USSR, the proletarians furiously walked over their own dead bodies on the way to Moscow, stormed Stalingrad, shot and hanged partisans. Considering that the proletariat is revolutionary by default means to understand nothing in The Communist Manifesto, which quite definitely states that the proletariat is just the EXPLOITED class, i.e. the class, which mostly does not understand that it is exploited, and moreover it is happy to be exploited. These proletarians stand in long lines at the employment exchange and, if they have not found themselves in the lists of dismissed workers, look down on all other losers. The proletariat is the most revolutionary class of market society only because all other classes of capitalist society are either absolutely REACTION, or petty-bourgeois, or passive, indifferent to everything that happens.
Without its vanguard, without a party of scientific world outlook, the proletarians of mental and physical labor are not able to free themselves from exploitation, which is brilliantly proved by the many hundred years experience of the proletarian movement in the developed market countries. But this would not be so terrible if the proletarians did not take the most active part and were not the main victims of world and colonial wars, did not just blindly execute the will of the fascists and militarists in the insane race of nuclear weapons.
Only people with the scientific world outlook can unwaveringly carry out only one line, due to finding it really scientific and not due blind faith in the Program.
After formation of the Communist Party, or the Party of the Scientific World Outlook, the degree of its development can be defined not by the growth of its members, but by the decrease of democracy in the PARTY and by the increase of science-based CENTRALISM.
Seems like it is enough to look at the experience of Gorbachevism to draw a final conclusion about how much the inner fool in the party, or a supporter of democracy in the Communist Party, is more dangerous than an external enemy. Does appeal to the masses of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, or their “consultations with the people”, show their great intelligence? Of course, you can call them democrats, but intelligent and, moreover, educated — you cannot.
Can we call a person a chief designer, if he tries to find out by a democratic vote among the employees of the drafting department, which brand of steel should be used to create a nuclear reactor?
Can we call smart presidents and prime ministers, who privatize state-owned factories under the slogan: “Entrepreneurs are smarter than we are”?
If these statesmen do not know how to manage the economy of the country, then how can they run the country? But there are still people who do not understand that the whole “system” of the authorities under market democracy exists only to make the demos obey big capital, no matter how “smart” the oligarchs are. At least this is how it works in all developed democratic market countries. The oligarchs “rule” the entire economy as they want, and the police pacifies the unemployed and robbed depositors according to scientifically developed program of the demos pacifying, using the most advanced technology and techniques and the democratic government spares no expense on it.
Thus, if we do not hesitate to answer the question, why the Communists League, the First and Second Internationals, the CPSU, all the communist parties of the CMEA countries collapsed, why the CPRF and the RCWP are also close to this, then we must admit that only such communist organizations can collapse, which has no communists among its leaders, i.e. those who know perfectly the methods of scientific world understanding. Strictly speaking, the historical practice of China and North Korea showed that under certain historical conditions, even one really competent communist is enough for the entire country to implement the really Communist Party program.
When the CPSU collapsed, it turned out that republican organizations did not have the educated communists. There were only some heroes, strong and inflexible internationalists such as Anpilov, Shenin, Burokevičius. There is an interesting theorist on the problems of world development, Jermalavicius. But there are no scientists who have answered scientifically the critical question of our time about the cause of the collapse of the CPSU and other parties of the CMEA countries so that at least one “post-CPSU” organization with a communist name could be like a Bolshevik one. As a result, on the wreckage of the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR, their clones emerged: the RCWP, then the CPRF and several other very small communist parties with their leaders. The history of all these parties decay has proved that they did not and do not have a single person who, under conditions of a high, for the bourgeois country, degree of freedom of speech, could persuade the proletariat, at least in anything. Everyone are plunged into the parliamentary infighting and collecting signatures. Some of these party members showed firmness of character, fidelity to principles, good memory for some quotations, but not the ability to think and act in a Leninist way.
If the members of these parties continue to be too lazy to learn methodology, it is clear that there is no communist perspective on the territory of the former USSR in the next five years.
The gradual expulsion of real communists from the Internationals, all communist parties and editorial boards, is the result of religious trust in democratic centralism.
Then, naturally, the question arises. If democratic centralism is an instrument of seizing the party leadership by opportunists, then how to build a party on the principles of science-based centralism?
The saddest thing is that there is hardly a theorist in the modern communist movement, who studied the examples of applying the principle of science-based centralism in the history of the CPSU, or described in detail the mechanism of applying the principle of science-based centralism in building the Communist Party, where opportunism cannot exist in spite of all the efforts.
What should be the Party of Science-based Centralism?
The analysis of the collapse of all Internationals and most of the parties with communist names leads to the indisputable conclusion about a discrepancy between the rules of these parties and the essence of the working-class party. In other words, the method of forming the political organizations of the proletariat did not fully correspond to the unique tasks to be solved. Therefore, it was easier for parties to overthrow fundamentally rotten regimes than to create a new economic form of society.
It is quite obvious that since Marxism-Leninism has not been disproved theoretically and is confirmed by victorious practice on all “fronts” of the USSR of the Stalin period, the following collapse of the CPSU can be explained only by the contradiction between the objective law of the correspondence of the party cadres to the priority of strategic tasks and imperfect principles of party building. These imperfect principles increase the number of fools and anti-communists in the governing bodies of the party, and as a result, turn the party of the dictatorship of the working class into a counter-revolutionary organization.
Each new stage of qualitative transformation of society demanded from party members higher level of intellectual training, but the system of party education and recruitment, deformed by democratic centralism, lagged further and further behind the needs of the epoch.
The collapse of all parties with communist names shows the inadequacy of the standard formulations used by the candidates for the party to demonstrate their readiness to be a communist: “I accept and commit myself to carry out the Party Program and the Party Rules”, or “I want to be in the forefront of the builders of communism”.
Admission to the Communist Party is not a legal act and not a marriage contract. The communist activity is not a matter of desire. The communist activity must bring scientific and theoretical competence in social practice and, first of all, in the political activity of the proletariat. The communist activity in current conditions is like the activities of those volcanologists who know exactly where, when, why and what will happen, try to inform people, but they think, almost like at Fukushima, that they are safe from the political tsunami in the form of, for example, World War III.
Therefore, the text of an application for admission to the party of a new type should be essentially different: “I have mastered the theory of Marxism-Leninism and have creatively practiced it in the ideological and political form of the class struggle. The publications are attached. I take an active part in… trade union’s activity”.
These are competent members, who differ the Communist Party from any other type of a party. Communist work in any conditions can be conducted only by competent people, who are able to understand the essence of objectively determined goals, who realize the NECESSITY of observing party discipline dictated not by obstinacy, not by fear of responsibility, not by personal career interests, but by scientific understanding of the cause-effect relationship, ignoring of which leads the party and the whole of society from mistakes to tragedy.
The discipline of a communist is a form of the most uncompromising following the requirements of SCIENCE-based NECESSITY. Strength of the organization, coordination of actions are possible only under domination of the scientific consciousness among the vanguard participants of the political process. Candidates who join the party with the phrase “I accept and commit myself to carry out the Party Program and the Party Rules” must remain candidates until their publications and practical work with proletarians reach the necessary scientific level and obvious results.
However, during the Civil War in Russia and in Stalin’s period, the standard form of application for admission to the party corresponded to the sincere attitude of most joining members, proved their readiness for self-sacrifice and unquestioning observance of the party discipline, since the stay in the party for a long time did not promise any material benefits, and sometimes even threatened their life. But even in those days, using the procedure of democratic centralism, adventurers and careerists, even enemies of the working people, joined the party for power and sabotage, that was confirmed by memoirs of Yakovlev, the last secretary of the CPSU Central Committee on ideology.
While the Bolshevik Party was led by Lenin and Stalin, their competence was sufficient to ensure the expected results by the unquestioning obedience to all the decisions of the party. Even the Trotskyites, due to the instinct of self-preservation, sometimes had to obey the party decisions. However, when there had already been no geniuses in the party leadership, it turned out that the moral and psychological readiness of incompetent party members was not enough to rebut the opportunists and neutralize their subversive plans. The “collective party mind” could not compensate for the personal illiteracy of democratically elected under-educated leaders. Many people still do not understand the absurdity of the phrases: “an ordinary member of the Communist Party” or “a true Bolshevik with bad knowledge of Marxism”.
Seems like the difference between “a communist” and “a party member” is insignificant, but in fact there is a gap between the party membership goals of a competent person and an illiterate careerist. Consciousness of an illiterate party member cannot contain any significant social goals, especially goals related to the building of communism. On the basis of political ignorance only petty-bourgeois consciousness can develop. That was democratic centralism that guaranteed to such party members vast majority in the leadership of the party.
Many members of the party have understood literally the Engels’s idea that since communism has become a science, it must be studied. That’s all. This task was fulfilled strictly by the CPSU members. They obediently memorized and repeated citations almost all their life, without thinking about what it means to master completely the science of communism. Their greatest achievement was saying the necessary quotations of the classics at appropriate times, but more often at inappropriate ones and with distortion of the meaning. In this matter almost the entire membership of the Central Committee did not notice that they were in fact the Bernsteinians: no one cared for the process of party study or the final result. Periodic examinations concerned only the matters of the lectures timetable, the presence of a poster and the text of the lecture prepared by an educator. Already under Brezhnev, the examiners did not realize that the educator should DEEPLY understand the material, but not read it as a sexton. It was easier for the examiners to find out that there was no summary or that a lecturer was late than to catch his conscious distortion of the root of the matter.
The educators in social sciences were paid per hour, but not per mental workload.
That was the lack of understanding of the scientific depths of the program tasks by the leading workers of the party, their overestimation of their readiness to put into practice scientific truths, the primitive method of working with young people to prepare them for the party membership, the absurd system of training cadres for law enforcement agencies, the Marxist underdevelopment of most Soviet poets, novelists and publicists, all of it gradually led to full theoretical and political degradation of the CPSU, its system of propaganda and agitation.
When representatives of the artistic intelligentsia and “great” actors gather on Russian TV to tell each other vulgar anecdotes, they honestly admit that at school they were non-achievers and did not understand anything in Marxism, also because they never studied it in their student years. And they think it is very funny.
The overwhelming majority of writers, screenwriters, directors by their world outlook turned out to be ordinary philistines, unable to rise above bedroom scenes, but they presented their triviality, artistic mediocrity, as purposeful dissidence. The problem of building truly free society of humanists was too complicated for these “social engineers”. The spiritual deafness of most Russian intellectuals of that period, their undying philistinism are well shown in the novel Doctor Zhivago by Pasternak.
Taking all this into account, today’s young people who want to devote their life to the struggle for building a truly progressive, humanized, scientifically organized society, i.e. those who want to join the Party of Science-based Centralism (the PSC), must join its primary organizations at the place of residence or work in order to become real party activists and to develop personal scientific, theoretical and organizational level. The period of being a candidate member should not be limited to a formal time frame, but should be entirely determined by the real progress of a person in the theory of dialectical materialism, by the necessary propagandist and agitator skills, by the results and scope of his work in the party mass media.
Certainly, if a candidate does not have progress in his practical explanatory work with the proletarians of mental and physical labor, if he does not feel up to study the theory and to be a successful propagandist of scientific knowledge and a political organizer among proletarians, then there is no reason to admit him to the party.
Of course, with genuine desire to win over parasitism one can always participate in this struggle ACCORDING TO HIS POSSIBILITIES, without joining the party. But, in any case, the SELF-CRITICAL attitude to the OWN scientific potential, the proved right to work in the ranks of the party as an organizer and leader, must be the standard of behavior of each leftist.
The collapse of the CPSU and the Young Communist League proved that the party membership cannot depend on any formal democratic arguments, norms and recommendations. A young man must be acknowledged by the party organization due to his attitude toward the matter.
There are people who will say that this approach will antagonize a huge number of people. And we reply that competent, proven, and therefore a reliable headquarters is more attractive for normal people than any party card, which offer exciting possibilities for a formal party career. People who are satisfied only with the party membership and parliamentary illusions are good with the CPRF. Today everyone is accepted there, that is why the CPRF has already experienced more splits than the RSDLP, since many CPRF members are more interested in today’s State Duma career than in tomorrow’s communism. Most likely, for the leadership of the CPRF communism is not interesting at all.
A person, who is afraid of the difficulties in mastering the communist theory, who avoids real propaganda work among proletarians, will find something easier than scientifically organized struggle. At least Lenin wrote that it is much better when ten men, who work, do not call themselves communists, than one talker, who calls himself a communist. It is hard to disagree with Engels, who said that it is better if the enemies accuse the communists of cowardice than if the proletarians consider the communists to be fools. This is one of the reasons why the proletarians sometimes prefer to follow Putin, not Zyuganov.
But the success in the struggle for a happy life depends on the number of ACTIVE participants in this process. It is the objective fact and the law of history. Therefore, Marxism is not about the accomplishment of a revolution only by the forces of one party, even the most NUMEROUS one. Marxism is not about the substitution of the proletarian class by the party, but about the educational and organizational work of the party to rouse the proletarian masses for their creative, conscious, active participation in the qualitative development of society. And keeping the content of propaganda and agitation at high level requires improvement of scientific and theoretical level of every party agitator and propagandist.
In brief, the party successes in enlightenment and organization of the masses are directly proportional to the QUALITY of the party ranks, and not to the number of passionate, but illiterate, members.
It may be said that the RSDLP was created in other way. Yes, the RSDLP was formed at the time of history, when, on the one hand, the activity of the proletarians in the economic struggle increased all over the world, which also happens today, and on the other hand, there were some individuals who saw themselves as established leaders. They all had exiles and penal servitude behind them, so they naturally had a wish to unite in the party all ready, tested by prison, practical revolutionaries, in spite of the “insignificant”, as it seemed then, differences in their theoretical views on the most important problems of practice. For a long time there was a hope that the formal principle of democratic centralism, i.e. the majority rule, will cope with the theoretical disagreement. But realization of this principle only sharpened contradictions between the “branches” of the party, making opportunists eager for revenge and reversal of the party policy after each their defeat. The RSDLP experienced several big splits just because the majority of the congresses was captured by opportunists.
In these situations, the Leninists, or the science-based centralists, had to organizationally separate from the conscious opportunists and in such a way to implement the only scientific, brilliant Leninist policy in the proletarian masses.
Today’s practice of the Communist Party building is complicated by the fact that in the communist movement of the world there are practically no authoritative and mature Marxist theorists, acknowledged by the proletarians of mental and physical labor. Therefore, a new generation of party builders will face a difficult and intensive struggle to solve this problem.
The creation of a new Communist Party in the present conditions is fraught with joining of young people who have learned only one meaningless slogan — “We want changes”, but they absolutely do not know the laws of objective conditions for that changes.
But this lesson did not teach anyone, even the members of the former CPSU. Since the very establishment, for example, of the RCWP, all attempts to organize serious party studies and the party press were not supported by the leadership of the party, and in this way twenty years were lost. In the RCWP, as soon as someone young appeared, he was immediately elected to all governing bodies, appointed to the leadership of the RCYL or to the presidium and, eventually, this “young person” degenerated.
Unfortunately, there are no cases in the history of pedagogy, except for Marx, when a young man by the age of 18 have already learned at least the foundations of the dialectics of Hegel, Marxist-Leninist philosophy, have read and mastered four volumes of Capital, have written at least one serious work, updating the positions formulated by the classics of Marxism a century earlier, and have felt deeply the problems and tragedies of social being that make a person an uncompromising, persistent and consistent fighter against the deadly vices of capitalism.
One can advise to admit a young person to the party in advance, on the basis of his activity, and then teach him.
But, Proriv prefers to work in the reverse order. Learn from the party without joining, understand properly your own motives, test yourself in practice and, if you do not change your mind at the age of 23, then join. At least Lenin, already at the age of 23, wrote and published mature scientific works, was widely acknowledged as a scientist, and only after that, at the age of 28, he joined the party with the clearly formulated principles of Bolshevism.
There are good examples to follow, and it is mean to join the party without hard work on self-education in the way that Lenin did.
Therefore, the PSC will not create separate youth organizations (based on the age criteria). Proriv sees the solution of the problem in the development of a party-oriented educational process, mainly virtual one, with using modern information technologies. As Karl Marx said, the best education is self-education. Lenin taught that without an independent work, universities can give nothing. Therefore, the ultimate success entirely depends on the degree of perseverance and constancy in the fulfillment of the main party duty of a young man: to master the science of victory in the political struggle.
When the entire primary organization of the left-wing youth consists of persons under 23 years old, such organization can be considered as an organization of the PSC supporters, but nothing more. The regional organization of the PSC coordinates the activities of the PSC youth organizations in the region. The evaluation criterion for the work quality of such primary youth organizations is not the number of conducted actions, not the number of arrests by the police, but the growth of the quality of propaganda materials and the growth of the number of experts in communist science.
As the experience of the RCWP and the CPRF showed, all attempts of the modern left-wing youth to create united youth organizations were objectively in vain, in spite of the highly-developed means of communication. The gap in today’s young people knowledge of social science, intense rivalry, the lack of the real authority of youth “leaders” among the young people, all this led these initiatives to failure.
The absurdity of the RCWP and the CPRF youth “policy” is that the leadership of these parties was engaged in “Sisyphean labor”: they created centralized independent youth organizations that played the role of a political sandbox for future opportunists and careerists.
While Stalin leaded the CPSU, and the Young Communist League had just an executive role, there were no big political problems. But, after the party was headed by people who were not literate enough, and therefore, unauthoritative, especially Gorbachev, the Young Communist League became a kind of for-profit organization. The Young Communist League expectedly dissolved itself before the party did.
It can be said without exaggeration that, the CPSU did not find the more productive form of youth organization, and by creating a centralized youth organization, paradoxically, used the Trotskyite type of organizing youth in the USSR. Strictly speaking, the party influenced the young communists through the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Young Communist League. It is characteristic that the main destroyers of communism, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Yeltsin, came to the party through the leadership of the Young Communist League. But it is well known that if a young man is addicted to careerism and cynicism, then his re-education, according to the laws of pedagogy, is the most thankless task.
The complete collapse of the CPSU proved how harmful the creation of centralized all-Union and republican organizations of the Young Communist League type was. But this experiment, like any other experiment, is an option of usual optimistic tragedy, that teaches those who are able and want to learn. It is a pity that no one drew attention at the time to a detailed warning about the futility of creating centralized republican youth organizations of communist orientation, about the negative aspects of this project described in the full version of Nikolai Ostrovsky’s novel How the Steel Was Tempered. But the novelty of the tasks solved by the communists in the 1920s posed unprecedented challenges for pedagogical science and the whole party. It was necessary and possible to experiment. However, in the future, the theory and practice of Makarenko were not only unappreciated by the majority of party members, but also were consciously “oppressed” by pedological careerists, most of whom were direct enemies of communism. As a result, the Young Communist League became not a school of communist education, but an incubator of Trotskyism and degeneration of the youth, the source of many undereducated party careerists, cynics and deserters. For many ordinary members of the Young Communist League among the working youth, this period of their lives remained in memory as a romantic and honest, heroic and creative period of their youth, their Komsomolsk-on-Amur, the Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Factory, Stalingrad, virgin soil, the Baikal-Amur Mainline.
The Young Communist League, at times, was a school of courage, but did not become a school of political maturity.
The collapse of the CPSU also proved the absolute impropriety of the centralized University system of teaching Marxism, based on the principles close to the educational systems of class societies. Successful and effective education of communist activists depends on the close COORDINATION of theoretical studies and practical activities, self-education and self-improvement in the process of fighting for the actual tasks of real party politics.
As shown by the age-old practice, students who have the potential to master philosophical and social problematics, they by themselves come to the necessity of a thoughtful, intense study of the objective laws of the social development. But most of the today’s students, who are deformed by tests and motivated only by the mercantile side of education, should be prepared to fulfill consciously their civic duties primarily on the basis of feature and documentary films, because, on average, the modern youth culture of reading tends to decline. But some feature films made in the USSR are still able to play the role of a social alarm clock.
It may seem strange that a science-based centralist criticizes centralism in the system of the party education and the youth movement. After all, everyone knows that in civilized countries all social sciences are taught by professors, according to the approved programs. How can we reject the centuries-old experience of the best universities in developed capitalist countries?
Only those who do not understand dialectical materialism, can offer to use the experience and methodology of bourgeois universities for the communists education. The fact is that the system of high education of class society is opposite to the real education, that is transfer of scientific knowledge and improvement of thinking level.
The process of intellectual growth needs not the premises of teaching, or officially approved programs and professors, but the real educator with constantly developing knowledge and skills, who is able to know and understand what has not yet been learned by a young man on the basis of his own life experience.
The role of such a teacher must play the Central Organ of the party, which includes people who have perfectly mastered the communist science and systematically test their knowledge in practice.
It is enough to take into account the experience of self-education of the first Bolshevist leaders to draw the correct conclusion about what the system of the new Bolsheviks education should be. Nevertheless, this did not happen. Lenin and his comrades became an icon for worship, but not for mass practice of their experience.
Why did the CPSU collapse? First of all, because after Stalin the theoretical work in the party degraded, and during the perestroika, the magazine Communist (the theoretical organ of the CPSU Central Committee), was empty and very far from the scientific point of view. And it could not be otherwise, since the magazine was headed by the “developed socialist” Richard Kosolapov, and the editor of the economic department of this magazine was the outspoken anti-communist Yegor Gaidar, who turned out to be a heavy drinker. In August 1991, there were no Bolsheviks in the CPSU who could lead at least anyone.
In short, never confuse formal and real centralisms.
For example, the first religious universities in Europe had highly-developed freedom and autonomy from secular feudal lords, but at the same time, they also had highly-developed centralism in everything related to the content of teaching. The students learned, first of all, what the professors gave them. And only those became the professors who had outstanding knowledge of the Bible. Only few names of the first university professors remained in history, but Copernicus and Galileo made their marks on the world by their deep and substantiated centric systems of the universe and world understanding. Darwin remained in the history of science not because he had a degree, but because he had the highest scientific conscience and therefore became the center of attraction of all thinking people.
Therefore formal democratism and real science-based centralism are the diamatic contradictions that transformed the system of the higher spiritual “education” of the Middle Ages to the higher secular education where scientific truths gradually supplanted other motives of the universities existence. But the market relations of capitalism did not allow to destroy the influence of profit on the official professorship.
Certainly, the lowest level of corruption in the university system was during Stalin’s period of the USSR history. However, mercantilism in the higher education system was not completely liquidated even in that brilliant period. Marxism is not an ideology, but a science. The bourgeois ideology tries to doubt scientific base of Marxism and to impose on a philistine the thesis that Marxism is also just an ideology, like any social concept that existed before it, like any religion. Today, many great scientists of the Stalin era are accused of their secret religiosity, which they skillfully hid from the party committees. This is, for the most part, true, because, firstly, these scientists were formed in the era when praying did not seem like savagery, and secondly, very narrow education does not necessary lead to scientific world understanding. Very often there is a situation when a proton expert, or a virtuoso, who has proved Poincarй conjecture, solves all other crucial problems at the level of a teenager.
It is obvious that improvement of the system of young people education requires a reduction of formalism and the monopoly of science in its complex form. Young people should be united on the basis of the scientific truths they have learned, on a practical functional basis, but not according to the numerical principles of building an organization. And, the earlier, the better.
The trouble was that, even in the USSR, especially after Khrushchev’s election as the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, the work on narrow specialists education at the local level was formal. As a result, even in the space and aviation industries, developed in the USSR from non-existence to the record world height thanks to communist Stalin, even in these industries between general designers and party members often there was not a competition of communists for the victory over imperialism in these branches of science and technology, but a personal petty-bourgeois, vindictive rivalry. Conceit and mercantilism gradually became a visiting card of most representatives of the scientific, technical and artistic intelligentsia.
The narrowly focused specialist became just a formal superior who had the legal right to manage, without paying attention to the level of understanding by workers the socio-historical meaning of their labor. Labor from affair of honor, valor and glory, with the help of Khrushchev, again turned into means of getting an individual wage.
It was during the time of Khrushchev when the philistinism began to revive among the intelligentsia, it was forgotten that the communist level of competence and comradeship, in contrast to competition, excludes administrative formalism, let coordinate actions and fulfill duties of the participants proportionally and optimally, really help each other, in time and constructively respond to the initiative, work towards a common goal. It is a must for competent communists.
People who have adapted to cannibal market democracy, to competition through contract killings, to mutual undisguised hatred, they, of course, cannot take delight in true brotherhood and equality. The communists find these people deeply psychically defective. Most things that make an everyday life happy are not available for them in the same way as color perception is not available for the color-blind person.
What should the system of party education be?
As you know, the Bolshevik wing of the party was formed under the influence of the first issues of the newspaper Iskra and the first five books of Lenin. The most consistent and developed minds of Russia rallied around this diamatic wealth. The real revolutionaries did not need any formal voting to unite around their intellectual center. The faultless logic of Lenin’s works, more powerful than the logic of Euclidean geometry, could not lead scrupulous readers astray, especially if readers set themselves one goal, as Karl Marx taught, “to figure out what is the matter”. Only those denied this who were interested in the very process of confrontation with the genius and in the satisfaction of their ambitions, but not in the ultimate result of the struggle. Ignorance, megalomania, cult of a leader among the market intelligentsia influenced by the feudal reality of tsarist Russia, provoked this type of people to “dissent”. They were not able to think constructively, therefore they could just deny the expediency of Lenin’s strategy and make proposals on tactical issues, opposite of those that Lenin worked out.
Thus, when the bourgeois-democratic revolution was transforming into the socialist revolution, they demanded refusal of decisive actions. During the struggle for the necessary Peace of Brest-Litovsk guaranteeing survival to the power of the Soviets, they, on the contrary, demanded the most reckless struggle to save the “revolutionary face”.
Only the correct organization of the party education system will not let the loss of a real authoritative leader tragically affect the content of the political strategy. After all, it is not about one approved educational program or one rector, but these are the objective truths that need to be studied and creatively developed. Dialectic materialists know that these objective truths are the center of attraction for all party activists.
Leaders of today’s protest movements, for example, in Russia, literally buy their leadership position in the real protest movement. Having money, from foreign sponsors in particular, they pay for the rally time, in advance defining themselves as organizers of the protests and the main propagandists. Certainly, this scheme does not consider any suggestions of the masses. The masses are at the mercy of such guides because most people used to get the ready truths from the “leaders”.
But according to dialectics the truth is not a statement, which is relatively true at the given time, for example, “The party is our vanguard”. But the truth is the level of understanding by each party member the essence of the problem, for example: “The party is our vanguard when not only the leaders, but the whole party constantly and uncompromisingly works on the real growth of the QUALITY of its ranks”. In other words, the centralizing power of Marxism is its ABILITY to bring up assertions to the level of absolute truths. The method of dialectical materialism allows the party not to rely on the past truths, turning it into dogmas, but to adapt the current policy to the concrete, contradictory realities of the present time.
Figuratively speaking, there is no truth in social science except for DEVELOPING Marxism, and only by mastering this truth the party becomes its prophet.
The core of the class system of education is the principle of corrupted administrative centralism, when the organizers of the education system watch precisely so that the knowledge of the students does not go beyond the religious dogmas and professional cretinism of the UNIVERSITY PROGRAM. In this system, professors are highly paid supervisors, and the student’s professional training is measured by the professor’s SUBJECTIVE evaluation, i.e. the size of the bribe.
The longer a student is not allowed to study the real current problems, the more education turns into formalism.
The old system of party education in the CPSU also had a cult of professors with a degree, and any educational program got through subjective professorial perception and his examination grades. Therefore, in the new conditions, when the majority of graduated communists proved their incompetence and betrayal, the education and self-education of the party activists must be based on the local and central party organizations, scientific research institutions and mass propaganda and agitation bodies, i.e. to be in indissoluble unity with the REAL scientifically-understood PRACTICE.
Of course, the specific character of scientific personnel training allows, and sometimes involves, a narrow specialization of workers in some branches of knowledge and professions. But often it is not determined by the principles of effective pedagogy and the needs of communist practice, but by the limited talents of many people whose intellectual abilities were formed in the conditions of the market Bologna process of education, pop “art” and early use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
However, narrow specialization is not permissible in the system of party education, because objective dialectics requires a system, complex and multiple-factor approach at any level of reality.
History has proved many times that encyclopedic education is possible, and that this level of education is the most effective. The diamatic theory of universal education aims to achieve this level by the whole physiologically healthy part of the population.
It is clear that a good specialist in the grammar of the ancient Egyptian language will take little by the knowledge of Capital, Volume I. Although reading of Capital can help any narrow specialist to have meaningful life and not to become a scum. It is impossible to make someone master diamatics perfectly if he does not want to. But there is no need to make these specialists join the party, which authority must be based on the competence of its activists in social science, but not on the popularity. A communist must convince them that it is necessary to culturally develop themselves and all young people, to make their contribution to the physical and aesthetic development of the oncoming generation, but not to entertain the oligarchs at private parties.
The better the communists master diamatics and apply it to understand complicated current problems, the less they have to influence people through the use of politics and force.
Practice constantly proves that the power of scientific enlightenment is the most constructive, creative and victorious. And vice versa, ignorance is the most destructive force capable of destroying Bolshevism from within.
The primary difficulty in preparing a communist, and moreover the communist leader, is that a communist does not have the right to be either a philosopher or an economist or an expert only in the field of “scientific communism”. Strictly speaking, a person only with the higher physico-mathematical education has not a ghost of a chance to become a communist. There is nothing in “calculus”, “strength of materials” and Einstein’s theory that would prevent a person from developing into a scum, like, for example, Berezovsky or Yeltsin did. Moreover, today, like never before, mathematics and physics serve the sordid, cannibalistic appetites of most oligarchs and their graduated servants.
Therefore, or a man tries to master all parts of Marxism, or he is not a communist. Moreover, if a party member does not understand that his economic and political literacy should be based on diamatic literacy, he has no chance at all to become a communist.
The collapse of the CPSU became possible because there was not a single true Marxist in the ranks of the party leadership of the Gorbachev period, as well as in the whole system of higher party education. The party philosophers in the CPSU, as well as their present-day market colleagues, did not understand anything either in diamatics or in economy. Party economists did not know diamatics at all. And the “scientific communists” did not know anything profound and concrete, except for several cut and distorted quotations of the classics.
Those, who really studied the biography of the classics of Marxism, know that their formation as acknowledged leaders of the proletariat and the advanced intelligentsia took place under INSEPARABLE unity of their theoretical encyclopedic self-education, literary and organizational practice in spite of the difficulties made by the gendarmes, the bourgeoisie, the democrats and the opportunists.
The complex scientific and political growth of a party candidate is a necessary requirement of the party cadre policy. Figuratively speaking, if a candidate does not aim to master the theory of Marxism, there is no genuine desire to become a communist.
An individual who wants to be in the ranks of the communists, but who does not persevere in SELF-education and SELF-improvement, who cannot find his place in political practice, in organizational work, he must realize his professional impropriety to function as an activist of the Communist Party, and party organizations must expel mentally lazy, non-inventive, passive members who claim leadership.
At least, the CPSU for the last two decades of its existence, was full of idlers and mercantile careerists. Precisely because of the ideological weakness, after August 23, 1991 almost the entire CPSU went home, joined democratic parties, and many CPSU leaders turned into national-democratic leaders. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, Aliev, Snegur, Kravchuk, being the presidents pursued a reactionary, often obviously fascist policy, and thereby revealed their true face, their ignorance of the theory of Marxism. It was once again proved that there is no pure consciousness. Human consciousness, if it is unscientific, then it is aggressively reactionary.
Therefore, the main duty of a party member and one of the key criterion for his stay in the party is his attitude to personal self-education. The criteria of an activist ability to fulfill his program duties are the qualitative and quantitative results of his participation in propaganda and agitation work and successes in involving citizens in the political life of the country and the party. If such criterion was used in the CPSU, Yeltsin would never become a member of the Young Communist League, and, especially, a member of the party.
The problems of building communism is the main direction of all scientific work in the party. Therefore, a party member may be considered as a mature activist if his scientific and theoretic level is high enough, i.e. if he is able to construct logical models, which, on the basis of objective and subjective conditions, help to accelerate the dying away of market rudiments and to develop the communist relations.
The organizational work of the party is just the implementation of the scientific theory, and the scientific theory has primacy in political practice, so the tactical steps related to temporary departures from the strategic line, should be analyzed by all party activists before the decision of the central organ of the party. No discussion on such decision of the central organ shall be permitted. All suggestions on improving the realization of the taken decision in specific regional and local conditions should not contradict the general line of the party, should be considered and approved by the party organizations at the regional and local levels with immediate reporting to the central organ on the found solutions.
Science-based centralism requires, firstly, the science-based action strategy, secondly, the members with scientific approach, whose competence is confirmed by the practice; thirdly, the system of recruiting the central organ members according to the results of their scientific, theoretical, propaganda and organizational work.
Strictly speaking, the Leninist and Stalinist period in the party leadership had consistent victories precisely because of the supremacy of science-based centralism and the reasonable restriction of democracy, which, firstly, helped to solve the problems extremely quickly, and secondly, to neutralize the opportunists, to reduce the number of their representatives in the directing bodies and to minimize demagogy in the party policy.
As the opponents of Lenin and Stalin said, during their leadership the party activists worried about how to fulfill strategic decisions of the leaders rather than what to do. And it was not a matter of restrictions or “arm twisting”, but the QUALITY of Lenin’s and Stalin’s genius decisions, which made it possible to gain the victory over the opportunists at the stage of approving these strategic decisions by the congress of the party.
It would be even faster if in the Party Rules the congress had not a legislative but an informational role, if the scientific and theoretical level of cadres allowed them to resist the attack of opportunism at the local level. But every year it was necessary to assemble the party activists at the congresses in order to fight against the idiotic attacks and provocations of the opportunists for a few days, and by the method of democratic voting to force the opportunists to carry out the decisions of the congress. Unfortunately, the party rarely used the practice of excluding dissenters. It is quite obvious that if the opportunist opposition was sure in the scientific character of their strategy, they would create their own party, win the confidence of the working class and lead them. The fact that the opposition has never left the party clearly proves the conviction of the opportunists in their total lack of talent and their ability to exist only by parasitism.
Therefore, in the PSC, any person convinced of the existence of an alternative line of propaganda and agitation, tactics and strategy, should immediately get an unlimited opportunity for self-expression and organizational actions, but outside the PSC.
Valery Podguzov, Proriv
Donate to translation - BTC 16x8ZWjmPXcyigi4WdhdN3urP12YU7Ph5B