prorivists-paper

[prorivists-paper]

Pandemic and lockout

A pandemic of COVID-19 infection caused by the hitherto unknown SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus was raging in the country and the world. Experts say that COVID-19 will become a new seasonal disease, like flu.

So far, the severity of the purely epidemiological consequences of the pandemic is escalated by the media, and the ferocity of COVID-19 is due to purely economic, largely man-made consequences.

Bourgeois governments, international organizations, and private media suspiciously perform in unison. Even more suspicious that the fight against the pandemic is supported by oligarchs. It is difficult even for a person not experienced in politics to believe that the world oligarchy, the „business captains“ of the regional spill, and the top officials of the imperialist states, who have no place who have no place for branding them as criminals, were really worried about public health issues. Of course, if it was a question of COVID-19 mowing millions of people, thereby undermining the subject of exploitation of the bourgeoisie – labour force, then the struggle of these entities with a pandemic would look logical, and in the current conditions – not at all.

It is unlikely that the Russian government, which, in 2018, referring to the excess of old people in the country, cheekily raised its retirement age, in 2020, was concerned about the high mortality rate of the so-called pre-retirement persons and retirees.

We should find such a factor that has normally created the condition for the emergence, most likely, of a verbally inconsistent, but in essence a unified position of the world bourgeoisie, its national governments in combating the pandemic and inflating mass hysteria (which are just what the performances of Merkel, Johnson and Trump are worth).

The first thing that comes to mind is the raging protest riots in many bourgeois countries at the beginning of 2020. Quarantine measures are a great way to quench mass activity, at least temporarily.

The second is a sharp aggravation of conflicts in the international arena. In particular, the painful expulsion of the United States from the Middle East, which of course the US would like to suspend or postpone, and which the pandemic can contribute to.

Thirdly, the strengthening of rich countries due to the consequences of a pandemic in poor countries. For example, Italy and Spain will largely lose their weight concerning Germany, which is likely to lead to the final collapse of the EU and the formation of a less democratic European bloc with a more pronounced central role of Germany. Or, for example, as Lukashenko quite rightly noted, the fact that world quarantine hits those countries of the former USSR that are poor in natural resources, and they can finally lose their independence.

And finally, the fourth — the appearance of COVID-19 in China is clearly at the mercy of world imperialism, especially the United States — an additional reason for anti-Chinese, anti-Communist hysteria and the imposition of new sanctions.

However, these factors are private, each affects only some bourgeois countries. Here, rather, we can talk about how different governments take advantage of the pandemic and their own restrictions on this issue.

In turn, the only thing common for the whole world of capitalism that could create such a strikingly uniform policy of combating COVID-19 is another cyclical crisis of overproduction.

Marx has already proved that a market economy operates only in a mode of changing cycles of upturns and recessions, and the period of crisis does not necessarily follow the period of prosperity, it can also begin after a period of depression or some recovery of the economy. In our case, after the end of the 2008 crisis, there was a long period of depression and some economic recovery, rather than prosperity, which culminated in a new crisis in 2020. Its cause was not the COVID-19 pandemic, but the anarchy of capitalist production, that is, an immeasurable and talentless thirst for profit from scattered private owners.

The capitalists, for their short history by the standards of mankind, found, as you know, one instrument of struggle and two ways of exit from any crisis. And these are not exits in the sense of doors leading to prosperity and prosperity, but it is such a form of crisis state of society that has reached extreme severity, which is resolved only by a man-made disaster. And if there is no alternative to capitalism in society, then economic recovery begins, activity and possible upturn, after which the crisis looms again.

Thus, the found instrument of struggle is the accumulation of gigantic funds in the hands of the bourgeois state, which, during the crisis period, are generously showered above all with the banking system. From the point of view of good judgement, it looks as if the talentless, thieving, greedy oligarchs receive billions of subsidies from the state for their economic atrocities at the expense of narrow-minded taxpayers. From the point of view of Marxism, the capitalist class is the collective owner of the budget of its state, in which it saves part of its wealth, knowing about the onset of the crisis because of its irrepressible greed and desire to rise above all of humanity. There is only one reason for such foresight — the fear of the collapse of capitalism due to the aggravation of the class struggle in connection with the social disasters that follow crises. However, this tool is auxiliary in nature and is effective not during periods of the crisis itself, but during periods of depression and recovery. It has not the ability to get the capitalists out of their troubles and rid capitalism of crises.

Further. The first „found“ way out is the most radical — this is war. War always destroys a huge mass of excess value both in the form of production and in the form of „soap bubbles“. The war bankrupts medium and small capitalists. War turns a mass of proletarians into soldiers, destroys infrastructure, people, and so on. Gradually, imbalances are aligned and the economy comes to life. True, today a small war will not fulfill its functions, and starting a large war is not so simple step. Firstly, the nuclear armament of many countries serves as a deterrent. Secondly, a pampered western petty person will not go to war en masse, and it’s impossible to wage a big war only with mercenaries because even fools go to die for money only to a certain measure of losses. So, here we need a serious, long-term public opinion processing.

Which, incidentally, takes place in the United States in the 21st century, but how this work is successful time will tell. If the capitalists were not afraid of the enlightenment of the masses, they would have waged wars between countries continuously, observing the outcome as players in computer strategy.

The second way out is less radical — a lockout, i.e., a halt to production. A lockout also destroys a mass of value, bursts „bubbles“, bankrupts the middle and petty bourgeoisie. The lockout also shifts the whole burden of the crisis onto the shoulders of the working people, and the most unprotected layers of the proletariat.

Of course, both options for overcoming the crisis are a deliberate decision of the stratum of the commanding oligarchy.

Consequently, the anti-epidemic quarantine (or „self-isolation“) from the point of view of the motive for its institution by bourgeois governments is a disguised lockout to endure the collapse phase of the overproduction crisis.

For these reasons, Putin proclaimed April as a non-working month. Then there will be the May holidays. This is almost one and a half month lockout. Consequently, actions against the COVID-19 pandemic are becoming a kind of poultice to the cyclical capitalist crisis of overproduction.

However, in this case, of course, not all capitalists agree with such measures. The decisions of the bourgeois government are decisions primarily in the interests of the oligarchs, i.e., the monopolist magnates — the upper class of the bourgeois class. Many medium and small capitalists, conscious of their fate to become expropriated (bankrupt), ignored the decision about non-working days.

Up to 65% of the proletarians continued to work involuntarily on the announced days off. Moreover, Putin’s commentator Peskov immediately after a television address to the nation stated at all that „those people who have worked distantly so far will continue to do their work as they did it previously“. I.e., according to the law they have days off, but in fact — „work distantly“.

From the way the capitalists impudently ignore the prohibitions of their own bourgeois state, it is clear what the strength of actual, rather than formal legal authority is. And the funniest thing is that the state can do little with these violations. Putin said about the days off, but Peskov began already apologetically „explaining“ that those days are only for workers, but for the rest is the distant work.

In general, the capitalists, of course, have already begun to delay wages, massively dismiss people, and so on, by all the rules of the genre. The bourgeois state cannot stop this process by any repressions, even if it wishes.

Not only workers but first of all, the vast masses of proletarians from the sphere of service, especially those who worked for the petty bourgeois, find themselves on the street as a result of a lockout.

About the proletarians from the provinces, Putin’s government, generally speaking, don’t give a hoot. The President announced that the problems of the regions will be dealt with by the heads of the regions, not Moscow. The three governors immediately self-isolated themselves from their seats. The Putin government is worried about the proletarians at its side, in Moscow. Therefore, they came up with the idea of ​​giving out almost 20 thousand rubles to all those who lost their jobs. True, this measure, either according to the Jesuit plan or simple-mindedness, will only anger the masses and deepen social polarization.

The right to receive this subsidy will be received only by those who officially reside in the capital, i.e., have a so-called „propiska“ („Moscow residence authorization“). Thus, the millions of the most crushed, destitute workers of the very bottom of Moscow, the severity of the crisis and the lockout which are unbearable anyway, will literally face lessors and space food prices. A layer of indigenous Muscovites, usually apartment owners, will receive 20 thousand per month of support. It is difficult to predict the consequences of such a situation, but one thing is certain — the capitalist class, by bribing Muscovites with benefits and subsidies, seeks to find support for its power.

How the country goes through the crisis, time will show. It is important for us to work within the framework of the developed strategy — to strengthen the propaganda of Marxism and personnel operations. We will optimistically expect that enlightenment through shocks will bring to life the desire to know the laws of the development of society and to know the communist alternative to capitalism, which means to read real Marxist literature and organize in a political party.

As for the whole world, here China has actually won a historic victory over imperialism. In the interests of the people, the PRC, as befits a Сommunist state, defeated a pandemic in a couple of months with the most rapid social mobilization. And now, against the backdrop of the global economic crisis, China will increase its influence and take a leading position in the global economy. Perhaps a period when the world will have one superstate with the Communist Party in power awaits us. True, the imperialists will not be asleep, so we shall wait for the non-joking hot fires of class battles.

[prorivists-paper]

The essence of „Putin’s regime“ — capitalism of the imperialistic epoch

All really key laws and state regulation measures can satisfy the interests and needs of either the oligarchy, that is, the richest monopolist tycoons, or the people, represented mainly by wage workers. This fact is objectively dictated by the economic basis of society, the nature of production relations.

And it doesn’t matter that some laws and policies do not directly serve the oligarchy. And it doesn’t matter that there are some intermediate layers of the bourgeoisie who are extremely disaffected with monopoly. The only important thing is whether the dominance of private oligarchic property is maintained and strengthened, or whether laws and state measures serve the real socialization of production for the benefit of the whole society, especially the working people. Historical practice has proved that the last-mentioned is possible only under the leadership of the Communist Party, in line with the implementation of the dictatorship of the working class, that is, with the closest reliance on the masses.

In our case, the legal system of the Russian Federation is the will of the bourgeois class elevated into law, the objective core of which is monopolist magnates who rely not on workers, but on entrepreneurs. It serves the rule of capitalism.

Look at the composition of the government. The Medvedev government, the government of millionaires, has resigned; it has been replaced by the new government of Mishustin, the government of millionaires. Almost all ministers and their deputies are recruited from the bourgeoisie, the power apparatus is permeated by the rich. The whole bureaucracy is connected with a business by a thousand threads, this can be seen even with a cursory examination of official declarations of senior officials. All major officials have a private interest under the guise of assets of wives, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, grandparents, drivers, friends, not to mention offshore companies. Everything is covered in the darkness of „trade secrets“, but everywhere the banal insides of entrepreneurs are visible.

„Patriots“ sing the hosanna to „patriotic“ wealthy officials. They are convinced that they, so to speak, will build good capitalism, are opposed to American imperialism, i.e., against the collapse and destruction of the country. Yes, a group of such bureaucratic capital has formed around Putin, oligarchs, and officials who are striving to make Russia their strong patrimony as opposed to foreign capital. This is a natural process of rivalry between different bourgeois forces. Every capitalist dream of becoming a master of the world, therefore he is forced to collect popular sympathies under his banners. But the essence will remain the same: the laws of capital cannot be repealed. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Parasites — to measure yachts and football clubs, and workers — to count pennies.

Modern monopoly capitalism is the capitalism of the undivided rule of financial magnates. It is they who set monopoly prices for literally everything, hold all economic leverage through finance and dictate their political will to the whole of society. It is financial tycoons (giant corporations) who appoint governments and promote their people as presidents, shoot or drown in incriminating disagreeable officials and deputies. In all bourgeois countries they are closely intertwined with the highest bureaucracy.

However, the specifics of bourgeois Russia is that this capitalism was formed on the fragments of the socialist USSR, and the former Soviet people acted as the proletariat. The period of semi-colonial humiliation, the destruction of the state and the dominance of American and European capital in ten years gave way to the period of the formation of bourgeois sovereignty and the growth of the power of local oligarchs. The US tycoons were dizzy with the success of the victory over the USSR and while slowly chewing their prey, the young bourgeois class of the Russian Federation fed up to a competitive scale. Seven pro-Western bankers of the 1990s gave way first to two dozen billionaires of the 2000s, and then to nearly a hundred billionaires of the 2010s. The consolidating force of the Russian oligarchy was, in fact, Putin, who pacified the proletarian mass and formed at the expense of state orders the nucleus of the oligarchs from his friends.

It is important to note that Putin is characterized by Bonapartism. He seems to be maneuvering between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, striving for some kind of compromise. Putin considers himself a historical figure of the level of Peter the Great, therefore, he pretty much breaks away directly from the ruling class. Today, oligarchs are not involved in making a number of political decisions. Putin acts as a sort of arbiter in confronting various bureaucratic-oligarchic groups, a guarantor of maintaining equilibrium in the class balance of power.

In this situation, as a matter of fact, there is nothing unique, it happens quite often under certain historical conditions. Since the oligarchs do not have much opposition to Putin, his policies generally suit them. And most importantly, it does not and cannot go beyond the dominance of market relations and private oligarchic property.

Putin describes his power in this way:

„The sovereignty of our people must be unconditional. We have done a lot for this: we restored the unity of the country, put an end to the situation when some state and power functions were usurped by the oligarchic clans, as a matter of fact, Russia returned to international politics as a country that we began to reckon with“.

This statement reveals the truth that state-monopoly capitalism has formed in the Russian Federation with the well-known specifics of Bonapartism, but it is obscured that state power objectively serves the dominance of financial capital, i.e. oligarchies, therefore, there can be no talk of any sovereignty of the people. All institutions of power are occupied by capitalists, connected by a thousand threads to the largest oligarchy.

The essence of „Putin regime“ — capitalism of the imperialistic epoch.

Should we agitate against Putin as against Tsar Nikolai?

Lenin demanded that the Party members begin active agitation against the tsarist regime, demanded to expose economic and political order, down to the smallest detail, in short, as the bourgeois patriots would say today, demanded to „rock the boat“ by all forces and assets. The Marxists of the beginning of the 20th century devoted a substantial part of their work to arousing the democratic consciousness of the working people, to the effort of all resistance to tsarism in the struggle for the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Tsarist Russia faced the historical task of casting off the Tsar and destroying feudal survivals, clearing the way for the development of capitalism.

But this is half the trouble. The revolutionary movement in the Russian Empire was driven underground, the government unleashed monstrous terror concerning to all democracy, and the cowardly bourgeoisie entered into an alliance with the feudal aristocracy and the Tsar. Political freedom is a fundamental condition for conducting communist work, in the absence of the possibility of relatively free work, all forces should automatically be thrown into the struggle for the legality of communist activity. From the underground, it is extremely difficult to establish a strong connection with the masses and establish effective propaganda and agitation. Therefore, Lenin and other Bolsheviks in their works paid so much attention to democracy and denunciation of Tsarism, officials, factory, military, bureaucratic orders of the Tsarist terrorist regime. Before the February Revolution, the Bolsheviks were less important about the readiness of the working class to seize power than the overthrow of the Tsarist regime. But, already in April 1917, in conditions of complete legality, Lenin in two months managed to organize the work of the Party so effectively that in July Kerensky carried out a coup and attempted to suppress the Bolshevik Party. But the masses had already awakened, tasted political freedom, and therefore the persecutions were unsuccessful, and the Bolsheviks, despite all the bourgeois-democratic illusions, managed to convince Russia of the need for Communism.

One must be very eager to copy the experience of the Bolsheviks so as not to see the difference in conditions. First, in modern Russia, state-monopoly capitalism is developing, that is, the material preparation of Communism is evident. Secondly, Putin’s political regime is democratic and does not threaten the communist movement at this stage of its existence. Marxism, Communism are completely legal; there is a relatively wide scope for the revolutionary movement. There is freedom of communist propaganda, agitation, all the conditions that the Bolsheviks could not even dream of. The Internet and affordable printing remove a number of technical problems in the development of propaganda and agitation. Thirdly, modern proletarians are literate compared to the beginning of the 20th century and have free time (the proletariat, which does not abuse processing, has almost 60% of its life free from wage labour). Moreover, there is no huge mass of the petty-bourgeois peasantry and the intermediate petty-bourgeois strata; there is no peasant question of land.

Consequently, there is no reason for the working class to engage in instigating protest moods in the form of a struggle against the established political regime without preliminary preparation for the seizure of power by the working class. The Putin regime is quite happy with us since it makes it possible in relatively calm conditions to expand propaganda, form an avant-garde party and organize the proletariat into the working class.

For taking power, the support of millions and the active actions of tens of thousands are needed, but to maintain it, you need competent party cadres. Lenin, even in those harsh conditions, had such a party.

For now, we only have to forge the cadre core of the party. Therefore, there is no point in wasting energy on campaigning against the regime, on conviction and protest activity.

Besides, the whole content of the accusatory agitation of the left, right and liberals, by and large, is known in advance even to the widest masses of the population. There is no secret where the oligarchs derive their wealth, that all high officials are rich and thieves, that laws are passed primarily in the interests of the rich and so on. This is a worker at the beginning of the XX century, a former peasant without education, did not understand that he was being exploited. Today is an open secret. Therefore, all incriminating agitation against the regime does not cause any particular reaction among the masses, they already know that entrepreneurs and their officials are parasites and bastards. The oligarchs openly demonstrate their wealth, and officials and deputies publish in their declarations hundreds of millions and billions of rubles of income per year, car parks, apartments, villas, and yachts. This is all well known and does not require any agitation; the bourgeois press itself writes about this almost every day. When left-wingers arm themselves with all these facts and conduct an agitation campaign, the question involuntarily arises: are they sane?

Meanwhile, we must clearly understand that support for the struggle against the Putin regime today is support for strengthening pro-Western forces. The „Westerners“ in power, firstly, will begin to destroy state-monopoly capitalism, and secondly, they will unleash repressions against the Communists, like the Ukrainian ones. Therefore, an open confrontation with the regime should be initiated when there is a party and a working-class is formed around it that can take and maintain power. Of course, life can put before us other layouts that will have to be resolved objectively, based on the class balance of power.

But as long as there is no time pressure, it is necessary to correctly put the work under current conditions and not to go astray on playing along to the Navalnyists and other liberals or nationalists.

On the ratio of the two main bourgeois „parties“ in Russia

If we express very briefly and succinctly the principles of the policy of the dominant oligarchic group, which is held together by the Putin team („patriots“), then we are talking about 1) complete freedom for monopoly capital in relation to non-monopoly medium and small capital. Freedom, first of all, absorption, ruin, destruction. 2. On the regrouping of capital at the expense of the state banking sector and state order. 3. The strengthening of state power, protectionism and external economic expansion at this expense. 4. The calming down of the proletarian movement through budgeting for jobs, social policy, and economic regulation. In general, this policy is a policy in favor of the oligarchy.

If we can concisely express the principle of the proposals of all liberal opposition politicians („Westerners“), then we are talking about the weakening of the bourgeois state by all means and means in order to knock out the soil of their organization from under the feet of the Russian oligarchs. The purpose of all these reforms, Maidan, swamp „uprisings“ is to increase the competitiveness of Western capital, in particular the US oligarchy. This is the standard imperialist policy that the United States pays in all countries of the world — liberalization, the „freedom of trade“ and the „freedom of capital flows“. And the kudrins, navalnys, and khodorkovskys, in this case, are just agents of American and European imperialism. The meaning of all this fuss is completely trivial — to weaken the competition.

However, what kudrins and navalnys offer and fight for will lead not only to weaken the Russian oligarchy and strengthen the western oligarchy but also to social disasters a la the 90s.

Therefore, if under Putin we see so called ordinary capitalist „fascism“, that is, proletarians pressed by poverty, multiplying the fortunes of oligarchs, sitting on the thrones of monopoly corporations; then with conventional navalnyis we will see liberal fascism, a hundred times more frenzied, more anti-people.

Some will say, the weaker the bourgeois political regime, the more profitable for the cause of Communism. And this is quite correct when it comes to the fact that the Communists have something to oppose the bourgeoisie. When the working class has its own sovereign political position, expressed by a strong Marxist party associated with the masses.

But if we go through the initial stage of staffing, if the proletariat is not organized into the working class, if there is no headquarters, then we must reckon with what we have. But we have a bourgeois regime relatively loyal to Marxists, relatively comfortable conditions for propaganda and organizational work. Therefore, one should not only confuse Putin and Navalny as two liberals, bourgeois politicians, anti-Communists but also find out their role in relation to the conditions of development of the labor movement and the conditions of the Communist struggle. So, if the liberals topple Putin, then we are waiting for an open anti-Communist pogrom, the final curtailment of social programs and the destruction of state-monopoly capitalism. Only a provocateur will call this an improvement in the conditions for Communism.

https://prorivists.org/eng_the-essence-of-the-putin-regime/

[prorivists-paper]

About „yellow vests“ movement

The French are moving to the streets of Paris every Saturday to demonstrate their opinion on French ruling class and president Macron time and again. The stern French proletariat demands that president Macron would resign from his post, for France to leave NATO and EU, and the living conditions of common folk to be improved. These demands can be considered as half-proletarian and of petty-bourgeoisie type, which is no surprise, because the political consciousness of masses defines their demands. More than that, the level of social class organization defines their perspective of victory. But in this case the perspectives of the Downfall of Capitalism remain unseen.

With that in mind, every Saturday act of the „yellow vests“ is followed by violent riots, which police and protesters’ leaders are helpless to contain. The right-wingers blame the riots on anarchists and left-wing organizations, and this statement has some ground under it, of course. But the left-wingers, who think that rioting will hurt Capitalism, are not the only problem, for the French workers, office employees and intelligentsia alike are not necessarily supportive of these riots, but at least, feel for the rioters and join them sometimes.

The case is in the point, that if oligarchy can convince hipsters from Moscow and nationalists from Kiev that oligarchy’s material possessions are well and hard-earned, then an oppressed worker, keen-eyed employee and open-minded intelligent won’t buy this kind of „crap“. But taking into account their dramatically low level of scientific knowledge, they have no other option to demonstrate their opinion on banks, insurance agencies, companies, shops or even owners of expensive cars rather than the destruction and burning of all the city’s valuables they can lay their hands on. Of course, there’s no wisdom to find in riots, but this activity, which became quite common for modern and highly developed capitalist counties, must be thoroughly researched.

The European and North-American commoner has a long-standing tradition of crushing shops’ display cases and burning cars. Such was the way of his social development throughout the history of his colonial metropolis, often sharing the ideas of national and racial bigotry with his ruling class. He could learn history’s lessons only from the mouth of bourgeoisie. What is the definition of Paris Commune of Y1871, the Russian Revolutions in general, and Communist Revolution of Y1917 in particular, of all European, Asian and American Revolutions from the bourgeoisie’s point of view? They are viewed as pointless and senseless riots and rebellions, destructive and anti-historical events. Every alternative to Capitalism is downgraded to „kill all the rich guys“ type by bourgeoisie and portrayed by them as „Totalitarism“, aimed to overthrow the „best men of the nation“.

Pretty soon the „Social State“ will hit the 70 years mark from his establishment, but Marxist theoretics are yet to fully understand that riots, strikes and even mass protest demonstrations are turned into the sideshow by bourgeoisie. The bourgeois intelligentsia and all the sorts of alike politicians are trying to lead the inevitable activity of masses in the course of riots, strikes and square-protesting, to lead them away from really constructive decisions, that can result in overthrow of Capitalism. Feel free to march on the streets, oh dear enraged proletarians, crush the banks and cars, be on strike all you like, overthrow presidents and prime-ministers, protest with all your might — just don kill all the rich guys t you try and think on revising the social and production relations. Don’t even try to arm yourself with Marxism-Leninism that will show you the way to the organization into working class and form you make the program of seizure of state’s power ome true. Such are the politics of the modern bourgeoisie.

All the „yellow vests“ can achieve is to overthrow Macron, who in turn will be replaced by Melenchon or even „better“ — by Le Pen, which will only strengthen the positions of Capital in France. For owners of BNP Paribas, Total, GDF Suez, Societe Generale, AXA, France Telecom, Sanofi-Aventis, Credit Agricole, EDF Group, Vivendi, Vinci, Renault these are simply not so-pleasant details of their political businesses. But even if „yellow vests“ could be able to put in president’s chair their own candidate, even if he will stay loyal to the spirit of protesters’ movement and interests of the people, the bourgeoisie won’t let parliament deputies, attorneys, judges, police chefs, journalists of the biggest Mass Medias off the hook, who will reduce all the results of the revolution to nothing. And even if the leader of the „yellow vests“ will have the will and power to keep all the bourgeois government machine and Mass Media in line, which is almost impossible, then what of model of state and social relations will he build? It will always be Utopia, because it won’t be based on the doctrines of the social science i.e. Marxism. And so this policy will most likely fail in the end and won’t hurt the dominance of capitalists. If you want to „build“ Capitalism, then you don’t need anything besides capitalist’s interest and government-backed violence to enforce it; if you want to build Communism, which will destroy the people’s miseries and give them true happiness, you must change the social relations in accordance with scientific knowledge.

In short, without the leading role of Marxists in the Union and Protest movements, there’s nothing for bourgeoisie to lose in terms of strategic importance. So, understanding the natural inevitability of proletariat’s activity, capitalists are making sure that this activity is railroaded into the path of rioting i.e. political brainlessness.

That being said, the Marxists’ goal is in vice versa: lead the proletariat activity into the constructive path of organization into the revolutionary working class, mainly by spreading the doctrines of Marxism into the consciousness of proletariat. The main goal of all Marxists in every strike or protest action is setting up deeply-scientific and at the same time understandable propaganda, that will explain the real means and aims of political struggle. This is the way of upbringing and hardening of masses.

Of course, people in masse are not ready to follow ideas only. In order to bring proletariat’s activity to the level of successful communist movement, there’s a need in creation of working class’ organization in it’s highest type — vanguard type political party, that will guide the movement. Such party must deserve the authority of being the HQ of working class by it’s deeds, be at maximum level of discipline and consist of competent and devoted Marxist revolutioners. That leads to a sub-goal for communists, who are yet to create such party of needed quality, to recruit the most vanguard-type proletarians, forge the cadres for Communism. This applies same for French, for Russians and any other nation.

https://prorivists.org/en_yellowvests/

[prorivists-paper]

The civil war in Ukraine

Left-wingers are concerned about the question: should the Communists adhere to the „Leninist position“ and wish defeat for the Russian government in the conflict in Ukraine?

First of all, the following should be noted.

It is one thing to put forward the slogan of defeating our own government in conditions when we have real political power, but another thing is when behind us, like many other left groups, there are neither the masses, nor even an authoritative organization, that is, at least some solid connection with the masses. It is also necessary to take into account the presence or absence of a spontaneous upsurge of the mass revolutionary movement and the degree of its organization.

It makes sense to put forward the slogan of defeating one’s owns government only when there is a real movement of a sufficient mass of politically active citizens capable of supporting the slogan with their actions. Prior to the maturation of such a factor, it is proposed to conduct a deep and broad research and explanatory work, convincing readers of the scientific viability of the developed assessments of current events, on the basis of which is generated an appeal, a proposal promising to achieve a progressive goal, that is the slogan itself.

There is nothing simpler than advancing a heap of slogans. There is nothing more difficult than the guaranteed embodiment of one victorious slogan.

It is obvious, therefore, that, taking into account the already existing support for LDPR (Hereinafter this abbreviation means: „Lugansk and Donetsk people’s republics“ — transl.) among the masses, it is necessary not only to thoroughly theoretically work out the issue on the basis of historical specificity but also to ensure that this is to some extent interested in a relatively wide circle of participants in the process itself, that is, the majority of LDPR citizens. In other words, before putting forward the slogan, that is, to set the target of the struggle, it is necessary to carry out a tense, convincing propaganda campaign to clarify the class balance of power and present a detailed study of subsequent events and steps.

To shake the air with calls, when there is nothing behind the soul, there is a most harmful wildcat. We need to use the situation as it is, the most appropriate way for the purposes of the communist struggle, and not plunge into the sphere of loud but empty statements.

The greatest threat in a sober and mature consideration of such vital political issues is the fear of being accused along the line of any historical analogies.

In essence, this is a fear of moving aside from dogma. For example, to recognize that the influence of the Putin government in the civil war and the power of the „people’s republics“ brings much less blood and suffering than the defeat of the LDPR.

What points do we propose to pay attention to in the studying of the historical conditions of the civil war in Ukraine?

I. Is there a communist party, which is not inferior in quality to the Bolshevik Party, for the implementation of an independent policy of the working class in a situation of civil war in Ukraine?

II. What specific situation will develop if one or the other side of the conflict is defeated or if both sides are defeated at the same time? Will it be more favorable for the cause of the development of communism in Russia and Ukraine? How will the defeat of the Russian government affect the population, provided that in Ukraine it is not the government play a decisive role, but the bankers, Banderaists and the US embassy?

III. How is the national question in Ukraine and how is the national question in Russia?

IV. What could harm humanitarian aid to LDPR from Russia? What are the „reverse sides“ of the support of these republics from Russia?

V. Is the LDPR population, supported by bourgeois Russia, a defending or aggressive side? Is it a fair war of the LDPR population against the government of Ukraine, Banderaism and the US oligarchs? What attitude from the Russian left-wingers deserves the steadfastness of the population of LDPR and its victims?

VI. Who in the current situation should wish defeat to his government: Russian or Ukrainian communists?

There is no doubt that the government of the Russian Federation is ultimately driven not by concern for the people of Crimea and Donbass, but by a program to strengthen the international weight of Russian capital.

Of course, the position of „a plague on both your capitalist houses“ in this case cannot be considered grossly erroneous and is a normal, healthy wish for any bourgeois states and not only in connection with any war. But it does not exempt from the obligation to consider the whole range of possible consequences and, therefore, from the development of specific tactics in solving this strategic problem.

What needs to be understood first?

First, Russia is ruled by an oligarchy, and the bourgeois state serves to the domination and growth of it. Any bourgeois class is interested only in increasing its profits and maintaining its dominance. The fate of the proletarians to the capitalists is humanly indifferent; they regard the masses of people only as a labor market and consumables for wars, at best as a sales market.

Second, in the case of bourgeois countries, not abstract Russia, Europe, the USA, Ukraine, Turkey, etc. collide in the international arena, as if some peoples organized into states, but the corresponding national detachments of the world bourgeoisie. Moreover, some units are relatively independent and have some power and claim to regional or even world domination, and some are subordinate to the stronger.

Third, therefore, there is no „fatherly concern“ of bourgeois Russia about its own or, even less so, foreign citizens, even if they are even carriers of Russian culture. Any sort of humanistic and humanitarian principle in the politics of a bourgeois state is mainly dust in the eyes, PR, a way to maintain the illusion of stability of the political and economic order, in which huge wealth is concentrated in private hands. Therefore, the only question is whether the participation of the Russian Federation in the civil war in Ukraine is pursuing political goals or are economic interests directly behind it. The government of the Russian Federation, as you know, is quite satisfied with the balance of power that has developed on the basis of the „Minsk Agreements“ and the sluggish positional course of the civil war: „the firsts cannot, the second do not want“.

Fourth, there is an opinion among some left-wingers that the policy of the Russian Federation concerning the Donbass is imperialistic, i.e., predatory. Is this so in reality? Even though state-monopoly capitalism has already developed in Russia, and the policy of the Russian Federation as a whole is imperialist in nature, in this particular case, strictly speaking, the policy of the Russian Federation in the Donbass is not imperialistic but has a defensive nature of political opposition to American imperialism. If Russian capital saw the economic benefits of LDPR, then there would be no „Minsk Agreements“. Besides, the position of such left-wingers completely ignores the will and movement of the people of Donbass itself.

The same with the joining of Crimea. The population of Crimea wanted to be a part of the bourgeois Russian Federation, that is, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation cannot be called as annexation. This, of course, does not honour, first of all, the Communists, who for almost 30 years of capitalism were unable to prove to the proletariat of Crimea the need for a sovereign policy of the working class. The Russian Federation has joined Crimea to itself, not for reasons of profit for the oligarchy, or even more so for the will of Crimeans, but because of a well-known political factor — ensuring the basing of the Black Sea Fleet and preventing the presence of a NATO base on the peninsula.

Of course, it is quite possible that in the Russian oligarchic milieu in the period 2014 — 2015 expansionary sentiment about Ukraine reigned because every bourgeoisie always wants somewhere to snatch something. But they quickly faded after economic calculations. And the strength of Russian corporations for such operations is still not enough.

The problem of many left-wingers is that they misinterpret the well-known Leninist formula that politics is a concentrated expression of the economy. It turns out vulgarity that any action of the bourgeois state must certainly bring direct material benefit to the capitalists. It must be understood that politics under capitalism concentrates expresses the economy as a whole thing, however, one should not confuse a political decision made by a specific person and politics as the main element of the entire bourgeois superstructure in the form of political ideas, political relations and political institutions.

Moreover, at short intervals in history, politics has primacy over the economy and under capitalism. A complete simplification in the analysis of historical phenomena would be to put in the first place only the economic interests of the bourgeoisie, especially the oligarchs of the Russian Federation. Today, the Putin government is not yet the mirror equality of interests of Russian oligarchs. Bonapartism is more characteristic of Putin, implicated in relatively mild nationalism, mild anti-communism, and bloated conceit.

Today, the oligarchs in the Russian Federation have nothing to do with the adoption of several government decisions. And the initiative to fight the Ukrainian government and the joining of Donbass to the Russian Federation comes primarily from the Russian-speaking population, who have to choose between capitalist exploitation in the Russian Federation and Banderaist-capitalist exploitation within Ukraine.

So, in the position of the Russian Federation, political motives are seen first of all.

It has been scientifically established and well known that the bourgeoisie systematically unleashes wars based on their economic interests and competitive urge to redistribute the world. However, did the Russian oligarchs unleash a civil war in Ukraine? It was not even unleashed by Ukrainian oligarchs. The Maidan, the joining of Crimea to the Russian Federation, the formation of LDPR and the civil war, despite the complex and contradictory course of these processes, are primarily a product of the policy of American and European oligarchs. The Russian bourgeoisie, in this case, acted according to the situation, trying not to weaken its position in the face of the loss of influence in Kiev.

The civil war in the Donbass has long been going on, and people die every month. The acute question is how to stop it. Theoretically, there is the prospect of a military victory for the oligarchy of the Russian Federation, at least on the territory of LDPR, and in this case, this turn of events seems to be the most painless form of achieving a long-awaited peace.

For the defeat of which government

Of course, we, as Marxists, in principle, stand on the position of the proletariat of the Donbass to turn our weapons against the bourgeoisie: Ukrainian, Russian, American, European, Donetsk, Lugansk. But such kind of action requires serious preparation, in particular, the formation in the Donbas of an influential Communist Party of the vanguard type and its gaining influence among the masses.

Some left-wingers quite abstractly call on the proletariat to „actively class struggle against the predatory and military policies of bourgeois governments“.

The call to the Ukrainian proletariat to fight against the Ukrainian government and the military operations of the Armed Forces is understandable and logical. But what does this call mean for the proletariat of LDPR? Stand for the defeat of LDPR? To surrender, even bourgeois, Donbass to Ukraine and American fascism?

We, Marxists, are extremely unsympathetic to oligarchic Russia, and we understand that the Russian capitalists are exploiting the proletarians no less than Ukrainian, French, American, etc. But we must be aware that the influence of the Marxists on the masses today is equal to zero. We must answer the question: what is more beneficial for the cause of Communism — the defeat of Russia and the LDPR, or the defeat of fascist Ukraine with its American patrons? The answer is obvious: the defeat of the Ukrainian government is better.

As for peace, there are three ways to force the bourgeoisie to end the civil war in the Ukrainian situation.

I. If a communist revolution takes place in Russia, Ukraine or the Donbass and the dictatorship of the working class resolves the issue peacefully or militarily.

II. If in Ukraine, power passes into the hands of a pro-Russian oligarchy.

III. If the Russian oligarchs need to resolve the issue by military means.

Such is the primary Marxist analysis of the situation.

Now all forces should be devoted to the training of the Communists, to the formation and promotion of the independent position of the working class of Donbass.

https://prorivists.org/eng_the-civil-war-in-ukraine/

[prorivists-paper]

What is Trotskyism?

Trotskyism is the worst enemy of communism.

Trotskyism has nothing to do with the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism.

Trotskyism of all sorts is the forefront of the bourgeois ideology of the denial of communism in the era of the end of imperialism and the victorious communist revolutions.

Trotskyism manifests itself in three hypostases:

i) as an ideology in the arsenal of imperialism in the form of «socialist» concepts and theories of philosophers, historians and publicists — which is designed for the broadest masses, primarily for the intelligentsia and youth;

ii) in the form of leftist organizations — which is designed for politically active youth and the proletarian strata;

iii) as opportunism.

The most dangerous disguised Trotskyism is the dissemination of Trotskyist ideas, Trotskyist deviation, and half-Trotskyism since it leads to opportunism and, consequently, to a distortion of the theory and practice of the struggle for communism.

What is Trotskyism?

It is wrong to look for the roots of Trotskyism in the works or deeds of Trotsky. Trotsky’s activity led to the introduction of the term „Trotskyism“, but not Trotsky gave birth to Trotskyism, but Trotskyism gave birth to Trotsky.

At all times, unprincipled people hung around the revolutionary movement with goals completely alien to the revolution — from overtly provocative or mercantile to adventurous or careeristic. Long before Trotsky, many political crooks who frantically attacked the First International were spiritually Trotskyites; in fact, the modern unprincipled scum who ranks himself among the Communists is also Trotskyists. The main distinguishing feature of Trotskyism as a political phenomenon is unprincipledness. The term „Trotskyism“ was spread because Trotsky laid down the ideology of unprincipledness.

In the pre-October period, the ideology of Trotskyism was a frenzied struggle against Lenin, his scientific position and his collaborators. Trotsky’s activity was generated by the situation of the struggle of the Bolshevik faction against the opportunist factions, in which the specific ideology of double-dealing became popular with the oscillating elements. Trotsky, who did not have stable ideas and hated Bolshevism, rallied everything similar to himself through phrasing and intrigue. Furthermore, the Trotskyists have always acted under the guise of Marxists, Communists, revolutionaries, and after the death of Lenin — completely impudently under the guise of Bolsheviks and Leninists.

After the victory of the Communist Revolution in 1917 and the first successes in building a society of the lower phase of communism, the ideology of Trotskyism took shape in its usual present form, as anti-Stalinism. If right-wing anti-Stalinism is the whole openly open exploitative political ideology, then left-wing anti-Stalinism is Trotskyism, that is, the denial of the theoretical and practical experience of building communism on the left.

Processes 1936 — 1938 showed that the Trotskyist „oppositionists“ led by Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, since 1917, were in a conspiracy against Lenin and Leninists. They aspired to disrupt the Brest Peace, condoned the S.R. rebellions and the attempted assassination of Lenin, with all their might sought to impose democracy on the Party in order to undermine the organization and lead the Party off the scientifically substantiated Leninist-Stalinist path. Trotsky himself and his closest employees have been connected with foreign intelligence services since the 1920’s, and in the 1930’s became Gestapo agents. Under their leadership, the Trotskyists united all the anti-communist and anti-Soviet elements within the USSR, forming a relatively single anti-Soviet underground, and organized many terrorist attacks, including the assassination of Kirov, Menzhinsky, Kuibyshev, Gorky. Trotskyite bandits prepared the assassination of Party leaders and the implementation, together with a group of Tukhachevsky, of a military coup with the subsequent dismemberment of the country. Thus, as the class struggle intensified, the Trotskyists, following the Mensheviks and S.R. party members, finally and naturally turned into a gang of unprincipled and devoid of ideas wreckers, saboteurs, scouts, spies and killers, employed by imperialism.

The next historical form of Trotskyism was Khrushchevism. If classical Trotskyism inside the USSR was defeated theoretically and practically, and in the 1930’s — 1950’s it was exploited mainly in bourgeois countries, then after Stalin’s death Khrushchevism hit the USSR from the inside. The Khrushchev group that seized leading positions in the CPSU declared the truly Marxist Stalinist policy essentially criminal and unscientific. All that Khrushchev preached was Trotsky’s rehash. Khrushchev’s activities were aimed at shattering the dictatorship of the working class, curtailing the building of communism and the collapse of the international communist movement.

It should be noted that not a single renegade in the post-Stalinist history of the communist movement justified anti-Stalinism with any theoretical study from the point of view of Marxism. Moreover, all of these khrushchevs, mikoyans, togliattis, gomulkas, ulbrichts, todors, kadars, torezes and others were not Marxists at all. After decades, we can confidently say that these people were agents of world imperialism in the leadership of the parties. They initiated and conducted the anti-communist (anti-Stalinist) course based on the falsification of history and the Trotskyist theory of the personality cult of Stalin. Referring to separate quotes from Marx and Lenin, these Judahs and Judushkas, not shying away, of course, from using nationalism, mobilized the party and non-party masses to undermine the unity of the world communist system, ultimately counting on the collapse of the building of communism throughout the world. The anti-Stalinist line of these figures today organically, following the „classical“ Trotskyism, merged with the liberal-democratic denial of communist construction in the USSR and the countries of the socialist camp. Only China, Albania and Korea, due to the competencies of Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha and Kim Il Sung, revealed the viciousness of this course and maintained a relative commitment to Marxism-Leninism.

Besides, Trotskyism was a trend of thought of the Soviet intelligentsia. Even under Stalin, it was not possible to uproot Trotskyism from the educational system, including from the Party, academic institutions and the artistic environment. In these areas, the Trotskyists constituted something like secret clans, manifesting themselves not only in the field of dissidentism but also in the official „Dialectical Materialism“, „Historical Materialism“, „Political Economy“ and „Scientific Communism“. Moreover, the activities of the Trotskyists are far from being not only state conspiracies and the struggle for power in the party, but also petty dirty tricks, cowardly injections secretly. Unfortunately, the VLKSM (Komsomol) turned out to be not a forge of communist cadres, but a nursery of Trotskyism and the institution of decay of Soviet youth.

Moreover, Trotskyism became the generator of the content of anti-communist ideology. So, the basis of the modern bourgeois history of the USSR is Trotskyist historiography. The historiography of Trotsky is exposed by the bourgeoisie as the authentic position of the „organizer» of the October Revolution, directed against „Stalinism“. Trotsky’s books „The Stalinist School of Falsifications“ and „The History of the Russian Revolution“ are the first and main principles of anti-communist historiography in an academic form, which is still in service with the world bourgeoisie. All the basic concepts of bourgeois history about the USSR — „Stalinist repressions“, „Stalin’s dictatorship“, „cult of personality of Stalin“, „collusion of Stalin and Hitler“, „the power of the bureaucracy“ were created in their works by Trotsky and his henchmen.

History has shown that unprincipledness provides Trotskyism with exceptional ideological and organizational „mutagenicity“. The concepts, arguments, theories, opinions of the Trotskyists, as well as their many societies, movements, parties, fronts, internationals are extremely diverse, sometimes they are desperately squabbling among themselves, but they represent an identical quality — the denial of communism in the USSR in theory and practice. Moreover, Trotskyism, in comparison with the other varieties of bourgeois ideology, today is the forefront of anti-communism.

Trotskyism is based on ignorance in theory, fashionability and bourgeois ideology. Trotskyism is not only a political phenomenon, but also a psychological one, a special form of social mimicry, implicated in narcissistic pomp. Trotskyism, like a virus, strikes the most precarious, unstable elements in the communist movement, including forcing them to primitive work, actionism, economism and trade unionism. The left-wing movement of Russia in many respects remains in an insignificant position of insipid, isolated from the masses of the multi-party system due to the infection of Trotskyism in the form of interspersing Trotskyist ideas, Trotskyist deviation and half-Trotskyism.

The low theoretical level of the left-wingers, that is, ignorance, leads to vacillations among activists, and, in turn, to an indifferent attitude towards Trotskyism, indulgence, and even conciliationism.

The new form of Trotskyism is „Shapinism“, that is, the concept of „reconciliation“ between Stalinism and Trotskyism or „removal of the confrontation“ of Stalinism and Trotskyism. To use of Shapin’s tactics is what various „friends of youth“, who rally in their societies the most illiterate, politically naive young cadres, are doing today. Taking into account the diminished influence of traditional Trotskyism, which denies Stalin and communism in the USSR, the position of such Trotskyists and half-Trotskyists is very promising from the standpoint of the growth points of opportunism in the current conditions of increased interest in the Stalinist USSR.

Taking into account the above, we note the need:

I. To wage a consistent and implacable struggle against Trotskyism and Trotskyist organizations. Defend the Stalinist historiography, the history of Bolshevism, propagandize and develop the Leninist and Stalinist theoretical and practical heritage.

II. To wage a consistent and implacable struggle against all manifestations of Trotskyism in theory, propaganda and agitation. Strongly reject all materials containing even elements of Trotskyism.

III. Conduct theoretical and educational work on the basis of a thorough study by all the activists of Marxism-Leninism from the primary sources, i.e., the works of the classics and official documents published in the Leninist-Stalin period on the history of the party.

It should be noted that the victory over Trotskyism as a bourgeois ideology and counter-revolutionary practice, as well as opportunism generated by Trotskyism, does not guarantee the purity of the Marxist-Leninist line and the complete absence of opportunism. Opportunists are also full of anti-Trotskyists. Only consistent ideological and theoretical sanitation against all opportunism, based on the mastery of Dialectical Materialism, the development of Marxist theory and the mobilization of conscience, can guarantee the purity of personnel and the correctness of our policy.

https://prorivists.org/eng_antitrotskyism/

[prorivists-paper]

Theses on the Victory in the Great Patriotic War

I

In regards of its world-wide historic importance, the Victory was won by communism over capitalism, by working class over the worldwide bourgeois class, by science-based planning over the chaotic nature of market. It became possible to evacuate manufacturing industries and ensure the manufacture of combat equipment, excelling the equipment manufactured all over the occupied capitalist Europe in both quantity and quality, only and exclusively due to the dominance of communistic relations of production and regulated nature of monetary relations. Endless debates of comparison of separate tank or airplane units, as well as temporary disadvantages of soviet military equipment, such as absence of radio communications in soviet airplanes, are irrelevant in face of the clear superiority in terms of production rates, production output, labour cost and equipment reparability.

Nothing but capitalism itself having profit as its sole interest had stopped the german versions of T-34 and Il-2 from being designed and constructed. At the same time State Planning Committee, endued with the authority of managing all of the production of the Soviet state, was comprehensive in its physical measures of the whole supply chain from the metal mining up to tank armament, and soviet workers and engineers, brought up with communist labour ethics, were discovering the ways to lower the production cost, german capitalists were busy counting profits and returns and using thee budget granted in the most capitalist way possible: by stuffing it into their own pocket, and making as many „Wunderwaffe“ projects as worthy weapon pieces. Capitalism lost in economic warfare against the USSR. And with it, it did lose in the war itself.

II

Heroic feats of labour, recognized with high regard by the leaders of bourgeois Russian Federation, in fact was a materialized form of communist labour ethics of tens of millions of soviet men. In capitalist dictionary you will find this defined as „working for nothing“. The heroic ability of the soviet nation was caused not by primitive reflexes like „we’re under attack by an enemy“ but was purposefully grown during long years of communist policies, having a goal of complete eradication of private property relations, deviant mentality grown from it and deviant behavior caused by it.

As such, no capitalist country of the time could exhibit the labor feats of soviet proportions, let alone cause mere working enthusiasm, honesty, self-sacrificing attitude and creative impulses on a massive scale.

III

The military feats of the soviet soldiers were likewise a consequence of purposeful eradication of ugliness that capital was infecting the minds of people with. If not for the communist ideology being dominant in the soviet society, a conscious self-sacrificial mindset would not show itself. No deep-rooted call of self-sacrifice can be possible where there is nothing to sacrifice one for: whether a friendly exploiter is deposed by a foreign one, or foreign one is repelled means nothing.

IV

The Victory manifested a repeated proof of omnipotence of marxist dialectics, which guided Stalin and top soviet officials through organizing and coordinating the soviet people against the fascist invasion. The highest level of marxist dialectic proficiency by Stalin personally allowed him to take correct solutions, thoroughly consistent with the realistic situation. Once again the communists have won the battle of knowledge, which allowed them to withstand a monstrous strike from the world capital powers, and, eventually, defeat capitalists and stay on the winning side in another episode of class struggle.

V

It is clear to us that contemporary capitalist Russia has no relation whatsoever to the victory of the working class. The bourgeois, once returned to power, have twisted the meaning of a Victory Day to suit their own goals, reducing it to „a celebration of national unity“ in form, if not in name. For many years the Victory celebration has been used for propaganda of thoroughly bourgeois patriotism, which has been always used to mask the interests of the exploiters as the „interests of the nation“. Many popular historical examples are exploited in a similar fashion.

But unlike some modern left-wingers might think, this interpretation does not bear any threat to communism and is not even an instrument of anti-communist propaganda.

In conclusion

Under the present circumstances, communists advice not to waste your resources trying to combat bourgeoisie propaganda. This is an ultimately futile battle on the strength of the tremendous difference of propaganda capabilities and limitations. The importance of Victory to communists is not how its historical day is celebrated, or if it is celebrated at all. It is important to understand in what ways it influenced the world-wide communist movement, what reasons were behind the communist Victory, what changes the Victory had made in the soviet society, why (due to what material laws) the communist labor ethics gained momentum during the war, etc. All of this will be important during the building of communism in the future. Therefore, studying marxist dialectics is a better commemoration than walking down a street as part of the „Immortal regiment“. The better we study it, the shorter the age of capital and its mythology is.

[prorivists-paper]

Theses on „Stalin’s repressions”

I. The repressive policy of the dictatorship of the working class in the USSR was science-based, had a defensive character, being a form of social protection of the gains of the revolution in the class struggle.

II. State coercion in the USSR was used in accordance with the existing legal framework, socialist legality and revolutionary expediency. Any violation of socialist legality committed by the use of state coercion was a crime and was punished accordingly under the Soviet laws, damaging the authority and power of the working class. The concepts of “distortions”, of “acceptable mass victims” (“if you hew trees the chips must fly”) have nothing to do with the state policy of the USSR.

III. The system of state coercion in the USSR was the most humane state violence in the history of mankind, including the functioning of correctional labor institutions and the applicable penalties. Any seeming cruelty of the Soviet punitive system is reasoned by the false facts or incorrect comparison of different historical and socio-political conditions. The state of any bourgeois country of that time and in similar conditions was more repressive and tougher than the USSR.

IV. The so-called Stalin’s repressions are a myth. All historiography and its serving institutions were created by the forces of imperialism for the largest falsification in history in order to discredit communism. Since the first Five-Year plans the world oligarchy essentially had nothing to oppose communism in theory and practice, so it was forced to use the myths created by Trotsky and Khrushchev, to frame up the relevant documentary, pseudoscientific, literary and artistic base in order to have a reliable ideological and political weapon in their hands. Detailed examination of any element or aspect of the theory of “Stalin’s repressions” (national operations, NKVD Order No. 0047, about 650 thousand death sentences for 16 months of 1937 — 1938, etc.) reveals its complete failure and falsity of the proposed facts. All the theorists of Stalin’s repressions, including Zemskov, are the falsifiers of history.

V. Along with the myth of “Stalin’s repressions”, anti-communist historiography is extremely rich in other various anti-scientific interpretations, up to the most raving. But the main thing in it is a number of “generally recognized” myths, which are based on false documents and other falsified sources. The most popular among them, in addition to “Stalin’s repressions”, are “genocide of the peasants” (“Holodomor”), “huge losses of the USSR in the war with Finland”, “secret agreements between Stalin and Hitler” (“secret protocol” to the Soviet-German Treaty of Non-Aggression), “Katyn shooting of the NKVD”, “huge losses of the USSR in the Great Patriotic war”. These historical “facts” based on fakes are included in the history textbooks of all bourgeois countries and have become the core of bourgeois historical science, the basis of modern anti-communism. Modern anti-communism = anti-Stalinism.

[prorivists-paper]

Stalin

Stalin’s name in the public mind is used by various political forces. Stalin is extremely popular as a historical figure, mainly because the historical memory of the people is a matter of a special kind. Despite tons of Khrushchev’s lies, despite the extraordinary efforts of the entire world bourgeoisie to denigrate, the people remember Stalin and love Stalin. The historical personality of Stalin embodies Soviet communism — a society of persistent but happy struggle for the complete and final victory of happiness for everyone and everyone on the planet.

There was not a single person in history whose activity would provoke such a hysterically desperate reaction of the oligarchy of the whole world. There is not a single historical figure that all conscious proponents of private capitalist property and market relations would so vehemently hate. Refined intellectuals — lackeys and serfs of the business class — never smeared anyone with so much black paint. This very word, STALIN, causes an immediate attack of uncontrolled anger and an involuntary bile secretion syndrome from almost all owners of factories and newspapers, hardheads and speculators, kulaks and their henchmen, insurers and bankers, brokers and jobbers, investors and startuppers, bribe-takers and embezzlers, thieves and scammers, sadists and murderers, rapists and pedophiles. Stalin and everything that he personifies cannot be tolerated by all kinds, subspecies, and varieties of adherents of private property relations.

Stalin, his faithful comrades-in-arms and their teachers — Lenin, Engels, and Marx, were personalities whose content in the study of social relations will live for centuries. And there is no doubt that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, including today, have a much greater influence on the course of world history than the popularly elected parliamentarians and presidents of all countries taken together.

The great importance of the personality of Stalin and other classics of Marxism reflects the recognition of the optimal conformity of the results of their lifetime social relations with the objective necessity of progress.

Recently, the vilest nationalists and statesmen in Russia and Georgia, using popular respect for Stalin, cover his name with their bourgeois and imperialist propaganda and even politics. They are using every possible means to extort from the personality of Stalin the main thing — Marxism of a true revolutionary. They go to great lengths, crossing out the essence of the history of the Stalinist USSR — the construction of communism. They do this to declare Stalin their political ally. And they do it unprecedented in their arrogance, vileness, and abomination. Therefore, for the historical figure of Stalin, there is a desperate class struggle with nationalists and „patriots“ in the field of ideology.

Stalin is a loyal and consistent student of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, a classic of Marxism, the leader of the world revolution, the leader of the world labour movement, the architect of communism and the great leader of the outpost of the world revolution — the USSR. All other views on Stalin are anti-scientific heresy and dirty slander.

The situation now is such that every supporter of communism is obliged to put all available forces on an independent study of Marxism-Leninism from the source, on an independent study of the practical heritage of the Leninist-Stalinist leadership of the revolution and communist construction.

And for us, Stalin should be the standard of man, so every communist must match him, like to Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

The complexity of world-historical tasks objectively dictates the need to carefully, meticulously study Marxism-Leninism as a theory and practice, in order not only to stand upon the shoulders of the titans, but also if you do not surpass the classics in their levels of scientific preparation and organizational abilities, then at least get close to them. And here, as a rule, everything rests on the attitude of people towards self-education and their willful qualities in this regard.

Until we arrange to forge of cadres in Marxist-Leninist patterns, we cannot see our victory. Including self-education in the spirit of Marxism, in the spirit of imitating our character’s disposition to our beloved leaders. Such imitation is nothing but a form of Marxist self-discipline.

Get inspired by the personality, the way of life, the victories of Stalin! Get inspired by Marx, Engels, Lenin! To vigorously work for communism, firmly and faithfully serve the working class, people and the progress of mankind!

[prorivists-paper]

Lenin

Lenin’s name is mainly used among left-wingers to cover up the poverty of one’s own thoughts, and the most unbridled opportunism is seasoned with the authority of Lenin’s words. Left-wing impostors take from the treasury of Lenin’s legacy some quotes which they do not understand and compile them into their ideology.

And those of them, who do not pursue provocative goals, as a rule, carefully copy Leninist thoughts and actions, although they know that Marxism requires the independent application of materialistic dialectics.

The situation now has developed in such a way that every supporter of communism is obliged to put all available forces on an independent study of Marxism-Leninism from the source, on an independent study of the practical heritage of the Leninist-Stalinist leadership of the revolution and communist construction.

And for us, Lenin should be the standard of man, so every communist must match him, like to Marx, Engels, and Stalin.

There is an opinion that in Bolshevism, the standards of which we strive for, different types of activists are needed. What is needed, they say, is Lenin, who will show us the way, but there must also be an ordinary, efficient and dependable Party member, who does not even think about comparing himself with Lenin, to be matched to Lenin. He is like a „techie“ of party work. This is the wrong, false approach.

What is more — common or different between Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin as individuals? In their worldview, in the strength of their will and characters.

Practice shows that there is a Marxist character, a Marxist type of personality, a Bolshevik style of man. And the classics of Marxism, as concrete people, personalities, scientists, revolutionaries, propagandists, organizers, leaders, are the standards of such a person. Every Marxist should will to become like them, should imitate them as much as possible.

The complexity of world-historical tasks objectively dictates the need to carefully, meticulously study Marxism-Leninism as a theory and practice, in order not only to stand upon the shoulders of the titans, but also if you do not surpass the classics in their levels of scientific preparation and organizational abilities, then at least get close to them. And here, as a rule, everything rests on the attitude of people towards self-education and their willful qualities in this regard.

Until we arrange to forge of cadres in Marxist-Leninist patterns, we cannot see our victory. Including self-education in the spirit of Marxism, in the spirit of imitating our character’s disposition to our beloved leaders. Such imitation is nothing but a form of Marxist self-discipline.

Get inspired by the personality, the way of life, the victories of Lenin! Get inspired by Marx, Engels, Stalin! To vigorously work for communism, firmly and faithfully serve the working class, people and the progress of mankind!

[prorivists-paper]

The reason for the „collapse of the USSR“

First, the USSR did not disintegrate, but it was destroyed. Secondly, the destruction of the USSR was the result of the restoration of capitalism in the country. Therefore, it is necessary to find out the reason for the victory of the counter-revolution in the USSR and the transition from socialism back to capitalism.

The reason is the ratio of opposites that gave rise to one or another phenomenon. The restoration of capitalism in the USSR is the overthrow of the dictatorship of the working class and the transfer of power into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, to establish the cause of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR means to reveal those opposites whose struggle was immanent to the dictatorship of the working class, and the victory of one of them turned the cause into a consequence, that is, led to the collapse of communism in the USSR and the destruction of the country.

The following is authentically known.

First, that the USSR arose, got stronger and won many victories as the state of unripe, lowest communism. Soviet society was in the first phase of communism. The essence of this stage consists of the construction of, actually, full, mature communism, the fight of communism against aggressive remnants of exploiter formations, the competition between communism and capitalism by a realization of superiority of new relations of production of communism over commodity-money antiquity, in replacement of spontaneity by consciousness, scientific character.

Secondly, that the factor, that is the cause, of the communist revolution, is Bolshevism as a scientific course of political thought and political practice, organizing a revolutionary subject — the working class — under the conditions of the necessary maturation of all objective prerequisites: the level of development of productive forces and the degree of their concentration. The final, state-monopoly phase of capitalism is a complete material preparation for the transition to communism, that is, the necessary maturation of objective prerequisites.

Thirdly, that in the historical period of transition from capitalism to full communism the role of subjective processes raises to a decisive one.

Fourthly, that a set of historical processes in the USSR after Stalin’s death indicated the movement of the Soviet society away from science, away from communism, on the way back to capitalism, so, communism after 1953 in the USSR objectively lost in the class struggle started in all spheres of society including the same fight within the Party.

When clarifying the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, first of all, it is necessary to recognize the primacy of politics over the economy in the period of the transition from capitalism to mature communism. In private property societies, the primacy of economic factors, the formation of which occurs spontaneously, regardless of the will of the people. People, in this case, not understanding the essence of the application of productive forces to the substances of nature, enter into production relations blindly. It follows that these relations are formed with the significant participation of primitive social instincts, reflexes, and material interests. The resulting social conflict at the dawn of the ages brought to life the systematic need for violence, that is, in a state that held onto public order. At the same time, various forms of ideological domination, the justification of private property, exploitation, and violence took root. Moreover, it was capitalist production — the highest type of exploitative production, having competition by its law, that became strongly dependent on the development of science. And with the accumulation of applied knowledge, prerequisites were formed for the final establishment of scientific truths in the field of social science, primarily in the field of cognition of production relations. Thus arose the scientific theory of building communism — a society in which production relations for the first time will fully meet the objective requirements of the productive forces.

The founders of Marxism also affirmed the primacy of politics over the economy during the transition from capitalism to communism. So, Engels wrote:

„If Barth believes that we have denied any reverse influence of political, etc., reflections of the economic movement on this movement itself, then he simply tilts at windmills. He should look only at Marx’s “18 Brumaire”, where it is almost only about the special role played by political struggle and events, of course, within their overall dependence on economic conditions; or see Capital, for example, the section on working day, which shows how decisive it is to have legislation, which is a political act, or a section on the history of the bourgeoisie. Why, then, do we fight for the political dictatorship of the proletariat if political power is economically powerless? Violence (that is, state power) is also an economic force!”(Letter to K. Schmidt, October 27, 1890).

Developing precisely this position, based on revolutionary practice, Lenin, smashing Trotsky and Bukharin, explained to the Party that

„politics cannot fail to have primacy over economics, forgetting this means forgetting the alphabet of Marxism” („Once again about trade unions, the current situation and the mistakes of comrades Trotsky and Bukharin“).

Hence it follows that the sphere of finding the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR it is the area of functioning of the institute of the political power of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The party is the leader of the state of the dictatorship of the working class, the leader in the system of the dictatorship of the working class. The party is the guiding force of the dictatorship of the working class. If the party loses credibility, loses the opportunity to give guidance on every important political, economic and cultural issue, the system of the dictatorship of the working class is destroyed. It is clear that in this case it would be the height of absurdity to look for the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the base. It is also clear that bad leadership leads to a loss of credibility by a party and may ultimately cause the collapse of the dictatorship of the working class. However, the history of the CPSU’s bankruptcy showed that the institute of power in the USSR, apparently due to the old perception, was very strong even with such parsley as Gorbachev. The authority of the CPSU, despite all the blatant sabotage activities of Khrushchev and Khrushchevians, Andropov and his fosterlings, including Gorbachev, was still on top.

Therefore, if we consider politics as a sphere of the search for the cause, that is, the Party’s activity as the guiding force of the working class dictatorship, then it goes without saying that party theory, science — Marxism is primary in relation to politics, strategic goals, tactics, and daily work.

Communism arose as a science of society, gave us the goals of the class struggle in the form of a Marxist program, gave us the form of organization, gave us a method of taking into account concrete historical conditions, which connected the organization, originally consisting entirely of intellectuals, with the masses. Therefore, the whole communist policy, the entire practice of the dictatorship of the working class, if it wants to be victorious, is a product of Marxist theory, is the product of the development of a general line by Marxist theorists.

However, at the same time, history has shown us that Marxism is omnipotent only when it is correctly assimilated by at least one person in the leadership of the party, and the majority of its members strictly obey party discipline.

If we exclude the possibility of military defeat due to generalship or political mistakes, then we should not talk about any objective reasons for the crash of the USSR. Stalin (said) at the XVII congress:

„It is necessary to understand that the strength and authority of our Party-Soviet, economic, and all other organizations and their leaders have grown to an unprecedented degree. And precisely because their strength and prestige have grown to an unprecedented degree, now everything or almost everything depends on their work. The reference to the so-called objective conditions has no justification. After the correctness of the political line of the Party was confirmed by the experience of a number of years, and the readiness of the workers and peasants to support this line no longer causes doubts — the role of the so-called objective conditions was reduced to a minimum, while the role of our organizations and their leaders became decisive and exceptional. And what does it mean? This means that responsibility for our breakthroughs and shortcomings in work now falls on nine-tenths not on “objective” conditions, but on ourselves, and only on us“.

At the same time, the theoretical reasons for the political crisis of the dictatorship of the working class in one way or another are closely related to the principles of the Party’s organizational structure and the quality of the cadres. Lenin pointed out:

„It is impossible to distinguish between what is a political issue and what organizational. Any political question can be organizational and vice versa … It is impossible to separate mechanically political from organizational. The policy is conducted through the people and if other people write slips of paper, then nothing will come of it… It is impossible to separate organizational issues from policy“ (Speech at the XI Party Congress).

There were no objective internal reasons for the extinction of communism in the USSR.

So, at the revealing of the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, is extremely insufficient to list economic and even political reforms of the CPSU which as a result prepared a coup of the bourgeoisie. Careful consideration of the activities of Khrushchev, Kosygin, Andropov, Gorbachev, and Yakovlev allows us to make a conclusion that they put into practice the trial and error method.

The influence of Khrushchev on the crash of the USSR is connected more likely with the discredit of Marxism, with the ideological and theoretical undermining of the authority of Marxism, the scientific solidity theory and practice of Marxism, than with the transfer of MTS (“Machine and Tractor stations”) equipment to the collective farms or even the reform of 1957.

It should be noted that all Khruschev’s wrecking was carried out within the unique propaganda process — „dethronement of a cult of personality of I.V. Stalin“. Thus, Khrushchev „plowed up“ public consciousness, party ethics, turned upside down already ideologically sickly intellectuals, undermined the authority of communism and unity of the Communist Parties of the world. But this was still not enough for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

The fact that the legal ban of the CPSU occured with the consent of the Secretary General, the entire structure of the Politburo, the Central Committee and with complete inaction of the local organizations, suggests that the reason for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR lies in class defeat within the management of the CPSU. In fact — in treason.

But what is the reason that enemies of the people sat down right in the leadership of the CPSU?

After Stalin’s death, they in the CPSU forgot what opportunism is, forgot the objective law of the revolutionary struggle, about the intransigence of ideologies. In this way, fractionality was already considered to be some insignificant discrepancy in the understanding of Marxism, originality of views. And they forgot about opportunism in the CPSU solely because the CPSU itself went off into the swamp of this very opportunism with its ears.

The Leninist-Stalinist victorious period showed that the subjective factor of the revolution can be considered ripe if the leader at the head of the party owns Marxism and skillfully applies Marxism in organizational practice.

The post-Stalin period of the existence of the CPSU showed that if the Marxist party in the conditions of the capitalist environment is not working hard enough to educate in its midst the leaders of the Leninist-Stalinist level and cut, then the construction of communism slips and ends up the party degrades and collapses.

The discussions unleashed by the Trotskyists after Lenin’s death and the opportunist turn of the Communist Party after Stalin’s death proved that literally everything is determined by the presence of a competent leader, determines the direction of development of the party, and behind it the class, the state, and the whole society. Of course, Lenin and Stalin had loyal associates who rallied around them and thus multiplied tenfold by force. Stalin himself was a reliable employee of Lenin.

Thus, the cause of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR is the incompetence of the members of the CPSU, especially in its leadership, in the practical building of communism. In this case, in a historical sense, the factor of opportunism counteracted a factor of dialectical-materialist competence in the person of the leader. As long as Stalin was alive, the prerequisite for the restoration of capitalism was suppressed, and the building of communism took place in the USSR, but after Stalin’s death there was neither a leader nor a competent center, therefore the opportunism factor was first established, strengthened, and then won a victory.

The decapitated, brainless CPSU kept itself out of habit, according to the will of the working class, but the agents of imperialism shook its power, and thus capitalism in the USSR was restored. Economic reforms and in general all changes in the basis of the USSR served as the means of undermining the political power of the working class, as well as endless ideological diversions.

And democratic centralism was a way of multiplying and spreading opportunism within the Party, a way of seizing the leadership of the CPSU.

Lenin and Stalin in the organizational structure of the party applied a scientific approach to personnel and organizations, therefore they carried out the principle of the most severe science-based centralism.

After the death of Stalin, Khrushchev, Mikoyan, and others audited the established practice, rejected the Leninist-Stalinist theoretical legacy on the issue of organizational construction, and proclaimed party democracy. It is by voting for each other that the opportunists seize the leadership of all organizations.

Opportunism, which seized the leadership of the CPSU, should be presented from two sides.

First, in terms of theoretical content, this is tailism, economism, and vulgar economic determinism. Because it is precisely in the theoretical formulation of the stages passed, in the denial of the offensiveness of communism itself, in flirting with the form of capitalism, that is, in money, the opportunist adaptation of the working class in the interests of the bourgeoisie is rooted. Roughly speaking, the cultivation of proletarism, that is, the state of people as an appendage of capital, in all forms constitutes opportunism in its content.

Second, by its motivation and the folding of the ideological constitution – this is a consistent anti-Stalinism.

The main instigator and the theorist of anti-Stalinism was Trotsky. If we trace the movement of Trotsky’s political thought, then he almost always spoke in such a way as to appear as original as possible. His pre-October position could be described as consistent anti-Leninism, but without joining Menshevism in words. In the period up to 1924, Trotsky, on all important issues, always says the opposite of Lenin, actively goes into a separate fraction. In the period of the mid-1920s, Trotsky opposed Stalin and other ideological centers, and after Stalin’s victory over all opponents in the theoretical struggle, Trotsky now takes the position strictly opposite to Stalin’s. In many ways, this line of absolute ideological unscrupulousness is characteristic of all opportunism. To be opposed is the “ideological” basis of opportunism in the presence of a truly Marxist position.

The supporters of Khrushchev and Gorbachev were mostly motivated precisely as Stalin’s fierce opponents, they acted out of banal vindictiveness. Just as thousands of pest specialists, former landowners and kulaks were derailed by trains, blown up, broken, destroyed from completely worthless dirty ideas, so a mature opportunist in power is a synonym for dirty tricks, whimsical spoiler, little stinker.

The chronology of the descending line of communism in the USSR is as follows. After the death of Stalin, the enemies of communism disguised as communists established themselves in the leadership of the Party through democratic centralism. Stalin’s comrades, the Marxists, lost to Khrushchev and his group because they all ran into each other at a philistine, intriguing level.

Further, supporters of Khrushchev audited Marxism with the theory of the cult of Stalin’s personality, the theory of the collective mind of the party, the tactics of building communism by 1980, the moral code of the communist and other opportunistic acts, and turned the daily politics of the government into a sabotage of economic and ideological foundations of communist construction. Supporters of Khrushchev deliberately split the world communist movement to weaken it.

Consequently, in the period of Khrushchevism, the Trotskyists, who had penetrated the party leadership, shaken the power of the Party; the economic and political development of the USSR and the WTO (Warsaw Treaty Organization) countries was sent along a false anti-scientific path, the international communist movement was undermined and split; during the leadership of the party Brezhnev, these processes were inhibited; in the period of Andropov — Gorbachev, conscious, meaningful, active ideological and socio-economic preparation of the restoration of capitalism was carried out by the “seksot” (secret police agents) and renegades. In short, the work of Trotsky – Zinoviev – Bukharin – Khrushchev on the maturing of the preconditions for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR was continued.

But at the same time, all these measures were carried out, firstly, within the framework of the will and consciousness of the working class of the USSR at every historical moment, and secondly, despite the fact that the economic structure of the first phase of communism was replaced by the capitalist one. Thus, the Party and the state in their class nature remained communist, but their policies, that is, the development of ways and means was carried out unscientific, incorrectly, to the detriment of the real goal of building a communist society, and in the second half of the 1980s was completely aimed at destroying the country.

The process of revolution and the process of counter-revolution occur according to the dialectical-materialist law of the negation of negation. A political coup, regardless of whether it is revolutionary or counterrevolutionary, takes place simultaneously, and the objective and subjective prerequisites for it are shaped by the entire historical development over a relatively long time. The moment of the destruction of the Soviet working class is the political moment of turning it into a class of proletarians, that is, the moment of changing the essence of production relations, first of all, between the working people themselves. And one should not confuse the moment of legal fixation of the fact of a political coup with the moment of its real occurrence. For example, „voucherization“ only legally formalized the destruction of the working class. After the voucherization, the cumulative owners of all the means of production in the country de jure turned into owners only of their labour. But in order to step into capitalism, to move from the scattered facts of social injustice, exploitation by individual Soviet bourgeois to the legalized system of capitalist robbery, the bourgeoisie needed to establish its own political dictatorship in the country. And it is installed simultaneously.

The Soviet bourgeois and imperialist agents, including having made their way to the CPSU, organized a series of civil wars and mass pogroms in the 1980s, but could not shake the Soviet people into more than the construction of „market socialism“. Moreover, it was not only in the USSR. Neither in 1956 in Hungary, nor in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, nor in 1981 in Poland, nor in 1989 in China did the bourgeoisie succeed in establishing capitalism because they failed to succeed in political upheavals. Until 1991 and in the USSR, the troops were still used against the Democrats, but half-heartedly and shyly. Only having managed to organize a provocation called the State Emergency Committee, the bourgeoisie, almost overnight, took political power from the CPSU. After that, the security forces had already dispersed the left-wing demonstrations, and in October 1993 they carried out a mass shooting in the center of Moscow, thus proving that in August 1991, the capital immediately came to political power. Then the bourgeoisie finally shook up the administrative apparatus, established its own state with the appropriate legal and regulatory framework. So there was a restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

https://prorivists.org/eng_collapse_of_the_ussr/