Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром

Whether the Workers Need the Party?

Whether the Workers Need the Party?
Кlim Palatokov 20.03.2013

Discussion of problems "what party do the left need" and "what party do the workers need" make some "additional" questions actual. (It is a pity authors of Forum.Msk don't generalize results of discussion of articles. It would be useful).

So, the workers never were left in general. Well-known "working class" throughout the 20th century proved to be not the most progressive, but almost the most reactionary. It’s a fact.

Well, of course, there are conceptual problems! Since Deripaska and Abramovich, certainly, are "workers". What party doe they need?

Usage of the term "proletariat" is even more funny - such herd of "lumpens" gets into the "volume" at once... Putin against them - the most useful being. Yes, the party suits them.

Though let’s distract. Let's pretend that our conceptual framework is ok.

Comrade with nickname "Anarchist" raised important theme: "Whether the workers need the party in general?" Approach is, certainly, very anarchical. Let’s don’t forget that contribution of anarchists to the October revolution is not smaller (at least), than of the Bolshevist. They were included into the government and state agencies of the Soviet republic. Easily. They easily fought on the part of Francisco Franco's party. It happens.

I would like to emphasize briefly the following. That "cattle" which was discussed in comments for so long... is a key to the problem. The term is used in strict compliance with the Russian dictionaries. "Cattle - about stupid, weak-willed people obedient to violence" (Ushakov DN). Cattle automatically reproduces feudal form of government. Try to step on foot to someone in the USA ... you will be taken to congressman and to the courts. No matter who they are, they don’t suit definition of "cattle". Bolsheviks understood the subject, Lenin wrote a lot about slaves, in the first schools they repeated "We — not Slaves, Slaves — not We".

This theme is in detailed described in "Capitalism Development in Russia" by Lenin. Yes, capitalist forms in Russia developed. Vitte warned tsar about "inevitability of approach of capitalism" in the last years of the XIX century. Though Russia till XVII century remained class state with the main feudal lord-tsar (the largest landowner), with prevailing small-scale production (see understanding of "machine industry" of Marx). "Corves" was abolished only in the 17th century. Feudal relations correspond the character of development of production forces in Russia (prevails foreign industry). Russia had no time to become capitalist state. It’s no wonder, in Romania feudalism prospered till the 40s.

There were no conditions for creation of socialism in Russia. (Marx wrote about it in the known letter to Zasulich). It was different question. Bolsheviks saved the empire (the most part of immigration immensely praised them for it).

Certainly, Bolsheviks wanted to do away with feudalism. Lenin considered that October revolution first of all solves bourgeois-democratic problems ("cleaning of social relations of the Middle Ages, serfdom, feudalism" - V.I.Lenin) Especially Lenin allocated patriarchal and communal land use, national and colonial oppression ("Russia - prison of peoples") and position of a woman. Stalin+Trotsky and Lenin had different opinions on ethnic question (I write in details). Lenin foresaw the 90s years when all republics without exception at the first opportunity turned away and "left" the unit. Now the Russian Federation faces the same badly solved problem (no one reads Lenin!)

The bulk of the population of the Russian Federation imagines socialism in the form of result of nationalization. Marx warned about it. Nationalization leads to state capitalism or state feudalism. It’s written a lot about "state capitalism" in the USSR (I also use this term). Way of production at feudalism and capitalism is after all the same. Actually formation of feudalism is the most disputable place in Marx’s theory (it existed not everywhere). Though Engels and Marx persistently fought for this statement ("three forms of enslavement – slavery, feudalism and capitalism" - F.Engels).

Marx absolutely unambiguously limited applicability of the theory to Europe.

Ideas of creation of socialism in separately taken feudal country... It’s not revisionism. It in general has no relation to Marx. “Legal” and Mensheviks were Marxists in imperial Russia. They criticized Bolsheviks from Marxism positions.

Bolsheviks had no time for Marxism. The army escaped, the Germans seized half of the country, there’s no power as it is. Though other questions were solved. It is possible to argue whether Stalin was Marxist. Whether Stalin had such opportunity? After the end of World War I... at once... all amicably told about inevitability of the World War II. Stalin had to prevent country destruction. He was compelled to force people work and then he forced them to fight. All this is possible only within tyranny. It’d didn’t matter a lot whether Stalin was Marxist or not.

Certainly, "socialist society" in the USSR was completely feudal. At Stalin part of the population didn’t have passports (confirmation of the rights of citizen). People got passports to the middle of the 70s. After Stalin the state remained one big feudal lord (efficiency wasn't on the first place).

Workers in Novocherkassk were shot as cattle. In the courts the workers demanded continuation of executions (they even were indignant with "rotten liberalism"). Socialism is economic way of SOCIALIST SOCIETY. The main sign of such society is that it consists of people who by ideological principles aren't able to afford someone to exploit them or to be exploiters themselves. There could be a lot of models of socialism, but the basis is like this and can't change. Level of exploitation in the USSR was typically feudal and the profit was spent very randomly (people didn't influence it).

There could be a lot of anti-capitalist rhetoric. There was enough of it at Hitler. But that was feudal and anti-capitalist rhetoric. At Hitler Germany surely rolled away to feudalism. Even to slaveholding system in the long term (we all know who were planned for a role of slaves). Corporatism of fascist Italy was inoculation of the cultivated medieval corporations. All concepts of "the third way" in general (between capitalism and socialism) were approximately about same. Every competent Marxist can easily prove that there’s one way, while it’s possible to pass it vice versa (to feudalism). Usually it is postulated by "the third way".

"We live in society where the state - everything and a person - nothing, such society has no future. No matter if it has Volkhovstroi and Dneproges". (From the speech of the academician I.P. Pavlov)

There was nothing socialist in the USSR. Or it is necessary not to understand the meaning of this word. Public basis of socialism - maximum self-government. Such thing didn’t exist in the USSR, in fact it couldn't be there. Development of productive forces (people, not machines) wasn’t up to a level. All decisions were made in a narrow circle of the party management. Those who were against went to the resorts of solar Komi.

- It’s not criticism, it’s ascertaining. After all there couldn’t be differently. Certainly, the USSR was excellent country if to compare to the Russian Federation. Though it’s possible to compare to Uganda as well.

- In the 90s no special "counterrevolution" or "socialism elimination" happened. The state-feudal owner was joined by several private feudal lords. Cardinal changes still wait for us.

- The Russian feudalism keeps (as it is necessary) on full "feudality" of the population. The role of feudal lords is carried out by people appointed to feudal positions (it’s possible to lose feudal positions easily as it happened to Luzhkov or Berezovsky). If Yeltsin as the successor has chosen circus monkey, "people" would decorate "the way of a sacred monkey Mashka". Public passionate love which instantly flashed to Kiriyenko, than to Stepashin is sure bail. Cognitive level of the population is extremely low and huge sums are invested into its further decrease. "Servants of people" try their best. Servants traditionally steal, it’s known from "classics". But it’s impossible anywhere to steal as it’s done in Russia. Here you are the reason of their "public" cares that nobody once told: "Wake up! We are robbed!!"

Experts wrote a lot about absence of capitalism in the Russian Federation. Evident things – there’s no freedom of enterprise, while there’s full freedom of theft, non-market competition forms, the president has more powers, than monarch, the same class society, etc. If it could be different...

Enormous number of free people is necessary for construction of capitalism. It’s possible to use cattle for it, but you will get feudalism as a result.

There’s enough slavery. A branch of slaveholding society is found from time to time in the center of Moscow, in Dagestan... What about "corves" in army?

- So, whether the left-wing party is necessary active workers of feudal system? I think, certainly.

We need to build capitalism before start creation of socialism. "Jumps" have no prospects, the Chinese companions honestly told about it at the session of the Communist Party of China. - Competent Marxist approach.

Today capitalism is the most progressive system and a step to socialism (according to Marx). But the party in the Russian Federation is necessary not only for these purposes. Actually, the Russian Federation needs even not one party, but real parties, not built up by the Kremlin. Party of workers, party of peasants, party of petty bourgeoisie. As a stage... then "progressive wings" will unite.

The main problem of the Russian Marxists - the Russian state in today's form is absolutely up-and-running. It’s possible to make one conclusion from history of two Russian industrialization (Vitte’s and Stalin’s) - the third is unreal. Conversation is long, while conclusion will be only such.

Who will give us trillion for reindustrialization? Astronauts? Political will is directed on disorder. Even if the price for oil won’t fall (if there is such anti-market hope), infrastructure of the country will hold on for several years more. Gentle conversations about possible nationalization of power industry started. So, it won't give anything, there are no resources for rescue of the branch.

It’s necessary to understand that we live on a fragment of the colonial empire. As soon as the center will spend last money (it will happen soon), the country will have to depart with Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, the Yakuts, Far East, etc. In conditions of chaos "the international forces for protection of nuclear objects" will be the first thing which we will receive. Possibly it’s necessary, but...

This conversation is not for a short article, while the essence, I think, is clear to all. “Whether the workers need the party?" If there will be some other result of our sitting in the corners??

Читайте также:
In other::