Monopoly state.

The oligarchs TO DEMOCRACY

Preface

This book consists of two parts separated by a fifteen-year break, but these parts are inseparable whole, as an unbroken history of our country. Some of the articles included in the book as a "transitional period", "economic cycle" and other articles, readers had the opportunity to view, and today I give the opportunity to learn from the first part of the book - a "state monopoly". I felt it necessary to include the first part of this book, because today there are many fans who are likely to idealize our past, to the substitution of the real stories - fictional. They both want. Is their choice. But this is the threat, especially for the younger generation, not who lived in a state with monopoly capital, to make a mistake in the choice of citizenship. This is even more important in periods of fractures, when there is a change of all previous representations, and an erroneous understanding of history does not allow to objectively evaluate the validity and draw the right conclusions. Society, in all its diversity, there is a constantly changing organism, rather than a frozen form. Therefore, analysis of the relations that existed in the all-encompassing state ownership, it is very important for understanding all subsequent transformations.

The first part was written in 1990, during all the growing popular protest against usurping the power of party and economic bureaucracy, in the period of economic and political crisis with an all-embracing system of state property. This time passed into history and, seemingly, could not pull out this work on the court of readers. But, as recent events connected with the celebration of the October Revolution, we have not yet got rid of its history. Speech by the Communists and the attempts of those in power to erase from people's memory of this historic event, said that the adversarial atmosphere in society continues unabated. As the opposing forces tend to differently interpret history. This means that all the emphasis on the October Revolution had not yet arranged that the final issue is not resolved. And so my attempt to once again look at the historical events that became the defining moment of the subsequent history of Russia, and not only in Russia, I hope, will help readers have a better idea about them.

The second part of this brochure includes the analysis of the transition from an all-embracing state-owned monopoly to, understanding of the economic cycle and evaluate the events of November 2004, as reflected in the media.

Today, many are beginning to realize that the transformations which took place in the country, were not in the interests of the majority of the population, and to enrich the top layer of bureaucracy. But then the country has only begun to be released from the tyranny of government officials, as the aggregate ownership of all means of production, and were not yet eliminated the illusion of universality. Complete absence of independent public organizations and control over the media, allowed the bureaucracy to reform itself advantageous. It addressed an unprecedentedly enriched at the expense of state property.

Today we see a different society. Society in which polarized and are beginning to clearly define the interests of various classes and groups. On the one hand over a bunch of rich oligarchs and bureaucrats serve them, and with another - a huge mass of impoverished proletarians. This opposition is becoming more pronounced and threatens to blow up the society. Representatives of small and medium businesses are in the role of orphans. They are divided, are under heavy bureaucratic pressure, and can not defend and protect their interests. They are afraid to unite with the proletariat, although, to date, is the only way to throw off the yoke of oligarchic rule. They intimidated the dictatorship of the proletariat and state involvement. In general desire to create a monster, a common essence of which can be expressed in two words: "we are kind uncle and take care of you, but evil can come and eat you all, and they frighten people, a characteristic of the existing authorities.

In the proposed book, you put the most important, in understanding the modern history of Russia, the question - the question of the state. If until recently the issue of nation-building and approached a dogmatic interpretation of government have the right to deal only with the state ideology, today on the state system can be thought of as a dead man. This is the fact that, thus raising the question of the state, we inevitably come to the question of power, which is absolutely not interesting to those who now reigns in Russia.

All the recent changes in state structure shows that the reaction occurs. Representatives of big business trying to preserve the social development and to preserve their power over society. But they will not succeed. Social development can not be stopped, and the oligarchs do not hold power. The change of power is a matter of time. But he was a most important, since the time of our lives.

Ekaterinburg

November 8, 2005.


Chapter One
1. Monopoly state.

 

"Freedom of Rome increased

Slavery and ruined.

Pushkin.
1

At the present time is clearly seen growing political activity of the masses and especially the working class. From indifference and apathy to political activities, from passive acceptance of government policies, the workers move to active participation in all spheres of public life. This circumstance can not fail to please those who are not indifferent to the situation of employees and the direction of further movement of the entire society. It gives hope that as soon as the proletariat will take to transform the existing social relations. They are tired to be a dumb crowd, whose name is pulled various adventurous programs, which enrich the individual groups of people in power, and only worsen their situation. The workers are tired of living in the future paradise and "meet" the needs of today benefits from the future.

Oracles is a new paradise, tirelessly advocating offensive welfare, slipped into the region of empty abstractions and mysticism. And the more difficulties arise in reality, the more insistent sound preaching. But time passed childhood innocence, illusions persist in relation to the government and its hired ideologues. No one no longer satisfies the dogmatism and scholasticism official ideology. The workers want a human being to live and work freely now, today, and although, at present, they are not organized and do not see the path of liberation, but the situation they are no longer satisfied.

The question inevitably arises: how could, after so many years since the October Revolution, after several repetitions, from the rostrum, that we live in the best of all possible states in the most advanced society. With our public relations are the highest degree of development of society, and only the inscription is missing, the official papers, as was done during the reign of Roman emperor Augustus - we see a golden age, have not proved that in practical life. And no matter how much noise the state ideology, trying using verbal tricks to embellish the existing reality, they do not convince anyone, without this argument. But for them, these contradictions do not exist. With mulishness they impose their point of view, seeking to explain everything and everyone, wanting to see the full unanimity. Unanimity does not lie in the unity of opinion, and in the adoption of imposed, based not on individual consciousness of each, and the boundless faith of the prophet, preaches that, in essence, is the union of senseless fans, but not convinced adherents. Man made to believe in the word and denied the right to have and express an independent opinion, but where there is no belief, there reigns a whip. Only if these masters of general and empty phrases doubt the ability of their fellow citizens to determine where the truth, then why the others did not doubt the purity of intention, pontificating preachers of a new paradise.

Moving from advocacy to implementation of the new paradise, and in so doing, wanting to see the overwhelming support of their ideas, they created a concentration camp. In these "churches" re-education of people deprived of rights is true human needs and transform it into a soulless robot, the bare labor. This is the ideal toward which tends to eliminate rights, this power. Man denied all, forcing him to work for the most necessary minimum, and thus transform it into a working machine. In these camps, humanists in words, form the people in his own image and likeness, stupid and soulless performers will host. Under the slogan of reeducation through labor, severe brain-numbing work, crippled souls.

For those who are outside the camps, freedom lies in choosing the place and time where they were, for a mess of pottage, used in the role of the labor force. Work for the party and the state is recognized and promoted as the highest virtue of man.

Subject to the established process of production and not being able to change the direction of its development, the workers are forced to perform monotonous stultifying work that is detrimental impact on their development and health. Grueling labor is the natural reaction of a living organism - an aversion to work. But for those who are immune to state propaganda, gave praise to slave labor and the glory of the working class, and there are labor camp, where the belief in word and indirect coercion, a transition to direct violence. "Work makes the man", "Glory to the working class", "In Labor beautiful people", "Work should be the first necessity" - these are the restructuring slogans used by the state ideology. Of course, themselves priests of the new religion, calling on workers to work for the party and state, have a different opinion and more concerned about personal enrichment. They talk about the esteem and respect for human labor, but do not rush to become so. They put in an example of young people who all his adult life working in production, and their children are trying to protect it from such a share, to attach them to various government and party posts. Thus they are "modestly" silent long-known truth that only free labor beneficial to man, and not work if necessary, and, of course, does not work under duress. They had "forgotten", calling themselves successors to the cause of the October Revolution, the main challenge posed by the October Revolution, was the economic emancipation of labor, rather than fixing of wage slavery. Already very short, has become a memory "successors" the case for October.

Workers need not in flattery, which so generous defenders of the existing relations, and the ability to determine the direction of his life, themselves to be masters of production, to take control of the products of their labor. Perhaps slavery would have taken a longer period in the history of human society, if the slave-owners have learned to hide his contempt for the slaves, if grasped the meaning of fame and possessed, to the same extent, the art of hypocrisy, on which our current government leaders and their ideologists.

It is not surprising that the "new paradise" there are people who are not satisfied with his position. Someone who is not overwhelmed by the thunder of empty phrases, ruling in all the media, well aware that not all as good as malyuet features.

The official science, under the yoke of state ideology, not able to give an objective analysis of existing social relations. Social scientists analyzing our contemporary society, constantly claim that they are suited to problems with the whole people, and even with the universal position, and stand above the class approach. But in class society, what is our society's approach to nation-wide positions - there are petty-bourgeois, and not some other. In class society there is no nation-wide parties, the national task, people's state, as well as individuals, and, standing above class interests. The owners of monopoly capital, that is the bureaucracy and their ideologues, put their own interests as a whole people, wishing to maintain the existing relationship, wanting to keep working as a wage slave, wishing to preserve their privileges in the distribution of material wealth.

In defense of the existing relations, the state ideology, stand firmly on their feet and have a decent view to the long expressed the notion of the Marxist-Leninist theory, that is well-known things. But as soon as they turn their face to reality, as soon as they go into the maze of theorizing, without the supporting braces, fabricated from Marxism, then hidden until the donkey's ears have become apparent. They begin to flounder in the elementary concepts and carry nonsense.

For those who stand in positions of materialism, the reasons are clear social conflicts. Their roots are embedded in economic relations, but not in the psychology of the individual or group of people, least of all morality in the individual hotel room. Invocation of morality, law, justice, new thinking does not clarify the issue, and leads away from the real issues, the need to resolve existing conflicts. In a society long ago there was an urgent need for an analysis of existing social relations from the standpoint of the working class, from a position of independence from government officials, specifically and without any mysticism. This need for a materialist analysis arose because of exacerbation of the contradictions between the developing company, developing the productive forces and historical relations of production. The heightened public attention to these problems is a symptom of the fact that the productive forces have grown from the established industrial relations, which turned into shackles impeding the development of society. Shirt, tailored after birth, was low and prevents life growing up the child.
2

A distinctive feature of Russia, in pre-revolutionary period, was the presence of a significant proportion of state ownership of the means of production, and hence a huge impact on the lives of the officials the whole society, and weak development of capitalist relations. Russia the bourgeoisie was heavily dependent on state power. Royal power had at its disposal an obedient and orderly organized State apparatus, which had been built for centuries, and was intended to protect the interests of the state (feudal) property and large landowners. In the early twentieth century. created a special state-capitalist bodies - "Meeting of Ship Building", "The Congress for direct reports and others, through which government, working closely with representatives of large monopolies, regulated production. Through these bodies were distributed state orders granted concessions, cash loans, etc. All the more important in regulating the production gets in this time and the State Bank, provide strong financial support to monopolies, in whose activities the government was interested, that is, a government official . The state pursued a policy of supporting the large monopolies, as they participated in their own capital, and limited the development of independent public official capital. This policy has aroused protests from independent capitalists, and that was the reason for their support for revolutionary movements.

By the time of revolutionary change Russia's bourgeoisie was very weak and dependent on a state official. It has not yet formulated its common position, and had its single political party. Russia was on the eve of a bourgeois revolution, which could eliminate the vestiges of the past, feudal, imperial rule, and which, supported and welcomed by the majority of Russian citizens.

Therefore, for Russia, especially the formation of the State in post-revolutionary period, was that the bourgeoisie was unable to hold on to power, and was eliminated from the political arena. The peasantry, as a passive element in the political, on account of his life, could not create a public mechanism. It has always been one fertile soil in which grow various empires and monarchies, because not organized and can not express their interest at the state level. Due to the political passivity of the peasants and was accomplished counter-revolutionary coup from above, and may have been repression, first in relation to the political opposition, and eventually to all the unwanted. The level of production and the working class made it impossible to establish a working state apparatus, expressing their interests. In the formation of the State attended not by the representatives of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat and the intelligentsia, which occupies interclass position. Occupying a position between classes, and is not a bearer of a special class consciousness, intellectuals, most often, is based on outdated legal and political institutions and, therefore, creates for a specific image or likeness, rather than forming a new basis of its domestic interests. It most often is the petty-bourgeois views, as there is in direct contradiction to the ruling class, and idealizing the existing social relations, although a small part of it, can move to the position of a particular class, based on an understanding of its role in the development of society. Petty-bourgeois consciousness is formed at a certain position of an individual, when on his position, and hence consciousness, he is behind the advanced classes, where his interest is not paramount in the structure of public interest. Hence its instability and inconsistency in action. Hence the worship of the ruling class.

In such a historical situation, when the revolutionary movement of workers, who had joined the petty bourgeoisie, and eliminates a major bourgeoisie as a class, but the working class has not yet risen to the level of providing him an opportunity to seize power and hold it, then come to power by the representatives of the petty-bourgeois interests. This victory is petty-bourgeois elements entails incalculable harm to society, the various distortions and biases in social production, for which, as a rule, have to pay to society. And the reason for this - separation of consciousness from the petty-bourgeois social need. If the workers engaged in socially necessary labor, the public need to learn through the production, the petty bourgeoisie are guided in their activities, delusional, fantasy, or individual interests are not determined by the society, associations and groups.

Russian intelligentsia, especially distinguished for its petty-bourgeois, manifested in the revolutionary romanticism and radicalism. A special type of intellectual revolutionary who puts the interests of the people he represented them, above their personal interests, common - above the private and the people, in his view, acted as an abstraction, which may make various changes, a long period been cultivated in Russia. In this sense, interesting observations SN Bulgakov on the Russian intelligentsia: "The intelligentsia has become in relation to Russian history and modernity in the position of the heroic and the heroic struggle of the call, relying on their self-esteem. Heroism - this is the word which expresses, in my opinion, the basic essence of the intelligentsia and the ideal world, moreover, the heroism of self-adoration. " And further: "The heroic intellectual is not satisfied, so the role of a humble employee (even if he is forced to its limit), his dream - to be the savior of mankind, or at least the Russian people." "Milestones", p. 41-43. Earlier VI Lenin, describing the Populist movement, said: "The populists were always talked about the population in general and the working people in particular, as an object of one or another more or less reasonable, as the material to be sent to one or the other way, and never looking at different classes of the population, as distinct historical figures in this way, never raised the issue about the conditions of the road, which can develop (or, conversely, paralyze) and self-conscious activity of the creators of history. " "From what we refuse the inheritance." VI Lenin. What is characteristic of Lenin, it is to claim one, but in practice do just the opposite. After coming to power, he, along with party colleagues, and just went through various transformations over the society without taking into account the historical interest classes and groups, seeking by every means to retain power. Or take his statement, expressed in "Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution:" Who wants to go to socialism by another route, in addition to political democracy, he inevitably comes to the absurd and reactionary, both economically and politically , conclusions. That's only after the seizure of power by this statement is absolutely correct, in my opinion, once forgotten, apparently blown, and began to Vladimir Ilyich, together with colleagues tighten the screws and turn off any democracy, and that turned into a dismal response. And no matter how the Bolsheviks attempted to disown charges Blanquism, in reality they were Blanquists, whom he criticized in his time, Friedrich Engels: "The fact that all forms represents a revolution as a coup, produced a small revolutionary minority, self - implies the need for the dictatorship after the success of the uprising, the dictatorship, understandably, not the entire class, the proletariat, but a small number of individuals who made the coup and who themselves, in turn, is subject to pre-dictatorship of one or more persons. " "The program Blanquist emigrants commune.

This type of intellectual revolutionary who wants to lead people toward a better future as he saw it in the post-revolutionary period was reborn as a civil servant with the same goals, and as seen by the people as mere objects for their heroic work. This revolutionary-minded intellectuals, holding to establish the economic life of the country, with the impossibility of creating a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, repeated the old state apparatus, to embellish it in the "red" color. Is again carried out the old bad practice - the appointment. Public posts become property of the central leadership, which, in turn, causes the bureaucracy to act in the interests of higher authorities, but not in the interests of local people. And to ensure that government officials were obedient executors and held for a place, creates a closed system of desks and service staff and business employees. Thus the gap between the interests of civil society and the state took shape in a certain structure. The entire subsequent history of our society is closely linked with the development of the contradictions between the state as the monopoly owner of all means of production and society, as employees of the State.

The party, which states that nation-building type of the Paris Commune, to recreate the principles of the empire, centralized management from one central location. Introduction of high salaries and privileges of the system contributed to the prosperity of careerism, rank, bribery and other evils of the state system, as well as ignoring the interests of the immediate producers. The intolerance of the state apparatus to alien interests become manifest as intolerance of a revolutionary class enemy. The desire by administrative means to resolve all issues led to a rapid increase in the number of public officials.

Another feature of the formation of new relationships is that the revolution in Russia was accomplished not through the sharpening of contradictions between capital and labor, and thanks to the continuing mass remnants of the past, feudal device. Revolution has welcomed and supported by the majority, which means, it was not a supporter of the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In a country dominated by small owner. The low level of capital, war and destruction have contributed to the lightning revolutionary transformations. From the proclamation of the bourgeois republic, with the fall of the tsarist regime, and before coming to power of the Bolshevik Party, took less than a year. Political experience gained in the struggle against the tsarist regime and the military principle of an organized party, and allowed the Bolsheviks to power. But the working class, for the interests, which were the Bolsheviks, much inferior layers of the petty-bourgeois interests and the party was negligible. Naturally, the Bolsheviks came to power, their willingness to act decisively and uncompromisingly seeking to advance the revolution as far as possible, to provoke a civil war, which has further exacerbated the situation in the country. Industry has suffered tremendous losses, backward agriculture, much of the skilled workers were killed at the front part of the workers, avoiding death by starvation, has moved into the village. In these circumstances, the construction of the dictatorship of the proletariat will inevitably lead to dictatorship of the party. But could the Bolshevik Party, becoming the leading in a peasant country, remain as a party expresses the interests of the working class? After all this, at least, must be an active and working class, which in turn can occur only if a significant development of big capital. But in Russia, at the time, was not, nor the development of capital, and accordingly, numerous working class. In these circumstances, compliance with one of the principles of construction of the dictatorship of the proletariat - the election of all officials, automatically provides topping petty-bourgeois, peasant interest. This was openly discussed and the Bolsheviks themselves. This caused the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly.

And the Bolshevik Party, calling itself the vanguard of the working class, trying to resist the interests of the petty bourgeois and desiring by all means to retain power, will inevitably become a party of a tyrannical government, and demagogic slogans. The fact that the Bolshevik Party was able to use a minimal chance to establish his dictatorship, said the political flexibility, leadership, and at the same time, the fragmentation of interests opposing them. For the sake of preserving its power, the Bolshevik Party, and arranged mass terror.

The centralized state machine designed to crush the bourgeoisie and the plans of the ruling party, prepared the ground for the counterrevolutionary coup from above. Soviets, however, diluted with a multitude of disparate elements of the petty-bourgeois, could not resist the power of a centralized state machine, usurped all power in his hands and acting as one. The fate of the whole country to a great extent, become dependent on those established at the head of the state machine. Created by the revolution the Soviets, as a form of power by the people, as a result of the above transformations, losing its essence, and can be reduced to the role of the screen for the dictatorship of the party. They remain without real power and reorganized from the Soviets organized at work, the council organized on a territorial basis. Self-field limited to a minimum. Moreover, the Soviets are cleansed by the party apparatus. Revolutionary transformations over, full circle, and the company reverted to the old state system, with minor reshuffling at the top of the pyramid of state.

Now, the centralized state machine, led by the party arrogated to itself the right to organize, the means of labor, the products of labor, culture, science and ideology, placing countless obstacles to the development of society. As a result of these changes the direct producers have not been able to influence the policies and participation in government. Party and bureaucracy took over and completely subdued the whole of society. But he kept the Soviets that they existed as a fig leaf and not prevented from appearing to other forms of voluntary associations of workers.

Undergo a corresponding transformation and all other governments. Courts of the people, turn to the courts over the people, the police - for the people, prisons and camps - for the people. Trade unions protect the interests of the body working, turn into a body that promotes even greater exploitation of workers in the public interest. They become one more body in the hands of the administration of enterprises, for sweating of the employees.

Can not see what was created in the country under the leadership of the party, and leaders of the party itself. After all, they came from good intentions and sought, at least in his imagination to get a completely different result than the boundless power of a state official. Already in 1923, VI Lenin, in "On Cooperation", noted as one of the major tasks - the task of remaking the state apparatus, which is: "... utterly useless, and which we took over in its entirety from the era ...." In his speech at the X! Party Congress Lenin had Bole strongly advocated the transformation of the state apparatus: "... the question of our government bureaucracy and improving it is very difficult, far from being solved at the same time an extremely urgent issue.

Our state apparatus, with the exception of the People's Commissariat, to the greatest extent a survival of the old, the least susceptible to any serious changes. He had only been slightly touched the top, but in other respects is the most typical of our old state apparatus ". Realizing that the recreated even larger scale, thanks to the revolution, the state apparatus, is a major obstacle in the way of revolutionary change in the way of democracy, Lenin, and the idea of an Rabkrin, which at first would exercise oversight over the state apparatus, and in the future, with the growth of the working class, with the growth of its cohesion and organization, would replace him. But could the real course of history to change its direction according to the wishes of the individual, even denounced the power? Could, in those circumstances, the state apparatus to form a quality? The further course of development of the state showed that there is. And we have what we have.

Over time, the centralized state apparatus, without encountering strong resistance from civil society, to submit all their interests, and the Workers' eliminated altogether, as another link. All the attempts of Lenin to avoid such developments have proved futile. In this state seizure of all free social association was organized under the banner of building socialism and what socialism might "know" only government official, and anyone who doubts this, he could see, passing through the state judicial machine and labor re-education camps.

By removing or transforming all independent of the state apparatus organization, he became uncontrollable and not manageable by the immediate producers. Now, for the State an opportunity to open his face and give vent to their predatory interests. Now you can ruthlessly exploit the workers on behalf of the workers themselves. The forced retreat of the Party of the basic principles of construction of the dictatorship of the proletariat has opened a wide way for the development of the state with comprehensive public property.

The party seeking to strengthen its influence in the country and retain power, was to attract new members to its ranks, which, in turn, led to increased petty-bourgeois influence in it. Lenin, seeking to avoid the degeneration of the party, tried to defend the position of the limited admission of new members. The reason for the letters served as a thesis GE Zinoviev, in which he proposed to facilitate admission to the party. Here is what he wrote March 26, 1922 VM Molotov: "There is no doubt that we are constantly working for such a person who is not the slightest big school, in the sense of big industry, not went. Very often fall into the category of workers most of petty bourgeois, who by chance and for a very short period transformed into workers. " (Lenin, PSS Vol.45 p.18.) And if Lenin believed that 300 - 400 thousand members of the party is already "too" much, because all the data strongly indicate a sufficient level prepared by the present members Party, what level those 600 thousand new member for 1925.

The next step taken by the party leadership to harden its position, consisted in the capture of the state.