SOCIALISM OR NOT TO BUILD OR TO BUILD

 Socialism can not and win - in one countryBoris Ikhlov
He taught: "People have always been and will always be foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics until they learn of all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises to seek the interests of certain classes."As known. Stalin proclaimed that when it finally defeated socialism. Then Khrushchev promised that he would soon be built communism. Brezhnev was long thought to be like, what else can you build if communism does not work. And came up with the developed socialism. What's the matter? Us think.
The socialist revolution in one country - by Lenin (translator recalls Marx's "Capital" Skvortsov-Stepanov) - petty bourgeois ideal:"The Russian proletariat had never thought to create an isolated socialist state. Self-sufficient "socialist" state - the petty-bourgeois ideal. Known approximation to it is conceivable for the economic and political predominance Research Institute, in isolation from the outside world, it looks for a way to consolidate their economic forms that new technology and the new economy turned into the most unstable forms. "VII Congress Kavbureau: "If you look at the world-historical scale - emphasizes Lenin - then there is no doubt that the ultimate victory of our revolution, if she stayed alone ... would not reliable."

Since this was in full agreement and Stalin, who, even after the death of Lenin in the "Problems of Leninism" could not write the following:"Overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and put the power of the proletariat in one country - does not mean to provide the complete victory of socialism. After consolidating his power and sweep of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that he will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, that is, does this mean that he can own only one country finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, hence, on the restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution, at least in some countries (emphasis added, BI). Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution victorious country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means to accelerate the victory of the proletariat in other countries. "Bukharin, Trotsky points out that the global revolution is needed in view of the availability of export and import of goods.However, it is not in the export and import, here Trotsky seriously mistaken! Imagine that on the planet at one Russian, the army is not needed, export-import is not needed, a big country, why not build socialism?You can not. Because Russia - backward country. The backward Russia requires a revolution in the developed countries! It is impossible to semi-feudal structure to try to accomplish the socialist revolution. Because the social division of labor inevitably entails the division of society into classes. The old social division of labor is the cause of the division of society into classes.Communism - is the lack of classes, not only the bourgeoisie, but also the working class. In the transitional period from capitalism to communism classes must die, and with them must die state as an instrument of oppression of one class by another. Along with the demise of the classes must die, and political parties representing the classes.Marx writes in the "Critique of the Gotha Program", that the task of the dictatorship of the proletariat - to destroy the old social division of labor, first of all, to work the mental and physical labor (meaning - gross physical labor, labor, according to Marx, monotonous, mind-numbing, depersonalizing ).Hence - the existence of the bourgeois state.Moreover, such a bourgeois state, which is ruled by the bourgeoisie. Because after a long shift at the machine no higher education in the head does not climb. Because if it does fit in the head, during a heavy shift working at the bench, it is not required, so it will erode the head of the worker.Hegel introduced two concepts - the objectification and raspredmechivanie. Objectification - is the construction of thought in the minds of the workers in the labor product. Raspredmechivanie - this is the opposite effect of the product of labor in the brain is working. If the worker ten years producing the same nut in his head instead of brains produced the same nut. The labor of a man making a monkey. Which is not something that can not lead the state, but even control managers. This was written by Adam Smith, Marx wrote about it.Who should exercise the power under socialism, who should manage the economy under socialism? The working class. But he can not do so because of the process raspredmechivaniya. Due to the fact that in his head nut.Consequently, the proletariat in the Soviet Union had no power. Had the power of a handful of party managers.The bunch and recorded in the materials of the 12th Congress of the Kavbureau: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the form of the dictatorship of the party." Class replaced the party elite which does not work in the factories. No significant difference between the handful of capitalists and a bunch of party managers do not. The capitalist's not eats all the surplus value, he did as the state of the USSR, let the development of production. The trouble capitalist is not so much that it takes away from the working surplus value (profit). The trouble is that it usurps control of production. Usurps planning. Yet Marx wrote that socialism - it is a living work of the masses. And no parties. Lenin, echoing his thought, wrote that even 1000's Marx lost control of the economy. In this - the future collapse of capitalism, in which the plan is not the bottom, and usurped by a narrow social stratum. Similarly as in the USSR! And the collapse of the Soviet Union, which, by reason of this usurpation, perfectly shows the future of capitalist society!
On the other hand, inhibits not only the fact that the bourgeois pomp at the expense of the working labor. Inhibits the work itself. Someday eliminate stultifying labor demand will be the main in strikes, as in the 60's in powerful strikes in the United States against the conveyor lack of personal responsibility. So far, the main requirements - higher wages. That is, bargaining with the capitalist for the most favorable terms of sale of labor.
If, instead of workers' power - the dictatorship of the party, if the working class was not going to disappear, it means that no transition period of socialism, to a classless society, communism, could not be expected.The working class in Russia in 1917 incipient, he would still grow, but did not disappear - to grow while maintaining a rough, stultifying physical labor. And along with classes held and the state, which does not die, as he was supposed to, and amplified, and it was a tool of repression, the Communist Party-claim, the capitalist class of other classes - workers, peasants, intellectuals natural science (humanities - pristezhka CPSU). In the first years of Soviet power 26 million people - the precepts of Lenin! - Held an educational program of the State."We are not utopians - wrote Lenin. - We know that an unskilled laborer and a cook can not immediately get to the management of the state. In this we agree with the Cadets, and Breshkovskaya, and Tsereteli. But we are different from those of citizens that require an immediate break with that prejudice, as if controlled by the state, to carry everyday, daily work management in a state of only the rich or wealthy families taken officials. We demand that the training in the work of public administration was conducted conscious workers and soldiers, and to be begun at once , ie, once in training began to attract all workers, all the poor. "And ... as Platonov wrote, "took refuge in the public service from overwork." The peasantry and the working class from its midst identified new bourgeoisie, with party membership card in my pocket.
Why are we talking of the bourgeoisie? As Marx wrote in a letter to Annenkov, property - this is not "mine", not man's attitude to things. A relationship between people about things. Since the days of the Roman law of property relations are divided into use, enjoyment and disposal (management). For example, who is the host plants of Ford? Ford family. At the same time she is 80 years had a 10% stake in their companies. That is, not the main owner. But there was a chief administrator. Today the owners are increasingly becoming managers. Presidents Kennedy, Chirac, Berlusconi - sharks themselves imperialism in Argentina deputies of the Congress are large landowners. In turn, the U.S. Congress has the entire crowd busy brokering, in Russian officials - usually businessmen.Therefore, Stalin, as the chief steward - the main shareholder, the main bourgeois. Clearly, no? This implies all the repression, all the bloody "mistakes" during the Great Patriotic War, all the oppression of genetics, microbiology, etc.
However, naively all crimes committed during the reign of Stalin, to ascribe to Stalin. Rules is not Stalin. Rules of the bourgeois class, headed by Stalin. Stalin - the only representative of the bourgeois class, the role of the individual in history is very limited.Why did the party-state host-range in the Soviet Union was the class? According to Lenin's definition: the classes are large groups of people historically who excel in their position in the social hierarchy and, with regard to this, the share of social wealth produced. Can anyone doubt that the party-state host-range occupied the highest position in the social hierarchy?
A more effective toughest Marx's law: social being determines social consciousness.That is why the Communist Party elite in the 90s so quickly repainted in traditional capitalists. No restoration did not happen - just implicit became apparent, the elite of the Communist Party threw the bow and acted in its original guise.

It is interesting that the "advanced" "Soviet" professors, such butenok or horn, has attended all of a sudden his soul and his theoretical heritage. And the professors now simply repeats the fallacious arguments of Trotsky in favor of a true position. Well, and then step forward, but we must remember, as the restructuring of the "advanced" shouting "odobryams", were unable to recognize the Communist Party elite class of the bourgeoisie, and so fearfully quoted Lenin, Lenin's definition of cutting off half the classes (Butenko, performance in the Moscow State University, 1988).
Note: Stalin smuggles in Lenin's position words "at least in a few countries." After World War II, indeed, in a number of countries took place ostensibly socialist revolution. It would seem possible to build socialism. In addition, according to Stalin, socialism was finally defeated in 1936 (later socialism is finally built Khrushchev, after all, the general secretaries will not know what to do with the fact that in the Soviet Union - the servants, Burlatskii, Bovina, etc. will slip them a "developed socialism", the "socialism with a human face"). But the meaning of world revolution is not in the fact that in the backward Bulgaria and Poland took the revolution. And the fact that they took place in developed countries, USA, UK, France (but not in defeated Germany) for these countries to help backward Russia. In the absence of a socialist revolution in Russia was doomed to failure. What we see today, and obviously, there was a defeat - keeping the bow-tie "socialist" - a long time ago. ("Lessons of the Revolution," p. 87-88)
Let's pay attention (only for clarification), as formulated Stalin: "... put the power of the proletariat in one country - does not mean to provide the complete victory of socialism ..." The next step - from "ensure the complete victory of socialism" to "the construction of socialism." Hence the throwing of the "developed socialism", etc. What do smart people write?
"K. Marx, in a letter from J. Weydemeyer March 5, 1852 wrote: "What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound to specific phases of the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3 ) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. "(Marx, Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., v. 28, p. 427).We note an important point: the dictatorship of the proletariat is the destruction of the classes, the transition to a classless society. But here we are faced with a direct, blatant deception of the workers. That's one of the sites:"At the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, Lenin recalled the experience of the Paris Commune, when the workers held out for 2 months and 10 days and were shot by paying heavy sacrifices for the first experience of the working of the Government, the meaning and purpose of which did not know the vast majority of French peasants. Lenin said: "There is not a socialist who would not acknowledge the obvious truth that between socialism and capitalism is long, more or less difficult transition period of the dictatorship of the proletariat ..."http://www.esperanto.mv.ru/Marksismo/Gotha/gotha.html # p11
That is, it appears that between capitalism and communism is not one, but two transitional period? Perhaps Lenin made a reservation? Could be. Another would be: how to say about the transition to communism in a backward agrarian country.Both Lenin and the Bolsheviks all well remember the words of Marx in the preface to the "Critique of Political Economy":"No social order will not die sooner than will develop all the productive forces for which it is broad enough, and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions are ripe for their existence in the womb of the old society. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve, since closer examination, it always turns out that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or, at least, are in the process of becoming. "(Op . that is 2)It to mean - that in an effort to achieve a classless society faster way would be to destroy the peasants?Perhaps the drafters of the collected works of Lenin deliberately mangled his words? Could be. In any case, the drafters of the Stalinists tried to create one wrong word the whole system.
In the Preface to t XIV on page 36 we read:"Lenin's plan for the building of socialism was based on the objective laws of transition from capitalism to socialism, fully answered the pressing needs of social development of the country, was based on a profound scientific analysis of the economy and the classes of transition. Revealing the originality of the Russian economy during the transition period, Lenin showed that there were interwoven "elements, particles, pieces of both capitalism and socialism," the five elements of the various socio-economic structures (patriarchal, petty commodity production, private and economic capitalism, state capitalism, socialism). The Economics of Transition combines the features and properties of building socialism and deposed, but not yet destroyed by capitalism, the struggle between socialism and capitalism is the main content of the transition period, whose mission - to create "an environment in which it will be not exist or occur again bourgeoisie "(p. 175)."But Lenin's different, there is no "transition period":"The bourgeoisie defeated us, but it has not yet been uprooted, not destroyed or even broken before the end. On comes to the forefront so new, higher form of struggle against the bourgeoisie, the transition from the simple task of further expropriating the capitalists to a much more complex and difficult task of creating the conditions under which it will be neither exist nor new bourgeoisie to arise ... accounting and control has not been reached ... ("Immediate Tasks of the Soviet power," April 1918)
In the preface to that 44 PPP on page IX-Stalinists compilers aggravate:"V. Lenin taught that during the transitional period from capitalism to socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary first of all to suppress the resistance of the remnants of the exploiting classes, and for the involvement of the toiling masses in the construction of socialism. "In fact, Lenin demanded to involve workers in the courts, government jobs, and not in the construction of socialism. And it is not socialism, and communism: "To build a communist society hands of communists, it's childish, quite childish idea ... We will be able to manage the economy, if the Communists will be able to build this economy is someone else's hands, and they shall learn from this bourgeoisie and direct it in the way in which they want ... to non-Communist hands to build communism. (Works, Vol 45, pp. 98)The above-mentioned website refers to the work of Marx, and with the same ill-fated page number 27:"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state of this period can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat "(Critique of the Gotha Program. K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. Cit., Ed. 2, v. 19, s. 27).Not only did the drafters of the library and mixed references this link attributed to page 27, where it is 21 minutes. But the words of the first phase was carried to the 21 th, where the word of the first phase. No mention of the first phase and in the 27th page. However, the site reported in brackets:"We should not confuse the transitional period from capitalism to socialism is socialism with yourself about which Marx refers to as the" first phase of communist society, in its form as it goes after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society "In fact on the first phase of Marx writes on another page, "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society, in its form as it goes after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society." (P. 11).But Marx is not to say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not, this first phase of communism.
The same mess with the pages, one by one, on the sitehttp://economics.pp.ua/perekhodny-period-ot-kapitalizma-k-sotsializmu.html"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state of this period can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., V. 19, p. 27).The author allows him to come more and pseudo-scientific gobbledygook:"The need for the transitional period from capitalism to socialism is due, the specific nature of the occurrence and formation of socialist relations of production."Exactly the same stuff prints and Wikipedia, with the same errors.
The Stalinists are not alone. Here are a citizen, a man who was close to Lenin's speech at the Congress - the letter Sylvia Pankhurst 28. VIII. 1919:"... Those workers revolutionaries who center their attacks make the parliamentary system, it is right to the extent that the attacks reflected a fundamental negation of bourgeois parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy. Soviet power, the Soviet republic - that's what the workers' revolution is at the place of bourgeois democracy, that's a form of transition from capitalism to socialism, the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. "
In fact, Marx did not write about any additional transitions, not open another phase between capitalism and socialism. He simply identified the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism:"The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850." (Written in January - March 1850): "This is a declaration of socialism continuous revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on that these differences are based, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations "(Collected Works, vol 7, p. 91)That is, socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat by Marx - are one and the same.
But Lenin did not invent additional phase. Here is what he wrote in September 1917:"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or otherwise, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made for the benefit of all the people and to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. "(We note in passing that a year will have to Lenin otmezhovyvatsya from seeking a monopoly in the side of the people, he will look down upon Kautsky with his government, coming to meet the proletariat.) And further:"Imperialist war is the eve of the socialist revolution. This is not only because the war horrors rise to proletarian revolt - no revolt can bring about socialism if it is not economically ripe - and because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete m a t e r and A L and I preparation for socialism, the threshold of, a rung on the ladder of history between which (step) and the step called socialism there are no intermediate rungs. "(p. 27, 28)
But maybe the Lenin and made a reservation here, maybe after he III congress of Soviets changed his mind? Not at all. April 21, 1921 in the article "The Tax in Kind", he repeats the same thing as in the "impending catastrophe", and how relish:"Note that this was written under Kerensky, this program is not the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the socialist state, and a" revolutionary-democratic. " Is it not clear that the higher we rise above this political step, we have realized more fully in the Council of the Socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the less we were allowed to be afraid of "state capitalism"? Is it not clear that in the material, economic, production sense, we are still in "anticipation" of socialism is not it? And only through this, not yet reached us, "threshold", the door socialism not go? "
On the Trotskyist website "FORUM.msk" resource owner Anatoly Baranov not think of anything better than to accuse Stalin of not understanding that the construction of socialism - a long story!"Lenin, unlike Stalin, Zinoviev, and Trotsky Bogdanov understood that revolution - this is only a political act. The construction of socialism - it is a long process and multitude of years, able to last for generations. ... Stalin, who up until 1928 had to fight their way into power, constantly battling with opponents from among the devotees Leninists - unlike Lenin - to argue that Russia is already a socialist country. That is, according to Stalin, for the construction of socialism enough of the political act, called the Socialist Revolution. "http://forum-msk.org/stalin/1250459.htmlThat is, the Trotskyists also believe that socialism must be built first, then it started to die off. That is, such a disaster happened - have made a socialist revolution, when the economy is still not ripe for it. What can I do? And you just have to finish building the economy, as the scribbling Baranova, then declare socialism, and then proceed with the destruction of the socialist state ... Are there limits of human stupidity! Rams Rams ...
But even in the Communist Party knows that between socialism and capitalism are no intermediate stages, there is also cite "the impending catastrophe." See, eg.,'s "Socialism. Work on the bugs "(Conversation Kiselev SA, member of the Bureau of the Communist Party of Primorsky krai, the editor of the newspaper" Pravda Maritime "). You still talking about building socialism!But if the Stalinists themselves to summon a whole historical epoch, some Trotskyists (Kurenyshev), as well as some members of the PKK-EIF argue that the USSR was not socialism or Soviet authorities, but was the dictatorship of the proletariat! Classics propeller revolve in his grave. "(" Why the Communist Party and the Communist Party - anti-communist bourgeois parties "with. 90-94)
That is, by inventing yet another transition stage Stalinists obscured the question of the victory of the socialist revolution in a single country. And the same shot killed the second hare - a comfortable existence elite Communist Party for decades to come.
What does that mean? That no socialism in the USSR was not. For socialism = dictatorship of the proletariat, and this dictatorship, writes Plekhanov, involves the development of the working class that knows how to take control of the economy, the party can no spiritual leaders to discuss their situation.The dictatorship of the proletariat - this is Soviet power, it is the principles of the Paris Commune - a modest payment state officials (at the level of a skilled worker), this is his regular turnover, and most importantly - it's control over the state official from the bottom. But what actually happened? Lenin, Stalin canceled partmaksimum manager for the party (and we remember and diamonds from Galina Brezhnev, and carpets with priceless paintings from Schelokova, Zhukova, Grechko, and luxury villas in Medunov, etc., etc.). The deputies seven times to sit out their sentences, a review of the deputy was 3% in the history of the USSR. But the rules are not the USSR Supreme Soviet and the CPSU, which officials have not responded at all, and the general secretaries were sitting on their chairs almost always to a ripe old age. To death. Well, the bottom control could not be carried out - in view of the fact that the development of capitalism is not required working with higher education at the level of the universal. Because they have no business of higher education, are illiterate. And if they graduated, it had weathered since raspredmechivaniya process forms in the head instead of brains working nut. Because the change from heavy machine forced to entrust the management of the economy in general all spheres of society officer-bourgeois.
Thus, instead of socialism in the Soviet Union was the usual state capitalism, the usual capitalist supermonopolies where the state is described as the aggregate of the capitalist, as Engels wrote, public private owner, as Marx pointed out.
The real socialist demand of the working class is the demand of higher education.
Lenin plainly said in 1918 that no sane Communists do not come to mind to declare existing economic relations with socialism, as a step towards state capitalism - a step toward progress.At a meeting of the Central Executive Committee April 29, 1918, Lenin said:"Hardly, and the near future generations, more developed, will make the full transition to socialism."In the spring of 1920 at the Congress of agricultural communes, he repeats the:"Now enter a socialist order, we can not, God forbid, that if our children and maybe grandchildren, it was installed in our country."
Trotskyist Rams right about one thing: Stalin, indeed, it is in contrast to Lenin, ruled that in the Soviet Union - socialism.Stalin declared "great turning point" - "socialist offensive on all fronts", in order to rapidly transform the country into a developed industrial. NEP was abandoned.XVI Party Conference (23-29 April 1928) adopted a 1-Year Plan of development of the national economy for 1929-1932., Which included the construction of the foundations of socialist economy and further displacement of capitalist elements with a view to their complete elimination.What the hell, the children and grandchildren!
XVI Congress of the CPSU (b) (26 June-13 July 1930) was deployed by the Congress of the socialist offensive on all fronts. In a resolution on the report of Stalin Congress instructed the Central Committee "to ensure in future combat Bolshevik tempo of socialist construction, to achieve the actual implementation of Five-Year Plan in four years."By the end of 1936 the foundations of socialism, as approved Stalin in our country were built, which was enshrined in the Constitution (Stalin). Socialism supposedly defeated once and for all.
What happened? It turned out that the grandchildren of the country saw frantic, naked capitalism.***
From which came the Mensheviks? Russia backward, it is necessary to overthrow the king, to make the bourgeois revolution and the power of the opposition. The Bolsheviks were on to take power themselves, ie themselves become the bourgeoisie. We all know, Lenin writes Sukhanov that basis determines the superstructure. Because retarded base and superstructure concoct for themselves, not a socialist and capitalist. But in what the textbook, Lenin wrote, it is said that you can not do the opposite to revolutionary transformed add sprouted in basis?Lenin, looking at that broke out here and there in the world revolution, was hoping for a world revolution. The fact that Russia, which has moved the world revolutionary center, will be the weak link in the chain of imperialism, its gap podhlestnet world revolution, and then the proletariat in the developed countries will come to the aid of the backward Russian proletariat.The revolution in Germany was suppressed. World revolution did not happen. Then Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy, and entered into contracts with the bourgeois governments - over the heads of the proletariat and the Communist Party.
So was it worth while to carry out a revolution in a particular Russia, if it was a backward? Of course, yes! Evidential response to this additional question, read our Elena Kuklina book "The End of History of liberal democracy." While sufficient to note that the revolution is not made parties. These classes are carried out regardless of whether the party that want or not.The bottom line is that the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin in Russia held a progressive bourgeois reforms, following the example of Bismarck. This syndication, nationalization of capitalist enterprises, it is a state monopoly on foreign trade, etc. Exactly the same reforms have made Hitler, Mussolini, Peron, Castro.But whether, in the case of so, the socialist revolution of 1917? Of course, yes! Whatever repeated KAGARLITSKY Tarasovs and that it was bourgeois. The proof - in the same book.The bottom line is that the socialist revolution - is not worse than the bourgeois! And how much was the bourgeois revolutions in England? First, as is well known, too, ended with the return of the monarchy. The bourgeois revolution in France was walking over a century. What to expect from the agrarian Russia 1917? But maybe someone thinks that at the 12th Congress of Kavbureau his case ended the dictatorship of the party? Do not tell, gentlemen!
What, then, liberals say, why they attack on socialism, on what was not? I think the reason is simple - one thinks of a cutlet. What would they be doing if you were not attacked by what was not.