The Resurrection of Titanic. Mark Boykov

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ understand something, we must call a spade a spade. The socialist revolution is neither an invention of Lenin nor the result of the communist propaganda. It is the result of the natural development of society. This is a joint movement for justice and law of the communist leaders and the working masses. But then the leaders became the ruling class.

      When they were fighting together with the workers for their future, they were equal. And it was perfect! But, when they came to power, they began to build a ladder of the state, party and administrative positions, ranks and titles. And it turned out that the recent heroes… were the ordinary people, like everyone else. Each of them had their own problems and motives inside, fundamental contradiction between the abilities and the needs that press down on the person on the outside and on the inside, causing one or other shift in his/her thoughts, deeds, actions. In short, they became competitors among themselves.

      Fighting first for the nation, they became fighters for themselves. For the purpose of nomination, growth, and personal success. All the hallmarks of a career struggle were present, where even the overall success was usually placed on the altar of somebody's personal success. As the class struggle in this period was still in progress, interpersonal career civil strife could be easily confused with class contradictions.

      We know from history that many intraparty fights took place in this period from top to bottom. Factions, coalitions, platforms, deviations. The main leader, General Secretary of the party – and it was Stalin – was to understand properly the crucible of this struggle, bellows, blowing from the personal plans and calculations, to try to temper the excessive heat of the battles. But Stalin himself was an ardent fighter, often exceeding the integrity for the sake of intransigence.

      Certainly, he could not completely stop this struggle: it still would have continued. But, as the supreme leader, he had to keep it under control to avoid natural expansion and toughening, transfer to the «class», controlled by somebody else, course. Fighting the enemies and the struggle between the comrades in the party /for the best performance, for personal success/ are two different things. But in this fight, when leaders became rivals, they began to think more about themselves than about the people. And this was natural. They did it not out of malice, not out of blood lust. They did it not to fall, not to be supine, to have more influence and greater protection from a higher level.

      The person just cannot be his/her own enemy. And he/she cannot wait when the main leaders of the country comprehend the problems of the new society. And he/she works with everybody to find solutions to common tasks. So, this happened not because the communists were bad, but because they did not know about the crossing and the pitfalls on their way. However, the present liberals, who want to turn history backward, also do not know this.

      And this is not a tragedy yet. When did the leaders /especially the appointed ones/ think more about people than about themselves? So: only a few of them, and sometimes. And only exceptions suffered for people. For example, Christ. Therefore, the masses were worshiping him. Those, who are from the lower class, and not from the upper class, usually think more about people. But when human needs are growing, and «benefactors» are going crazy of consumer ambitions, then the people are coming out to the barricades. Call-signs to the barricades of 1991 were set, strangely enough, in 1936 with the adoption of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, which was proposed by Stalin at the Extraordinary VIII Congress of Soviets of the Soviet Union, reporting on the victory of socialism.

      The thing is, and it is necessary to pay special attention to it, that according to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, socialism is created from the transitional period by the classless society. In confirmation, not referring to new sources, for continuity of reading, I shall again cite at least a few sound quotes to avert reproaches or suspicion of a defect of the problem. This has been discussed for decades, but there is no response. Nobody supports or refutes, i.e. everybody remain silent. It is a matter of principle. As if one can get away from the truth, having put up with the conscience!

      K. Marx in his letter to J. Weydemeyer wrote: «…the dictatorship itself makes the only transition to the destruction of classes and society without classes» (2). It has been discussed already but it still gives food for thought! That is, after the dictatorship of the proletariat, the society becomes classless.

      F. Engels: «The proletariat takes the state power and turns the means of production first into the state property. Thereby the proletariat destroys itself as a proletariat, and it destroys all class distinctions and class contrasts, as well as the state as a state» (3). In short, it is alleged that the seizure of power and the socialization of the means of production – the process of complete, including in «itself», destruction of classes.

      And here is what the Marxist Ulyanov (Lenin) wrote on this account:

      «Everyone knows that Marxism is a theoretical justification of the destruction of classes» (4). Like this: no more, no less. The final definition!

      «The dominance of van guard of all the workers and the exploited ones, i.e. the proletariat, is necessary at this transitional period for the complete destruction of classes…» (5). Note: for complete, not for partial. How can any class be left after the «complete» destruction?

      «Society, which still has the class difference between a worker and a peasant, is neither communist nor socialist» (6). What more can one say here? Lenin was very accurate and eloquent.

      «We have the class struggle, and our goal is to destroy classes. As long as we have workers and peasants, socialism will remain unfulfilled» (7).

      «…Socialism will be possible only when there will be no classes when all the means of production are in the hands of the workers» (8). This is, in fact, the criterion of the classless society! Socialism accepts a society with no classes.

      «There will be the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then there will be the classless society» (9).

      In one of his speeches before the workers Lenin expressed himself even more categorically: «When passing your room, I saw the poster with the inscription: «The kingdom of workers and peasants will last forever». And… when I read this strange poster, I thought: there are our misinterpretations and misunderstandings here with on some elementary and fundamental things. In fact, if the kingdom of workers and peasants lasted forever, it would mean that there would never be socialism. As socialism means the destruction of classes, and as long as workers and peasants remain, different classes will be too, and, therefore, there may not be complete socialism» (10).

      And it was written in the Program of the Party in 1919. (V. I. Lenin. Complete Works, vol. 38, p. 86, 105, 419). Stalin himself supported it. In his article «Problems of Leninism» in 1926 he called the dictatorship of the proletariat «the power… for the destruction of classes, for the transition to the classless society, to the socialist society» (11). He mentioned this in «Report to the Seventeenth Party Congress on January 26, 1934»: «Let's take, for example, the problem of building a classless socialist society. The Seventeenth Party Congress said that we were going to create a classless, socialist society» (12).

      Everything seemed to be going well, according to the program and in agreement with the historical logic. In fact, if one destroys the slaveholder as a class, can one keep a slave? Certainly, no. Whose slave is he/she going to become, if there is no a slaveholder?… If the serfdom is abolished, can one save the landlord and peasantry as classes? No! The peasants will remain, but will no longer be the class of the feudal society. They will form the layer, disintegrating on farm workers and kulaks. In their own way, they will segregate, become declassed, and the landlords will find another place in the changing society. Well, if the capitalists are eliminated, can one save the wage work as a class? No! Workers will remain not as a class but one of the layers of the work force. The recruitment, as the clerical act, cannot be confused with wage work in the sense of social status.

      If СКАЧАТЬ