Tomislav
3rd March 2010, 03:21
IN REPONSE OF HEINZ DIETERICH'S ARTICLE ,,Bolivar, Lenin, Trotsky and Chavez in the Bolivarian Revolution''
Heinz Dieterich asked himself ,,Latin America Need a Lenin?’’. We say categorical No! And of course we are gonna explain why. Likewise, Heinz Dieterich asked himself ,,Is it possible that the current modernization process bourgeois democratic Bolivarian repeat the feat of Lenin to be born XXI Century Socialism?’’. But, we shall prove that ,,the current modernization process bourgeois democratic Bolivarian’’ cannot bring to us a socialism without an economic emancipation of the Venezuelan workers, that this ,,process’’ would be not a revolution in favor of the workers, but a regress and quasi-political power. We shall prove that to make do with the Bolivarian revolution there is no need of ,,American Lenin’’ as Heinz Dieterich states, but planned economy and system of neoclassical democracy.
,,Lenin and Trotsky created the twentieth century socialism’’, it’s what Heinz Dieterich wants to see or what he wants to think it is. What Lenin and Trotsky created is war communism and capitalist New Economic Policy.
If the small Russian proletariat and a large number of peasantry were not ready to inaugurate socialism spontaneously (as envisioned by Marx), then Lenin and his professional cadre would do it for them. The result was war communism. Surplus crops produced by the peasants were taken by the government to support the Bolshevik civil-war forces and workers in thetowns. Labor was conscripted and organized militarily. The results were catastrophic. Industrial production by 1920 was 20 percent of the pre-war volume. Gross agricultural output fell from more than 69 million tons in the period 1909-1913 to less than 31 million in 1921. Sown area dropped from over 224 million acres in the period 1909-1913 to less than 158 million in 1921. From 1917 to 1922 the population declined by 16 million, not counting war deaths and emigration. Eight million persons left the towns for the villages from 1918 to 1920. In Moscow and Petrograd, the population declined 58.2 percent. With no incentive for the peasants to produce a food surplus, the government turned to confiscation, which further discouraged agricultural production. The peasants resisted the harsh government measures. ,,The peasant was required to deliver everything in excess of his own and his family's needs. Naked requisition from so-called kulaksof arbitrarily determined surpluses provoked the two traditional replies of the peasant: the short-term reply of concealment of stacks and the long-term reply of refusal to sow more land than was necessary to feed his om family’’(Edward Hallett Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923).
To reduce the antagonism toward Bolshevik government which appearedat the peasantry, Lenin had to consider on the Marxist line, i.e. to abolish the old social division of labor and thus to release the production forces of the whole population. On this malevolent relationship among the villagers towards the new (communist) government also warned Marx in 1874/5 year: ,,Either he hinders each workers' revolution, makes a wreck of it, as he has formerly done in France, or the proletariat (for the peasant proprietor doesnot belong to the proletariat, and even where his condition is proletarian, he believes himself not to) must as government take measures through which the peasant finds his condition immediately improved, so as to win him for the revolution; measures which will at least provide the possibility of easing the transition from private ownership of land to collective ownership, so that the peasant arrives at this of his own accord, from economic reasons. It must not hit the peasant over the head, as it would e.g. by proclaiming the abolition of the right of inheritance or the abolition of his property. The latter is only possible where the capitalist tenant farmer has forced out the peasants, and where the true cultivator is just as good a proletarian, a wage-labourer, as is the town worker, and so has immediately, not just indirectly, the very same interests as him.’’
The peasants, no longer fearing the return of the old landowners, turned their full attention to their other enemy, the Bolshevik state. Peasant uprisings ignited spontaneously throughout the country beginning in the spring of 1920, protesting shortages and government centralization. The climax came in March 1921, with the armed rebellion at the Kronstadt naval base, one-time Bolshevik stronghold. The sailors at Kronstadt sympathized with the rebellious civilians and formally called for an end to Soviet tyranny. The sailors' platform demanded freedom of speech, press, and assembly for workers, peasants, and political parties; release of political prisoners; and abolition of special privilege for Communist Party officials. "The platform promised the peasants full rights to do as they liked with their land, and advocated the ending of discrimination in food rationing’’ (Basil Dmytryshyn, The USSR: A Concise History).
Government efforts failed to end the rebellion peacefully, and thesailors set up a Provisional Revolutionary Committee on March 2,1921. On March 18, a force directed by Trotsky attacked the sailors' fortress and crushed the rebels. Some 15,000 participants eventually were killed without trial, but the incident led to essential changes in the Soviet Union, specifically to the New Economic Policy.
Further Heinz Dieterich, in accordance with Lenin, states: ,,Lenin insisted on the establishment of the Bolshevik Communist Party and autonomous working as a new international vanguard of socialist transformation’’. But was this strategy really as envisioned by Marx? Of course, no! It is only in the mind of Dieterich. At first the movement of the working class would be, Marx believed, unconscious and unorganized but in time, as the workers gained more experience of the class struggle and the workings of capitalism, it would become more consciously socialist and democratically organized by the workers themselves. The emergence of socialist understanding out of the experience of the workers could thus be said to be "spontaneous" in the sense that it would require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it about (not that such people could not take part in this process, but their participation was not essential or crucial). Socialist propaganda and agitation would indeed be necessary but would come to be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas would have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result would be an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically organized working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism. As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto, "the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority". This in fact was Marx's conception of "the workers' party". He did not see the party of the working class as a self-appointed elite of professional revolutionaries, as did the Blanquists, but as the mass democratic movement of the working class with a view to establishing Socialism, the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.
This was Marx's view, but it wasn't Lenin's. Lenin in his pamphlet What Is To Be Done?, written in 1901-2, declared: "Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside of the economic struggle, from outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers" (Lenin's emphasis, p.133). Lenin went on to argue that the people who would have to bring "socialist consciousness" to the working class "from without" would be "professional revolutionaries", drawn at first mainly from the ranks of the bourgeois intelligentsia. In fact he argued that the Russian Social Democratic Party should be such an "organization of professional revolutionaries", acting as the vanguard of the working class. The task of this vanguard party to be composed of professional revolutionaries under strict central control was to "lead" the working class, offering them slogans to follow and struggle for. It is the very antithesis of Marx's theory of working class self-emancipation.
So… what the fuck did mean this strategy in praxis according to Lenin?! It means that Lenin and his fellow-party members - Bolsheviks in January 1918 dismissed Constituent Assembly because at the elections - this historical event is after the revolution - The Socialist-Revolutionary Party (Esers) won 58% of mandates, but Bolsheviks grossly violated the right so Esers could form democratically elected governments. It is a crime and noncriminal because it can only be maintained through one-party dictatorship which made Bolsheviks. Lenin even said: ,,...Not sorry dictatorial methods to accelerate the acquisition of the German state capitalism..." (Lenin, Works in Serbocroatian, vol 28, pp. 514). Of course this anti-Marxist Bolshevik strategy has resulted in 1918 with Third Russian Revolution by Esers, which failed, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, exile, and execution of party leaders and members. In response, some SRs turned once again to violence. A former SR, Fanya Kaplan, tried to assassinate Lenin on August 30, 1918. The largest rebellion against the Bolsheviks was led by an SR, Alexander Antonov.
Having seized power before the working class (and, even less, the 80 per cent peasant majority of the population) had prepared themselves for Socialism, all the Bolshevik government could do, as Lenin himself openly admitted, was to establish state capitalism in Russia. Which is what they did, while at the same time imposing their own dictatorship over the working class.
Contempt for the intellectual abilities of the working class led to the claim that the vanguard party should rule on their behalf, even against their will. Lenin's theory of the vanguard party became enshrined as a principle of government ("the leading role of the Party") which has served to justify what has proved to be the world's longest-lasting political dictatorship.
,,Lenin and his party hegemonic fraction were the best and possibly only self-correcting of the New Historical Project which could prevent regression or distorted revisionist undemocratic’’ but unfortunately ,,his early death robbed the historical project of socialism of the twentieth century avant-garde who had created, leaving centrism in the hands of a terrorist (Stalin) who would destroy’’, explains Heinz Dieterich. This his statement is not only false from the scientific and historical point of view, but also ridiculous. Nonsense!
What should PSUV learn from the failures of Bolsheviks in relation to stimulate the Venezuelan workers and peasants in order to build up a genuine socialist and democratic society?
All people in the world are assured that the socialism fell apart and that the capitalism has returned. Meanwhile, till now in the history it was happening after the destruction of one determined social-economic system to come up another more developed, humaner and more progressive system. What kind of regression is it now and is it possible? What happens?
There is no any regression and it isn’t possible. It begins demolishing only the illusion which author is Lenin and the social ,,learned men” of the twentieth century couldn’t explain it and today they give quite wrong explanations about the same illusion.
Under the idea – social learned men – we shall include: the politicians and the doctors of economic, political, law, social, military sciences and the logic. It has to ascertain an opinion that they didn’t research the works of Marx and Engels and by reason of that, they couldn’t catch sight of and critic properly what Lenin did indeed and what it was completely incorrectly. It is quite obviously that they weren’t by any cause learned men when they couldn’t understand from the works of Marx and Engels even one conclusion, although they write in own works so clearly that it isn’t possible one not to understand them or become confused. It means, that all of social ,,learned men” of XX century are betrayers of the scientific truth and genocidal evildoers with highest rang because not only that they didn’t prevent any social conflict with human deaths but they conspire a concept of society which is found on private property over the means of production that leads to ,,war of all against all” (bellum amnium contra amnes).
It’s unyielding fact that Lenin is a creator of the Great October Revolution by which the working class conquested arm victory over the bourgeoisie not only in Russia than over all world too. It was a concrete proof that it was possible to obtain the bourgeoisie by fighting. Meanwhile, Lenin instead to extend the revolution on economic plan with the production – he abide by being a bond to the bourgeois pragmatism and he restored the trade economy. Four unfull years later, after successful arm victory, he ruined the Great October Revolution entirely by his ,,new economic policy” (NEP). As in the Great French Bourgeois Revolution: ,,Liberté, égalité et fraternité”, the socialism, found on capitalist production, was turned around unfreedom, inequality and struggle against each other.
Lenin wasn’t conscious about it and he consoled himself, and calmed the others down by his words: ,,It’s not dangerously, because the power will stay in the hands of the workers and the peasants, and by reason of that it will not restore the property of the capitalists and the land-owners”. It was catastrophic. It seemed that Lenin didn’t know that ,,the power in the hands of the workers and the peasants” couldn’t anything against the trade production. His misapprehension became an illusion of XX century and when it started ruining, the social learned men (it would be better and righter to say: the pseudo-learned men and the genocidal evildoers) began accusing Marx but without mentioning any mistake of him. And Marx wasn’t mistaken anything that we will see it from then on.
Against the end of the twentieth century, the antagonisms – immanent of the trade economy – sharpened to the states of being red-hot. First of all, the strikes and the demonstrations have begun in Macedonia (1988), afterward they carried over Montenegro and Bosna and Herzegovina and then they spread all Yugoslavia. And the ,,socialism” fell down over all European countries. And because that kind of ,,socialism” or pseudo-socialism doesn’t differ from those systems in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Libya, Venezuela…, it is just a question of time when and there the capitalism shall discover its monstrous face.
It poses a question: How was it possible the social intellectuals with scientific titles not to perceive all of that? Even one such as Sartre, Rasel or Lukač. And during the Lenin’s time and all twentieth century there were works of Marx and Engels – and besides whole anticommunist hysteria of the bourgeoisie class – by which it can be concluded that the socialism and the money-trade working are incoherent. In the ,,Poverty of the philosophy” by which Marx reviews to Proudhon, he says: ,,Who with the categories of the political economy builds the edifice of some ideological system, he disunites the members of the social system. Then he overloads every member of the society in a separate society and afterward these separate societies come forward one by one”. This conclusion says enough that it is not possible building of the socialism with money, banks, market, bidding, demand, credit and etc. It’s a lot strange that pseudo-learned men didn’t see it. Thinking that Marx became obsolete, they renamed all the categories of the political economy with ,,socialist” and they were assured that it was a scientific contribution to the socialism. So, there was a ,,political economy of the socialism”, a ,,theory and analysis on the balance”, a ,,science of the finances”, even there were lows which were transcribed from Bismark lows. Of course, when it’s restored the capitalistic material base the superstructure has to be capitalistic too. Pseudo-learned men treated with the categories of the political economy like the cannibal’s relation to the human meat when they renamed it with ,,chicken” and can eat it with good conscience.
There are attitudes in all works of Marx and Engels in which it asserts pronouncedly that the working class to alter her state – to liberate herself as a class, to emancipate herself – she has to extend the revolution into the production. It cannot be achieved by arresting and shooting at the owners over the means of production but with setting of the same into production by reason of production’s enlargement to need’s extent plus determined reserve. It’s a socialization over the means of production as opposed to the formal and bombastic declaration of socialization and essential withholding in private property of unproductive toil by withholding of the merchandise economy.
From essential socialization of the means of production it results: 1. Abolition of the market and the trade; 2. Abolition of the currency; 3. Abolition of the difference among the unproductive and the productive toil and 4. Abolition of the old social toil’s division: the state with all its attributes – the army, the police, the judicature and the administration etc. All these measures result from one by another and they are indispensable condition without its realization the socialism is not possible. The practice proved and proves it and by reason of that we shouldn’t retreat from the Marxism which is included only in the works of Marx and Engels.
In the pseudo-socialism by reason of the old capitalistic material base there was the old social toil’s division too but then it was and how overdid. In the name of some ,,proletarian” solidarity, the producer had ,,to exchange” his toil with ,,the workers” of security, administration, culture, including the priests and the prostitutes (they were ,,workers” according to Kardelj’s doctrine ,,Directions of the socialistic self-management development”). Instead to abolish the army, the police, the judicature, the pressmen, the writers, the actors, the sculptors… as professions, they renamed with workers and went into the factories learning the workers painting, playing on some musical instrument, acting, drama, writing, including a participation in practices of defense and protection.
The worker had to give his product over buying and selling to the mentioned ,,workers” but for return he obtained nothing. What can get the worker by that person who doesn’t produce anything for own existence and who exist by the produced of the workers? Nothing.
On many places Marx says that the worker is just a commodity over the trade economy which with its price enters into the value of the product – the stock that he produces. It’s a ,,natural” low, a physical low. And from that low the worker cannot rescue himself if you just tell him that the factory belongs to him and that the production is socialistic. He stays being a commodity at the political-economic sense and any kind of Lenin, Tito or Mao cannot save him from it.
Even the enlargement of the wages is not a decision. ,,The enlargement of the working force’s price would be only a better payment for the slave but it doesn’t modify ahead his human emancipation” – says Marx. It’s wrote clear, unequivocally and it isn’t possible to understand it wrongly. But also the greatest economist of Tito – Kiro Gligorov – (even in 1983) was delivering lectures over all Yugoslavia in which he stated: ,,Socialistic trade production differs from the capitalistic…” It means that Gligorov as a highly state and party functionary in Yugoslavia during the reign of Tito didn’t know anything about the Marxism. It’s clear totally that this kind of functionaries contributed most of all others the socialism to stay unknown for the workers.
We have to ask ourselves: have read all of these men something from the works of Marx and Engels and were they thinking really about the social problems? The answer is negative because it is evident that neither they didn’t think nor they wanted to read. They just derived profit from the benefits and the privileges of their scientific titles and high states but the scientific truth neither was an interest for them nor they wanted to learn it. They kept the scientific truth in silent intentionally because they were professionally obliged to know it and announce it to the public. As soon as they had kept it in silent intentionally or they didn’t want to learn it then they did and they’re doing still crime against the humanity. Shaling says: ,,Who hides principles which can be announced to all people, he treats maleficent versus the mankind”. The victims of these genocidal evildoers are all died in different social conflicts, propertied disputes, died by some kind of illness which can be treated, died by reason of bad living standard, victims of different psychic sicknesses and by all that which results from the bad social state. The genocide of all of these evildoers is bigger than Hitler’s crime because their ,,teaching” contributes to situation of ,,war of all against all”.
Tomislav Zahov and Lazar Gogov,
The Peoples’ Friends
Heinz Dieterich asked himself ,,Latin America Need a Lenin?’’. We say categorical No! And of course we are gonna explain why. Likewise, Heinz Dieterich asked himself ,,Is it possible that the current modernization process bourgeois democratic Bolivarian repeat the feat of Lenin to be born XXI Century Socialism?’’. But, we shall prove that ,,the current modernization process bourgeois democratic Bolivarian’’ cannot bring to us a socialism without an economic emancipation of the Venezuelan workers, that this ,,process’’ would be not a revolution in favor of the workers, but a regress and quasi-political power. We shall prove that to make do with the Bolivarian revolution there is no need of ,,American Lenin’’ as Heinz Dieterich states, but planned economy and system of neoclassical democracy.
,,Lenin and Trotsky created the twentieth century socialism’’, it’s what Heinz Dieterich wants to see or what he wants to think it is. What Lenin and Trotsky created is war communism and capitalist New Economic Policy.
If the small Russian proletariat and a large number of peasantry were not ready to inaugurate socialism spontaneously (as envisioned by Marx), then Lenin and his professional cadre would do it for them. The result was war communism. Surplus crops produced by the peasants were taken by the government to support the Bolshevik civil-war forces and workers in thetowns. Labor was conscripted and organized militarily. The results were catastrophic. Industrial production by 1920 was 20 percent of the pre-war volume. Gross agricultural output fell from more than 69 million tons in the period 1909-1913 to less than 31 million in 1921. Sown area dropped from over 224 million acres in the period 1909-1913 to less than 158 million in 1921. From 1917 to 1922 the population declined by 16 million, not counting war deaths and emigration. Eight million persons left the towns for the villages from 1918 to 1920. In Moscow and Petrograd, the population declined 58.2 percent. With no incentive for the peasants to produce a food surplus, the government turned to confiscation, which further discouraged agricultural production. The peasants resisted the harsh government measures. ,,The peasant was required to deliver everything in excess of his own and his family's needs. Naked requisition from so-called kulaksof arbitrarily determined surpluses provoked the two traditional replies of the peasant: the short-term reply of concealment of stacks and the long-term reply of refusal to sow more land than was necessary to feed his om family’’(Edward Hallett Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923).
To reduce the antagonism toward Bolshevik government which appearedat the peasantry, Lenin had to consider on the Marxist line, i.e. to abolish the old social division of labor and thus to release the production forces of the whole population. On this malevolent relationship among the villagers towards the new (communist) government also warned Marx in 1874/5 year: ,,Either he hinders each workers' revolution, makes a wreck of it, as he has formerly done in France, or the proletariat (for the peasant proprietor doesnot belong to the proletariat, and even where his condition is proletarian, he believes himself not to) must as government take measures through which the peasant finds his condition immediately improved, so as to win him for the revolution; measures which will at least provide the possibility of easing the transition from private ownership of land to collective ownership, so that the peasant arrives at this of his own accord, from economic reasons. It must not hit the peasant over the head, as it would e.g. by proclaiming the abolition of the right of inheritance or the abolition of his property. The latter is only possible where the capitalist tenant farmer has forced out the peasants, and where the true cultivator is just as good a proletarian, a wage-labourer, as is the town worker, and so has immediately, not just indirectly, the very same interests as him.’’
The peasants, no longer fearing the return of the old landowners, turned their full attention to their other enemy, the Bolshevik state. Peasant uprisings ignited spontaneously throughout the country beginning in the spring of 1920, protesting shortages and government centralization. The climax came in March 1921, with the armed rebellion at the Kronstadt naval base, one-time Bolshevik stronghold. The sailors at Kronstadt sympathized with the rebellious civilians and formally called for an end to Soviet tyranny. The sailors' platform demanded freedom of speech, press, and assembly for workers, peasants, and political parties; release of political prisoners; and abolition of special privilege for Communist Party officials. "The platform promised the peasants full rights to do as they liked with their land, and advocated the ending of discrimination in food rationing’’ (Basil Dmytryshyn, The USSR: A Concise History).
Government efforts failed to end the rebellion peacefully, and thesailors set up a Provisional Revolutionary Committee on March 2,1921. On March 18, a force directed by Trotsky attacked the sailors' fortress and crushed the rebels. Some 15,000 participants eventually were killed without trial, but the incident led to essential changes in the Soviet Union, specifically to the New Economic Policy.
Further Heinz Dieterich, in accordance with Lenin, states: ,,Lenin insisted on the establishment of the Bolshevik Communist Party and autonomous working as a new international vanguard of socialist transformation’’. But was this strategy really as envisioned by Marx? Of course, no! It is only in the mind of Dieterich. At first the movement of the working class would be, Marx believed, unconscious and unorganized but in time, as the workers gained more experience of the class struggle and the workings of capitalism, it would become more consciously socialist and democratically organized by the workers themselves. The emergence of socialist understanding out of the experience of the workers could thus be said to be "spontaneous" in the sense that it would require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it about (not that such people could not take part in this process, but their participation was not essential or crucial). Socialist propaganda and agitation would indeed be necessary but would come to be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas would have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result would be an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically organized working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism. As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto, "the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority". This in fact was Marx's conception of "the workers' party". He did not see the party of the working class as a self-appointed elite of professional revolutionaries, as did the Blanquists, but as the mass democratic movement of the working class with a view to establishing Socialism, the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.
This was Marx's view, but it wasn't Lenin's. Lenin in his pamphlet What Is To Be Done?, written in 1901-2, declared: "Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside of the economic struggle, from outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers" (Lenin's emphasis, p.133). Lenin went on to argue that the people who would have to bring "socialist consciousness" to the working class "from without" would be "professional revolutionaries", drawn at first mainly from the ranks of the bourgeois intelligentsia. In fact he argued that the Russian Social Democratic Party should be such an "organization of professional revolutionaries", acting as the vanguard of the working class. The task of this vanguard party to be composed of professional revolutionaries under strict central control was to "lead" the working class, offering them slogans to follow and struggle for. It is the very antithesis of Marx's theory of working class self-emancipation.
So… what the fuck did mean this strategy in praxis according to Lenin?! It means that Lenin and his fellow-party members - Bolsheviks in January 1918 dismissed Constituent Assembly because at the elections - this historical event is after the revolution - The Socialist-Revolutionary Party (Esers) won 58% of mandates, but Bolsheviks grossly violated the right so Esers could form democratically elected governments. It is a crime and noncriminal because it can only be maintained through one-party dictatorship which made Bolsheviks. Lenin even said: ,,...Not sorry dictatorial methods to accelerate the acquisition of the German state capitalism..." (Lenin, Works in Serbocroatian, vol 28, pp. 514). Of course this anti-Marxist Bolshevik strategy has resulted in 1918 with Third Russian Revolution by Esers, which failed, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, exile, and execution of party leaders and members. In response, some SRs turned once again to violence. A former SR, Fanya Kaplan, tried to assassinate Lenin on August 30, 1918. The largest rebellion against the Bolsheviks was led by an SR, Alexander Antonov.
Having seized power before the working class (and, even less, the 80 per cent peasant majority of the population) had prepared themselves for Socialism, all the Bolshevik government could do, as Lenin himself openly admitted, was to establish state capitalism in Russia. Which is what they did, while at the same time imposing their own dictatorship over the working class.
Contempt for the intellectual abilities of the working class led to the claim that the vanguard party should rule on their behalf, even against their will. Lenin's theory of the vanguard party became enshrined as a principle of government ("the leading role of the Party") which has served to justify what has proved to be the world's longest-lasting political dictatorship.
,,Lenin and his party hegemonic fraction were the best and possibly only self-correcting of the New Historical Project which could prevent regression or distorted revisionist undemocratic’’ but unfortunately ,,his early death robbed the historical project of socialism of the twentieth century avant-garde who had created, leaving centrism in the hands of a terrorist (Stalin) who would destroy’’, explains Heinz Dieterich. This his statement is not only false from the scientific and historical point of view, but also ridiculous. Nonsense!
What should PSUV learn from the failures of Bolsheviks in relation to stimulate the Venezuelan workers and peasants in order to build up a genuine socialist and democratic society?
All people in the world are assured that the socialism fell apart and that the capitalism has returned. Meanwhile, till now in the history it was happening after the destruction of one determined social-economic system to come up another more developed, humaner and more progressive system. What kind of regression is it now and is it possible? What happens?
There is no any regression and it isn’t possible. It begins demolishing only the illusion which author is Lenin and the social ,,learned men” of the twentieth century couldn’t explain it and today they give quite wrong explanations about the same illusion.
Under the idea – social learned men – we shall include: the politicians and the doctors of economic, political, law, social, military sciences and the logic. It has to ascertain an opinion that they didn’t research the works of Marx and Engels and by reason of that, they couldn’t catch sight of and critic properly what Lenin did indeed and what it was completely incorrectly. It is quite obviously that they weren’t by any cause learned men when they couldn’t understand from the works of Marx and Engels even one conclusion, although they write in own works so clearly that it isn’t possible one not to understand them or become confused. It means, that all of social ,,learned men” of XX century are betrayers of the scientific truth and genocidal evildoers with highest rang because not only that they didn’t prevent any social conflict with human deaths but they conspire a concept of society which is found on private property over the means of production that leads to ,,war of all against all” (bellum amnium contra amnes).
It’s unyielding fact that Lenin is a creator of the Great October Revolution by which the working class conquested arm victory over the bourgeoisie not only in Russia than over all world too. It was a concrete proof that it was possible to obtain the bourgeoisie by fighting. Meanwhile, Lenin instead to extend the revolution on economic plan with the production – he abide by being a bond to the bourgeois pragmatism and he restored the trade economy. Four unfull years later, after successful arm victory, he ruined the Great October Revolution entirely by his ,,new economic policy” (NEP). As in the Great French Bourgeois Revolution: ,,Liberté, égalité et fraternité”, the socialism, found on capitalist production, was turned around unfreedom, inequality and struggle against each other.
Lenin wasn’t conscious about it and he consoled himself, and calmed the others down by his words: ,,It’s not dangerously, because the power will stay in the hands of the workers and the peasants, and by reason of that it will not restore the property of the capitalists and the land-owners”. It was catastrophic. It seemed that Lenin didn’t know that ,,the power in the hands of the workers and the peasants” couldn’t anything against the trade production. His misapprehension became an illusion of XX century and when it started ruining, the social learned men (it would be better and righter to say: the pseudo-learned men and the genocidal evildoers) began accusing Marx but without mentioning any mistake of him. And Marx wasn’t mistaken anything that we will see it from then on.
Against the end of the twentieth century, the antagonisms – immanent of the trade economy – sharpened to the states of being red-hot. First of all, the strikes and the demonstrations have begun in Macedonia (1988), afterward they carried over Montenegro and Bosna and Herzegovina and then they spread all Yugoslavia. And the ,,socialism” fell down over all European countries. And because that kind of ,,socialism” or pseudo-socialism doesn’t differ from those systems in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Libya, Venezuela…, it is just a question of time when and there the capitalism shall discover its monstrous face.
It poses a question: How was it possible the social intellectuals with scientific titles not to perceive all of that? Even one such as Sartre, Rasel or Lukač. And during the Lenin’s time and all twentieth century there were works of Marx and Engels – and besides whole anticommunist hysteria of the bourgeoisie class – by which it can be concluded that the socialism and the money-trade working are incoherent. In the ,,Poverty of the philosophy” by which Marx reviews to Proudhon, he says: ,,Who with the categories of the political economy builds the edifice of some ideological system, he disunites the members of the social system. Then he overloads every member of the society in a separate society and afterward these separate societies come forward one by one”. This conclusion says enough that it is not possible building of the socialism with money, banks, market, bidding, demand, credit and etc. It’s a lot strange that pseudo-learned men didn’t see it. Thinking that Marx became obsolete, they renamed all the categories of the political economy with ,,socialist” and they were assured that it was a scientific contribution to the socialism. So, there was a ,,political economy of the socialism”, a ,,theory and analysis on the balance”, a ,,science of the finances”, even there were lows which were transcribed from Bismark lows. Of course, when it’s restored the capitalistic material base the superstructure has to be capitalistic too. Pseudo-learned men treated with the categories of the political economy like the cannibal’s relation to the human meat when they renamed it with ,,chicken” and can eat it with good conscience.
There are attitudes in all works of Marx and Engels in which it asserts pronouncedly that the working class to alter her state – to liberate herself as a class, to emancipate herself – she has to extend the revolution into the production. It cannot be achieved by arresting and shooting at the owners over the means of production but with setting of the same into production by reason of production’s enlargement to need’s extent plus determined reserve. It’s a socialization over the means of production as opposed to the formal and bombastic declaration of socialization and essential withholding in private property of unproductive toil by withholding of the merchandise economy.
From essential socialization of the means of production it results: 1. Abolition of the market and the trade; 2. Abolition of the currency; 3. Abolition of the difference among the unproductive and the productive toil and 4. Abolition of the old social toil’s division: the state with all its attributes – the army, the police, the judicature and the administration etc. All these measures result from one by another and they are indispensable condition without its realization the socialism is not possible. The practice proved and proves it and by reason of that we shouldn’t retreat from the Marxism which is included only in the works of Marx and Engels.
In the pseudo-socialism by reason of the old capitalistic material base there was the old social toil’s division too but then it was and how overdid. In the name of some ,,proletarian” solidarity, the producer had ,,to exchange” his toil with ,,the workers” of security, administration, culture, including the priests and the prostitutes (they were ,,workers” according to Kardelj’s doctrine ,,Directions of the socialistic self-management development”). Instead to abolish the army, the police, the judicature, the pressmen, the writers, the actors, the sculptors… as professions, they renamed with workers and went into the factories learning the workers painting, playing on some musical instrument, acting, drama, writing, including a participation in practices of defense and protection.
The worker had to give his product over buying and selling to the mentioned ,,workers” but for return he obtained nothing. What can get the worker by that person who doesn’t produce anything for own existence and who exist by the produced of the workers? Nothing.
On many places Marx says that the worker is just a commodity over the trade economy which with its price enters into the value of the product – the stock that he produces. It’s a ,,natural” low, a physical low. And from that low the worker cannot rescue himself if you just tell him that the factory belongs to him and that the production is socialistic. He stays being a commodity at the political-economic sense and any kind of Lenin, Tito or Mao cannot save him from it.
Even the enlargement of the wages is not a decision. ,,The enlargement of the working force’s price would be only a better payment for the slave but it doesn’t modify ahead his human emancipation” – says Marx. It’s wrote clear, unequivocally and it isn’t possible to understand it wrongly. But also the greatest economist of Tito – Kiro Gligorov – (even in 1983) was delivering lectures over all Yugoslavia in which he stated: ,,Socialistic trade production differs from the capitalistic…” It means that Gligorov as a highly state and party functionary in Yugoslavia during the reign of Tito didn’t know anything about the Marxism. It’s clear totally that this kind of functionaries contributed most of all others the socialism to stay unknown for the workers.
We have to ask ourselves: have read all of these men something from the works of Marx and Engels and were they thinking really about the social problems? The answer is negative because it is evident that neither they didn’t think nor they wanted to read. They just derived profit from the benefits and the privileges of their scientific titles and high states but the scientific truth neither was an interest for them nor they wanted to learn it. They kept the scientific truth in silent intentionally because they were professionally obliged to know it and announce it to the public. As soon as they had kept it in silent intentionally or they didn’t want to learn it then they did and they’re doing still crime against the humanity. Shaling says: ,,Who hides principles which can be announced to all people, he treats maleficent versus the mankind”. The victims of these genocidal evildoers are all died in different social conflicts, propertied disputes, died by some kind of illness which can be treated, died by reason of bad living standard, victims of different psychic sicknesses and by all that which results from the bad social state. The genocide of all of these evildoers is bigger than Hitler’s crime because their ,,teaching” contributes to situation of ,,war of all against all”.
Tomislav Zahov and Lazar Gogov,
The Peoples’ Friends