Putin on communism

[ev]

I was re-reading First Person and found this. (Interviewers question in bold text, Putins in normal text. - copy in link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/yeltsin/putin/chapter9.html))


But a Communist! You really wound up with a fresh face, didn't you! ... Listen, there has always been cooperation with the Communists in our Duma. Not a single law passes without support from the Communists. It seems to me that there is more than one way to deal with the Communists. They have every opportunity to become a modern parliamentary party in the European sense of the word. We have very many parties, groups, grouplets, and associations without any real social base. And then there are the Communists--the only large-scale, really big party with a strong social base, albeit one infested with ideological "roaches."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/yeltsin/art/blank.gif
Name the "roaches" for us.
For example, the demands to confiscate and nationalize property.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/yeltsin/art/blank.gif
That's not going to happen?
That's definitely not going to happen. We will not have another major tragedy. And we will not have a partnership with the Communists while they maintain that position. If some sort of unlawful actions in previous years were established and proven in court, that would be another matter. But nationalization and confiscation of property for their own sakes, without a judicial procedure is a catastrophe. If for no other reason than because they would clear the way for arbitrary rule.
Communists can either change their programmatic goals and become a major left-wing party of the European type, or they can take the other path and lose their social base through natural attrition. If they choose the latter, they will gradually exit the political stage.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/yeltsin/art/blank.gif
They themselves hardly believe that.
As surprising as it may sound, their leaders do understand. And they are prepared to change their ways. But right now they can't do it--they're afraid that their constituency will feel betrayed. And on that score, it's pretty important not to miss the moment--when and to what extent they can change internally.

What are your thoughts on this comrades?

[GPDP]

Wow, what a sleazebag.

[RedSonRising]

European Social Democrats are hardly the answer; people seem to confuse welfare states with worker democracies nowadays and it's getting irritating.

[cyu]

But right now they can't do it--they're afraid that their constituency will feel betrayed.
If he believes this about another party, there's little doubt he has the same belief about his own as well. You can only fool the people for so long - once technology catches up to you, the old ways will be numbered.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Basically, "We can cooperate with the communists if they stop being communists."

[ashaman1324]

Basically, "We can cooperate with the communists if they stop being communists."
lol
this was the only thing echoing in my head the entire read.
the communist party isn't doing too bad in cuba last i checked putin.:)

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Putin is welcome to go fuck himself.

The communists in Russia are the most organized and consistent elements in the opposition to him.

They will not drop their demand for reclaiming public property (i.e. nationalization). Yeltsin, Putin and other liquidationist, treacherous swine will not be in power forever.

[Kukulofori]

From the sounds of it, it seems more like he's opposed to the idea of giving the property to the state. Historically that has led to Stalin's famines, etc, so I can't really argue with him on that front.

Wasn't he a member of a communist party in college?

[ashaman1324]

From the sounds of it, it seems more like he's opposed to the idea of giving the property to the state.
how else do you go about achieving communism?
putin pretty much told the world that he wont negotiate with communists,
even with all their parliamentary influence.
thats the issue.

Historically that has led to Stalin's famines, etc, so I can't really argue with him on that front.
stalin for all his faults didn't cause bad farming conditions.

[Gleb]

lol @ wally

[Tatarin]

This kind of shows how much of a dedicated communist comrade, and a member of the great KGB, Putin really was.

[Wild_Fire]

Putin, needs to wake up and smell the Red Roses.

Firstly, that is seriously messed up logic-asking for a Communist to give up what fundamentally makes them a Communist in the first place.

Secondly, I don't see the above happening.

Thirdly, Putin needs a check with reality to see where the true power really lies.

In his own words..."And then there are the Communists--the only large-scale, really big party with a strong social base..."

[Drace]

Does anyone care? Really..

[Q]

Wow, Putin is against a post-Stalinist party that still has a "clause IV" in its constitution?
I'm truly shocked.

/sarcasm

[ev]

Wow, Putin is against a post-Stalinist party that still has a "clause IV" in its constitution?
I'm truly shocked.

/sarcasm

"clause IV" ?

The communists will take power again, its not if but when..

[Leo]

Nothing will change if the CPRF takes power in Russia. It is a very nationalist and a deeply socially reactionary party, supported by big businessmen such as Sobko. Not much else can be expected from the layer of the Russian bourgeoisie during the entire Soviet period - the layer from which Putin himself as well as Yeltsin came from.

Also real communists do not take power - it is the workers, workers' councils that should take power.

[Q]

"clause IV" ?

The communists will take power again, its not if but when..

It was a reference to the UK Labour party where Clause IV of its constitution called for the nationalisation of the economy. Blair has succesfully scrapped it (I think it was him, could be a bit earlier though).

Anyway, the CP of Russia has nothing to do with genuine communists. This is the party that governed the USSR and is still filled with old Stalinists, bureaucrats and careerists alike.

[Hessian Peel]

Anyway, the CP of Russia has nothing to do with genuine communists. This is the party that governed the USSR and is still filled with old Stalinists, bureaucrats and careerists alike.

Quite clearly it is not full of 'Stalinists', nor was the CPSU for decades before the dissolution of the USSR.

[ZeroNowhere]

For example, the demands to confiscate and nationalize property.
Um... I think we should stop complaining now?

[Qajmer]

I still think Putin is a lot better than Yeltsin in handling the west though, he is basically taking the western world head-on, and he doesnt diss the history of his people, like yeltsin had always done..you should give him some credit for that..:)

[PostAnarchy]

I still think Putin is a lot better than Yeltsin in handling the west though, he is basically taking the western world head-on, and he doesnt diss the history of his people, like yeltsin had always done..you should give him some credit for that..:)

No sorry, I don't. Putin is another representative of the Russian ruling class if he defends Russia's political ambitions better than Yeltsin does, I don't see any cause for revolutionaries to get excited about. Putin promoting nationalist chauvinism is nothing for revolutionaries to praise either. I think it's high time we started to drop all these personality cults with pseudo-populist leaders who with "anti Westernism" appeal to some in the Left so desperate for a "good guy" to root for they wind up supporting a capitalist evil of just another variety, but still an enemy that must be opposed.

[scarletghoul]

This is a big problem of having a one party communist state. People will join the party even if they are not communists, because it is the only way into government

[ev]

Also real communists do not take power - it is the workers, workers' councils that should take power.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying.. I define a communist as a supporter of communism, aren't you contradicting yourself? I thought workers could seize power and establishment a communist government, thus it would be communists taking power... Unless your suggesting workers taking power and setting up workers councils in a capitalists state which then I'd be assuming your advocating a planned market economy & therefore a capitalist or pseudo-communist state like the USSR.

In regard to the CPRF taking power I disagree that nothing would change, as a matter of fact, I believe that a lot of social problems in the Russian Federation would be fixed.

[ev]

It was a reference to the UK Labour party where Clause IV of its constitution called for the nationalisation of the economy. Blair has succesfully scrapped it (I think it was him, could be a bit earlier though).

Anyway, the CP of Russia has nothing to do with genuine communists. This is the party that governed the USSR and is still filled with old Stalinists, bureaucrats and careerists alike.

I google'd it ;) Thank you for elaborating. the CP of Russia has nothing to do with genuine communists that's a rather "bold" quote, I'm sure some of its members are genuine communists and could advocate change within the party, eventually the "old Stalinists" will die off, but it should be kept in mind that it is a historic part of its party. As for the bureaucrats and careerists, again there would be a legitimate faction that cares for the Russian worker and holds true communist ideals.

I believe that through time internal party reforms will correct these problems and put the CPRF on the correct path creating real communists. These reforms will be introduced by the youth of the party and future generations, the only thing stopping this are distractions like Unity (Russian Political Party) which advocates nationalism, the social problems and other things that are being neglected by Unity and its bueracrates and Oligarches will lead to its demise, it will destroy itself...

[Revy]

They're more like a far-right than a far-left party in how they act. Their proposed economic policy is social democratic, in the New Labour sense. They're overrun with chauvinistic nationalists, anti-Semites, homophobes, and yes, racists.

It might be true, that Putin is less reactionary than these "communists". In reality, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation uses this communist ideology on the surface because of its historical relevance within Russian history for them as patriots. This is why they adore Stalin because they feel he brought Russia to glory so it is relevant to their patriotism. It's not a continuation of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union since KPRF worships Stalin while the CPSU long abandoned Stalin in its de-Stalinization.

[Comrade_Red]

I do believe that they would be far better for Russia and the world than Putin.
and on Stalin, who cares? More than half of the people there see him in a positive light, so whatever.

[Comrade_Red]

and yeah, damnit. Putin is a damned traitor.

[Leo]

I'm not sure I understand what your saying.. I define a communist as a supporter of communism, aren't you contradicting yourself? I thought workers could seize power and establishment a communist government, thus it would be communists taking power... I don't think there can be a communist government either. Workers take control, establish a (semi)state and establish their dictatorship over that state. The communists participate in this as an organized world party, as a part of the working class. They are not "elected" as a ruling party though, they do not oversee the proletarian dictatorship over the state themselves, they participate in and encourage workers practicing their dictatorship over the state themselves. The organized world party of communists itself never takes or becomes identified with state-power or the government otherwise they tie their interests with a corrupting organ such as the state which would prevent them fulfilling the unique task of being the most radical voice among the working class pushing for advancement towards communism.

Communism can only be established by the whole of the working class. No part of it alone, not even the most radical, communist minority among the working class can establish communism by itself.


Unless your suggesting workers taking power and setting up workers councils in a capitalists state which then I'd be assuming your advocating a planned market economy & therefore a capitalist or pseudo-communist state like the USSR.
Nope, has got nothing to do with that.


In regard to the CPRF taking power I disagree that nothing would change, as a matter of fact, I believe that a lot of social problems in the Russian Federation would be fixed.Like what, homosexuality? Jews? Enemies of the Russian nation? :rolleyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

Communism can only be established by the whole of the working class.
...Seriously? The entire working class? Ouch.

[BIG BROTHER]

lol
this was the only thing echoing in my head the entire read.
the communist party isn't doing too bad in cuba last i checked putin.:)

I know man, what a fucken hypocrite! O yea and he doesn't the communist party to be communist because of their ideological roach of nationalizing property yet he is cooperating with Venezuela and therefore the PSUV, a party that at least in theory also wants to bring socialism to Venezuela...sigh:rolleyes:

[ev]

I don't think there can be a communist government either. Workers take control, establish a (semi)state and establish their dictatorship over that state. The communists participate in this as an organized world party, as a part of the working class. They are not "elected" as a ruling party though, they do not oversee the proletarian dictatorship over the state themselves, they participate in and encourage workers practicing their dictatorship over the state themselves. The organized world party of communists itself never takes or becomes identified with state-power or the government otherwise they tie their interests with a corrupting organ such as the state which would prevent them fulfilling the unique task of being the most radical voice among the working class pushing for advancement towards communism.

Of course they don't get elected but we are talking about socialism which is a prerequisite for communism, communism cannot exist in one country as there always remains the threat of outside interference by the bourgeoisie. I agree with what you said in regard to an organized world party of communists not affiliating itself with a state body such as that which exists in today's society.


Communism can only be established by the whole of the working class. No part of it alone, not even the most radical, communist minority among the working class can establish communism by itself.

The majority of the working class, in my opinion - not the whole. A democracy advocates the position of the majority taking into consideration the position of the minority. Logically, the whole working class would agree with communist ideas if they were taught them.


Like what, homosexuality? Jews? Enemies of the Russian nation? :rolleyes:

No, these are not social problems. The reasons why social problems would be fixed is because they would only get the votes and support to be put in power by the working class and the working class would vote for them because of the social problems that are fucking them over, hence it would be an expected obligation of the party to fix these problems as these problems in question would manifest from the capitalist socioeconomic structure, but hey, at least you tried ;) :rolleyes:

you love me.. :thumbup1:

[Comrade B]

Putin is a jack ass, and always has been one. He is not much more of a dick in my eyes having read this than he was before I did. To hell with him.
He is an opportunist bastard that can go rot in the same cell with Dick Cheney and all the other side seat drivers of modern capitalist politics.

[Leo]

...Seriously? The entire working class? Ouch.Well, an overwhelming majority of it anyway...


The majority of the working class, in my opinion - not the whole. Yeah, fair enough.


A democracy advocates the position of the majority taking into consideration the position of the minority. But the proletarian dictatorship is a dictatorship after all, not a democracy and could not grant any political freedom to other classes.


No, these are not social problems. Oh really? [I was being sarcastic]


The reasons why social problems would be fixed is because they would only get the votes and support to be put in power by the working class and the working class would vote for them because of the social problems that are fucking them over, hence it would be an expected obligation of the party to fix these problems as these problems in question would manifest from the capitalist socioeconomic structureHardly. The party in question, with it's bourgeois nationalist and conservative views and imperialist ambitions, the old ruling party of the exploiters of the Russian working class, would do nothing but be the next ruling party of the exploiters of the Russian working class if it was elected for govern the state body once again.


you love me.. :thumbup1:

:lol::sneaky:

[synthesis]

stalin for all his faults didn't cause bad farming conditions.

In practice, authoritarian governments can be unintentionally devastating, even assuming the best of intentions. The problem tends to be that when a particular policy is fucking up the lives of everyday people, and almost every government official is too afraid (or self-interested) to report the failure of that policy to those higher up in the bureaucratic hierarchy, the problem then gets exponentially worse.

So when an agricultural program fails and people wind up starving, the only people with the power to correct the problem don't even know about it because nobody wants to be the one to tell them that their policies have had devastating consequences, let alone that they were dumbasses to have implemented it in the first place.

[ev]

But the proletarian dictatorship is a dictatorship after all, not a democracy and could not grant any political freedom to other classes.

To the contrary of what you said, in society the majority is made up of the working class, therefore one can consider the implementation of a dictatorship of the proletariat to be a democratic act. Once this dictatorship has been implemented then all other classes would be abolished so this democracy would therefore be able to grant political freedom to the once class that exists, the working class.


Oh really? [I was being sarcastic]

Oh really? [shudup :p]


Hardly. The party in question, with it's bourgeois nationalist and conservative views and imperialist ambitions, the old ruling party of the exploiters of the Russian working class, would do nothing but be the next ruling party of the exploiters of the Russian working class if it was elected for govern the state body once again.

How can you say that?! That's like me saying tomorrow I'm going to win 15 million dollars in the lotto, nobody can predict the future, yes we can analyze the current circumstances and make an opinionated guess on how future events take place but to do this we need to know all the relevant facts. Can you also elaborate on how their views are conservative when they are advocating the change of the status quo and what their imperialistic ambitions are?

If they were elected, under the current political environment, they could (in theory) disregard current legislation imposed by Unity as a safeguard and convert Russia into a socialist state. The only opposition to this is Unity, but as i said before, even with the capital Russia has gained the current socioeconomic conditions will empower the 'communists' AND when that does happen I would assume the party would have made a lot more progress in composing its ideological orientation.



:lol::sneaky:

:wub::rolleyes:

[S. Zetor]

I've read Boris Kagarlitsky's book 'Russia under Yeltsin and Putin - A Neo-Liberal Autocracy', it's pretty good, though not as detailed and thorough as I hoped. The picture it gives of Russia is more like impressionistic, but I recommed the book nevertheless, as it deals with the failure of the left, too.

Kagarlitsky's assessment of the CPRF is that it has ceased to be a left party. I tend to be sympathetic to that view, based on what I've read elsewhere, but as I'm no expert on modern Russia's politics, the final verdict is still to come as far as I'm concerned.

Here's a quote from CPRF chair Gennadi Zyuganov, from a speech he gave at the party congress late this November. The nationalism in it doesn't sound good to me, because offhand I'm rather skeptical towards the idea expressed in it that Russians are oppressed in their own country. Now, this could be the case, but until someone or something convinces me of something else, I remain skeptical.

For clarity's sake I've eliminated all bold text that was in the original, and all emphasis that's in the text below are mine. My comments are in square brackets.

---

The Russian question is the key factor in uniting the two strands of social struggle. The Russians have become the biggest divided people in the world. 25 million of our fellow countrymen live outside the country. Ethnic Russians constitute 80% of Russia’s population. However, they have effectively been denied a decisive say in the country’s political, economic, information and cultural spheres. Look at the oligarchs who really run the country, at the list of those who dominate the mass media, and you will hardly need any further explanations.

[I'm not sure what this refers to, but somehow it sounds fishy.. somehow reminds me of some Jewish conspiracy theory..?]

However, for the working people there is no difference between the oligarchs of Slavic origin and the exploiters from amongst ethnic minorities. We seek to give back the stolen public wealth, the command heights in the economy and political power to the whole multinational people of Russia of which the Russian people forms the core. The humiliation of all the peoples of Russia can only be ended by giving them back the natural riches and nationalizing the main means of production. That is, through socialist transformation of Russia.

Our opponents are well aware that the liberation of the Russian people from the oppression of the oligarchs would liberate all the peoples of Russia. They understand that the Russian people forms the nucleus of the unique multinational community. If that nucleus is split, that community will fall apart and Russia will disappear.

[Somehow sounds like the "best among equals", "big brother" Great-Russian chauvinism of 2 WW..]

That accounts for the years of attempts to denigrate the Russian people, to infect them with an inferiority complex, to drive them into apathy, intimidate them by accusations of chauvinism and xenophobia, to separate them from other fraternal peoples by fomenting crude and primitive nationalism.

We come out resolutely against Russophobia. But we are also against nationalism which represents people’s morbid reaction to the suppression of their language, culture, customs and traditions and which the bourgeoisie uses to pursue the “divide and rule” policy.

[This part sounds good on the face of it, though it still might be part of "best among equals" type parlance.]

That question, if anything, is becoming ever more pressing. What do we propose as the immediate steps to solve the Russian question? Our programme was declared at the 10th Party Congress. It was closely examined by the Plenum devoted to the protection of Russian culture. In spite of fierce opposition from various sides, we will steadfastly seek to implement that programme. Below are its main items:

-Resisting any forms of Russophobia as extremist manifestations of instigation to ethnic discord.

-Real equality in the representation of Russians, like all the peoples of Russia, in government bodies from top to bottom.

-Protection of the Russian language. An end to the “Americanization” of our life, especially on television. Vigorous resistance to the spiritual aggression against the Russian people, its national and cultural traditions. Protection of the historical sacred monuments of Russian history.

-Proper representation of Russians in the information and cultural spheres, especially in the mass media.

-Equal opportunities for Russians and all the other peoples of Russia in the sphere of entrepreneurship.

-Vigorous protection of our compatriots abroad. [I wonder what kind of things this includes.]

[Eros]

Didn't the CPRF support the inter-imperialist skirmish in Georgia? At the time I remember reading somewhere that they were calling on people to donate blood for wounded Russian soldiers or something. They might be better than Putin but that doesn't make them communists. Would they not be quite similar in political orientation to the CCP or CPV etc? :confused:

[Eros]

The Russian question is the key factor in uniting the two strands of social struggle. The Russians have become the biggest divided people in the world. 25 million of our fellow countrymen live outside the country. Ethnic Russians constitute 80% of Russia’s population. However, they have effectively been denied a decisive say in the country’s political, economic, information and cultural spheres. Look at the oligarchs who really run the country, at the list of those who dominate the mass media, and you will hardly need any further explanations.

[I'm not sure what this refers to, but somehow it sounds fishy.. somehow reminds me of some Jewish conspiracy theory..?]

However, for the working people there is no difference between the oligarchs of Slavic origin and the exploiters from amongst ethnic minorities. We seek to give back the stolen public wealth, the command heights in the economy and political power to the whole multinational people of Russia of which the Russian people forms the core. The humiliation of all the peoples of Russia can only be ended by giving them back the natural riches and nationalizing the main means of production. That is, through socialist transformation of Russia.

Our opponents are well aware that the liberation of the Russian people from the oppression of the oligarchs would liberate all the peoples of Russia. They understand that the Russian people forms the nucleus of the unique multinational community. If that nucleus is split, that community will fall apart and Russia will disappear.

[Somehow sounds like the "best among equals", "big brother" Great-Russian chauvinism of 2 WW..]

That accounts for the years of attempts to denigrate the Russian people, to infect them with an inferiority complex, to drive them into apathy, intimidate them by accusations of chauvinism and xenophobia, to separate them from other fraternal peoples by fomenting crude and primitive nationalism.

We come out resolutely against Russophobia. But we are also against nationalism which represents people’s morbid reaction to the suppression of their language, culture, customs and traditions and which the bourgeoisie uses to pursue the “divide and rule” policy.

[This part sounds good on the face of it, though it still might be part of "best among equals" type parlance.]

That question, if anything, is becoming ever more pressing. What do we propose as the immediate steps to solve the Russian question? Our programme was declared at the 10th Party Congress. It was closely examined by the Plenum devoted to the protection of Russian culture. In spite of fierce opposition from various sides, we will steadfastly seek to implement that programme. Below are its main items:

-Resisting any forms of Russophobia as extremist manifestations of instigation to ethnic discord.

-Real equality in the representation of Russians, like all the peoples of Russia, in government bodies from top to bottom.

-Protection of the Russian language. An end to the “Americanization” of our life, especially on television. Vigorous resistance to the spiritual aggression against the Russian people, its national and cultural traditions. Protection of the historical sacred monuments of Russian history.

-Proper representation of Russians in the information and cultural spheres, especially in the mass media.

-Equal opportunities for Russians and all the other peoples of Russia in the sphere of entrepreneurship.

-Vigorous protection of our compatriots abroad. [I wonder what kind of things this includes.]

Chauvinistic nationalist garbage.

[Cheung Mo]

"We can support the Communist Party if they stick to running oligarchs, baiting Jews, bashing gays, falsifying the legacies of Marx and Lenin, and demanding that the Orthodox Church canonize Stalin. We cannot support them if they are communists, however."

[Leo]

To the contrary of what you said, in society the majority is made up of the working class, therefore one can consider the implementation of a dictatorship of the proletariat to be a democratic act.

I wouldn't be in favor of considering it "democratic" because of what is understood from the term democracy.


Once this dictatorship has been implemented then all other classes would be abolished. Once this dictatorship has been implemented then all other classes would be abolished so this democracy would therefore be able to grant political freedom to the once class that exists, the working class.


I think this is an unrealistic and unmarxist approach, although it seems desirable on paper. Classes can't be abolished overnight, the term dictatorship of the proletariat itself is one that implies the existence of classes. It takes a whole period, a period of transition to abolish classes: and such period can't be democratic in any meaningful sense of the term. And of course after this point, there would be no working class as well in any meaningful sense of the world, and no dictatorship of the proletariat either: there only would be a free association of creative workers.


How can you say that?!

I don't see why a party with such positions and history should do any better now than what it did while in power in the past.


That's like me saying tomorrow I'm going to win 15 million dollars in the lotto, nobody can predict the future

True, no one can predict the future, but nevertheless it's rather like saying that you aren't going to win 15 million dollars in the lotto tomorrow.


Can you also elaborate on how their views are conservative when they are advocating the change of the status quo and what their imperialistic ambitions are?

They are anti-semitic: http://www.adl.org/russia/russian_political_antisemitism_3.asp

They are homophobic: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3617/1/191/

They are nationalists: http://www2.nupi.no/cgi-win//Russland/polgrupp.exe?Communist+Party+of+the+Russian+Federa tion http://www2.nupi.no/cgi-win//Russland/polgrupp.exe?Peoples+Patriotic+Union+of+Russia

As stated, they supported imperialist actions comitted by the Russian state such as the invasion of Georgia. They are for the regaining of the ex USSR lands.

Their understanding of "changing the status quo" simply means they want to become the ruling party. They are as much for changing the status quo as Obama was against Bush.