capitalism [Theme] Page 2

In Russia we are experiencing (the third year after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie) the first steps of transition from capitalism to socialism or the lower stage of communism. Classes have remained and will remain everywhere for years after the conquest of power by the proletariat. Except maybe in England, where there are peasants (but there are small proprietors!), this time will be less. To destroy classes means not only to drive out the landlords and capitalists - that we relatively easy to do - it also means to destroy small producers, and they cannot drive, they cannot be suppressed, they have to get along, they can (and should) change, re only very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They surround the proletariat on all sides the petty-bourgeois element, it is impregnated with it, corrupting it to him, cause constantly inside the proletariat relapses petty of being spineless, of fragmentation, of individualism, of the transitions from passion to depression. Need the strictest centralization and discipline within a political party of the proletariat to resist to the organizational role of the proletariat (which is his main role) to carry out correctly, successfully, victoriously. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a stubborn struggle, bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, pedagogical and administrative, against the forces and traditions of the old society. The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most formidable force. Without a party of iron and tempered in struggle, without a party enjoying the confidence of all honest in the given class, without a party, able to follow the mood of the masses and to influence it, to conduct such a struggle successfully is impossible. To win large centralized bourgeoisie is a thousand times easier than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small proprietors, and they are their everyday, routine, invisible, elusive, demoralizing activity is carried out by the same results which the bourgeoisie need, which restore the bourgeoisie. Anyone who weakens the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship), actually helps the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

The monopolistic position of England singled out "labor aristocracy", promisance, opportunistic, from the "masses". The leaders of this labour aristocracy moved permanently to the side of the bourgeoisie, was, directly or indirectly, on the contents of it. Marx won himself the honourable hatred of the bastards for what was openly branded them traitors. Modern (twentieth century) imperialism created a monopoly-a privileged position for a few advanced countries, and on this basis everywhere in the II international described the type of leaders traitors, opportunists, social-chauvinists, defending the interests of his profession, his stratum of the labor aristocracy. Created isolation of the opportunist parties from the "masses", ie from the widest layers of workers, most of them, from Nahodka paid workers. The victory of the revolutionary proletariat is impossible without a struggle against this evil, without disclosure, opatrenia and expulsion opportunistic, social-traitorous leaders.

November 14, 1944, the year in Prague was established the Committee for the liberation of the peoples of Russia (ACPD), with the participation of Himmler, which included all the Soviet traitors: Russian, Ukrainian, Caucasian, Baltic.
In November, the 44th was already clear that the Reich - the end; we had only to choose whom to surrender, Russian or American. The Nazis - here's the paradox - I decided to surrender to the Americans, which actually was conceived by Himmler all this Prague performance. Strange how it turns out - if Hitler and Stalin are one and the same, why did the Nazis surrender to the Americans? Yes, because there is between fascism and American imperialism ideologically conflicts, not at all.

In the April theses Lenin stated: "Our main goal is not the introduction of socialism at once, but only the establishment of workers 'control over social production and public distribution".
The bourgeoisie was suggested this compromise, but in November 1917 he issued a decree on workers ' control, the bourgeoisie began to organize lockouts and sabotage all decisions of the Soviet government. The Bolsheviks went on the red guard attack on capital, it was a necessary measure.

Dismissing stories about the famine of the 30s, oligarchic government of Ukraine and Kazakhstan are trying to maintain its position. In the countries - inequality, poverty, corruption. By order of Nursultan Nazarbayev in Zhanaozen shot the workers, suppressing the trade unions. "No problem! You, above all, to communism do not contact!"

Why constantly compare the Soviet Union and tsarist Russia? Because tsarist Russia is an oligarchic project, and the Soviet Union is the national project. Now in power - the oligarchs, and they, naturally, are trying to trample into the mud people's project, and his oligarchic, to glorify. First used by historians-liberals, prostitutes, which "proved" that the war was won in spite of Stalin, and now use prostitutes-the black hundred, which "prove" that the war was won, thanks to Nicholas II.

The state is a repressive apparatus, an apparatus of violence, and the law in the state it is the will of the ruling class erected in the law. We - the socialist state; we create a legal system; all who undermine the foundations of the proletarian socialist state - they are criminals in conflict with the law, so be nice on the bench! Tell us about the repression of the Communists. So bourgeois repression - please - it's the law. And they are not under the law?!

To discredit the image of Lenin, Stalin's image, General image of the Soviet era - this is the dream of the entire bourgeoisie, the whole of the world bourgeoisie, because we have, unfortunately, since the time of Gorbachev's perestroika, when it seemed, was in power the Communist party (whose leadership broke straight renegades and as strike-breakers), they performed the social order of the bourgeoisie, that God forbid no one had a positive image of the Soviet experience, the positive image of Lenin, of Stalin, of Soviet achievements. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the whole of Soviet history to the history of the Gulag, and performs, for example, Mr. Dude.

The manufacturers and masters say that our workers are ignorant and rude - because with them and have to turn rude. In the working class we do have a little education and a lot of brutality, - this cannot be denied. Just who is to blame most? To blame the manufacturers, craftsmen, officials who keep themselves with the workers, as bars with the serfs, do not want to recognize in the work an equal human being. Workers handle a polite request or question - and meet everywhere swearing, rudeness, threats.

Science-fiction writer Robert Sheckley in one of his stories, "Nothing for Something", shows a man, signed with the devil, a sales agent, a contract in which he was offered eternal life and unlimited credit, which he could acquire a marble Palace, clothes, jewelry, a variety of services. For many years he enjoyed his wealth and one day got the account to which you want to work on the contract. 10 thousand years as a slave in the quarries for the use of the Palace, 25 thousand years as a slave in the galleys for banquets and 50 thousand years as a slave in the plantations for the rest. Ahead at it eternity.

During economic crises, those who have lost a significant part of their wealth, thrown out of Windows of skyscrapers. Their wealth was the fact that they are. Suicide on the basis of economic bankruptcy in this cultural value system is logical, it means the bankruptcy of the individual.

The bar of success high for most unattainable, making the lives of many unbearable. The majority lives in a state of "silent despair", blaming themselves, their human qualities ineligible companies. A sense of personal guilt is especially difficult is experienced by the poor and leads many to the complete demoralization.

The Soviet Union could solve problems which under capitalism were not solved: such as universal education, the industrial revolution, the growth of life expectancy and so on. Thus, socialism is a good choice for the "third world", in which the traditional, capitalist way to raise science, education, production technology does not work simply because the national bourgeoisie is interested in making profits only the easiest way - through the sale of natural resources.

The world economy is not a perfect free market, where everyone's waiting for you and want you to compete fairly. This is an area in which "developed" countries are constantly pressured through political, non-market instruments on an "undeveloped" country, so they have remained undeveloped. They strongly interfere with the development of education, science, high-tech production in the "developing" countries.