socialism [Theme] Page 2

Whoever came to power, in addition to Gorbachev, I think, the Soviet Union, he would not miss, the same Yeltsin, for example, with his animal instinct of power. Gorbachev himself, as a figure, was so weak that he was simply unable to cope with the situation. There are no objective prerequisites for the collapse of the Soviet Union was not. This is pure man-made action of some of the political and military elite of the country.

The Soviet Union - a country that poses a threat to the Western world. I'm not talking about a military threat. It actually was not... I mean the economic threat. Due to the planned policy and a peculiar combination of moral and material incentives, the Soviet Union managed to achieve high economic performance... the Soviet Union was a real opportunity to drive us from the world markets. Therefore, we have always taken action aimed at weakening the economy of the Soviet Union and the establishment of his domestic difficulties.

Thatcher in the 91st year, he acknowledged that the Soviet Union in the 80s represented for the West an economic threat. It was a problem for the West - to be or not to be for the ruling groups of the West, as well as, say, the situation in America in the second half of the 30s - to-be, you need to start the Second world war.

When Gorbachev was enacted two laws that destroyed the country. The law on individual labor activity, which legalized the underground economy. And the law on individual enterprise, which has destroyed the consumer market. This meant the beginning of a systemic crisis.

Gorbachev was put forward that part of the Soviet nomenklatura, the Soviet secret police, who decided to become owners. Americans accelerated this process, bringing down the oil and as if pushing these guys.

I believe in socialism because I believe it to be the most effective way of mobilizing human resources. Give equal rights to all, regardless of origin, sex or religion and you'll see the worth of each member nation. Give a man the best education that he could fully display their talents, and the wider you throw the net, the more such talents will open.

That's why the Soviet Union collapsed, because of career aspirations, many have joined the party, wearing the party ticket, and in essence were certainly not Communists.

To call the period of the Khrushchev thaw, well, certainly not. It was the slush that, like rust, eaten whole Soviet system, the entire party-state apparatus, and as a result we ended up with nothing.

The trade unions were the giant progress of the working class in the early development of capitalism as the transition from sparseness and helplessness of the workers to the rudiments of class Association. When became to grow the highest form of class Association of the proletarians revolutionary party of the proletariat (which will not deserve the name until it learns to bind the leaders with the class and with the masses into one, into something inseparable), then the trade unions inevitably began to discover the reactionary traits, a certain craft narrowness, a certain tendency to apoliticism, some stagnation, etc. But only through trade unions, through their interaction with the party of the working class anywhere in the world development of the proletariat was not and could not go. The conquest of political power by the proletariat is a gigantic forward step for the proletariat, as a class, and the party has even more and in new ways, not just in the old way, to educate the unions, to direct them, however, however, do not forget that they remain, and long will remain necessary "school of communism" and a preparatory school for the implementation of the proletarians of their dictatorship, the necessary Union of the workers for the gradual transition into the hands of the working class (not individual jobs), and then all the workers, the management of the entire economy of the country.

We can (and must) begin to build socialism not fantastic and not from a specially created us human material, but from that bequeathed to us by capitalism. This is a very "difficult", but just a different approach to the problem not so serious that it is not worth mentioning.

Capitalism inevitably leaves socialism the legacy, on the one hand, the old, centuries-old, professional and craft distinctions among the workers, on the other hand, trade unions which only very slowly, for years and years, can develop and will develop in a broader, less shops, industrial unions (covering the whole production and not just the workshops, craft or profession), and then, through these industrial unions, to move on to the destruction of the division of labor between people, to education, to the education and training of comprehensively developed and comprehensively trained people, people, who know how to do everything. This communism is, needs to go and come, but only through a long number of years. Today, almost trying to anticipate the next result is quite developed, it is strengthened and established, it is expanded and Mature communism, is still that four year old child to teach higher mathematics.

The same ridiculous childish nonsense I can not seem to us important, scientists completely and terribly revolutionary talk of the German lefts to the fact that the Communists can not and should not work in reactionary trade unions, that it is permissible to abandon this work that we must leave the trade unions and to create necessarily very new, very clean, very cute (and for the most part, probably very young) invented by the Communists "working Union," etc., etc.

War is not only the joining of national characters, moral and volitional qualities. The war in the first place it is monotonous mechanical work; it is a competition of set of gears and belts, duel economies, economic systems, approaches to work organization and production planning. The match State defense Committee won a powerful German corporations, American companies (which until Stalingrad continued to supply the Nazis with raw materials), the international banking houses and trust.

In the Soviet economy, of course, was the crisis elements, but they were structural in nature, not systemic; they are different things. That is the system itself the Soviet economy was quite competitive. This was recognized even by the leaders of the West: Reagan and Thatcher.