Thursday , May 28 2020
Home / economy / The theory of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Part 4

The theory of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Part 4

Теории реставрации капитализма в СССР. Часть 4

Look at the history of socialism in the USSR and the cause of the collapse – not an easy task as it seems at first glance. You can specify to different shortcomings of the Soviet country, which undoubtedly took place in the past, but why they became a stumbling block in the construction of communism, will have to prove all the rules of science. Otherwise, what good Communists from unproven theory?

Теории реставрации капитализма в СССР. Часть 4

But while readers have the time to look into the already existing strengths of the authors are Marxists and to draw preliminary conclusions.

No. 10 Theory Dobrov

Vladimir Dobrov – member of the Union of writers of Russia, the researcher of the Stalinist period.

= = =

So, after the death of Stalin to the party helm of the state and people came far from Communist beliefs. Those petty opportunists — Khrushchev as the representative of the leftist-Trotskyite, Brezhnev as the representative of the right, social-democratic bias — which Lenin and Stalin fought all his political life. Why did this happen? There are many reasons, but the main objective connected with the specificity of Russia. Lenin in his works, consistently emphasized the extreme danger in Russia, the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influence on the small Russian proletariat, susceptibility to this influence of the party and state apparatus. However, these features repeatedly noted in Lenin’s articles and speeches, proper attention was not sought.

Permanent emergency, through which passed the young Soviet state, was inevitably reflected in the party’s statutory norms and principles of her life. In difficult and busy years of socialist transformation, the great Patriotic war, the Communists often had to come to the fore, pushing aside the direct perpetrators, those who in normal circumstances was supposed to do the job. And there was no other choice — the fate of the socialist state, the people, betrayed by his ideals, had to close his body embrasure. But Lenin urged Communists not to substitute professionals, experts in their field, and to organize their work, to establish effective control over their activities, involving wide layers of workers. As the leading and guiding force of social development, the party was not supposed to merge with the administrative apparatus to intervene in his ongoing work. The party’s main task was the development prospects of the country, the most effective ways of socialist construction, as well as the everyday active ideological and educational work among the masses. [14]

As already mentioned, in the last years of Stalin’s life more bothered by the social situation in the country, especially spiritual and moral atmosphere in society. It would seem a great victory of Soviet people in the recently ended war, was to raise the spiritual power and high ideological mood of the people. Instead, there was some psychological fatigue and relaxation, moreover, the increase of the recurrence of bourgeois-consumer attitude to life, the spread of alien socialist ideology and moral sentiment in the General population. These sentiments are stronger felt in the ruling Communist party. [14]

Numerical in the Soviet Union in the prewar and postwar decades continued to dominate the peasantry, in Marxist terminology, the petty-bourgeois strata. In the course of socialist transformations, the working class has grown numerically, but largely due to the deterioration of its qualitative composition. It healthy proletarian nucleus in the course of industrialization 30 years has also blurred the massive influx of peasant contingent from the village. Many Communists, advanced workers were killed on the fronts of the great Patriotic war, have screamed during the post-war reconstruction. They were both in the state apparatus, and manufacturing replaced people with a rather Philistine-narrow-minded than proletarian, the “Communist” attitude. All this, of course, fueled alien to socialism trends and developments. [14]

Because capitulated (CPSU approx.ed), and therefore allowed to destroy the country and restore capitalism, which has been top to bottom the petty-bourgeois degeneration, ceasing in fact to be the Communist party. In the party ranks by the time of Gorbachev’s perestroika was dominated by membership liability, Philistines and opportunists of various stripes, these Communists were in insignificant minority, they not only listened, they were expelled from the party detached from the people, “oboroncertifica” and “takamisawa” chiefs in the indifferent silence of the majority. Cease cleansing clogged and spread out the party, tore her from both the working class and of all the people, made helpless and powerless appendage of the administrative apparatus.

Stalin with his revolutionary instincts and Bolshevik intolerance are alien to socialism phenomena adhered to a class approach and practice kept growing “cancer” of capitalism. Another thing is his hapless successor at the helm of the party and state, officially nominated the utterly false position of “nationwide” state. Provisions which have completely broke with the Marxist-Leninist approach, which requires a strictly objective, truly scientific assessment of the state of social development, without any of her “pink” embellishment, even for the obvious propaganda advantages. It “nationwide” in the theory discovered in practice, all gateways hushed and hidden in society from time to time anti-socialist, petty-bourgeois and even bourgeois trends and moods, it actually starts the descent of the socialist rails and limp, and then it is a conscious drift towards the restoration of capitalism. [14]

Not otherwise complete political stupidity and moronic reasons for the continued accusations of Stalin reached its peak in the period of Gorbachev’s perestroika that he is everywhere de “imagined class enemies”. Like the rapid and widespread restoration of capitalism in the former Soviet Union showed that the enemies of the socialist state was really a lot. Direct and indirect damage they caused to the people of his open betrayal and treachery, far exceeded that which the country suffered from Nazi aggression. At least Hitler failed to destroy the economic and defense potential of the Soviet Union, dividing it into separate vassal to the West of the state.

If Khrushchev and Brezhnev decomposed and undermine socialism, as they say, “quietly”, not being able to cope with the growing petty-bourgeois element, that Gorbachev and Yeltsin has openly committed itself to the restoration of capitalism. That’s really the true enemies of the people and servants of the bourgeoisie, big comprador, that is, treacherous to his country and his people of the oligarchic bourgeoisie, reigned on the ruins of the Soviet Union! [14]

In short, the enemies were much more than expected by Stalin, even in the worst of your fears. He, however, prepared a new large-scale purge in the early 50-ies, but, as noted above, tarried with her. This took advantage of the Trotskyist double-dealer Khrushchev, who was holding a grudge against the Stalinist course and rely in their actions on the Philistines and opportunists with party tickets, climbed to senior positions in the party and state apparatus. [14]

The justice of Lenin’s position on the shift in the course of socialist construction the center of gravity of the class struggle in the ideological and spiritual sphere, into the public melting of morals and consciousness of the people was confirmed by subsequent events. Two thirds of those who held the highest party and government posts in the period of Brezhnev’s rule, were from the working or peasant community that did not save them in their majority of petty-bourgeois degeneration and the actual collaboration with the forces who openly seek to restore capitalism. [14]

Mao Zedong gave a precise class assessment cleansing of personnel in the country, that failed to make in the Soviet Union Stalin. With all the costs and excesses of the great proletarian cultural revolution has cleared a path to the helm of the state truly loyal to his people, the cause of socialism frames. Among them, by the way, and the current General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee Hu Jintao who was the “young guard” of the rebels. [14]

As already mentioned, the policy of raising the material well-being in isolation from other aspects of ideological and political nature, the recording by Stalin turned under Khrushchev, and then Brezhnev and the leadership of the mass spread of consumer psychology, the cult of “materialism”, which of course account for the very foundations of socialism in the country. Paradoxically, the fact. In 30-ies — 50-ies of the spiritual and moral health of the Soviet people, their teamwork, optimism, confidence in the future was the envy of the whole world. Indeed, a simple worker in those years was a genuine master of the country. This is when the material standard of living, is much inferior to that which was at that time the workers of the developed capitalist countries. But when he began to rise, when, finally, wide sections of the people felt serious improvement in their material conditions, ideological and spiritual-moral climate in society began to deteriorate. Winning financially, the Soviet people lost one of the main — light and joyful the feeling of life, the spirit of teamwork and confidence in the future, in a word, all that spiritual attitude which gave him socialism.

Turns out, the material prosperity undermines such an attitude? Not at all. The rise of welfare in 30 years, on the contrary, contributed to the spiritual and moral recovery of the same people, and it is an undeniable fact. But then the head of state was Stalin. He unlike his incompetent successors could control the course of events, they went on about petty, who was carrying the country toward socialism. [14]

No. 11 The Theory Of Pikhorovich

Vasily Dmitrievich Pikhorovich (other information the author has asked not to specify).

= = =

Neither the 1917 revolution or the subsequent civil war did not solve and could not solve the question about the destruction of the bourgeoisie, and especially of the proletariat, as a class of bourgeois society. The revolution destroyed the state machine expressing the interests of the bourgeoisie and transferred power to the Soviets – the organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The civil war was the attempt by the reaction of the bourgeoisie in Alliance with the remnants of the landed class with the support of foreign capital by military means to regain what was lost during the revolution. And the attempt failed. [15]

Inherited from the tsarist regime and strengthened many times the post-war devastation of economic stratification not only made it impossible to immediately do away with the bourgeoisie as an economic class, likewise determined as was done with its political domination, but, on the contrary, forced the proletarian state to take some if not a Union, to compromise with the bourgeoisie in the struggle against even more retarded, even more reactionary forces. The largest such compromise was the NEP. [15]

Then, in the early 20’s, the assumption of free trade, leading, whether we like or not, to capitalism, in fact, ultimately led to communism, at least, created the necessary base in order that the revolution could survive to the proletarian government of Palo. Preserving the power of the workers was a pledge that will be a victory for socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat fought with danger are inevitable in conditions of free trade strengthening of capitalism not only because it created favorable conditions for a socialist economy in its competition with the capitalist and small-scale element, but also by direct suppression of capitalist elements. Anyway, already in the early 30-ies of the parasitic class in the USSR was over. Productive functions of the bourgeois class – the disposal of capital, production planning and distribution assumed by the state. With the victory of the collective farm system had virtually disappeared another class of pre-revolutionary society – the peasantry. [15]

It is a pity that done this event, it was not until the end. Instead of focusing on the transformation of agriculture in the branch of industrial production through its maximum scientific and technical equipment and scientific organization of labor, with some time we went towards preserving the village’s living conditions and becoming citizens in Procrustean by mass introduction of vegetable gardens. What used to the Soviet government tolerated out of necessity – self products and individual building (it seems that it is not worth anything to society, although in reality all this has caused enormous damage not only through the theft of building materials, but also through the inappropriate use of free time, which sunk and were lost for society and individuals) with a certain time began to be promoted as the main line of development. As a result, the process of overcoming differences between town and country stalled. [15]

Simultaneously, through the nationalization of large and medium industries was done away with the old capitalist and the working class. The NEP, for a while revived the bourgeoisie was not able to revive the working class, characteristic of capitalist society. The working class which exercises power, it is not the working class. Of course, the nationalization of large and medium property, this is not the socialization of production in fact, the abolition of classes in capitalist society is not the abolition of classes in General. But by 1936, the USSR was a completely new working class – the working class without a bourgeoisie that no longer have the working class of capitalist society, but not the Association of “free workers”, since the form of labour (wage) is largely remained the old, i.e. bourgeois. It should be borne in mind that we are talking only about the external form of the work, not about its content. Work still got paid, not worked “without rules and rewards”, in order of “first necessities of life”, but it did not work for the capitalist, and society, and therefore on themselves. [15]

30-tide years is a personal interest in the development, care, from centuries of darkness and oppression, to use provided by the Soviet power to rise to the heights of culture, science and to participate directly in the management of the company and served as the basis of enthusiasm. It was already not the enthusiasm of individuals, which indeed it was impossible to build socialism. It was mass enthusiasm, and personal interest, on which it was based, was also massive. Such enthusiasm is quite possible to build socialism. [15]

We must not forget that 30-ies, when the country was a 7-hour day, when there were industrialization, collectivization and cultural revolution, which overturned from top to bottom the entire former rotten Empire, when the country was ruled by “cooks children”, among other things, was a time of intensive economic development: annual average growth in industrial production in the tens of percent.

In 1940, in view of the impending danger of the war had to go on an eight-hour day and seven-day working week. When the war started, then some free time for self-education and cultural development could not be considered. The war abruptly ceased in the ensuing broadest scale cultural revolution, at the same time have stopped and this process of self-destruction of the working class. However, it was not in the war itself, and that after her power had been aimed more at the restoration of what was before the war, than to move forward. Moreover, restored towns and villages, industry and agriculture, but not the direction of changes in the structure of society that prevailed in the prewar period. Public relations are mostly preserved those that had developed during the war, or to be more precise, the relationships that were formed during the war in the army. Of course, it was a relationship of command and subordination. War other relations does not accept. For war they are in fact extremely effective. And it’s not that they are not suitable for peace conditions. The fact that it is not Communist relations is the relationship exploitative society (war – even it is not Communist, communism will be no war, but there is no communism, and Communists have to fight and fight according to the laws of war prevailing, you know, not under communism). [15]

Alcoholism and the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat very interrelated. They are mutually the roll of our socialist production in the direction of strengthening and extending the scope of commodity production. It is the sale of alcoholic beverages nourishes commodity production is better than anything else. And commodity production erodes the dictatorship of the proletariat, though not without the help of the same spirits. And during the NEP confrontation demoralizing effect of the strengthening of commodity relations in the state apparatus were given to the Bolshevik party is not so easy. Partmaksimum (member of the party could not get salary more than a certain amount, all that her exceed, were given to party funds), periodic party purges, which were carried out very serious party committees publicly, so to speak and say what he thinks on this head could be anyone, not to mention the fact that the GPU also on alert. This is not a complete list of measures, which enabled the party to withstand the attack of the market unchained, under the control of the proletarian state. But perhaps the biggest was that I was still alive party tradition of pre-revolutionary period, when the people gave the party not only everything they had, but the life, not expecting anything in return. Agree that it is something other than frontline tradition of daily drinking.

And not in that trouble that the party has waived the right of pre-war traditions and acted by inertia wartime, not noticing the differences in the objectives of the war (destruction) and peace building (creation, not only of material goods but the creation of socialism). The party acted just like she acted after the civil war. For positions nominated in the first place, those comrades who had been through the war manifested itself in the struggle. And this principle has completely justified itself. But nominated in the civil war was actually the polls of professional revolutionaries, while those who moved during the great Patriotic war, was the only professional military. The first were experts in the destruction of old social relations and the creation of the new. It was a condition of our victory over the forces of internal counterrevolution and interventionists. For the sake of victory in the great Patriotic war we had, on the contrary, go largely to the restoration of the old relations in the army (officers, shoulder straps, taking to arms a military history of the Russian tsarist government). These were not purely external camouflage. Was making a very real relationship. Officers ‘ epaulettes were supported by food certificates, a significantly higher allowance and quite advantages when applying for a job. The revival of patriotism for the war effort pulled for a fact that he over time, especially after Stalin’s death, becomes a principle of state policy and, ultimately, the principle of educating the younger generation. [15]

The transition to capitalism was not the result of a political coup perpetrated by the bourgeoisie after the defeat of the coup in 1991. On the contrary, the political revolution was the result of slipping of the Soviet society to capitalism, which by 1991 almost completely ended.

On the economic side, the counter-revolutionary coup in the Soviet Union can be represented as a revival of the mixed economy after a long time the socialist way of life completely dominated. Completely dominated, not means the only one. Even the Patriarchal way of life (subsistence farming) remained in the Soviet Union until the very end of existence; the overwhelming majority of the rural population itself has made a huge part of consumption of food due to household plots and livestock, and did not receive them from the companies or through the exchange.

Small-scale (“kolkhoz” markets) and of private capitalist (speculation and all sorts of criminal economic transactions) structures in the Soviet Union was kept to a minimum and were on the verge of extinction. But the state-capitalist system in the USSR has experienced an interesting evolution. [15]

In 20-ies, 30-ies the path to the abolition of classes, including the working class, was through the transformation of peasants into workers during the war years it was necessary to think not of the destruction of classes and the preservation of the socialist state. Because the state-capitalist system and the socialist in such circumstances, standing together against all other structures as planned spontaneous. The difference between them consisting in the fact that in terms of one planning serves only to increase production, and in the other among other things, should contribute to the abolition of classes, the destruction of the division of labor, in attention are not accepted. If planning within the framework of the state capitalist order liquor and tobacco trade acts as the object of state monopoly (very much profitable the business) and later this will not jump, the socialist system aims at the destruction of these bad habits, because they destroy the main purpose of his planning – human. Similarly with education. In the framework of the state capitalist order the socialist society education funds should be allocated as to suffice (with some margin) to prepare a skilled workforce for existing productive forces under socialism, education should be continuous. The production process itself should merge with the process of education and not education should serve the production, and the production must be completely subordinated to the aims of education, that is, universal human development. Communism embodies Hegel’s idea that education has the ability to do all that I can do more.

We feared universal education of people, destruction of division of labor. The result was the decay of the working class. His degradation. He gave their best shots. They ceased to be workers, but the working class did not cease to be himself, he stopped in his self-destruction, so as a result it returned to its original state – became a nobody, that is, the working class of a capitalist society where the bourgeoisie does not come from abroad and did not rise from the dead and came from the ranks of the ruling yesterday of the working class, once again confirming the old truth of Marxism that industrial relations is a derivative of the productive forces. Began to build the productive forces on the basis of marketability, has received the appropriate relations of production – the capitalist, as the developed form of commodity production is capitalism. [15]

No. 12 Theory Kovalev

Aristarch A. Kovalev – doctor of economic Sciences, Professor, member of the Presidium of the CA RUS.

= = =

With the development of material-technical base and strengthening of the socialist relations, the class struggle has not disappeared, but only increased. The bourgeoisie and the landlords, deprived of the means of production, land, retained funds, communications, ideology and Alliance with the world bourgeoisie fought against the power of the proletariat, organizing conspiracies, explosions, riots, etc.

Resisted the authorities and the part of the bureaucracy, which limited the working of democracy tried to implement their position in their own selfish interests. Speaking about the hazards of bureaucracy, Lenin was forced to admit: “the Communists have become bureaucrats. If anything will destroy us, it is”. [16]

All these main forces are formed essentially anti-socialist class with his political opposition, which in all ways conducted subversive work against the Soviet regime. And the higher was the threat of external attack, the greater the resistance was internal. Against anti-socialist forces mainly and was sent to repression 30-ies, seized, unfortunately, many innocent people. Note that for the same reasons and with the same objectives, but even more tragic consequences were “cultural revolution” in China in the 60-ies of the last century, and was held under favorable external circumstances without the threat of external attack, which was the Soviet Union.

In a brutal battle with the class enemy and in this regard, the presence of the Almighty state apparatus, the working of democracy in that time was relatively low. However, it should be noted that the weakness of the working of democracy is characteristic not only of the 1930-ies. Already since 1919, began the policy of weakening the participation of workers in management of production, curtailment of powers of the factory committees and strengthen one-man management in the enterprises. This line on the shift from collegiality in the management of unity of command continued and then Stalin. In terms of unity of command and restrictions on the rights of labor collectives in production management elections to the authorities on the production principle, was formal. The same formal was then and activities of councils of labor collectives, the enterprises formed in accordance with the Law on enterprises in 1987, in connection with the subordination of their interests to the administration of the enterprises. Therefore, the abolition of this principle in the Soviet Constitution of 1936 had no fundamental importance, although, of course, was a step backwards in the development of a working democracy.

However, in these conditions, when it took extraordinary concentration of resources, will and authority in one center, and the state apparatus became largely in a relatively independent force, the working class, in fact, remained the main force of the society, and the influence of the working masses in one form or another, was strong enough to make the device worked in their vital interests, the principle of “workers”, although to a lesser extent “through workers.” [16]

In the postwar period, in the 1960-ies arose new problems of socialism in the USSR. The main problem is raising the living standards of the people, tormented by war and the constant the universal-saving mode. It was necessary to develop production on a new technical basis, given that in the West at that time already successfully developed new informational the scientific and technical revolution, which opened tremendous opportunities for the accelerated development of production and rapid increase in living standards of the people.

This required a powerful new driving forces, new incentives for more productive work. And the country’s economy were translated into market-oriented path of development work for the sake of profit, which ultimately led to the restoration of capitalism. [16]

In form it was similar to the transition in the 1920s from requisitioning to the tax in kind with a market turnover. Consequently, the transition to a market economy as would be consistent with Lenin’s approach. In addition, according to Stalin, commodity-money relations had socialist contents and did not contain genes of parasitism and the danger of restoration of capitalism. However, this approach turned out to be a trap.

The fact that in 1920-ies is dominated by small retailing and it matched the introduction of market turnover. But in the 1960-ies was already dominated by large, highly concentrated production, which demanded no longer “invisible hand” of the market, and gain a conscious systematic centralized control with the development of horizontal contractual relations between producers and consumers in the framework of the planned system using the planned prices.

Large-scale production contrary to market forces. [16]

Bureaucracy, which is so feared, even Lenin, and which is very deeply rooted in the conditions of years of “state of emergency”, with its administrative methods of management, in principle, was alien to the spirit of government workers, of control from below. Not coincidentally, that was abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat was proclaimed “people’s state” and the Communist party from the party of the working class has become the party of all the people (at the XXII Congress of the CPSU in 1961). But the Holy place is never empty. Is the leading role of the working class was taken by the bureaucracy. These culminated in the shooting of workers in Novocherkassk (June 1962), which struck a blow for the working class and of socialism in General, and the bureaucracy is even more strengthened their positions. [16]

However, no matter how poisonous and dangerous bureaucracy, he wasn’t so all-powerful to destroy socialism. Over time, all the more threatening became the capital accumulation and enrichment of a part of heads of the enterprises at the expense of shadow profit and development of the shadow economy that is increasingly gaining momentum
In these conditions, the parasitism of the higher interests of corrupt bureaucracy and Pro-bourgeois part of the business leaders, all mutually intertwined, spliced, forming a single anti-socialist class, opposing the forces of socialism. Rooted, they have exerted their corrupting influence on all aspects of life. [16]

On the introduction of new information technological revolution is also focused on sectors of the defense industry and other priority sectors of the economy and a matter of secondary importance was the introduction of new technology in most enterprises of other industries. The interest of the executives also were aimed at achieving the quantitative indicators at the expense of quality, to the underestimation of the production plans. [16]

Very noticeable was the shortcomings in the implementation of the law of distribution according to work as the main incentive to work. Low differentiation in the remuneration of employees of enterprises decreased motivation in effective work. She was partially offset by various bonuses for skilled workers, and higher management staff – numerous awards, often in excess of the amount of all reasonable limits that do not have incentive.

In the political sphere were sensitive of dissent, excessive restrictions of socialist democracy.

In the ideological life – often the hypocrisy, the lies and hypocrisy poisoned the socialist morality; egoism, selfishness, and greed undermined the labor way of life of the Soviet people with his commitment to honesty and fairness.

Speaking about the external factor of the defeat of socialism in the USSR should be noted immediately that the imperialist countries have always waged a struggle against Soviet power, first against the Bolsheviks since they came to power in 1917, during the military intervention in Soviet Russia in 1918-20-ies of the 20 years, through blockades, sanctions and threats, then the Americans funded, armed and incite the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany. After the end of World war II to destroy the Soviet country, the United States spent trillions of dollars, a great intellectual, military, intelligence and other resources. [16]

Under the flag of the Communist party in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR were different currents and factions, including those representing the interests of the bureaucracy and Pro-bourgeois elements. As for the Communists, staunch supporters of socialism and really represents the interests of the majority of workers, they are in the majority were already very far from decisive, revolutionary methods of struggle against obvious enemies of socialism. When the party buried “dictatorship of the proletariat” and away from the working class as the main nutrient medium, it is primarily its core, the leadership, contracted all diseases (parasites) parliamentarism, bureaucracy and bourgeois reformism. [16]

In our country such “leaders” were conductors of interests of large social groups – bureaucratic and Pro-bourgeois forces that they had generated. This position should be assessed a factor as “bad” were the leaders after Stalin and Khrushchev, and Brezhnev, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin, which, in the opinion of many, and became almost the main cause of death of socialism in the USSR. However, in fairness, we note that they were all smart enough to Express predominantly the interests of a particular social group, and indeed “bad”, if they concerned, for example, the fundamental interests of the working class. “Mostly” because each of them (and all other) in one combined, were at the intersection of interests of various social groups and could not ignore the interests of others. [16]

Very common is the claim that the main cause of death of socialism in the USSR was the “immaturity” of material conditions, insufficient level of development of productive forces for building socialism in the USSR. However, firstly, incorrect, unscientific, metaphysical making a direct connection between the “immaturity” of material conditions and the political demise of socialism in our country. Between these parameters there are several very important intermediate links, which are not taken into account. For example, you cannot miss the well-known fact that the party of the very “immature” conditions raised the country to the immeasurably higher level of maturity.

Secondly, if to speak about maturity of the material prerequisites for building socialism in the USSR, in 70-e years of the last century, when it was announced about the construction of the country’s real socialism, the Soviet Union came to the forefront in the world on major development indicators and became the second superpower in the world, able to ensure not only their own safety but also to ensure peace on the planet, at the same time providing assistance to many countries in the world. [16]

Thus, the main, the root cause of the defeat of socialism is weakening, and then the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the liquidation of government workers, which inevitably increased the bureaucracy in society. Bureaucracy engendered bourgeois elements, and their merging with each other have created a force that has become an impediment to development, and then factor in the destruction of the gains of socialism. The connection of this power with the world bourgeoisie has completed this process. [16]


In conclusion, I would like to add only this thought that readers actively participated in the discussion already published theories, not only praised authors, but also smashed their constructive criticism. And even better, readers sent in their practices, which reached out a long arm version.


Part 3


[14] V. N. Dobrov, the Secret successor to Stalin,

[15] V. D. Pikhorovich, the working class and socialism,

[16] A. A. Kovalev, the reasons for the defeat of socialism in the USSR,

© 2019, paradox. All rights reserved.

Check Also

Investments in Ukraine’s economy collapsed by 35%

The decline in investment was recorded in all sectors, with the exception of the sphere …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *