Boris Ikhlov

The bourgeoisie is compelled to be hypocritical and call a democratic republic, which in reality is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the toiling masses, "general power" or democracy in general, or pure democracy.

Lenin

On April 16, 1929, a joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission opened. It was about the most harmful rightist deviation discovered by Stalin among his comrades-in-arms, which he himself had previously followed. But let's just talk about one point that was discussed at the plenum - about the theory of the growth of the class struggle.

Andrey Sorokin, an activist of Alternativ, puts it this way: “the intensification of the class struggle while building socialism».

Sorokin believes that the theory is related to the events of 1991, 2000, 2014…

At the Plenum, this “theory” sounded like “the theory of the aggravation of the class struggle as progress towards socialism».

Wikipedia, without further ado, writes simply:

“At the end of the 1920s, I. V. Stalin put forward the idea of intensifying the class struggle as socialism was built and communism.»

Soviet historical encyclopedia:

“... Stalin's thesis about the intensification of the class struggle in the USSR as successes of socialism.»

We will return to the question of wording below when we reach Professor Klotsvog, and in the meantime we will discuss what happened at the Plenum.

Bukharin declared: “According to this strange theory, it turns out that the further we go in the matter of advancing towards socialism, the more difficulties accumulate, the more intensified the class struggle, and at the very gates of socialism we must either start a civil war or die of hunger and lie down with bones. ."

Kuibyshev, in a speech to the Leningrad activists in September 1928, developed Stalin's thesis: "The withering away of classes - the final result of our development - must and will proceed in an atmosphere of intensifying class struggle."

Bukharin at the Plenum recalled Kuibyshev: according to this theoretical "discovery", "the faster the classes wither away, the more the class struggle will intensify, which, obviously, will flare up with the brightest flame just when there will be no more classes."

Moreover, Bukharin did not at all deny the existence of a class struggle in the countryside, he only believed that the situation in the countryside was the result of the wrong actions of the party elite, and the aggravation of the situation cannot be considered a regularity in the construction of socialism. Anastas Mikoyan criticized this interpretation of the reasons for the "aggravation of the class struggle", accusing Bukharin of "a non-Marxist and non-dialectical understanding of the class struggle." Tomsky, on the contrary, supported Bukharin. The fate of Tomsky is known.

At the Plenum, Stalin accused Bukharin of explaining the exacerbation of the class struggle by “causes of an apparatus nature”, and considered the erroneous policy of the party, and therefore Stalin himself, to be to blame for the exacerbation. When the main reason for the aggravation is, of course, the success of socialist construction, the growth of socialist forms of management, the displacement of capitalists in town and countryside. Those. the more capitalists were ousted, the more of them remained. “... there have never been such cases in history,” Stalin said, “for the dying classes to voluntarily leave the stage ... they will resist, no matter what” (I. V. Stalin, Works, vol. 12, pp. 34-39) . Even despite the fact that they, already dying, have already been pushed out.

“... Bukharin's understanding of the class struggle,” Stalin said at the Plenum, “and the question of exacerbating the class struggle does not lead to awakening the working class and raising its fighting capacity, which is why it is a harmful theory. She is harmful and dangerous. Our policy and our understanding of the class struggle and the intensification of class resistance is to keep the proletariat, the working class and the working masses in a state of combat readiness, to keep them in a state of mobilization readiness, sensing the last day of the departing classes, seeing the growth of their resistance. fight back if the resistance of the capitalists takes the form civil war.»

Those. the more power increases Soviet power- the more they resist it, logic is on the march.

“Does the NEP,” Stalin said at the Plenum, “cancel the dictatorship of the proletariat? Of course not! On the contrary, the NEP is a peculiar expression and instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Isn't the dictatorship of the proletariat a continuation of the class struggle? (Voices: "That's right!") ...

We often say that we are developing socialist forms of economy in the field of trade. What does it mean? This means that we are thus ousting thousands and thousands of small and medium traders from trade. Is it possible to think that these merchants, ousted from the sphere of circulation, will sit silently, not trying to organize resistance? It is clear that it is impossible.

We often say that we are developing socialist forms of economy in the field of industry. What does it mean? This means that we are ousting and ruining, perhaps without noticing it ourselves, by our progress towards socialism, thousands upon thousands of small and medium capitalist industrialists. Is it possible to think that these ruined people will sit in silence, not trying to organize resistance? Of course not. …

We often say that it is necessary to limit the exploitative encroachments of the kulaks in the countryside, that high taxes must be imposed on the kulaks, that the right to rent must be limited, that the right to elect kulaks to the Soviets must be prevented, and so on and so forth. What does it mean? This means that we are gradually crushing and ousting the capitalist elements in the countryside, sometimes bringing them to ruin. Can we assume that the kulaks will be grateful to us for this, and that they will not try to organize part of the poor or middle peasants against the policy of Soviet power? Of course not. …

But it follows from all this that, as we advance, the resistance of the capitalist elements will increase, the class struggle will intensify, and the Soviet government, whose strength will grow more and more, will pursue a policy of isolating these elements, a policy of disintegrating the enemies of the working class. and, finally, the policy of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters...

(Stalin I.V. On industrialization and the grain problem. Speech on July 9, 1928 at the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks / / Stalin I.V. Works. T.11.-M .: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1953. C .168-171.)

That is, the permission of private enterprise is a tool to oust it. Excellent!

“NEP,” Stalin wrote in a secret directive of February 13, 1928, “is the basis of our economic policy, and remains so for a long time. historical period... talk that we are allegedly canceling the New Economic Policy, introducing a surplus appraisal, dispossession of kulaks, etc. are counter-revolutionary chatter, against which a decisive struggle is necessary ”(Stalin, Soch., vol. 11 p. 15, 17)

That is, the party itself has created an enemy for itself, designed for a long historical period, and do not dare to touch it, because. this is a counter-revolution. True, the NEP was curtailed literally in the next couple of years, for such a long historical period.

A natural question arises: should the end of the civil war in 1921 and the peace period until the Plenum in 1929 be considered an intensification of the class struggle before the resistance of the capitalists took the form of a civil war, bearing in mind that it never took the form of a civil war?

From a liberal point of view

A. D. Chernev, in his article “On the question of the aggravation of the class struggle against the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s,” studied this issue in some detail.

“The fact that the class struggle,” he inspires, “will continue even after the proletariat comes to power, was obvious to its leaders. According to the theory of Marxism, "the war between classes will not die out as long as there are different classes with opposing, mutually clashing interests and different social positions." And a revolution, including a victorious one, could not immediately destroy classes. The struggle between them will continue after the conquest of power by the proletariat. But will it become more acute as the successes of the victors in building socialism grow? …

The events of the very first months after the Bolsheviks came to power gave Lenin reason to conclude that "it is after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie that the class struggle assumes its sharpest forms." In 1919, Lenin wrote that the proletariat, having won political power, "suppresses the increased resistance energy of the exploiting classes." In terms of a pamphlet on the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin emphasized that "the resistance of the exploiters begins before they are overthrown and intensifies afterward from two sides." According to Lenin, it turns out that after the conquest by the proletariat political power The class struggle not only continues, but also intensifies...

Lenin developed and substantiated these views at the 10th Congress, where he elevated them to the rank of the law of revolutionary struggle. He warned his comrades-in-arms against complacency, for the overthrown exploiting classes wage war against the proletariat “only more zealously, furiously and zealously. Our revolution, more than any other, confirmed the law that the strength of the revolution, the strength of the onslaught, the energy, determination and triumph of its victory at the same time increase the strength of resistance on the part of the bourgeoisie. The more we win, the more the capitalist exploiters learn to unite and go over to more decisive offensives. It turns out that further, as the proletariat victories, the confrontation with the capitalist elements will intensify, the class struggle will intensify. The explanation of this proposition should, according to Lenin, become "the basis of our agitation and propaganda." Lenin soon expressed himself even more definitely, declaring that "the conquest of political power by the proletariat does not put an end to its class struggle against the bourgeoisie, but, on the contrary, makes this struggle especially broad, acute, and merciless." The above statements of the leader of the revolution do not give grounds for doubting that Lenin considered the thesis of the intensification of the class struggle as progress was made in building socialism one of the fundamental in Marxism.

Therefore, only the lazy did not speak about the aggravation of the class struggle in the 1920s. This position was preached, as Lenin prescribed to his comrades-in-arms, by many prominent figures in the party. In 1920 N.I. Bukharin predicted the class struggle in its sharpest forms for an indefinitely long period. He wrote that "proletarian coercion in all its forms, from executions to labor service, is ... a method of developing communist humanity from the human material of the capitalist era." At the Fourteenth Congress, in the heat of a polemic with the opposition, the "favorite of the party" asserted that in the countryside, in connection with the growing differentiation of the peasantry, "for the next period we will have an intensification of the class struggle." ... A few months before the XIV Congress, on April 17, 1925, he spoke at a meeting of the activists of Moscow communists with a report “On the NEP and our tasks” ...: “Our peasantry is not homogeneous. The class struggle in the countryside will not die out immediately. Nobody will deny this, to think it would be senseless Manilovism. On the contrary, it will grow in the near future.” ... true, he warned against “now preaching an intensification of the class struggle in the countryside” and called for “acting by economic means, so that through economic measures, primarily through cooperation, to move forward the bulk of the peasant population.” …

In February 1926, he made a presentation at the XXIII Extraordinary Leningrad Provincial Party Conference. ... Bukharin extended the thesis of the intensification of the class struggle for the entire transitional period - until the collective cooperative farms of the poor and middle peasants were raised above the kulak economy. “And now, while we cannot do this, it will become aggravated, and the entire period until we can truly raise the bulk of the peasant farms, the struggle will continue.” …

A.I. Mikoyan, speaking at the North Caucasian regional congress of Vserabozemles shortly before the 10th IV Party Congress, declared that in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, one of the most important “is the question of the class struggle, its forms and how and for how long the class struggle will intensify in our country in general and, in particular, in the countryside. There is a class struggle in our country; it exists, of course, in the countryside as well. It will continue, perhaps intensify at some periods, as long as there are classes... During the transitional period, the class struggle will take place in various forms and will acquire a different tempo.”

“The views of the leaders of the party on the question of the aggravation of class contradictions were not clear and consistent. They acquired one color or another depending on the alignment of forces among the political leadership in the competition for power. When there was a fight with L.D. Trotsky, who shared his views Yu.L. Pyatakov argued at the plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in August 1927 that “together with the growth of our National economy contradictions will grow within him.” And since class contradictions are the deepest and most irreconcilable, they will grow first of all. Mikoyan then spoke out against these assertions, who, in objecting to Pyatakov, said that “socialism is the reduction of contradictions, the elimination of them completely. If we move towards socialism, then with each of our steps forward towards socialism there will be fewer contradictions, and if there are, then they will be less profound, then classes will disappear and with them all the internal contradictions in our country. In this controversy, Mikoyan attributed allegations about the growth of contradictions and the aggravation of the class struggle under socialism to the Trotskyist opposition, which Bukharin reminded him of at the April plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the CPSU (b) in 1929.

So, in 1927, Mikoyan says things similar to what Bukharin did at the April Plenum of 1929, and at the Plenum Mikoyan criticizes, in fact, his own words ... A man has grown up, he has seen the light!

Facts of exacerbation of class contradictions in the 20-30s. there were a lot. They were also confirmed by the operational data of the OGPU. In the now published reports of this department, characterizing the political situation in the country in the 1920s, from month to month there is an increase in “political banditry”, “insurrectionary movements”, protest moods among various segments of the population, and primarily among the peasants. The trend towards an intensification of the class struggle, especially in the countryside, can be traced throughout the 1920s and intensifies towards the end of the decade. ...

According to the reports of the OGPU, a surge in the class struggle can be traced in the late 1920s. due to difficulties in the grain procurement campaign. Thus, in a review of the political state of the country for December 1928, it is noted that in connection with the campaigns being carried out in the countryside (re-elections of Soviets, tax collection, distribution of loan bonds, etc.), the class struggle there is aggravated, often taking the form of terror, “ directed mainly against the workers of the grass-roots apparatus(highlighted by me, B.I.).

At first, Stalin was not among those who actively propagated the slogan of intensifying the class struggle during the transitional period. ... in June 1925, he warned against "igniting the class struggle" in the countryside, believing that the party could and should do without it. However, the grain procurement campaign of 1927-1928, in which he personally participated, forced him to correct his views. Stalin's resuscitation of the thesis about the intensification of the class struggle in 1928 was not accidental. Information about the resistance of the population, especially the peasantry, to the course pursued by the party took on a threatening character. The number and nature of anti-Soviet manifestations in the countryside in 1928 can be seen from the table below, compiled according to the reports of the OGPU. Manifestations of the class struggle in the countryside in 1928:

Period Murder Injuries Arson Attempted MurderTotal

1 quarter 21 36 31 80 168

2nd quarter 40 32 57 74 203

3 quarter 39 44 103 69 255

4 quarter110 74 239 132 555

Total 210 186 430 355 1181

Other, but comparable figures of “terrorist acts by the kulaks against the poor peasantry, laborers and middle peasants” were given by K.E. Voroshilov in his speech at the April (1929) Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. According to him, in 1928, 1373 terrorist acts were committed in the village, including 168 in January, 203 in May, 149 in July, 115 in September, 191 in October, 210 in November, and 33,724 in December. Voroshilov in his speech stressed that “even Bukharin admits that the class struggle will intensify at certain stages of our development, that an aggravation is inevitable. This phenomenon becomes in this sense inevitable and therefore, to a certain extent, normal.

So, 168, 203, 255, 555 - we see: it is growing. quarterly. The quarterly growth of the class struggle is strong. And before that? And after that? What is the sample? And why did Chernev get the idea that this was a class struggle against the workers?

“... at the July (1928) plenum of the Central Committee G.I. Petrovsky declared the secondary role of the class struggle under the NEP, Stalin ... began to prove that the exploiting classes would not give up their positions without resistance, and this resistance could not but lead to an aggravation of the class struggle. Therefore, "as we move forward, the resistance of the capitalist elements will increase, the class struggle will intensify ...". At the plenum, this statement did not cause any objections either from the comrades-in-arms or from the opposition. Moreover, the facts of the exacerbation of the class struggle ... were enough. Stalin received grounds for resuscitation of the thesis about the aggravation of the class struggle during his business trip to Siberia in January-February 1928, when he became convinced that it was impossible to solve the grain problem (in its Bolshevik understanding) without the use of emergency measures. The problem of turning the country into an industrial power could not be solved by the usual methods, through the material interest of the producers. That is, the construction of socialism without coercive measures was not feasible. To substantiate such measures, to give them a justifying character, the theory of the intensification of the class struggle as we move towards socialism was the best fit.

Justification for repression necessary condition the exercise of power was only one of its elements. The real meaning of the disputes around the thesis of the aggravation of the class struggle was not so much to justify and substantiate the mass repressions of the 1920s and 1930s, but to fight for power within the ruling elite, to establish mobilization moods in the party and the country, to strengthen the authority of Stalin as a leader. parties and states. L.D. Trotsky drew attention to the fact that Stalin, under the pretext of fighting the remnants of the defeated ruling classes, destroyed "the entire old leading layer of the party, state and army" in order to eliminate everything that "stands in the way of the Bonapartist dictatorship"27. However, nowhere did he blame Stalin the “theorist” for putting forward the thesis about the aggravation of the class struggle, although he closely followed the leader’s other “theoretical” researches and reacted accordingly.

That is, Chernev considers it proven that the author of the “growth” is Lenin, which is supported by the absence of an indication of the authorship of Stalin in the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks” and in the 2nd edition of the TSB, and attributed the attribution of the theory of growth to Khrushchev.

Chernev is copied by M. Weiskopf. In his opinion, Stalin took the "theory" from Lenin and repeated it in January 1933 at the plenum of the Central Committee and in the report at the February-March plenum of 1937 "(" Writer Stalin ", M., 2001. p. 97-98) . Although Chernev himself believes that Weisskopf echoes those who consider Stalin the author of the growth theory.

“The Soviet system was created for struggle ... Since socialism did not have internal incentives for economic development, and the enthusiasm of the masses could not be exploited indefinitely, measures were needed to force people to work without remuneration corresponding to labor. And references to the escalating class struggle served as an additional argument for the authorities in substantiating the need to “tighten the screws”, strengthen labor discipline, introduce an economy regime and other measures of a mobilization nature. … The essence of this theory lies in the fact that socialism as a system could exist and show its “advantages” only in conditions of emergency, when all sections of society are mobilized, organized and, with the help of coercion and propaganda, are directed towards a single goal. Socialism had no internal incentives for development, it destroyed the creative principles in labor, the natural competitiveness of workers, depriving them of their material interest in the results of their labor. Leveling devalued the initiative, made it "punishable". The theory of the intensification of the class struggle served as one of the means of mobilizing the people, without which such grandiose transformations as the industrialization and collectivization of the country were impossible. An important stimulating role was also played by the goal formulated by the party - building a just social system through the elimination of socially significant differences between classes. Nobel laureate in 1974, economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek, who devoted much time and effort to studying the theory and practice of socialism, wrote that "a totalitarian system is effective as long as everyone considers it an obligation to work for one common goal, perceive the common task as their own." With the death of Stalin, extreme conditions could no longer be escalated with the same force, and the new goal set in the CPSU Program - building a communist society within 20 years - soon discredited itself and no longer inspired the people to labor exploits.

Of course. Soviet power is the dictatorship of the proletariat - not only for struggle, but for managing the economy. There was no equalization in the USSR - except for the one invented by capitalism. Industrialization became possible due to the confidence of the population in the party, which remained for some time after October 1917, and due to the state monopoly on foreign trade and other similar measures taken by Lenin, but certainly not at the expense of fear or hatred for a comrade. The reference to Hayek does not work, this is just a fantasy of Hayek, who, in principle, did not understand how the system works in the USSR, there has been no talk of any single goal in the USSR since the 30s.

For convenience, here is a list of references used by Chernev:

Well, and further in his article there is standard liberal verbiage about the strategic backwardness of socialism, etc. Chernev's goal is clear - to denigrate Lenin, to tightly bandage Lenin with what Stalin did. The same goal is pursued Short course history of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks”, 2nd edition of the TSB and the Israeli Weisskopf. The same goal is pursued by modern Stalinists.

But the same rehashes that Chernev has are in the text of the Union of Workers of Moscow "Fundamentals of the Leninist-Stalinist theory of the state"http://sovrab.ru/content/view/3374/51/

The same - at the Izhevsk City Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolshevikshttp://izhvkpb.narod.ru/princ/princ.html !

From a Stalinist point of view

The newly minted Stalinist Igor Pykhalov in his book “For what they planted under Stalin. Are the “victims of repression” innocent? writes:

On March 3, 1937, Stalin declared his theory of the growth of the class struggle under socialism:

“It is necessary to smash and cast aside the rotten theory that with each of our advances, the class struggle in our country should supposedly fade more and more, that in proportion to our successes, the class enemy seems to become more and more tame.

This is not only a rotten theory, but also a dangerous theory, for it puts our people to sleep, leads them into a trap, and gives the class enemy the opportunity to recover in order to fight the Soviet regime.

On the contrary, the more we advance, the more successes we have, the more the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes will become embittered, the sooner they will resort to sharper forms of struggle, the more they will harm the Soviet state, the more they will seize on the most desperate means of struggle, as the last means of the doomed.

It must be borne in mind that the remnants of the defeated classes in the USSR are not alone. They have direct support from our enemies outside the USSR. It would be a mistake to think that the sphere of the class struggle is limited to the borders of the USSR. If one end of the class struggle has its effect within the framework of the USSR, then its other end extends into the borders of the bourgeois states surrounding us. The remnants of broken classes cannot be unaware of this. And precisely because they know this, they will continue their desperate attacks.

That is what history teaches us. This is what Leninism teaches us. It is necessary to remember all this and be on the alert.”

Stalin referred to Lenin's statement:

“In our revolution, more than in any other, the law has been confirmed that the strength of the revolution, the strength of the onslaught, the energy, determination and triumph of its victory at the same time increase the strength of resistance on the part of the bourgeoisie. The more we win, the more the capitalist exploiters learn to unite and go over to more decisive offensives.

What Lenin is talking about here: that after the Bolsheviks took power, the White Guards organized a civil war, and the capitalist world - an intervention. But by the time of rampant repressions, both civil war and intervention are far in the past. The phrase made sense only in that period, to extend it to the 30s is a rare stupidity. In general, Lenin had in mind external, not internal forces.

“Indeed, in order for the class struggle to be carried on, the presence of hostile classes is necessary. Were there such in the USSR of the 1930s? "Not! - the ideologists of the CPSU, as well as their current heirs from among the supporters of "socialism with a human face", unanimously assure us. “By then, the exploiting classes no longer existed.”

Is it so? Naturally, at first glance, in the twentieth year of the Bolshevik rule, there are no exploiters in the country of the victorious proletariat. No one owns factories and plants, does not let down the capital acquired by overwork in Nice, does not flog negligent peasants in the stable. All around are workers, collective farmers, as well as Soviet employees. Such as the modest accountant of ZhAKT N. I. Stern von Gvyazdovsky. It’s nothing that he is a former baron and colonel of the guard, who in 1905 actively participated in the suppression of the December uprising, that he keeps a group photograph at home, in which he was photographed with Nicholas II. Nikolai Ivanovich has nothing in his mind against the new government.

Here is another modest accountant, this time Plodoovoshchsbyt, - Mavrus d "Eske, a former count, colonel of the General Staff. His mother lives in Vilna, she has a large estate and a mansion. Her brother also fled abroad, lives in Warsaw.

The next accountant, P. G. Sladkov, was not lucky with titles. Just the former chairman of the district military court of the "supreme ruler of Russia" Admiral Kolchak.

And here are a couple of accountants - barons V.V. and V.N. Taube. And here is another baron, Alexander Stanislavovich Nolken. With true Christian humility, having forgiven the new government for the execution of his brother, the Governor of Mogilev, their Excellency is diligently working as a buffet doorman at the Moscow railway station. It’s a sin to complain about life to Prince V.D. Volkonsky, now an inspector at a dairy plant.

Former official of the Office of the Finnish Governor-General O. L. Oleniev. Nobleman. He rose to the rank of state adviser, which, according to the "Table of Ranks", is higher than a colonel, but lower than a major general. Also happy with life. Still would! Thanks to Soviet power, Oleg Lvovich was finally able to join the ranks of the proletariat, working as a watchman at one of the Leningrad enterprises.

And here are a couple more "proletarians". K.M. Yakubov, nobleman, former assistant head of the prison. His brother, a gendarme officer, was shot in 1918. But Konstantin Mikhailovich does not hold a grudge against the Bolsheviks, he works hard as a digger in Lenpromstroy. Like Count V.F. Mol, who got a job as a worker in the architectural and planning department of the Leningrad City Council and does not even remember his estate in the Sebezh district.

These are former nobles. And how many unnamed "owners of factories, newspapers, steamships" are deprived of property acquired by overwork by the new government? And a few million dispossessed?

What kind of "socialist unity" were the home-grown experts on Marxism talking about? Their logic is simple and unpretentious, like a rake. If, for example, the former owner of a factory now works as a caretaker or janitor, then he is no longer a capitalist, but a representative of the working class. And let this subject, in the words of Mikhail Zoshchenko, “hold rudeness” against the Soviet government, which deprived him of his property and privileges, and at the first opportunity will try to get even with it. Ideological prostitutes are not embarrassed by such “little things.”

Pykhalov yesterday was part of the thoroughly liberal Leningrad People's Front ... now he has become a Stalinist.

Let us leave Pykhalov's distractions about the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was reborn after Stalin's death.

Let us also leave his logic: after all, following it, it is impossible to release a single criminal who has served his term, with his consciousness that has developed in the zone, with a constant desire to take revenge on the authorities that sent him to the camp ...

The trouble lies elsewhere - Pykhalov does not understand historical mechanics

The trouble lies elsewhere - Pykhalov does not understand historical mechanics. Classes are large, historically formed groups of people who occupy a certain position in relation to the BASIC means of production, in accordance with this, they differ in their position in the social hierarchy and the share of social wealth received.

Individual nobles poked all over the country, not managing the main means of production, which public consciousness determined their subordinate production position, they are not any class, let alone hostile, this is all from the field of mythology-conspiracy theories.

Furthermore. Classes are distinguished as classes-in-themselves, i.e. nominal, "formal", and class-for-itself, with common interests manifested. For example, the current Russian bourgeoisie is not yet a class-for-itself, it does not need customs barriers, state protection, because it does not pay taxes to those in the Russian Federation on a progressive scale, because the Russian Federation joined the WTO.

Not material base, on which the "assembly" of scattered nobles and counts would be carried out so that they become a class-in-itself. Accordingly, they are unable to represent a class-for-themselves. And hostile, i.e. with common interests, there can only be a class for themselves.

However, the class struggle, namely the peasants, but not with the working class, but with the insolent bourgeois "Soviet" elite still existed.

Number of peasant protests from 1900 to 1917: Year Number: 1900 49, 1901 50, 1902 340, 1903 141, 1904 91, 1905 3228, 1906 2600, 1907 1337, 1908 931, 1910 933, 1910 13.6 1912, 300; 1913, 135; Until 1917, about 1000 performances per year. Until 1929 - about 1200 performances. Those. Stalin, as a class enemy, turned out to be even worse for the peasants than the tsar.

Meanwhile, both the Decree on Land and Lenin's speech on the middle peasants clearly indicated that in a backward, agrarian country the political alliance of the working class and the peasantry was designed for a long historical period. With its rural policy, borrowed from Trotsky, Stalin's government destroyed this alliance.

Stalinist Professor M. G. Suslov, and with him many others, writes that the peasantry is a petty-bourgeois element that gives rise to capitalism. Look, the Stalinists say - 120 million peasants, how can the class struggle not escalate here? And all the troubles of the USSR due to the fact that the peasants first waged a class struggle, and then penetrated into the authorities. It is quite logical to hire a class enemy. Another thing is important: for a Stalinist, a peasant is not a worker, but an enemy.

What is the working class? It also intensifies the class struggle. But not with the peasantry!

At the end of 1928, the peasants, in response to emergency measures, significantly reduced the sowing of winter crops. The authorities introduced "fence books" (cards) for bread. Soon the card system was extended to all major consumer goods. Spontaneous rallies broke out at the factories. At a meeting of the labor collective of the mechanical plant in Podolsk, to which Kalinin came, many workers said that life was better under tsarism. When Kalinin arrived at the rally, one of the speakers said: “Take emergency measures, comrade Kalinin, otherwise you will get hit on the hat.” Party members who tried to defend official policy were not allowed to speak (Znamya, 1990, No. 3, p. 151).

Arsenal workers in Kyiv, weavers in Glukhov, metallurgists in Dnepropetrovsk at rallies say that the party has broken away from the masses (S. Golitsyn, Notes of a Survivor, Friendship of Peoples, No. 3, 1990, p. 119).

The party elite was forced to be hypocritical, to call the dictatorship of the proletariat the dictatorship of a handful of officials.

But ... the naivety ... of the champions of the growth of the class struggle is also that even if we imagine a class hostile to the Soviet elite inside the USSR, we get the following. Here comes the class struggle. In the course of the struggle, and also in proportion to the "strengthening of socialism", in proportion to the success of "socialism", the hostile class must decrease in numbers. His anger increases a hundredfold. As anger grows, it becomes easier to identify enemies. Their number is decreasing again. Those. as socialism advances, the class struggle must, on the contrary, weaken. And not grow.

If the Stalinists are afraid of the withering away of the state by the presence of a capitalist environment, they cannot deny in any way that when approaching communism, i.e. Towards a classless society, such a function of the state as an instrument for the suppression of one class by another must die.

Of course, those Bolsheviks who thought independently, with their own heads, who did not have the task of currying favor, denied the Stalinist "theory" of intensifying the class struggle.

M. N. Ryutin in his "Platform" takes a position similar to the position of Bukharin:

“... the basic law of the class struggle for Soviet Union must be formulated in the exact opposite way: as we move forward along the road to socialism, the resistance of the capitalist elements will weaken, and the class struggle will soften, gradually fade away. And the "theories" of the intensification of the class struggle "have nothing in common" with Marxism-Leninism and the program of the Comintern, which recognize a temporary intensification of the class struggle, while Stalin and his entourage speak of a natural intensification of the class struggle even after the building of a socialist society. At the same time, Ryutin wrote that “the aggravation of the class struggle in last years is not the result of a correct policy, but, on the contrary, the result of an incorrect policy; it testifies not to the Leninist leadership of the country, but to an anti-Leninist, adventurist policy.”

Gestapo agents designer Korolev and geneticist Vavilov.

On XVII At the Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Stalin said that a classless society would be created "by strengthening the organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat, by developing the class struggle, by destroying classes, by eliminating the remnants of the capitalist classes, in battles with enemies, both internal and external" ( XVII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party(b). January 26 - February 10, 1934 Verbatim record. M., 1934, c. 28).

That is, there are no longer capitalist classes, there are their remnants. As these remnants are destroyed, i.e. when they become even smaller, the class struggle must subside. With Stalin, the opposite is true. As classes are destroyed, the dictatorship of the proletariat, as an instrument for the suppression of one class by another, must weaken. With Stalin, everything is the other way around - in one bottle!

Resolution XVII party conference (January-February 1932) means that the construction of the foundation of socialism has been completed in the USSR, the question "who - whom?" resolved both in the city and in the countryside "in favor of socialism completely and irrevocably." Despite this, the working class will be able to ensure the further successes of socialism “only in the struggle against the remnants of capitalism, giving a merciless rebuff to the resistance of the dying capitalist elements ... This means that in the future the aggravation of the class struggle is still inevitable at certain moments and especially in certain regions and in separate sectors. socialist construction. In this regard, the task was set before the party to protect the working class from bourgeois influence, for which it was necessary to strengthen the proletarian dictatorship and fight opportunism ”(CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. 9th ed. Vol. 5. M ., 1984, pp. 392, 397).

On November 25, 1936, Stalin in his report "On the Draft Constitution of the USSR" at the Emergency VIII The All-Union Congress of Soviets announced the "complete victory" of socialism in all spheres of the national economy and the liquidation of all exploiting classes in the USSR41. In the Constitution of the country of 1936, the provision on the dictatorship of the proletariat was eliminated, the five-fold superiority of the working class over the peasantry in the representative bodies of Soviet power was eliminated, the children of workers, peasants and universal, direct and secret (Stalin I.V. “On the draft Constitution of the USSR Union”, M., 1954, p. 10).

Everything, classes are eliminated, you can not refer to them. Where else can you find a source of strength for enemies? At the February-March plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1937, Stalin, in his report “On the Shortcomings of Party Work and Measures to Eliminate Trotskyist and Other Double-dealers,” called for “smashing and discarding the rotten theory that with each of our advances, the class struggle should supposedly be all fade more and more." Stalin found a new source of strength for his enemies abroad: “It would be a mistake to think that the sphere of class struggle is limited to the borders of the USSR. If one end of the class struggle has its effect within the framework of the USSR, then its other end extends into the borders of the bourgeois states surrounding us. (Transcript of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks February 23 - March 5, 1937 // Questions of History. 1995. No. 3. P. 11.)

And it started...

Socialism and communism

Professor F. N. Klotsvog, not realizing that there can be neither early socialism nor developed, writes that the early type of socialism “from developed socialism ... differed no less than capitalism early XVII century from modern capitalism. In his opinion, by the 1940s, the public sector had become dominant in all areas of the economy. In fixed production assets, it was 99%, in national income - 99%, in industrial production - 99.8%3 (Klotsvog. F.N. Socialism. Theory, perspective experience. M., 2008, p. 34.) confuses the public sector with a public feeding trough for the party elite. If the sector were public, it would not break up at the speed of a bullet according to Gorbachev's decree into separate enterprises in the industry chain, and individual enterprises into rental workshops. Marx writes that the socialist state cannot be anything other than the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And this state must die from the moment of its inception, from the moment of victory over the bourgeois class. Stalin and his followers, instead of one transitional period between capitalism and socialism, came up with a second transitional period for their personal chairs - between capitalism and socialism. In order to build socialism indefinitely without going over to communism.

For Stalin, there are no classes already in 1936, but he stubbornly does not call the system communism, playing on the fact that earlier, during the life of Marx, socialism and communism were identified. This remarkable absence of classes according to Stalin, the absence of a contradiction between physical and mental labor, between the work of a janitor, artist, official and scientist, was so absurd that Stalin's words were quickly forgotten. But he recalled them in the brochure “ Economic problems socialism in the USSR" in 1952. Of course, modern Stalinists still believe that under Stalin the work of a worker did not differ from the work of an artist, but this absurdity of Stalin, unfortunately, has been erased in public memory. Although the interests of the worker and, say. theoretical physicist are opposite: it would be better for a physicist if the shift were 25 hours, his working day is not standardized, he is in no hurry to go home, because he is interested in working. But for a worker, life begins only after the shift, his task is to shorten the working day.

However, what was the class struggle of the working class after Stalin's instructions in 1937, in a clash with the malign agents of the international bourgeoisie inside the USSR? Oh, it was a great class struggle! It consisted in writing anonymous letters to the master with approval or condemnation. In 1953, when Stalin was replaced by Khrushchev, this struggle of the working class was also expressed in the letters of the workers to the address of the master: how could it be, we thought. But it turned out ... we are indignant ... And in 1985, this struggle was expressed in a stream of letters about the violation of the communist moral code by the communists, read the articles by Tatiana Samolis in the Pravda newspaper.

When the catastrophe began, and the party elite betrayed its native working class, the working class, which in the entire history since the 30s, except for letters to the master, did not know other forms of expressing its opinion, with mutton humility submitted to mass layoffs. And business closures.

To this day, workers write letters to the master. What does the school of intensification of the class struggle mean!

: "From the point of view of logic, it seems to me at least stupidity: why, when the power, the state is strengthened, there should be more "disguised opponents"? After all, they have less chances to undermine the system!"

This is not the first time I have encountered such bewilderment, so I will give Stalin's original text, from which both the context and the exact meaning of Stalin's words will become clearer.

"Along the same line along the line of the question of the NEP and the class struggle in the conditions of the NEP, I would like to point out one more fact. I have in mind the statement of one of the comrades that the class struggle under the conditions of NEP in connection with the grain procurements is allegedly of only a third-rate importance, that it, this very class struggle, does not and cannot supposedly have any serious significance in the matter of our difficulties in grain procurements.

I must say, comrades, that I cannot in any way agree with this statement. I think that we do not have, and cannot have, under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a single political or economic fact of any importance that does not reflect the existence of a class struggle in town or country. Does the NEP abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat? Of course not! On the contrary, the NEP is a peculiar expression and instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Isn't the dictatorship of the proletariat a continuation of the class struggle? (Voices: "That's right!") How can one then say that the class struggle plays a third-rate role in such important political and economic facts as the kulaks' opposition to Soviet policy during the grain procurements, countermeasures and offensive actions of the Soviet government against the kulaks and speculators in connection with with bakeries?

Isn't it a fact that during the grain procurement crisis we had the first serious protest under NEP by the capitalist elements in the countryside against Soviet policy?

Aren't there more classes and class struggle in the countryside?

Isn't it true that Lenin's slogan of relying on the poor peasantry, alliance with the middle peasantry and struggle against the kulaks is the main slogan of our work in the countryside in the present conditions? And what is this slogan if not an expression of the class struggle in the countryside?

Of course, our policy cannot in any way be considered a policy of fomenting the class struggle. Why? Because the incitement of the class struggle leads to civil war. Because, as long as we are in power, we have consolidated this power, and the positions of command are concentrated in the hands of the working class, we are not interested in seeing the class struggle take the form of a civil war. But this does not mean at all that the class struggle has thereby been abolished or that it, this same class struggle, will not be aggravated. This does not mean, all the more, that the class struggle is not allegedly the decisive force in our progress. No, it doesn't.

But from all this it follows that, as we advance, the resistance of the capitalist elements will increase, the class struggle will intensify, and the Soviet government, whose strength will grow more and more, will pursue a policy of isolating these elements, a policy of disintegrating the enemies of the working class, and finally, a policy of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters, creating a basis for the further advancement of the working class and the bulk of the peasantry.

It cannot be imagined that socialist forms will develop, ousting the enemies of the working class, and the enemies will retreat silently, making way for our advance, that then we will again advance, and they will again retreat, and then “suddenly” all without exception social groups both the kulaks and the poor, both the workers and the capitalists, will “suddenly”, “imperceptibly”, without struggle or unrest, find themselves in the bosom of socialist society. Such fairy tales do not exist and cannot exist at all, especially under conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It has not happened and will not happen that the moribund classes voluntarily give up their positions without trying to organize resistance. It has not happened and will not happen that the advance of the working class towards socialism under class society could do without struggle and unrest. On the contrary, the advance towards socialism cannot but lead to the resistance of the exploiting elements to this advance, and the resistance of the exploiters cannot but lead to the inevitable intensification of the class struggle.

That is why it is impossible to lull the working class into talking about the secondary role of the class struggle.”

Stalin I.V. On industrialization and the grain problem. Speech on July 9, 1928 at the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks / / Stalin I.V. Works. T.11.-M.: State publishing house of political literature, 1953. S.168-171.

Thus, the Stalinist thesis was expressed in 1928 and concerned the period of the liquidation of private trade, industry and the kulaks, who, in response to such public policy inevitably had to increase their resistance. And, as we now know, they intensified up to the organization of the "holodomor" of 1932/33, underground anti-Soviet groups, terror, sabotage, etc.

Expressing his thesis, Stalin, of course, did not look beyond the next few years, however, later this thought of his revealed a very deep meaning, which the leader himself most likely did not put into it at that moment, - after all, Soviet socialism was crushed from within the well-known us today as a social group that has realized its unity, its special interests and has led its own struggle against socialism. And to call this group a class, and its struggle - a class struggle - let modern Marxists think ..

5.07.2013

Key Bolshevik principle

A very significant event marked the day of July 9, 85 years ago. In one of his speeches at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, he announced the intensification of the class struggle in the process of development and the continuation of the construction of socialism.

Away with the rotten theory!

On July 9, 1928, Iosif Vissarionovich noted in his speech: “... as we move forward, the resistance of the capitalist elements will increase, the class struggle will intensify, and the Soviet government, whose strength will grow more and more, will pursue a policy of isolating these elements, the policy of disintegrating the enemies of the working class, and finally, the policy of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters, creating a basis for the further advancement of the working class and the bulk of the peasantry.
It cannot be imagined that socialist forms will develop, ousting the enemies of the working class, and the enemies will retreat silently, giving way to our advance, that then we will again advance, and they will retreat again, and then “suddenly” all without exception social groups, both kulaks and the poor, both workers and capitalists, will find themselves "suddenly", "imperceptibly", without struggle or unrest, in the bosom of socialist society. Such fairy tales do not exist and cannot exist at all, especially under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It has not happened and will not happen that the moribund classes voluntarily give up their positions without trying to organize resistance. It has never happened and never will be that the advance of the working class towards socialism in a class society can do without struggle and unrest. On the contrary, the advance towards socialism cannot but lead to the resistance of the exploiting elements to this advance, and the resistance of the exploiters cannot but lead to the inevitable intensification of the class struggle.
That is why it is impossible to lull the working class into talking about the secondary role of the class struggle...” (Stalin I. Works, vol. 11. M., 1949, p. 171-172).
On March 3, 1937, in his report to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Stalin developed this principle of Bolshevism: fading more and more that, as we make progress, the class enemy seems to become more and more tame.
This is not only a rotten theory, but also a dangerous theory, for it puts our people to sleep, leads them into a trap, and gives the class enemy the opportunity to recover in order to fight the Soviet regime.
On the contrary, the more we advance, the more successes we have, the more the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes will become embittered, the sooner they will resort to sharper forms of struggle, the more they will harm the Soviet state, the more they will seize on the most desperate means of struggle as the last means of the doomed...” (Stalin I. “On the shortcomings of party work and measures to eliminate Trotskyist and other double-dealers” // “Word to Comrade Stalin”. M., 1995, pp. 121-122).
Today, thanks to the Khrushchevites, who are illiterate in theory, there is an erroneous opinion that Stalin is the author of the idea of intensifying the class struggle as the construction of socialism intensifies. This is not true. Iosif Vissarionovich took this idea from Lenin and developed it. But the author of this principle is Vladimir Ilyich. At the end of May 1919, Lenin's article "Greetings to the Hungarian workers" was published in Pravda. In this work, Vladimir Ilyich, in particular, writes: “... The destruction of classes is a matter of a long, difficult, stubborn class struggle, which, after the overthrow of the power of capital, after the destruction of the bourgeois state, after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, does not disappear (as the vulgar people of old socialism imagine and the old social democracy), but only changes its forms, becoming in many respects even more fierce (highlighted by me. auth.)» (Lenin V.I. Works, 3rd edition, vol. XXIV, p.315).
This Leninist-Stalinist principle was confirmed especially in the thirties of the 20th century, when the number of cases of sabotage, sabotage at factories, railways, attempts on the life of the leaders of the Soviet state. You don't have to look far for examples. In 1935, when Stalin was resting on the Black Sea near Cape Pitsunda, the boat in which the Leader was located was fired upon from the shore. In 1934, during a trip to Kuzbass, V.M. Molotova barely escaped the accident prepared by the enemies of the people, which threatened the death of passengers.
The very beginning of the Great Patriotic War confirms the thesis of the intensification of the class struggle. The capitalists, seeing that the USSR is developing rapidly, is moving forward and is already on the verge of building a communist society, contributing to the collapse of capitalism throughout the world, they decided to disrupt this process and set the Nazis against the Soviet Union.

Lesson for the future

The Khrushchevites, who were well-disguised agents of world imperialism, rejected the Lenin-Stalinist thesis about the intensification of the class struggle and declared it erroneous in order to weaken their vigilance Soviet people, to blunt the weapon of struggle against the enemies of Soviet power. The refusal of the CPSU from this Bolshevik principle became one of the reasons for the entry into the party to the highest positions of notorious enemies of the people like Gorbachev or Yeltsin. They, along with their like-minded people, who climbed into important positions in the CPSU, destroyed the USSR. If the top party leaders after 1953 had been guided by this Leninist-Stalinist principle of intensifying the class struggle, then no anti-communist carrion could have done anything to destroy the Soviet Union.
After the death of I.V. Stalin, the class struggle in the USSR did not stop, but became even more aggravated. Outward manifestation this process turned out to be the murder of L.P. Beria and his associates, the well-known anti-Khrushchev popular demonstrations in Tbilisi, Novocherkassk, intra-party contradictions in the CPSU, when the group of Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich was impudently removed from power. After Khrushchev left the post of first secretary of the Central Committee, the class struggle also did not subside, although it acquired more hidden forms. An example of this is the attempt on Brezhnev's life during one of the demonstrations on Red Square, the intra-party struggle, when Stalin's cadres were removed from key positions, and supporters of Khrushchev and Brezhnev came to replace them. The conflict between the USSR and China at the end of the 1960s also serves as an example of the intensification of the class struggle. Four deaths in a row of the first persons of the state in less than three years (1982-1985) - Brezhnev, Andropov, Ustinov, Chernenko, suggest that all this is not accidental: someone persistently and purposefully cleared the way for Gorbachev and Yeltsin. This is also an example of the intensification of the class struggle. We are not talking about what happened during the "perestroika", when the anti-Soviet forces were on horseback and did everything possible to eliminate socialism.
All this is a lesson for the future for us. When our country becomes socialist again, we must put at the forefront the Leninist-Stalinist thesis about the intensification of the class struggle as the building of socialism intensifies.

USSR without Stalin: Path to disaster Igor Pykhalov

On the intensification of the class struggle as we advance towards socialism

“In Stalin’s report at the February-March Plenum of the Central Committee of 1937 “On the shortcomings of party work and measures to eliminate Trotskyist and other double-dealers”, an attempt was made to theoretically substantiate the policy of mass repressions under the pretext that as we move forward towards socialism, the class struggle must supposedly become more and more aggravated. At the same time, Stalin argued that this is how history teaches, this is how Lenin teaches.

As subsequent events showed, Stalin was absolutely right in his assertion. This issue is discussed in detail in the previous chapter of our book.

This text is an introductory piece. From the book The Great Slandered Leader. Lies and truth about Stalin author Pykhalov Igor Vasilievich

Aggravation of the class struggle Since Khrushchev's memorable report "On the cult of the personality and its consequences", official Soviet propaganda did not get tired of repeating about the "erroneous Stalinist thesis" about the aggravation of the class struggle as we move towards socialism: "In

From the book Apocalypse of the XX century. From war to war author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

STRENGTHENING THE CLASS WAR It would seem, what more could you want? The Communists are in power, a multi-million class of people loyal to the Soviet regime has been created. But it was precisely at this time that Stalin, in his speech “On Industrialization and the Grain Program” on July 9, 1928, at the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (July 4-12, 1928)

From the book Ancient Rome author Mironov Vladimir Borisovich

author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

Aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside The development of commodity-money relations in the countryside as a whole had a severe effect on the broad masses of the peasantry. With the development of the market, the needs of the feudal lords grew. Part of the feudal lords satisfied their desire to increase income by

From the book History of the Middle Ages. Volume 1 [In two volumes. Under general edition S. D. Skazkina] author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

Aggravation of the class struggle The development of commodity-money relations in the states of Spain entailed intensified exploitation of the feudally dependent peasantry. The free peasantry also felt the power of the lords to a large extent. Development of sheep breeding in

From the book Why did Stalin lose World War II? author Winter Dmitry Frantsovich

Chapter XIV "The Aggravation of the Class Struggle" II World War was launched by the communists in 1930 against the peasants of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. In 1939 this war spread to neighboring countries. (Viktor Suvorov. "The Last Republic") We must not forget that in order to implement

From the book A Brief Course on Stalinism author Borev Yury Borisovich

ANOTHER MEANS OF CLASS STRUGGLE The head of the Department of Philosophy of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute, Ilya Pantskhava, said in 1949: - In 1917, at the height of the clashes between the parties, at one of the rallies, a well-known Menshevik attacked Lenin

From the book The World History. Volume 1 Stone Age author Badak Alexander Nikolaevich

Aggravation of the class struggle About the course of events during the period of the Old Kingdom, not very much information has come down to our time. But judging by the sources that we have, we can conclude that life in ancient kingdom, despite the strong supreme power, was not

From the book Terrorism. War without rules author Shcherbakov Alexey Yurievich

Terror as a method of class struggle Once we went on strike again, And only Casey John decided not to strike, “Why fight,” he thought, “Isn't it better to eat your own bread?” - So became a scab Casey John, in short, a scab. Casey John doesn't get off the car, Casey John

From the book Historical insanity of the Kremlin and the "Bolot" [Russia is ruled by losers!] author Nersesov Yury Arkadievich

The choir is the best cure for the class struggle The child who sings in the choir different people, he has no concept of class struggle... Chorus is the best medicine for xenophobia, nationalism and social-class of this whole struggle and everything else. (From a radio interview

author Gebbs Jan

I. The nature of the class struggle of the proletariat “The entire history of society has hitherto been the history of class struggle. This class struggle has reached the stage at which the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) cannot free itself from the class that exploits it.

From the book Left Communists in Russia. 1918-1930s author Gebbs Jan

II. Dialectics of the class struggle Any given class society (as already mentioned above) appeared as a result of the struggle of classes that grew up on a certain material basis. Only the ruling class, which directly grew out of the primitive landed community. Not

From the book creative heritage B.F. Porshnev and its modern meaning the author Vite Oleg

2. The Theory of the Class Struggle Porshnev's work on filling the canonical Marxist formulas with real content, which became completely empty due to the state monopoly on Marxism, manifested itself in the problems of the class struggle more than anywhere else. Everything

From the book History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. volume six author Team of authors

3. EXAMINATION OF THE CLASS WAR The hostile activity of the bourgeois-nationalist parties. The emergence of kulak banditry. The successes of Soviet power on the fronts of the civil war, the implementation of socialist transformations aroused the furious anger of the enemies. Before

From the book Complete Works. Volume 15. February-June 1907 author Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

4. On the aggravation of the mass economic need and economic struggle Considering 1) that a number of facts testify to the extreme aggravation of the economic need of the proletariat and its economic struggle (lockout in Poland (12); movement among the workers of St. Petersburg and

From the book Complete Works. Volume 26. July 1914 - August 1915 author Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

Tactics of the class struggle of the proletariat Having found out in 1844-1845. one of the main shortcomings of the old materialism, consisting in the fact that he was not able to understand the conditions and appreciate the significance of revolutionary practical activity, Marx throughout his life, along with

On July 9, 1928, Joseph Stalin put forward his famous thesis about the aggravation of the class struggle as we move towards socialism.

He began his speech at the plenum of the Central Committee with the words: “Of course, our policy cannot in any way be considered a policy of fomenting the class struggle. Why? Because the incitement of the class struggle leads to civil war. Because, as long as we are in power, we have consolidated this power, and the positions of command are concentrated in the hands of the working class, we are not interested in seeing the class struggle take the form of a civil war. But this does not mean at all that the class struggle has thereby been abolished or that it, this same class struggle, will not be aggravated. This does not mean, all the more, that the class struggle is not allegedly the decisive force in our progress. No, it doesn't."

And he ended with the words: “It has not happened and will not happen that the moribund classes voluntarily give up their positions without trying to organize resistance. It has never happened and never will be that the advance of the working class towards socialism in a class society can do without struggle and unrest. On the contrary, the advance towards socialism cannot but lead to the resistance of the exploiting elements to this advance, and the resistance of the exploiters cannot but lead to the inevitable intensification of the class struggle. That is why it is impossible to lull the working class into talking about the secondary role of the class struggle.”

Shortly after the death of Joseph Stalin, exactly what he warned against happened. Under the words about "developed socialism" and that in the USSR de there are "two classes and one social stratum" that are not in a state of class struggle, under this complacency the USSR came to ruin. The party nomenklatura grew up and realized the unity of its interests, which exchanged the country for the opportunity to sail on yachts, buy football clubs and build palaces on Rublyovka or Koncha-Zaspa.

total:0
In contact with 0
Google+ 0
OK 0
Facebook 0

On the intensification of the class struggle .... Stalin's theory of the growth of the class struggle

Key Bolshevik principle

Away with the rotten theory!

Lesson for the future