Commenting on the situation in Venezuela, the Russian leader of the political program “Agitation and Propaganda” Konstantin Semin, using Marxist rhetoric, began his post with the following words: “The situation in Venezuela, whatever it is resolved, cannot but strike the entire socialist movement”. It should be noted that I share the point of view that in Venezuela there is a struggle for control over natural resources between the Venezuelan people and American corporations. But the only question we will examine is this: does not the leadership of Venezuela itself discredit socialism?
For this we will switch to comments from the opposite camp, namely to the words of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. This is what he said: “The time allotted for the negotiations has expired, the regime of the former President Maduro has ceased to be legitimate, he and his associates are moral bankrupts, they are incompetent in the economy, all the echelons of power are affected by corruption. There everything is “anti-democratic to the bone”.
What is truthful in these words?
It is very difficult to judge the truthfulness of the words about corruption. The ease of using the words “legitimacy” and “democracy” is well known to everyone; you shouldn’t pay attention to them. The situation is exactly the opposite. Maduro was chosen by the majority of the people of Venezuela, so it’s not reasonable to say that Maduro is a moral bankrupt. But hyperinflation in 2018 was close to 2,000,000%, and the forecast for the end of 2019 is around 10,000,000%, so Mike Pompeo’s only true words about the Venezuelan government are “they are incompetent in the economy”. Incompetence in the economy is the only thing that discredits the socialists. By getting rid of it, all its brilliance can be returned to socialism.
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is incompetent in this matter, as well as all Marxist parties, a great many of which appeared in the Russian Federation. This is the scarecrow that repels people from Marxists. Incompetence follows from Marxist demagoguery. What is it?
I already wrote that Marxism makes an erroneous conclusion, associating social progress with revolutions. It is quite true in Marxism that the progress of social relations is connected with the progress of the productive forces, and social conflicts are the result of social relations. As a consequence of the first mistake, Marxism is mistaken again, representing the interests of the class of the proletariat as the miraculous spokesman of progress, the keeper of truth. The truth is the same for all classes. Understanding the real limitations of the proletariat, the Marxists put forward the slogan of party leadership to manipulate it. What is the party guided by? It is guided by the predetermined progressiveness of the proletariat. Before us is the vicious circle of scholasticism, from which the USSR has not managed to get out.
I think that the presence of demagogy in Marxism doesn’t allow the numerous Marxist parties to unite for the sake of a single goal – social progress. Every Marxist party has its own demagogic hearth, its own little demagogic swamp, in which somebody drowns from time to time. Alas, from the division of society into a class of the proletariat and a class of the bourgeoisie — the exploited and the exploiters — nothing follows, except that these classes are in conflict and that none of these classes possess the truth.
The Bolsheviks, being educated people, after winning the Civil War quickly realized that the Marxist scheme was not working, abandoned it, declaring the NEP. Fundamental education has played its role here. Judge yourself, the strictest financial discipline, no inflation, credit works, financing the business, and the economy destroyed by the Civil War is rapidly recovering. Our liberal market government can only envy the market indicators of NEP.
After the NEP, the Stalinist economic model was created, with the help of which industrialization was carried out and the country showed unprecedented economic growth. It is this economic model that can be called socialist. It is characterized by state planning of development of strategic industries, state management of natural monopolies, a two-contour financial system that ensures rapid economic growth, and collective entrepreneurship in all other sectors of the economy. The USSR was in a hostile environment, therefore the existence of a state monopoly on foreign trade (including currency) is not mandatory in the Stalinist economic model. Also, in my opinion, this model should be complemented in the field of entrepreneurship – to allow not only the collective, but also any particular. Entrepreneurship is a form of initiative. The more permissible forms (permissible doesn’t mean arbitrary), the better for the economy.
Next, I will allow myself to make an assumption about the deep reason for the increase in the level of repressions in the 30s. Any state represses the population. For example, the current level of repression in the United States, if you remove the peaks, is about the same as in the USSR in the 30s. But the level of repressions in the USSR in the 20s was very low, equal to the level of repressions in the Russian Empire. The level of repressions in the USSR began to grow with the onset of industrialization and reached a peak in the years 1937-38, after which it declined and further increased as a result of the Second World War. As we can see, the external, existential reason, as in the case of the Second World War and the conduct of industrialization, is associated with a strong tension of society, but the repressions of the 30s also have an internal reason.
The economic difficulties of the Russian Empire were accompanied not only by unsuccessful attempts to solve them through reforms, but by the birth of a revolutionary spirit, the spirit of anarchy that hit all strata of Russian society, which destroyed the monarchy in February 1917. Everything was in accordance with the correct postulate of Marxism – the basis determines consciousness. Fortunately, there were Bolsheviks who were able to assemble the country by pieces. If it were not for the Bolsheviks, the repressions of the 30s would have been flowers against the possible scenarios. In part, we can judge them by such events that followed the collapse of the USSR, such as the war in Chechnya, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, the war in the Donbass. Why only in part? Because the repressions of the 30s did the trick. They destroyed the spirit of anarchy that liquidated the Russian empire. Therefore, during the repression of the 30s, the old Bolsheviks, the main bearers of this spirit, were destroyed in the first place. Any real revolution should kill its children.
Unfortunately, together with the old Bolsheviks, the fundamental knowledge necessary for the effective government of the country was gone. Marxist scholasticism prevailed, and inept attempts to get out of it led to the collapse of the USSR. Khrushchev declared the goal of building communism by the 1980th year and destroyed collective entrepreneurship. Brezhnev merely corrected the title to “building developed socialism”. The country has been developing for some time by inertia, but it has increasingly been accompanied by a shortage and long-term development attributed by the liberals to the inherent properties of socialism. Gorbachev returned entrepreneurship, but at the same time destroyed the financial system. Money from a non-cash contour intended for investment poured into the contour of cash intended for consumption. Internal inflation began, entrepreneurs began to keep savings in inventories. As a result, the collapse of the USSR occurred about the same economic reason as the collapse of the Russian Empire. Only in the event of the collapse of the USSR, we observed the absence of goods on the shelves of stores, and in the case of the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia, there was a lack of bread in stores.
With the collapse of the USSR, we splashed out the child along with the water – the Stalinist economic model, which we must return. As a theory, it is necessary to use an economic theory cleared from the liberal ideology. Without this purification, it is only suitable for building a colonial economy in the service of the western metropolis, which we now see in the Russian Federation. All cases of countries leaving the colonial circle are associated with a violation of liberal tenets.