Practically everyone will be able to climb a small hill, but one can overcome Everest only by mastering a whole alpine science. Even more difficult is the conquest of socialism. This is the first social order in history, which is impossible to master, guided by superficial everyday ideas or the so-called “common sense”. This is a system that cannot develop properly by itself, cannot grow as the grass grows. Therefore, either based on a strictly scientific basis, it is really conquered, successfully developed and built, or, ignoring these fundamentals, they suffer a cruel defeat.

Such a necessary basis for the conquest and development of socialism is given by Marxism, whose fundamental difference from all other “isms” is precisely its strict scientific character. It would seem that we all studied and should know well the crystal clear statements of this great science about the revolutionary transformation of society. However, over the course of several decades, and in recent years especially, with all sorts of fake “true Leninists” and simply fierce enemies of the working class, so many involuntary and deliberate distortions were introduced into popular ideas about Marxism scientific communism.

First of all, it should be noted that, consistently relying on the materialist understanding of reality, Marxism insists on the existence of its objective laws and on the knowability of these laws. At the same time, Marxism teaches us “economic determinism”, showing that the most important social phenomena ultimately have their deepest causes in the economic side of society. This in turn makes possible a materialistic understanding of history.

The logical development of these fundamental moments inevitably leads to the affirmation of the paramount necessity of a class approach to all phenomena and processes in a class society, and at the same time the history of mankind is revealed as a history of class struggle.

Marxism marks the possibility of both evolutionary and revolutionary development. But consistently relying on dialectics, it shows that fundamental qualitative changes in the life of society, such as changes in socio-economic formations, although prepared in the course of evolutionary quantitative changes, however, are made in the form of revolutionary leaps. Therefore, Marxism calls boldly to face the harsh necessity of revolutionary changes of reality.

It should be noted that a revolutionary change of reality is necessary not only at the stage of taking power – during the revolution, but also at the stage of transforming the political, economic, cultural, moral foundations of life after the revolution. In economics, this should be expressed primarily in the decisive destruction of private ownership and the assertion of public ownership of the means of production, in overcoming commodity production and the market, in establishing unified state planning of the national economy with production orientation not on profit, but on meeting the rational needs of society.

At the same time, it is important to note that a revolutionary transformation means not only a radical transformation, but also certainly a fairly quick one. This means that after the seizure of power between capitalism and communism, the stage of socialism, in which there are still many dangerous elements of capitalism for the new system, must be passed decisively and optimally quickly. Otherwise, it is possible to seize the initiative by capitalist elements and roll back, which is what happened in the USSR.

Naturally, Marxism could not fail to develop a doctrine on the necessary conditions and guarantees for the revolutionary transformation of society, both at the stage of seizing power and at the stage of socialist development. The most important component of Marxism is the doctrine of the absolute need to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, both for the victory of the socialist revolution and for the successful construction of socialism in the future. In the transitional period between capitalism and communism, that is, under socialism, “the state … cannot be anything other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (K. Marx¹). One of the most important foundations of Marxism, stemming from the recognition of the paramount importance of the class factor, is the study of the need for international solidarity of the proletariat. “Not to delimit the nation is our business,” Lenin argued, “but to rally the workers of all countries”².

And finally, the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the Communist Party as a revolutionary party of the new type and the doctrine of the proletarian revolution are of continuing importance.

The scientific rigor of the position of Marxism and all their interrelations is the greatest merit of this doctrine. It was this rigor that made it possible to create, figuratively speaking, such a unique “structure”, from the height of which reality is viewed deeper and clearer and comprehended. It should, however, be remembered that this scientific rigor inevitably led to the creation of a system, in its complexity adequate to the complexity of reality itself. And with this circumstance are connected quite certain moments of danger.

After all, if the very essence of Marxism consists in its full scientific character, then it is only necessary (no matter by mistake or by malicious intent) to introduce into it something false or to throw away some necessary position, as it loses this essence, and its merits. In this regard, unlike social democracy, monarchism, fascism and the like, there can be no semi-Marxism or some partial Marxism. And for this reason, there can be no “slightly non-communist”, as there can be no “slightly pregnant” woman. Here, as they say, or or!

Another point of danger is that the complex and perceived more difficult. And many, unfortunately, prefer to be content with very cheap populism.

That is why opportunism, which can be conditionally defined as “slightly corrected” Marxism, is a great danger for the cause of socialism. Depending on where, in what direction from Marxism they persuade us to deviate, they distinguish opportunism “left” – calling, not conforming to circumstances, rush forward, and “right” – most often persuading to trample on the spot, and if you go ahead, then by all means “by a slow, timid zigzag step”³.

At one time, I. V. Stalin, answering the question of which of these two slopes is worse, more dangerous, definitely pointed out the greatest danger of the slope that is currently the most widespread⁴. Today, without a doubt, we should state the greatest distribution and, consequently, the greatest danger of a right deviation, right opportunism, the most prominent representative of which is the Communist Party of the Russian Federation – the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, opportunism as “left” and “right” can be divided into two groups. To the first one, it is advisable to include opportunism “everyday”, generated mainly by such human defects as lack of education and underdevelopment of thinking, the power of private ownership of instincts, cowardice and the like. “Domestic” opportunism is the soil, the social base for the work of the second group of opportunism, which can be called “scholarly” opportunism (revisionism). Unlike the first, his actions are not naive, spontaneous, unprincipled, but, on the contrary, are carefully thought out and carried out in the name of clearly conscious ideas and goals. Figuratively speaking, “scientist” and “everyday” opportunism relate to each other, like a scientist theologian and rather naive parishioners, or like the head of a dragon and his torso.

As in any epoch of reaction, today all dragons of obscurantism raise their heads, and perhaps the most dangerous among them is opportunism. To defeat him, first of all it is necessary to defeat his head – “learned” opportunism, which, relying on human weaknesses, constantly maintains and multiplies them, constantly expands the swamp of “everyday” opportunism, organizes an entire party from it and blocks the development of the revolutionary workers.

In contrast to obvious enemies, “learned” opportunism pretends to be a friend of scientific communism, seeking, for the best of reasons, to “only correct a little bit” of it. Sometimes he doesn’t even correct anything, but “just” something “forgets”, “accidentally” confuses or substitutes. However, all these “small deviations” bring monstrous results.

The most striking example of the opportunism’s harmfulness is the activity of the CPSU of the times of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev. Were they initially conscious enemies or were they first victims of opportunism, which eventually led them to frank betrayal? It is important, rather, to understand that in order to become a traitor, it is sometimes sufficient, first unconsciously and even with the best of intentions, to take the path of opportunism.

At the same time, it is clear that the most different elements of the bourgeois way of life are inclining towards opportunism. Under the influence of gradual bourgeoising in the minds of many and many members of the CPSU, fertile ground was prepared for opportunism, which also has the important property that creates the illusion of a solid theoretical justification for ideological rebirth. Today we personally see to what extent it has reached. Even the terrible lessons of Gorbachev did not teach anything to hundreds of thousands of “communists” who, like flies on fresh shit, fly to the rich opportunism of the CPRF.

It is difficult to forget the “position” of the Communist Party of the RSFSR and its leader. In his worthy reports, Polozkov seemed to be in something for socialism, but in the other he was also for capitalism. These oddities of the “mysterious” party and its leaders become more understandable if we recall the outstanding revelations made by A. Prokhanov, the ruler of the thoughts of the “patriotic opposition”:

“For the PSC, the idea of the state was also central. Who is talking about Marxism?.. Everyone is talking about the state and the civil world … We hoped that this communist party could be transformed into a party of national interests⁵ , that is, a reform party, free it from the internationalist … ideology and take advantage of this potential the party, its structures, its organizational apparatus”⁶.

It is not difficult to see that it is all about the same revisionist plan – to use the “communist” screen for the restoration of capitalism. This general idea was used first on the basis of the CPSU, then the Communist Party of the RSFSR. The arrogant Yeltsin hurried to ban these organizations that were most useful to him, but soon realized the threat of the emergence of a genuinely communist movement and considered it urgent to initiate the creation of a new pseudo-communist party.

I. Rybkin admitted that

“Already at the end of August [1991] … a conversation took place at a meeting held by the Chairman of the Supreme Council and at which the President met with him. He said that it is desirable to hold an extraordinary congress of the party to make it to capture key positions reformist wing”⁷.

Thus, it turns out that the initiators of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation were Yeltsin and Burbulis, and Rybkin was charged with working to create a party of bourgeois reforms under the communist flag. After a compromise decision of the constitutional court in the “case of the CPSU” Rybkin became one of the leading organizers of the Extraordinary Congress of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, at which in February 1993 G. Zyuganov was elected one of the six deputy chairmen of the CEC of the Communist Party.

Zyuganov was the main ideologue in the Polozkov Communist Party of the RSFSR and his election as leader of a new pseudo-communist party was highlighted in the A. Prokhanov newspaper with undisguised delight:

“They did not come to revive the party for the love of communist utopias … Former Politburo member Gennady Zyuganov said what he sees as a revived Communist Party: as a party of patriots, a party of national interests and popular traditions, but not book dogmas. And this strategic line was the most acceptable to the Congress, for the CEC unanimously elected Zyuganov put at the head of the party”⁸.

This is how the anticommunist relay found its logical continuation: from Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev to Polozkov and from Polozkov to Zyuganov.

Below we discuss the provisions of the Program of the Communist Party. They are unnatural for the Communists, but they are quite natural for pseudo-communists with the genetics discussed above. For the time being we will touch upon only one program statement made back in September 1993 in a letter of the Presidium of the CEC of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation “On the Place of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in the Political Life of Russia”. This document states that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation takes from Marxism (!) Only a criticism of a bourgeois state and the idea of familiarizing citizens with the government of the country. The rest of the richest content of Marxism Zyuganov’s “communist” party … does not take. But it is well known that the essence, the main advantage and difference of Marxism lies in its scientific character, including the organic integrity and the close interdependence of its individual provisions. Therefore, to take something, but not to take something from Marxism means to try to break the inseparable, it means not to accept Marxism at all, to stupidly and discredit it and, moreover, to simply kill Marxism and deceive the working class.

In the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation it is said that this party “leads its ancestry from the RSDLP – RSDLP (b) – RCP (b) – VKP (b) – KPSS – KP RSFSR”. It is necessary to fully agree that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is indeed a direct relative of the CPSU after the decades of the Stalin, when it was so mired in the deepest swamp of right-wing opportunism that a whole science had already formed in the international communist movement that specifically studied the process of restoring capitalism in the USSR Of course, we should completely agree with the fact that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a blood relative of the CPSU of the Khrushchev-Gorbachev modification, as well as a relative of the Polozkovskaya Communist Party of the RSFSR. But insisting on the kinship of the Communist Party with the communists of the heroic epochs of the Revolution, industrialization, World War II and the restoration of the national economy is not just a mistake, it is cynicism, which cannot be forgiven.

With a cursory acquaintance with the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, comparing it with the recent program documents of this party, one may get the impression that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has noticeably moved. Indeed, the sharpest criticism from other communist parties and from within the CPRF itself has placed its leadership in the face of the need for an urgent choice: either to lose their seats, or … to create the illusion of venting.

We must pay tribute to the illusionists. They worked on the glory. But, as they say, black dog can not be washed white. And the maximum that they managed to do was to remove some too anti-communist attacks and start a more subtle game, bringing the Program in line with the world standards of modern revisionism. However, opportunism is opportunism, its donkey ears still stick out.

For example, our illusionists conceal their sympathies for capitalism very poorly. In the “Minimum Program” section, they make an absolutely correct statement that “under the current anti-people regime, socio-economic and political stability in society is impossible.” But a simple question arises: to which one should this regime be changed or, to put it in a more precise Marxist language, what social structure should be established for stability to become possible? (By the way, stability is stagnant, but continuous, and best of all, rapid growth is needed). For some reason, there is no direct answer in the Program. However, it follows from the text that this means only a change of the management team in the form of the appearance of the so-called “government of national trust”. Or, to put it simply, replacing the “bad capitalist” with the “good capitalist” Apparently, it is for this reason that the illusionists limited themselves to the “Minimum Program” and “forgot” about the “Maximum Program”. For in the latter one would have to not only say about the intention to conquer socialism, but also clarify: when, which way and which one.

None of this is not! Even “ after coming to power,” the Communist Party of the Russian Federation intends, for example, to leave the parasitic commercial banks, but does not even suggest raising the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the power of the working people. Under such conditions, all statements about good intentions, the implementation of which this party, allegedly intends to pursue with “all legitimate”⁹ means, turn into a deliberate deception of the working class.

Indeed. How, under capitalism, can “return to citizens of Russia guaranteed socio-economic rights to work, rest, housing, free education and medical care, and secure old age”? How does the Communist Party of the Russian Federation intend to “suppress crime” under capitalism, which is by its very nature criminal, and therefore inevitably generates crime? How will the Communist Party of the Russian Federation “seek stabilization and price cuts” under capitalism, if even in the richest capitalist countries, which parasitize due to the robbery of backward countries, prices are rising? And here, of course, the question arises, how do the authors of the Program still imagine capitalism?

The program begins with the words that they are trying to get us back to “barbarous, primitive capitalism”. Apparently, the authors of the Program to this day are in the thrall of lies about the possibilities of some kind of innocent “civilized” capitalism and some kind capitalists. In a prisoner of lies, with the help of which the bourgeois democrats recently confused our destitute man in the street.

The program emphasizes that the Communist Party is against the bad thieves. At the same time, it sounds like “a very terrible threat” to “take control of state property appropriated against the public interest”. Awesome wording! Come understand why not just take away the loot, but only “take control”? And how is it possible to rob society in accordance … with its interests?

From the Program, we learn that the Communist Party’s allies should also consider entrepreneurs, that is, those very predators, in the name of whose dirty interests such monstrous crimes against the working class were committed. Of course, such allies offer distinct advantages. Thus, the cost of organizing the congress amounted to 500 million, of which only the payment for the Column Hall of the House of Unions cost about 100 million. But after all it is known: who pays, that and orders music. Apparently, this is the main reason for the “weirdness” of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, because all its “music” has been written, ordered and paid for by businessmen.

At times this music is quite subtle and can fool inexperienced hearing. For example, such a passage:

“… The Communist Party of the Russian Federation proceeds from the conviction that the fundamental dispute between capitalism and socialism, under the sign of which a stormy ⅩⅩ century has passed, is not historically completed.”

Someone might get the impression that it was written by courageous and inflexible communists. But how! After such a victory of capitalism, they say that the dispute is not over … Meanwhile, the Communists, at least just literate and honest, should first of all state that this historical dispute is over, and capitalism lost it, because capitalism could not overcome its organic contradictions, nor in no way he was able to peacefully and respectfully solve neither economic, nor social, nor national, nor cultural, nor environmental problems of the epoch. At the same time, socialism, to the extent with which, despite the frenzied resistance of all the forces of the old world, was accomplished, it solved these problems, and in a number of cases it solved brilliantly¹⁰.

The current restoration of capitalism in the USSR gave a convincing comparison of the effectiveness of the two systems. What was before and what has become now with the country! As far as what was created in the era of socialist construction, despite the onset of the forces of capitalism in the post-Stalin period, still for many decades provided a certain level of welfare and social guarantees for the Soviet people.

What kind of historical controversy can there be after all? Did capitalism, at least in something (except, of course, meanness and cynicism) show its superiority, especially in the historical dimension? The most that can be said is about a purely temporary, rather simply explainable and preventable failure of the historical process.

But it must be said that the wording of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation on the incompleteness of the dispute between capitalism and socialism is not at all accidental. For all its outward optimism, it actually makes it possible to question all the obvious advantages of socialism for decades. This formulation also sets the stage for doubts about the loyalty of Marxism and for justifying the various opportunistic “improvements” of Marxism.

A characteristic method of opportunism is the substitution of concepts, goals of the communist movement, and scientific Marxist analysis with various fashionable, but antiscientific considerations.

More recently, the leaders of the Communist Party were more frank. Almost without any disguise, they tried to substitute the socialist goals for “purely patriotic”, behind which not only the interests of Russian capital, but also the dilapidated church-monarchical aspirations were very strange for the end of the century. So, for example, there were attempts to establish in the public consciousness the motto characteristic of tsarist Russia: “Unity, spirituality, statehood”. What is translated from the language of the evil to the frank means: “For the faith, the king and the fatherland.”

These key concepts are stored in the Program. But under the pressure of criticism, they seem to be relegated to the background, to a strategic reserve. So, as traditional and basic Russian values are listed: “… the community, collectivism (Cathedral), the patriotism, the close relationship of the individual, society and the state (statehood), the desire to embody the highest ideals of truth, goodness and justice (spirituality), equality and equivalence all citizens regardless of national, religious or other differences (nationality)”.

Obviously calculated ambiguities, uncertainties and simple forgeries are self-evident here. One might ask, for example, why in the Party Program, which claims to be a Communist, the notions of community and collectivism should be crowned with a church term – “unity”? One may ask: is there a higher ideal of truth, goodness and justice in the world than the exemption from the exploitation of man by man? Apparently, there is no greater manifestation of spirituality! Then what does the Communist Party Program mean by the concept of spirituality? Exemption from the exploitation of man by man, or is it … trivial religiosity in the name of perpetuating this exploitation?

And when in tsarist Russia was it such a traditional value as “equality and equal value of all citizens”? Were the serf peasant and landowner, batrak and fist, worker and bourgeois or gendarme, alien and Russian intellectual equal in rights? … Why do we need all these dilapidated Church Slavonic tricks and stretches in the Communist Party Program?

The answer to these and other questions that arise is that the Program resorts to such tricks to first equate the concepts of socialism and “Russian patriotism” in the minds of the working class, and then quietly leave only “patriotism” as the thoughtless consent of the oppressed to serve their oppressors.

This substitution is summarized in a very beautiful, but, to put it mildly, not at all scientific statement that the “Russian idea” is a deeply socialist idea. Such populism can sometimes be suitable for salon conversations over a cup of tea of the clever intelligentsia, meeting passions, poetic images, but in no way suitable for the Communist Program, which must be scientific.

No doubt, it is nice to read Russian that “Russia has made a unique contribution to the development of mankind thanks to the peculiarity of the public consciousness and state structure…”. But, since we are talking not only about socialist Russia, but about Russia in general, that is, about Tsarist Russia, it is surprising that praise to tsarism and the public consciousness connected with it. The history of Poland, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and even Tsarist Russia itself has not yet forgotten about the royal ramrod, the rack and the gallows, the unbridled tyranny of landowners, landowners, unbearable oppression and plunder of the wild Russian bourgeoisie.

There are quite a few such touching identifications of socialism and tsarism in the CPRF Program. In particular, it is argued that “the geopolitical successor of the Russian Empire was the Soviet Union”. “Geo” – yes. But the “political successor” – is simply a blasphemous fiction, with a head outstanding psychology of the authors. After all, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the epoch of Lenin and Stalin not only was not the political “successor” of tsarism, but radically rejected the principles of royal politics!

Alas, too much indicates that not socialism is the ruler of thoughts for the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. It seems that socialism is only temporarily and formally, as in the days of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, sticking to the text of the document in the name of a smooth transition to something else. At the same time, at this stage, obviously, the desire to push socialism somewhere to the side of the program goals.

“The party is fighting for the unity, integrity and independence of the country, the well-being and safety of its citizens, the physical and moral health of the people…”, – says the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Only after this listing is added that also “…for the socialist path of development.” Why is socialism hidden in the end of the Communist Program? Accident? Formulating the “main goals” of the party, the Program again puts socialism on the margins after democracy, justice, equality, patriotism and responsibility. Although it is clear that without socialism all these beautiful words turn into completely empty, and sometimes simply reactionary abstractions. Is it not quite clearly expressed the desire to hide socialism away from the center of attention in the so-called Communist Party slogan: “Russia, labor, democracy, socialism!”?

All this is not so harmless as it might seem at first glance. In an effort to find an opportunity to “softly” get away from socialism, the leaders of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation exploit the natural strengthening of patriotic feelings that arise in response to the brazen economic plunder and insult to the national dignity of the people by Western capital. At the same time, they strive to create the illusion that the initial achievement of any “purely patriotic” goals will certainly facilitate later the achievement of socialist goals. However, in the present conditions, patriotism without socialist fulfillment may well lead to unbridled fascism. The struggle is simply “for a great power”, and not for the great socialist fatherland, the struggle for some kind of “sobornost” (Unity of the worker with the parasite), and not for the dictatorship of the proletariat, will unambiguously turn into another cynical deception of the working class. Therefore, such patriotism is false patriotism. Of course, such a line, despite some near-communist words, is only an anti-communist line, by virtue of its complete anti-science.

And finally, if we assume that the authors and supporters of this Program are really not against socialism, but “only” want to focus it exclusively on the interests of the nation and in the spirit of some “national idea”, then we should not forget that such a “tilt” of socialism in nationalism will inevitably lead to the terry national socialism with all the ensuing consequences. It is very important in the current state of the Communist Party to catch and prevent the threat of such a degeneration.

No one can deny that the history of class society is the history of class struggle. It is possible, however, contrary to this truth, to persuade the classes to stop the struggle, not to strive to establish their rule, singing at the same time some unrelated to the class struggle, peaceful ways of resolving fundamental class contradictions. Since there are no such ways, such chants, which help perpetuate the exploitation of man by man, are very beneficial for the bourgeoisie, which creates its dictatorship, and it pays well for such a service. Therefore, right-wing opportunism still polishes the technology of duping the working class.

The CPRF program in this regard is not a surprise. For a long time, it is known, for example, how G. Zyuganov doesn’t like the Communists, who do not change their Marxist views, how much he has in common with favorite expressions like “left orthodoxy”, “civil accord”, “civilized development” and the like with bourgeois democrats. We remember his words about the need to create such a party, “which would cut off the extreme leftist orthodoxy of those who remained ideologically in the past century.” There is no doubt that this is primarily about Marx and Lenin.

In order not to have any doubts about the determination of the new liquidators of Marxism, the CEC Communist Party CEC¹¹ letter specifically emphasized the renunciation of the most important provision of scientific communism about the dictatorship of the proletariat: “Dictatorship of any class would ultimately lead to a historic catastrophe.” Since the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has long been stinking in the country, and with an abundance of clearly fascist features, it is not difficult to understand that the Communist leaders of the CPRF frightened the inhabitant with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It was. In the current Program, there are no such shameful statements. Moreover. The authors even allow themselves to use the thoughts of “some writers remaining in the past century” (Marx, Lenin) to make a very correct remark that “Russian history fully confirms the view of the role of revolutions as the locomotive of history”. However, the right opportunist nature of the Program remains the same as in the fundamental ideas of the party ideologists. Indeed! Of course, it is true that “the historical process takes place in evolutionary and revolutionary forms” and, of course, it’s good that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation “supports those that really correspond to the interests of working people.”

It would seem – clear! Since socialism corresponds to the interests of working people and since theory and practice show that the transition to socialism is such a transition of quantity to quality that is accomplished leapfree, that is, through revolution, the Communists must clearly understand the need for a revolutionary transformation of society. It would seem that after the bourgeois lesson of Yeltsin in October 1993, it is impossible not to understand that the capitalists will never voluntarily, according to the results of some kind of voting, power and property will not give up. An, no! These “communists” against all odds, “seeking revolutionary changes, stand for peaceful methods of their implementation.” For greater importance and the impression of scholarship, it’s added that “the party opposes bourgeois and petty-bourgeois extremism”.

These accusations of “extremism” should be considered. The fact is that from these very same personalities we often heard quite fair statements that war is being waged against our people today. Moreover. By some indicators of distress, it has already surpassed the results of all past wars. It is permissible to ask who, then, should be a real patriot, a defender of the Motherland? Of course, he must be a man, without regard to danger, giving all of himself to the struggle against the class enemy. But this is an extremist! Such extremists were the pilot Nikolai Gastello, the partisan Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, the heroic Komsomol members of the Krasnodon underground … It was these and these extremists that brought the Victory to our socialist homeland.

Why is the CPRF program engaged in introducing the notion of “extremist” as a negative image so inappropriate in real present circumstances for the purposes of criticism? It would be more correct in today’s situation to expose indifference, cowardice, cowardice, empty demagogy, lousyness. Moreover, the bourgeoisie of all countries constantly and unsuccessfully introduces the inhabitants in the consciousness that the fighters for the interests of the proletariat are unfair “extremists” and “terrorists”. Naturally: with common goals, terminology is the same. So the Communist Party Program infects people’s minds with disinformational metastases, and for “scientific” it “clarifies”: “bourgeois extremism”, “petty-bourgeois extremism”.

For reflection: riot police already beat up and kill unarmed civilians under the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is completely legal, and protection against these killers is illegal, “extremism” Bankers and capitalists legally rob the workers, and protection against these robbers — strike and other actions of the working class — is, according to the logic of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, “extremism”.

What does the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation suggest instead of revolutionary “extremism”? We read: “To remove anti-popular mafia-bourgeois circles by legal methods from power…”. Legal methods! So, in accordance with the laws that protect the interests of the anti-people regime. So it turns out that the program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation contrasts revolutionary “extremism” with idiocy. And idiocy without end and edge. For if the current bloody regime of “bad capitalists” (and not capitalism itself) is removed from power, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation gathers through soul-giving speeches and votes, then naturally, with “good capitalists” (? !!!) “to ensure civil peace in society, the resolution of differences and contradictions in a legal way, based on dialogue.” All the same nonsense!

Of course, many members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation sincerely dream of socialism, but without a struggle for it, “for so”, and if with a struggle, then in comfortable conditions and with the indispensable permission of the authorities for this struggle. But bourgeois power does not consist only of idiots! Bourgeois power graciously resolves the struggle against it, but only in the only parliamentary way that will never yield any socialism. As any love talk with a woman will not give a child.

The struggle against the bourgeois government according to its laws, that is, actually under its leadership, is the road to nowhere, the cynical deception of the working class.

Since only the working class can be the force capable of destroying the exploitation of man by man through the exercise of his dictatorship, every genuinely communist party has the task to make the working class aware of this historical mission and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The task of right-wing opportunism, on the contrary, is to prevent this. But since opportunism plays the game under the guise of scientific communism, it therefore, formally, cannot abandon declaring the decisive role of the working class.

How to be? Opportunism, as a rule, finds a way out in all kinds of “deepenings”, “improvements”, “refinements” of Marxism. The program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is an excellent illustration. Here it is interesting and important not only to state the facts of lies, but also to trace the very technology of deception.

“In the socio-economic sense,” we read in the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, “technological progress coincides with the process of the socialization of labor.” Does it and how? Here, the authors allow “little” trick. Cunning helps to hide the “small”, but very important inaccuracy. The trick is. that the categories “productive forces” and “production relations” that are fundamentally used in Marxism are replaced by the terms “technological process” and “socialization of labor”. Use the authors of the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation the first terminology – and it would immediately be evident that there is no smooth and permanent coincidence between the development of the “productive forces” and the “production relations”. However, a literate reader should still notice the insidious inaccuracy. Indeed, in fact, technological progress does not just coincide unhindered, but in economic terms, it urgently requires the socialization of labor. The implementation of this requirement at a certain stage begins to be hampered by the lag of production relations, namely the presence of private ownership of the means of production, which inhibits the necessary socialization of labor. As a result, a crisis arises and deepens, which can be overcome only by a revolutionary change in the relations of production.

“Small” inaccuracies and tricks are used in the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation to get around this crucial moment and present the situation in such a way that, since everything is perfectly matched, the development of society can roll forward smoothly and without any shocks.

But that’s not all. The laces of opportunism trudge further:

“The socialization of labor is the main material cause of the inevitable offensive of socialism. The driving force of this transformation was and remains the working class.”

The pressure on the inevitability of the arrival of socialism here is used to assert in the consciousness of the absolute uselessness of any revolutionary actions. Like, all by itself formed. This is an old sedative, well mastered by the CPSU. The classics of scientific communism thought otherwise! Engels, for example, emphasized that “…the economic situation does not automatically have its impact, but people make their own history”¹².

In what sense, then, is the working class as a driving force? Since the CPRF program denies the revolutionary transformation of society and the dictatorship of the proletariat, praise to the working class is pronounced … as the driving force of technological progress. Thank you for your kind words, but this is fundamentally wrong. The presence of the working class, of course, is a necessary condition, but science and scientists are the direct driving force of technological progress. What’s the matter? The clue is simple. All these laces are needed in order, on the one hand, to remove the question of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, to report in the greatest respects to the working class.

But the most interesting begins further, when our illusionists, quite skillfully, having laid a false line of thought in the foundation of their reasoning, construct their own version of events. It turns out that “in the course of scientific and technological progress, the working class of the city and village is transformed.” Moreover, in the opinion of the CPRF, this transformation consists in the fact that it is elevated in professional and intellectual respects.

Paper, of course, can endure any fantasy. However, in life we see something quite different. Restoration of capitalism, lowering the level of industrial relations, not only destroyed any scientific and technical progress, but also caused a landslide in reverse. Naturally, this does not happen and there can be no increase in the professional and intellectual level of the working class. On the contrary, there is dequalification, and sometimes just savagery of the working class.

Professional degradation even more captures the intelligentsia. Here is the Law Program, saying that “a significant part of the engineering-technical intelligentsia is joining the ranks of the working class .” However, further follows the incorrect statement that “as a result of the counter-flows, the forward detachment, the core of the modern working class, is formed.” It is not true because, in professional terms, general degradation prevails, and not at all some counter flows.

Why do we need all this lime? In order to divert attention from the actual processes of social insight and growth of the organization of the working class, to remove the question of whether the real working class can fulfill the avant-garde role, passing into the state of the proletariat itself, which realized its common interest, that is, the interest of the proletariat – a class that has nothing to lose besides their own chains. In order to replace instead of this revolutionary class, the avant-garde has long been known for its conciliation and simply betrayal of a stratum of all kinds of “labor aristocracy”, “blue-collar workers” or selfish worker “democracy”. After that, there are utter nonsense. It turns out that “further replenishment of its ranks (the core of the working class).

How sweet is that! Everything (including the bloodsucking bourgeoisie) at the discretion of the CPRF dissolves in the working class and there will be no classes! The main thing, without class struggle! And the communists, it turns out, there is nothing to worry about! With such tricks, the CPRF program “closes” not only the question of the leadership role of the working class, but also of classes in general, class struggle in particular, and, of course, revolution in particular. Comments, as they say, are superfluous.

All this is not new. Such “views” are basically the essence of the rehash of the well-known theories of “post-industrial society”, “convergence” and the like, claiming that humanity based on the development of scientific and technological progress and culture is about to peacefully overcome all the contradictions of life. These theories strive at all costs to get away from the scientific Marxist methodology, presenting the socio-historical process in idealistic coverage. At the same time, they strive to replace the concept of socio-economic formation with the concepts of “civilization” and “culture”, seek to avoid considering the dialectics of productive forces and production relations, replacing it with a fruitless illusion about the possibility of conflict-free development of scientific and technological progress.

In our time, especially after the scandalous collapse of the “philosophical” Gorbachevism, a demonstrative departure from science and a simple repetition of the asss of theories long ago rejected by life itself has become quite difficult. Therefore, having chosen the path of abandonment of scientific communism, the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation was obliged to cover this refusal with at least something that produced the impression of some kind of scholarship. To this end, the leaders and theorists of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation are beginning to spread thick “philosophical” fogs.

Instead of the crystal clear Marxist doctrine on the development of society, we are being offered a theory of a certain way of “sustainable development”, developed even “in international scientific, public and political circles”. At the same time, it is stated that “in the overwhelming majority of countries, including in Russia, work has been launched to formulate national strategies for sustainable development, taking into account general civilization trends, existing productive forces, and especially spiritual traditions and aspirations of society”.

After reading this frivolous abstruse text, many questions naturally arise. First of all, what kind of “international scientific, public and political circles”? International Monetary Fund? And what are “generalized tendencies”? The Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation shortly before this fragment mentions a tendency towards the division of the world’s population into “golden billion” and mercilessly exploited by it with the help of the “new world order”.The rest and bulk of humanity. We have known this generalized civilized trend, inevitably associated with the nature of capitalism, for a long time. The past world wars and the current imperialist robbery are associated with this tendency. What does the Communist Party Program mean? The need to focus on the nightmares of the capitalist “civilization” as something positive? Or it means the opposite – the flight from this civilization, which is why it is developed specifically national strategies, that is, strategies for the principle of “save yourself as you can”? Finally, to the “sustainable equilibrium” of what does the CPRF intend to lead us?

You can expect anything. For when you read this program, the impression is that you are swinging on a swing. Here you are pretty Tsarist Russia and the USSR … as its successor, the revolution as the engine of history and … the Communist Party of the Russian Federation against the revolution, socialism and … all forms of ownership, the working class as the driving force and … a completely incomprehensible role and fate of this force.

But, thank God, (as some “atheist communists” now seriously say), the authors of the Program, having supported the reader in this bunch of “highly scientific” fog, finally report that the socialist development is optimal for Russia…

Thank! Rolling up to stupidly on the swing of the Communist Party, having eaten enough of all their eclecticism, seeing all these tricks with the working class, it is impossible not to wonder: Do the authors of the Program understand the essence of socialism? Moreover, do they not want to fool once again the working class with this version of socialism, after which the communists will not have a hundred years of faith then? You ask this question and you understand that this is the way it is! To do so, they spread their “philosophical fogs”, hoping only that among the utterly muzzled people there would be no one who would exclaim: “But the king is naked !!!”.

Since scientific communism proceeds from the determining role of the economic basis, the builders of socialism must first of all clearly understand what exactly the socialist economy should be. The program of the Communist Party is obliged not only to indicate the necessary general principles, such as public ownership of the means of production and its management through state planning, but also to show on which concrete mechanisms the socialist economy should work in order to reveal its advantages over the capitalist economy. At the same time, the very nature of such – economic – part of any communist program is the most important criterion of the communism of the entire program.

What is the economic part of the program of the Communist Party? Let’s face it – there is simply no economic basis of a communist nature in this program. Recall that the Communist Party, with its “socialism”, despite scientific communism, is not going to destroy private ownership of the means of production. The Communist Party promises only “domination” of social forms of ownership.

Why is it still necessary to leave private ownership of the means of production? Why does the Communist Party of the Russian Federation at any cost, even after the victory of its “socialism”, want to have the coexistence of antagonistic forms of ownership, which in the end cannot be peaceful? Perhaps, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation still has not defined its opinion on the fact which form of ownership is more economically effective? But why then rush to be called the Communist Party?

The reference to the fact that due to the low level of productive forces today, “as under Lenin,” it would be necessary to reconcile with private traders, would be untenable. After all, despite all the demo bourgeois robberies, we still have this level “slightly” higher than after the end of the Great Patriotic War. But then the indicators in the economy we had on the envy of the whole world, and it was precisely because we did not focus on the private trader. Or do you need a private trader “for divorce” in order to multiply new and new private traders, to multiply private-ownership psychology and, ultimately, to create new personnel for the “fifth column”? Or, even worse, the friendship with a private trader already so tied the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, that it is simply not able to break out of the vicious circle?

It should be noted that the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is about domination not even public, but social forms of ownership, that is, not the domination of a single public ownership, but the domination of all these “partnerships”, cooperatives, joint-stock companies and other anarcho-syndicalist a rabble who, in Lenin’s phrase, is “a complete rejection of socialism”¹³. Lenin’s rightness was fully confirmed by the experience of replacing socialism with its imitations in many countries.

The CPRF program promises us that “the wasteful nature of capitalist production and consumption will gradually be completely overcome. On the basis of the progressive movement of a new society, the principle of the universal saving of resources will prevail in the life of people…”. But at the expense of what will happen? After all, the “explanation” of the type “on the basis of the progressive movement” absolutely nothing explains. Rather, the opposite.

Indeed, it is hardly possible to call the program a declaration of the type “the nature of labor productivity will change, the systems of public transport, communications, information, health care, nutrition will rise to a new level … society will move from industrial to post-industrial technologies”, “conveyor technologies will give way to flexible automated ones” and like that.

It is very important! But all this has happened and will continue to happen in capitalist countries, and not even in the most developed ones. Where are the fundamental, socialist differences? Unless these, purely technological, organizational questions should constitute the main task of the party and be put into its Program? Obviously, the main task of the party is more fundamental. It can not be reduced to interference in the actual organization of production and technology. First of all, the main task of the party is to bring production relations to a higher level, which is able to create the necessary conditions for the rapid development of productive forces.

The program of the Communist Party leads the party to the loss of its main and fruitful function, which was very typical for the Communist Party of the last decades.

This replacement of the scientific approach to the construction of a socialist economy with the second edition of the “fourth dream of Vera Pavlovna” is not at all an accidental and innocent mistake. This is a deliberate relapse of the long-time opportunist tradition, leading at least from Bogdanov, later supported by Bukharin and sharply criticized by JV Stalin in 1952 in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. Criticizing Yaroshenko, Stalin showed that the profound mistakes of Yaroshenko stem from the false assertion that under socialism there are no contradictions between production relations and productive forces. Therefore, Yaroshenko believed that any independent role of the relations of production under socialism disappears. They allegedly simply enter into one of the moments in the organization of the productive forces. Thus, in his conclusions, he robbed socialism of its economic basis, and in political economy its main task, connected with the study of production relations, imposing production science, planning, technology on this science. Naturally, at the same time, he and the party took away its main task, Stalin convincingly showed that the contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production under socialism certainly exist, since the relations of production lag behind and will lag behind the development of the productive forces. One of these contradictions is, for example, the contradiction between the dominant national ownership of the means of production in industry and the existence of property of a lower level of socialization (collective farm). Naturally, it was up to the state policy determined by the party, whether such contradictions would be resolved peacefully and without losses for a socialist society or their development would lead to a sharp conflict.

Stalin warned in time that if the policy of ignoring the importance of production relations recommended by Yaroshenko with the substitution of scientific categories of political economy for “rational reasoning” about the rational organization of productive forces, the conflict is inevitable, will be implemented . As is known, such a conflict occurred and ended with the strangulation of socialism.

In the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, we see precisely these, calculated for the average man, the general “sound reasoning” at the level “it is necessary to do well and not to do it badly”. But we do not see the main focus and absolutely necessary for the successful construction of socialism to expand and deepen the socialization of the means of production, to overcome the marketability of the economy and profit orientation. This is quite understandable if we recall the insurmountable craving of the Communist Party’s ideologists towards “the coexistence of all forms of ownership”. Therefore, in order to disguise the ideological vacuum, the opportunists are forced to fill their Program with all sorts of enthusiastic words about the transition from industrial to post-industrial technologies and the like. Of course, all these words cannot claim to be called the economic program of the Communist Party.

“Trying to reduce all this complex and diverse business, which requires major economic changes, to the ‘rational organization of the productive forces,’ means replacing Marxism with Bogdanovism” – J. V. Stalin.

The “analysis” offered by the CPRF Program to “explain” the causes of the collapse of socialism is extremely indicative. Here, on the one hand, there are, of course, curses addressed to the decayed top of the CPSU, shadow capital and other anti-people forces. On the other hand, the fundamental root causes and specific mechanisms for the collapse are carefully hidden. Opportunists, of course, will not criticize for deviating from Marxism. Lovers of “all forms of ownership” they will never see evil in a market economy, the first steps towards which were taken not under Gorbachev, or even in 1965, but almost immediately after Stalin’s death. As a result, the proposed “analysis” at times strikes with clearly deliberate inconsistencies, inaccuracies, naiveties, and sometimes strikingly recalls the bourgeois-democratic demagogy with which people were fooling at the dawn of “restructuring”.

For example, the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation says that after the establishment of the power of the working people the transition to a planned economy on the basis of public ownership was carried out, a cultural revolution was carried out, industrialization was carried out as soon as possible. It is noted that the victory over fascism and the successful restoration of the national economy proved the historical justification for such accelerated development. That’s right. It would seem that it only remains to emphasize that, since it was precisely the organic advantages of socialism and their correct use that made such a successful construction possible, then this should be followed further, in every possible way deepening the socialist content of life – above all, by increasing the level of socialization of production.

But no! Here our “statesmen” give a reverse course. They regret that this path was “forced” (?!), The path of “rigid centralization and nationalization was improperly (?!) elevated to the absolute and accepted as a guiding principle.” They regret that “as a result, the free amateur organization of the people was increasingly restricted, the public energy and the initiative of the working people were not demanded”.

Let’s tell the truth. In this beautiful phrase it sounds not at all some abstract longing for some abstract initiative and energy. It does not sound a longing for initiative and energy in the matter of socialist transformations. Here, the same philistine longing of the Communist Party for “all forms of ownership.” Frankly, longing for private property and profits.

Even Marx and Engels emphasized that the very essence of socialism consists in the destruction of private property. The living experience, in particular the experience of the tremendous victories of the Stalinist economy, shows that it is the depth of socialization that reveals the possibilities of realizing the enormous economic advantages of socialism. But ordinary people cannot overcome private owners in themselves!!!

On the other hand, isn’t the self-evident nightmare to which the replacement of the remnants of the scientific management of the socialized economy by the “free action of the people” led to ? When, in favor of international capital, were the “public energy and initiative of the working people” demanded in the black business of inflating anti-communist hysteria, private ownership psychology, the collapse of the state, privatization and other types of theft and robbery?

Of course, the Communist Party ideologues will say that it was necessary to take initiative, energy and initiative for creation. Right. But for what specific plans should act in this direction? Does he have the Communist Party?

The program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation fairly states that the pathos of the Third Program of the CPSU adopted in 1961 (“Overtake and overtake!”) was not implemented. That the main task of socialism has not been resolved is to realistically, in practice, socialize production. It may seem that even the authors of the Communist Party understand this. But alas, it can only seem! For in the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation itself, it is black and white inscribed that it is realistic to socialize production, in their understanding, it means … “to switch to the self-government of labor collectives.” The long-familiar Düringovsko-Shlyapnikovsko-Yugoslav model, which represents anarcho-syndicalism, has nothing to do with scientific socialism, with all the ensuing consequences that are clearly visible from Yugoslavia to Russia today!

Not surprisingly, the Communist Party ideologists, even after the pogrom committed by the Gorbachev region, see the trouble of our past development in the fact that in our time of Khrushchev, Brezhnev was taken as a model of an allegedly “outdated type of development of productive forces”. Moreover, by “outdated” without any evidence, contrary to theory and facts, Stalin type of development is meant.

In fact, everything is just the opposite. The trouble was that in the post-Stalin period a consistent rollback began from the advanced type of development of the productive forces. So, after a series of actions preparing the development of market relations and market consciousness, in 1961 an absolutely necessary and adequate criterion for evaluating production efficiency to reduce production costs was removed and appropriate to the nature of socialism. Since 1965, the notorious “economic reform” has already been launched, forcibly reorienting production to the pursuit of monetary profit. This “reform”, which marked the beginning of a forced transition to the market, was enough to ensure the collapse of socialism. However, it is about this most important reason for the collapse of the program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, of course, does not say a word! “The workers did not feel the owners.” It is hard to believe that this is said in 1995, when millions of workers realized with their own ridge, into which the bog pulled their bourgeois zlatousta.

It is not by chance that the criticism of the CPSU is superficial in the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. In the Program, there is not even an attempt at periodization, of highlighting characteristic stages in the history of the CPSU and the USSR. This means that there is no analysis of our history. Instead, we find a fairly common type declaration “in the CPSU originally existed opposite trends – the proletarian and petty-bourgeois, democratic and bureaucratic,” “formed two wings, and in fact two tendencies”, that “only by taking into account these circumstances, it is possible to make an objective assessment such leaders of the Party and the state as I. V. Stalin and V. M. Molotov, N. S. Khrushchev and G. M. Malenkov, L. I. Brezhnev and A. N. Kosygin”.

Immediately questions arise. Which of these figures should be attributed to the positive, and who to the vicious course, and why? When exactly vicious tendencies won, why, what was their essence? No replies. This is not an accidental omission and is due to the fact that any concretization is fraught with the possibility of identifying very undesirable moments for the leadership of the CPRF.

Let us take, for example, the indication of the Program that one of the most important reasons for the collapse of the USSR was the party’s monopoly on power and ideology. Yes, there really is a serious problem. At first glance it may seem that it concludes two sides of an insoluble contradiction. The first is that there is no other way to really build socialism, except through the dictatorship of the proletariat under the leadership of the communist party. The theory speaks about it, practice has proved it. The second is that any state, including the dictatorship of the proletariat, cannot exist without the monopoly of the ruling party on power and ideology, much less develop. Not for nothing so valued in the capitalist countries, when the party that won the election, can form a one-party government – what is this if not a monopoly on power? And the so-called “freedom of the press” in capitalist countries – if not a monopoly on ideology? Or is the bourgeoisie’s monopoly on power and ideology a good thing, but the same is bad for the proletariat?

If we base our analysis on the contradiction thus formulated, then it is not difficult to sink into the clique of the most artistic bourgeois democrats from 1988–1989, who, posing as true guardians of socialism, “regretted with pain in their hearts”…

In fact, in the post-Stalin period, the monopoly of the CPSU on power was exercised if its leadership had only communist phraseology and talk, but not Marxist science. It was a non-communist monopoly. Therefore, there are problematic issues, but they are completely different.

In fact, did such “reforms” of Khrushchev correspond to socialism, as the beginning of the reorientation of industrial enterprises in pursuit of profit, the transfer of MTS to collective farms, and even more so the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the announcement of the CPSU as a nationwide party? All these undertakings corresponded to bourgeois, market ideology.

Indeed, the Communist Program should have noted that in the post-Stalin period, the Communist Party and the monopoly on power were in the hands of false communists, opponents of the proletariat, communism, Marxism. This fact and the reasons that led to this, are a deep, comprehensive, scientific analysis on the part of the Communists.

Instead, in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, in a familiar populist manner, bourgeois democrats and their lackeys talk about their own, luring them somewhere, but never without telling where.

For example, they say that “self-government in production” is necessary. What is its essence? The program is silent. Next comes the “democratization of elections.” In what sense: “democratization”? If in the sense of the dictatorship of the proletariat, then there are no objections. But the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is categorically against the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie remains. There is no third in nature. But we have already taken to the bourgeois democratization, when the availability of money allows pushing anyone into the deputies: from just mentally ill people to outright thieves. What does the Communist Party Program mean? Next comes the “freedom of speech.” What word? Anyone? Thank you, have heard a lot! This style is quite suitable for the bourgeoisie, but for the communists…

Of interest is the statement of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation that there was “the desire of the advanced sections of society to carry out reforms long overdue in the country.” What are the layers? What kind of reforms are we talking about? We remember the indignation of the rise of the Soviet bourgeoisie that was ripe among the masses of the working people. We remember the regret that Lenin is not with us. We remember the talk that private-ownership psychology is beginning to openly reveal the fangs and that it is time for Aurora to be brought to the Kremlin. That is how really advanced, but, unfortunately, completely unorganized segments of society thought. The program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation unequivocally means completely different strata of society and other reforms. This becomes apparent when the Communist Party Program is terribly angry at the Gorbachev leadership not at all because it opened the way for a private trader, but because only… “in words the equality of all forms of ownership was hypocritically proclaimed.”

The repetition by the CPRF Program of bourgeois-democratic demagogy about the harmfulness of the communist monopoly on ideology and power means that this party, with its “socialism”, craves the market not only in the economic, but also ideological. What for? The craving of the masses for socialism is becoming more and more obvious. This seriously scares the fake communists and makes them look for effective antidotes in advance.

“For treachery of the party, for ignoring national interests, for the destruction of our Fatherland,” the Communist Party Program says, “Gorbachev and Yakovlev, Yeltsin and Shevardnadze are responsible.” And that’s it? !!! The rest are “true party members”??? If we submit the names of class enemies personally, it is necessary to continue the list to discuss, first of all, from among all representatives of the party nomenclature: Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Polozkov, Belov, Kuptsov, Zyuganov and so on.

It is necessary to say the whole and complete truth, no matter how bitter it is. The true depth of the tragedy is not only that the ideas of communism were consistently betrayed by the leaders of the CPSU, the Communist Party of the RSFSR, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The main thing is that the degeneration, betrayal of the “party members” was massive. How else can one understand the indisputable fact that out of 18 million “communists” today, at least 600,000 people are not even called themselves communists?

Why is the Communist Party Program silent about this? What are the “true party members” all the same and why are they trying to brighten the truth? As for the “true party members”, apparently, everything is simple. As such, the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation calls all the members of the CPSU hiding in the gaps. They are granted indulgences. And they, inspired by the absolution of sins, are felled in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, where, without doing anything and without risking anything, we can consider ourselves to be “a true Leninist.” This is the traditional method of the CPSU of the last decades. This is a kind of “social contract”: the tops close their eyes to the petty untidiness of the bottoms so that the bottoms close their eyes to the greater untidiness of the tops. And everyone is happy! This is the fundamental principle of the organization of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which should be written down directly in the Charter of this party.

The first reason that made all this possible is the deep bourgeois rebirth of the party masses, not just the upper classes. And not only the party masses, but also the working class and the entire population. This rebirth was most strongly promoted by the introduction into the consciousness of millions of CPSU members of anti-communist metastases of right-wing opportunism: market utopias, bourgeois-democratic illusions, the psychology of anti-Stalinism, the preference of the so-called “common sense” of the uncompromising scientific nature of Marxism and the like.

Right opportunism is one of the main (but not the only) reasons for the defeat of the Communist Party, socialism, the proletarian Fatherland. Naturally, the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation cannot recognize this, and therefore is forced to engage in falsification of history.

The CPRF program ends with the following enumeration: the Communist Party’s banner is red, the Communist Party’s anthem “Internationale”, the Communist Party’s symbolism is a symbol of the union of workers of the city, village, science and culture – hammer, sickle and book, the Communist Party’s motto is “Russia, work, democracy, socialism”.

This short list cleverly disguises, but at the same time accurately expresses the right-opportunist essence of the CPRF. This is the very essence of the methodology of “scholar” opportunism – the struggle against scientific communism in a communist mask.

So the banner is red. What is depicted on the banner? What will be shown? It remains unsolved.

Anthem – “Internationale.” It would seem beautiful!? But the КП Congress of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation made literally an astounding decision: to cancel the slogan “Workers of all countries, unite!”. It turns out that the Internationale is taken as a hymn in order to “compensate” for the removal of this most important communist slogan.

Symbols of the Communist Party. After 40 years of growing domination of opportunism, it may indeed seem logical to someone to designate all allies in the symbolism. For this, they say, it is possible to add a hammer and sickle with a book – a symbol of workers of science and culture. Apparently, now the intelligentsia has emerged as a separate class. Only in the class of oppressors, or the oppressed? And where are the military, students, pensioners? Is it not logical to add, say, a tank, a desk, a crutch? And if you consider that the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation officially as its allies also calls entrepreneurs and priests, then in the symbols of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation on a full basis should also be included purse and censer. Of course, the party leadership will not allow such a jumble in its symbolism. If something changes, it is more likely along the path of reduction. The logic of opportunism suggests the following way: remove the hammer and sickle…

Sickle Hammer was therefore a symbol of the Communist Party, because it briefly expressed the most important condition for ensuring the victory of socialism – the vanguard role of the working class in alliance with the peasantry. The symbol of the Communist Party delicately blurs this main condition. He brings to the fore the intelligentsia, which, with the exception of a rather thin layer of people devoted to the ideas of communism, is capable of fulfilling only the role of a force supporting the class in power. That is, to serve the interests of any ruling class!

Motto: “Russia, work, democracy, socialism!”. What is “Russia”? Even the capitalist suits? Even work on the world of the world, the Program blesses the Communist Party? Today the word “democracy” came into use as a scolding. Therefore, the Communist Party was forced to replace it with the equivalent word “democracy”. Democracy means the equal right to power for all. But as soon as the equal right to power is proclaimed theoretically for everyone, that is, for the oppressed and the oppressor, the robber and the robbed, the toiler and the bloodsucker rich man, so instantly the power is in the hands of the strong, in the hands of the oppressor, robber, the rich.

That is why the exploiters of all times and peoples and their lackeys so protect “democracy” and “democracy of the people” – this lie, invented back in the era of slavery. “Democracy”, “democracy” is a uniquely powerful lie, under the beautiful banners and slogans of which the greatest popular movements and legendary tyranoborts perished. That is why it is so important to expose this deception, to overthrow the millennial myth of democracy. The working class must firmly grasp that the so-called democracy is in essence and in fact nothing more than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the death of social justice. To win social justice, it is necessary not only the destruction of the power of the bourgeoisie, but also of the bourgeoisie itself, which can only be accomplished by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The founders of scientific communism warned, and the practice fully confirmed their correctness in the fact that if there is no proletarian dictatorship, then ultimately there will be no socialism. Therefore, the Communist Party’s motto, perched on the margins, after “Russia, labor, democracy”, the word “socialism” should not inspire anyone and mislead.

A unique blasphemy on the part of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is that this frail opportunist devisic expelled from the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation the great and truly communist motto “Workers of all countries, unite!” Without the realization of this thought, socialism cannot win a final victory.

Marx and Engels considered the final victory of socialism in a particular country impossible at all. For it was believed that if this country is isolated from the rest of the world, then it will fatally lag behind in scientific, technical and economic progress. If the socialist country is not isolated, then socialism perishes in it in an unequal “cold” war with a strengthened capitalism through the penetration of bourgeois influences. The output of the classics was seen only in a more or less simultaneous world revolution. This was an absolutely correct, scientifically grounded conclusion for a certain stage of historical development, and not at all the machinations of fake communist Trotskyists, as the CPRF Program presents.

However, the operation of the law of the uneven development of capitalism, which has passed into the stage of imperialism, contributed to a social explosion and revolution in Russia. The experience of successful construction and defense of socialism in the epoch of Joseph Stalin showed the fundamental possibility not only of coexistence in the world of socialism with capitalism, but also of the victory of socialism at a large historical stage. And yet, despite convincingly demonstrated the greatest advantages of a socialist economy, the final gain in economic competition turned out to be a matter of extraordinary complexity.

After all, capitalism in the most developed countries largely builds its well-being at the expense of merciless exploitation of the colonial and underdeveloped countries. Socialism developed almost exclusively at the expense of its own efforts and moreover, in many respects being in a rather rigid blockade, it helped many nations fighting for their independence. It is clear how difficult it was to “catch up and overtake” in such unequal conditions of competition.

The growth of the national liberation struggle of the colonial and dependent countries, characteristic of the post-war decades, significantly undermined the parasitic economy of capitalist predators. Naturally, at the same time, in these parasitic countries, social conflicts are exacerbated in a similar situation, since the opportunity to extinguish them due to the gratuitous transfer of resources from exploited countries decreases. It should be borne in mind that since the national liberation movements oriented towards socialism achieve the greatest success in the struggle against imperialist oppression, the liberation struggle of peoples under the slogans of socialism and under the leadership of the communists becomes more and more characteristic of modern world practice. In this way, in such conditions, the slogan of Marx and Engels “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” as if gaining a second wind and becoming even more relevant than before. Previously, this slogan actually referred only to Europe, where there was a fairly mature working class, and aimed at accomplishing in fact only the European Socialist Revolution. Now this slogan calls for combining the efforts of all national liberation and revolutionary communist movements in the name of their growing into a single communist movement with subsequent breakthroughs of the front of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist system in an increasing number of countries. Therefore, today this slogan sounds on all continents of our country, in fact in a slightly different form: “Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!”¹⁴.

Under the conditions when there are powerful international organizations of the bourgeoisie, such as the UN, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, the European Parliament, transnational corporations and others coordinating the strangulation of national liberation and communist movements, a demonstrative rejection of the international solidarity of the proletariat is a direct betrayal of the cause of socialism. Only international proletarian solidarity can and must be opposed to the international efforts of the bourgeoisie.

This betrayal of the Communist Party is not by accident. It is especially organic for the ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, for which so-called patriotism is so characteristic, with attempts to detach Russian socialism from the scientific communism of the world revolutionary process, to “justify” Russian socialism with some mysterious “Russian idea”.

Such an ideology puts all members of the Communist Party in a very dangerous position, from which there are literally two steps to national socialism with the declaration of Marxism – “anti-Russian doctrine”, communism – Jewish conspiracy, and the like.

It has long been no news that, compared to other, literally mendicating communist parties, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a party that is very rich materially. Another distinctive external feature of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the oversaturation of its ranks by the noble “chicks” of the CPSU, high-ranking political, economic and cultural figures in the past and individuals in prominent positions in today’s society.

The overwhelming majority of these high chiefs, charming folk artists, deep writers, cleverest scholars, seeminglytalented, educated and even highly moral, did not endure at a critical moment, did not reach Marxism, turned out small mentally and spiritually, and therefore stately and stupidly flowed the banner of right-wing opportunism, along the usual, beaten track of the CPSU.

But now and then there is a huge difference. After all, now – this is after the terrible lesson of Gorbachev, who so mercilessly explained in practice what the rejection of Marxism and capitulation to bourgeois ideology leads to. Now it is after that tremendous and painful analysis of each communist, an analysis that in all details revealed all the abominations in theory and practice that were palmed off instead of, but under the guise of Marxism, brilliant insights of various “loyal Leninists” and great victories of “humane socialism.”

But even now, this glittering big-name “elite” is adopting a program that is astounding by deviations from the most important principles of scientific communism.

All these digressions are difficult to enumerate, but the main ones are certainly the following:

1. Waiver of the destruction of private property and the establishment of only a single national property. What does not make it possible to realize the advantages of a socialist economy on the basis of nationwide planning and lays the foundation for the constant reproduction of the bourgeoisie and the conditions of the new counter-revolution.

2. The refusal of the unconditional priority of the class approach to the phenomena of social life. What deprives Marxism of its main qualities – scientific and revolutionary, turning it into pseudo-Marxism – a means of ideological disarmament of the working class.

3. The rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the sowing of bourgeois illusions of “democracy and democracy”, which paves the way for the establishment of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

4. The rejection of internationalism. What is a betrayal of the cause of socialism on a world scale, facilitates the replacement of socialism by various bourgeois-nationalist aspirations, up to social-chauvinism and national socialism.

This is what the fuss of the brilliant “elite” has led to! And these are only the most important moments. They are like big branches growing from a huge trunk of right opportunism. And so from these large branches there are so many medium and small, and so many poisonous fruits that ultimately form the richest arsenal of means, covering everything necessary to fight Marxism, revolution, socialism.

The program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation can be safely called an encyclopedia of right-wing opportunism.

What is the Communist Party? Whose interests does she really express? The CPRF, before it, the CP of the RSFSR and the CPSU of the last decades is the result of the deepest rebirth of a very large mass of party members, accomplished under the influence of bourgeois ideology, in whose arsenal right opportunism always occupied a particularly important place. As a result of this rebirth, the Communist Party increasingly expressed the interests of the rapidly growing Soviet bourgeoisie and that morally disintegrated part of the intelligentsia, which valued the values of the bourgeois consumer society above all.

Today’s Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a party ideally expressing the interests of domestic capital, for it solves the main vital problem for it – the problem of gently submerging the working people in capitalist slavery under the anesthesia of lulling compromising ideology.

This party challenged the most important Marxist position that only the working class can lead the struggle forsocialism and bring it to the bitter end. Trying to refute this position, the opportunists cling to the fact that “today, they say, the working class is not revolutionary.” Well, that’s right. But only today! And genuine communists distinguish temporary, transitory states from the basic and insuperable development trends. In this regard, it is worth remembering Marx’s words that it’s not so important what the working class is at the moment, like what it will inevitably be due to the economic conditions in which it is put.

No, it’s not at all thoughtless idealization, not “holy faith”, but the correct understanding of the laws of social development makes the communists in the working class see the force that will lead socialism to victory.

Marxism is a powerful weapon in the struggle for the victory of socialism. But he, unfortunately, is not enough to win. Just as Odyssey’s bow could shoot only from those who could pull it with a string, so Marxism can bring victory only to those who can not only theoretically comprehend it, but also put its principles into effect. It is beyond the power of even the most intelligent and honest intelligentsia. Only the working class can do this.