Archive | Literature

Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Harpal Brar

Table of Contents
Introduction to the Spanish edition [revised] >>
Introduction to the Spanish edition [Not amended] >>
>> Revisionism and the end of the first Brhm_hlk
>> Revisionism and the end of Brhm_cl other parts
The first episode – Lalkar March / April 1990
Perestroika – Leninism final retirement
The definition of restructuring (perestroika)
The Why ” restructuring “?
Socialism and World
The world of integral and interdependent
The nature of imperialism
The change of contradictions
The question of militarization
The imperialism and the third world
The Summary
Chapter Two – Lalkar June / July 1990
Economic perestroika
Part 1: Retirement Marxism-Leninism final.
The reorganization Why?
The June 1987 report of Gorbachev
The trivialization of socialism and comparing its effectiveness with capitalism
Chapter Three – Lalkar July / August 1990
Economic perestroika
Part 2: Retirement Marxism-Leninism final
The thesis (discount) of Nikolai Liliova
The only healing unemployment
The evasive response of Gorbachev’s thesis Liliova
The capitalist rehabilitation advocacy
The e-NEP (New Economic Policy) and how Lenin saw it
Chapter Four – Lalkar Dec / January 1990/1:
Economic perestroika
Part 3: Retirement Marxism-Leninism final
The attempts of breaking collectivization
The Gorbachev goes to camp Liliova
The Gorbachev and the question of collectivization
The 19th conference of the party
The July 1988 meeting of the Central Committee of Mkb”m and a meeting Gorbachev Report
The accelerated efforts to discredit the collectivization and central economic planning
The administrative changes and Gorbachev’s team
The new economic mechanisms to replace the old
The reliance greed and manufacturing small-scale
The Leninism is not the ideological source of Gorbachev’s perestroika
The Lenin’s views on collectivization
The overall value of collectivization
Chapter Five – Lalkar February / March 1991:
Part 1: Retirement Marxism-Leninism control
The interpretation of transparency (glasnost)
The Why transparency?
The revival of Leninism or the introduction of capitalism?
The Soviet glasnost communication
The attempt to demoralize the Soviet people
The reorganization resistance inside and outside the Party
The 19th conference of the party: anti-communist Festival
The exclusion of opponents of perestroika in the name of democratization
The hide their plan of capitalist restoration
The no third way
. Chapter Six – Lalkar March / April 1991
Part 2 – Full retirement Marxism Leninism
The How to convince the Soviets?
The circumventing Party and the establishment of competing power-centers
The democracy and Marxism-Leninism
The economic basis of democracy and the extinction of the state
Chapter Seven – Lalkar May / June 1991
Historical Questions
Part 1 – a re-evaluation of the past
The collectivization
The incredible speed of rehabilitation after the war
The miners’ strike in July 1989 and the current strikes are the most significant development and expression of discontent among the working class in relation to structural changes in the economy on the part of Gorbtz’obfrk H. historical issues -. A reassessment of the past
Chapter Eight – Lalkar July / August 1991
Historical Questions
Part 2 – a re-evaluation of the past
The Stalin and the role of the peasantry
The Stalin and the peasantry
The two deviations from Leninist line of the Party on collectivization
The first deviation – deviation from the “Left” (Trotskyite)
Year 1929 U peasantry towards collectivization
A second deviation – a deviation to the right (Bocarinait)
The use of force and collectivization
Chapter Nine – Lalkar September / October 1991
Historical Questions
Part 3 – a re-evaluation of the past
The Stalin and the “beheading” of the party and the Red Army
The “weakening” of the Red Army and the assassination of leaders “loyal”
The sabotage and destruction
The treacherous agreement with the fascist forces
The economic program – restoration of capitalism
The rationale for this betrayal
The military aspect
The Moscow trials strengthened the Soviet Union by the elimination of a fifth column
The admission of mistakes by Bukharin and others
Chapter Ten – Lalkar November / December 1991
Historical Questions
Part 4 – a re-evaluation of the past
The Stalin and the “cult of personality”
Chapter Eleven – Economy class struggle for socialism
part 1
The why hate so poisoned against Stalin?
The 20th conference of the party and the victory of Khrushchev revisionism
The formulation of Khrushchev revisionism
The background: Click imperialist field or market economic theory and economic efficiency
The failure of theorists “Marxists” Western delaying the bourgeois economic theories
part 2
The protection of Stalin’s Marxism political economics
The main task of the political economy of socialism: the role of productive forces and relations of production
The transition from socialism to communism
The adoption of the concept of “market socialism” by Khrushchev revisionism
The Marxist conception: production of goods and the market are not compatible with
Socialism and Communism
The why Stalin opposed the sale of the basic means of production collective farms?
Part 3
The revisionist view: Socialism and communism are impossible without the production of goods and market
The revisionist theorists and “market socialism”
The revisionist theorists and “hshorot socialist “
The rules embodied in the production of goods basing themselves
The revisionist theorists and value the concept of “socialist”
The Stalin and the Law
Part 4
The revisionist propaganda that supports “economic reforms”
The “economic reform” of 1965 and the appeal of centralized planning
The production as regulators gain
The revisionism and “market socialism”
The means of production are included in the scope of the goods under the “economic reform” Revisionist
The Marxism and revisionism on the ratio of employees to work
The price of production under capitalism and “market socialism”


With the advent of Mikhail Gorbachev position of general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Mkb”m), took place a qualitative change. Although he returned regularly to raise Lenin and Leninism support of his claims, even though repeated assurances that his twin policies, of perestroika and glasnost , designed to renew socialism, strengthen it and realize his potential inexhaustible soon became clear that under Gorbachev, the Soviet Union led the most rapidly accelerated, almost dizzying in the direction restoration of capitalism in the consolidation, once mighty and proud of Soviet socialist republics Soviet (Ars”s or the Soviet Union). Download repeating Lenin and Leninism on the part of Gorbachev, actually presented only a proposition to capture the hearts of the proletariat and the peasantry Cooperative Soviet, was accompanied by a complete distortion of Marxism-Leninism and distortions fruitless essence revolutionary political economy, the study on class struggle and philosophy Marxists-Leninists .

Under these circumstances, every class conscious worker raised questions demanding immediate answers, and it was impossible to escape them. Friends and colleagues very-close to me urged me to respond and explain in the journal of the Indian Workers Association (UK), Lalkar [ – Angelo Aidan (translator)], the unfolding of events in the Soviet Union. Aware of the size of task I stepped back from taking responsibility for its implementation. Nevertheless, I was tempted to do so by making simple it will include no more than two paragraphs, even if long. but once the work began, I realized very quickly that you can not complete the work in such a simple ; it requires a particular treatment more – these facts I needed to take into account, whether I wanted to or not. Consequently, it is impossible to call this work, as an expression of Engels, ” absolutely, fruit ‘inward’ some ‘(anti-Duhring – Page 3 – ) [line begins with the first introduction – that of June 1878]. On the contrary. length of two and a half decades of political publicist, I rarely had such pain as I felt some writing of her writing this book series features articles.

[ Comments Translator: so far, been translated. I published the translation is November 2012 linking advances in Financend last . So the translation stopped altogether wrong reasons Additionally undergoing surgery. Belatedly, I fix it now. The amendment is important because in Hebrew translation makes visible what we can learn English, if you buy the book. The book, translated into other languages, discover what the revisionists have done to put an end to the Soviet Union, and what they can do everywhere else, including in Israel or Palestine. With it, in fact, I reiterate phase in November 2012 it stopped translating. Because I had to write without help, only after completion of this translation, annulled mistake, I will be able to continue the series ofbarrier . But do not look to me I get it. Going forward, my long notes appear at the end of bearing several Latin]

For who [like me] lived all his life with pride and joy related to the glorious achievements of the proletariat in the Soviet under the banner of Marxism-Leninism and under the leadership of Mkb”m, write about the events that led up to the revolution-cons in August 1991, was like a descent into hell. However, the this work had to be done.

I dealt with a double task. First, it was necessary to reveal the absolute failure and utter neglect in relation to Marxism Leninism, the proposals made by Gorbachev and his associates in the field of political economy, philosophy and the class struggle.Secondly, it was necessary to explain the origin and development of what we call as a side Gorbachev. How can happen – one may ask – charlatan and Rngt such becomes general secretary of the Revolutionary Party was once a powerful – Party of Lenin and Stalin – and then go on the way to restore capitalism, the dissolution of Mkb”m and the destruction of the Soviet Union immense it used? How could have happened to the Soviet Union, which remained undefeated at the time was much weaker – during the civil War and against the intervention of the armies of fourteen countries, representing the power of all the imperialist powers and their allies, and against the white counter-revolutionary – and that the animals of prey Nazi could not defeat it; How can this happen in this great socialist state was brought low, and destruction end? How reversed all gains of the construction of socialism and capitalism was restored in some process?

Detailed discussion of these questions will be raised only in the last chapter, titledEconomy class struggle Bsotzialism . From reading the first article, the reader may get the impression that the author attributes may be the source of the process of capitalist restoration including Gorbachev period only, ie the period from March 1985 to August 1991. But this impression would be entirely false. Who will read the whole piece to the last chapter, will be able to shake it. Nevertheless, it is true that with the entry into the political outlook of Gorbachev occurred qualitative change: the accumulation of experience and revisionist policy revisionist economy hit hard disastrous socialist system hitherto unknown and paved the way for the rehabilitation of capitalism breathtaking pace.

But, as the old Chinese saying goes, to the river freezes to a depth of meters, have more than one cold day. Similarly, the restoration of capitalism in the USSR immense and glorious ever happened overnight. It’s really hard to set a date social phenomenon of this type and scale of these. It’s like trying to put a specific date in the Industrial Revolution in English. While distinguishing difficulties associated with determining the date of such effects which by their nature are the result of a long process, it is impossible to completely avoid mentioning some important dates that without reference to them is impossible to explain the emergence of Gorbachev and the rest of the gang Hrstoratorit [reconstructs and restores his]. this is why there was an attempt chapter of economy the class struggle to trace the roots of the process which, for more than three decades, has led not only to rehabilitate capitalism in the former Soviet Union, but also why I prefer to read the final bloodbath of revisionism, which is ” an expression of the influence of the bourgeois to proletarian and destruction of the bourgeois of work[1] .

Putrefaction, deterioration process down the road, which led to the rehabilitation of capitalism, starting with the victory of Khrushchev revisionism 20th conference of Mkb”m in 1956, and Marxism-Leninism distortions following and under the direct stimulation fields of philosophy, political economy and class war. Under the guise of ‘ economic reform, held in the late 60s onwards, central planning Mauresmo bite after another, and the production of goods has been expanded to a large scale. production has become more and more regulated by a single criterion, namely, on the basis of the profitability of the plant individually. at the same time, as part of plans different and based on incentives for individual, wage disparities have increased on an unprecedented scale. As a result, revenues of the technical intelligentsia and other government employees, the party functionaries grew sizes are closed on account of the proletariat productivity, and thus created a layer significantly attributed, growing over time new bourgeoisie which, until during Gorbachev’s rise to power, openly and loudly nature noisy reception for the sake of the promise of a return to formal market economy, sharpening, rehabilitation of capitalism. as a result, when the moment came to make a push, there was no one who could fulfill objection, because after three decades of revisionist applications, the distortion of Marxism, Leninism, Mkb”m purified to become sterilized and revolutionary spirit of proletarian militancy earlier.Despite the power of the 19 million members, the party has deteriorated to lag. Even if there were a couple of friends – maybe even thousands – who wanted to oppose the rehabilitation of capitalism, they are deleted from the scene without establishing too much noise.

An important aspect of the practice throughout the revisionists Hhrostz’obiim embodied that any move towards restoration of capitalism was carried out for the achievements of Marxism-Leninism and for the progress of Soviet society towards communism in the higher stages of development (and of course, all this is happening against the background of the struggle against the “cult personality “of Stalin and economics” administrative-command “, created by the” cult “). Moreover, each striving for a new bourgeoisie has recently been introduced, while it actually was accompanied by redoubled efforts to duplicate and to prepare the ground for the next bourgeois reform. And could not be otherwise in a socialist planned experiencing in producing large scale, and that, therefore, production must reach a bandwidth under conscious control in the hands of the proletariat consolidated. Control of the economy in the hands of the proletariat, conscious manufacturing organization by the National Program for Central prevents spontaneous development of the market. To restore capitalism, was essential to sabotage the destruction deliberate and systematic in this system of production is planned centralized, and the market is restored again through “a system with a system of Kenny dimensions well calculated” , to use the words of economist revisionist [Apparently, some EL Manevich – head of labor issues in Bra “from – wrote the quote under the heading of” Problems of Labour Utilizzation ]. And that included the castration of fraud and the party of the proletariat, after all, was a class party in power. And that is precisely what Revisionists continued to do, starting from the time of Khrushchev and so on. In this example, the development is done in the opposite direction from that which accompanied the transition from feudalism to capitalism, where the social action preceded the economic theory. It’s very spontaneously evolved in tandem with the development of the market, various economic categories of capitalism – for example, the price of production – there were a lot of testing before undergoing surgery. In “market socialism” [the process of transition from central planning to the market economy within the framework of socialism – AA], the theory would have to precede the practice.

Ultimately, quantity becomes quality. Now everyone can take in what was happening there. Gorbachev who, deceit characteristic of all the revisionists and adventurous capitalist, launched his perestroika his name of Lenin and named renewal of socialism, finally confessed and said: ” my life’s work completed. I think something else instead was given up long ago. ” (Sunday Times, 15 December 1991). Finally, revisionism was able to drop the mask of himself and discover the vile capitalist characteristics for all to see. Now a well established fact that capitalism and formally, we can say, even officially, that there is no longer need lip service to Lenin; Now a new bourgeoisie could begin openly to exploit the working class and show the hatred inherent in it against Marxism-Leninism – hatred which it was given enough by the removal of the symbols of the October Revolution under the applause of the imperialist bourgeoisie and its agents among the working class – the Trotskyists, revisionists and Socials -dmokrtim of all kinds.

The “noble” These repulsive – especially counter-revolutionary Trotskyists – delighted to be happy about the alleged collapse of “Stalinism” in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Just the opposite. What collapsed was revisionism and capitalism inevitable deterioration found. So-called “Stalinism “by this bugger creatures just Leninism in practice (emphasis added – AA). when Leninism served as a guide to activities in the Soviet Union, as, no doubt, served for three decades Mkb”m leadership of Stalin, the Soviet Union reached the heights Historical-world on all fronts – economic, social, cultural, diplomatic and military: nothing illustrates why only the name of Stalin continues to be the object of attacks so abused on the part of the bourgeoisie and “mercenaries ” of her. so what collapsed – this is revisionism, despite that in order to confuse the proletariat, cunning, yet reckless and clumsy Trotskyites said, using the word “Stalinism” as a curse rather than a political characterization used, they apply it specifically to nurture revisionist extreme hatred for Stalin.

The imperialist bourgeoisie celebrates victory on what it calculates the collapse of communism. She sensational loudly over and over growing frenzy that “Marxism was demolished. No new declarations are old as Marxism itself. Come and respond to these statements, in words that should not ever forget Stalin:

Some say that, in some countries in the West, Marxism has already been destroyed.Some say it was destroyed by the trend of the bourgeois-nationalist known as fascism.Of course, these are nonsense. Only people ignorant of history can talk like that.Marxism is the expression of scientific basic interests of the working class . to destroy Marxism, the working class must be destroyed. but it is impossible to destroy the working class. more than 80 years have passed since Marxism came into the arena.during this time, hundreds governments bourgeoisie tried to destroy Marxism. and what happened? governments bourgeois come and gone, but Marxism remains.  more – Who is Marxism won a victory on one-sixth of the world, and achieved a resounding victory just in the country where Marxism is considered to demolish.  it is impossible to calculate the cases of the fact that the country in which Marxism has achieved complete victory is now the only one in the world that knows no crisis and unemployment, while in all other countries, including those in which states are fascist crisis and unemployment dominate four years now. no, friends, it’s not a coincidence.

Yes, comrades, our successes have occurred thanks to the fact that we have worked and fought under the banner of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Hence the second conclusion: We must remain faithful to the end of a huge flag Marx, Engels and Lenin[2] . [Emphasis in original]

Capitalism is very little to offer classes exploited the workers even in the centers themselves of imperialism, not to mention the peoples enslaved and oppressed continents extensions of Asia, Africa and Latin America, are groaning under the burden of debt repayments and the battles on the altar of robber barons of imperialism multi-national [or international, if you will ]. There, according to the Emergency Fund International of the United Nations for Children (UNICEF – UNICEF, “Jeff), each week a quarter of a million children dying as a result of malnutrition and diseases resulting from it. Millions of workers in the imperialist unemployed as a result of the economic crisis a new capitalism. Every city can be a great witness the spectacle of hundreds of unemployed workers homeless, victims of the company laws “free” they do not have jobs, they have nowhere to go, and they have little money for food. Photo of the victims is not unlike that described Stalin in early 1933 [and that of today – AA]. when he spoke about the results of the first five-year plan , that’s what he said about the state of the plight of the unemployed in capitalist countries:

Look now to the capitalist countries and see what many horror who go there on the background of unemployment. In these countries, there are now no less than 30 to 40 million unemployed. People are, what is their nature? Generally speaking they are” losers “.

Every day they are looking for work, seek work willing to accept almost any conditions of work are, but do not get them to work, because they are” superfluous. “And it occurs when huge quantities of goods and products are squandered because of vagaries spoiled destiny, aged pet owners of capital and owners estates.

Refuse unemployed in providing food, because they have no money what to pay for food. Refuse them with shelter, because they have no money to pay the rent. What and where they live? Exist are crumbs miserable tables rich; shovel garbage bins, where they find poetic food defilement, live in slums of the big cities, and more than huts troubles outside the cities built hastily by unemployed packing boxes and pieces of wood. but that’s not all. not unemployed only casualties of unemployment. casualties from even working people. they suffer from reality with the large number of unemployed creates detriment unstable conditions in the production, insecurity-day tomorrow. today they are employed, but they are not sure if Bhkitzm next day will find themselves laid off.

One of the major achievements of the five-year-plan for four years is that we have canceled the unemployment and the workers deliver us from the horrors which the Soviet Union .” [3]

Only now, thanks to the rehabilitation of capitalism, for the first time since 1931, unemployment once again threatens the employees from the former USSR. Socialism has brought tremendous benefits for class workers ‘and peasants’ Soviets. Despite the injury of central planning and the institutionalization of economic reforms bourgeois for a long time, the situation just a few days ago Soviet workers still had retired earlier (men aged 60 and women at age 55) than their western counterparts; they paid no more than 5-10% of their salaries for guesthouses; small children enjoyed inclusive day care and free; it was free medical care for all; there were 3,6 million hospital beds and -1,2 million doctors and dentists – numbers much higher proportionately than any other country in the world.

Even the cultural achievements of the Soviet people were tremendous. For example, there are 326,000 libraries – compared to 141 thousand in the United States of America (USA). 131.200 primary schools, secondary and vocational provide education for 45 million children.

Even the last ten years of the Soviet Union produced 160 million tons of steel, compared with 100 million tons produced in the United States.

All these achievements are inseparable October revolution and socialist construction period. But very soon the Soviet workers themselves will directly experience the taste of the “freedoms” of the market economy – unemployment, lack of residence, hunger, urgent, humiliation and distress. You can not imagine when they will not be eager to society and to the manufacture, organized by the awareness of proletarian unity, promised them to these ills. You can not imagine if they did not they wash well the success of their new czars.

Lenin once said: ” One step forward, two steps back … It happens in the lives of individuals, and it happens in the history of nations and the development of political parties. It would be cowardly criminal efficient doubt for a moment exclude the failure of victory, and the integrity of victory itself, the principles of social democracy revolutionary [ie, the principles of Marxism] … [4]

Nobody denies that the withdrawal of socialism as a result of the events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the late 80’s and early 90’s, but it will actually “cowardice more incriminating,” doubted the victory inevitable and full of revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism – of communism .

However, in order for this to happen, the proletariat and the proletarian party around the world have to analyze the developments in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in a far-reaching endlessly; to draw the correct conclusions and draw lessons from these developments. Furthermore, they must sharpen the ideological weapon in their fight against relaxing on the ideological Marxist lasted too long, and its occurrence explains why the number is so large parties of the working class around the world has become helpless against the onslaught of the revisionists. essential to grasp firmly the willingness that that ” without a revolutionary theory there can be even a revolutionary movement . ” [5]

Moreover, to observe that “… only the light of a growing party advanced a theory advanced can play a role .” [6] [or that “… the role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the theory advanced the most .” [7] ]

The idea, ” [to quote Rafael Berard added later, again from the words of Lenin in those pages, what to do? , And writes] to repeat the words of Lenin, ” must stand strongly immeasurably [or, with the other,” some insist, it is impossible to insist enough“in their understanding of Lenin, two translators emphasize, each in his own words, strongly importance of theory most advanced when] a time like this, when preaching latest opportunism embrace I became Gaza after forms limited of practical activity. “[or” when preaching the trendy of opportunism goes hand in hand with passion forms the troubles of practical activity “] [emphasis in recent years are my]

Each chapter of this book first appeared in an article in the journal «Lalkar», and now presented in the same order, with the original publication date of the beginning of each chapter.


[Here, Comrade Rafael Berard grateful for the help. After these revelations Thanks, writes the following words:]

I close this introduction with words borrowed Mmkrs (preface to the first edition of ‘Das Kapital’ ):

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I get. About the prejudices of what the dating public opinion, which I did never concessions, now as before [as long ago] proverb of the Florentine largest [Dante Alighieri Florence – Dante Alighieri] is mine: “Segui il tuo corso, e Lascia dir le Genti   ‘ . “[Hebrew translation goes: ‘ Do give your well-liked talk .]


[1] First of Https:// Fool’s Haste Is No Speedrecklessness of a fool has no speed : Lenin – May 1914.

[2]   works, Volume 13 – pages 386-7 –Http://

[3]  Http://

Problems of Leninism – Pages 613-14

I changed a little Hebrew translation (because that “authorizes” the language – the language spoken Stalin obvious to anyone) of Yaakov Barzilai ‘ s. Stalin – Problems of Leninism, the removal of the Kibbutz Artzi Hashomer Hatzair – 1945

[4]  Http://

One step forward, two steps back – Page 414

[5] Hebrew and O.a.lnin – Selected Writings: Volume One translation of the report.Goldberg (I like the Hebrew translation: not happen to me often that translating Hebrew like)

What to do? -amod 29 – KM Press – Ts”i (1950)


Http:// – Page 28

[6] without emphasizing – in Hebrew translation: Name-Page 30

[7] with emphasis in the original – in translation: Name – page 29 (emphasis also has an Italian translation)

This emphasis has been copied Raphael’s book Berard

Introduction to the Spanish edition

By financend

At the beginning of the year I posted here that “soon to be published author of three topics discussion”, but since it’s been more than seven months and have not posted anything. It is a long time manner so excessive that shame has been forcing me to regret publicly that: There is no forgiveness for that every time I noticed that I do not have enough data yet to demonstrate a willingness to my argument, rejected the editing conviction is not based in any minute I could complete evidence, truthfulness, verifications, notifications and substantiation indicating clearly the political obstacles that prevent evasion staged clogged or vicious circle or endless loops in struggling for socio-economic progress, and for the sake of “social justice”, that had already volatile convenience Hmtzmrim it.

Aidan Angelo

Soon to be published author of three discussion topics:

Posted on January 7, 2015 from financend

Two topics have already started to discuss a new theme and more. Title to this discussion worded like this:


Barrier 1 + 2 – b / two factions Maki + instilling “democratic Haredization” to “Fsiztzih” pseudo align with the fascist regime sneaking + barrier 3 – A / indoctrination becomes revisionist tactic goal (once), for example in the form of eternal strategic goal


Removing the barrier / Syrian regime supports the struggle against revisionism Maki + at least three anti-fascist struggles – two visible: first through ad hoc alliance of a broad partnership and the other party vesting hinder push with the first battle lines + struggle for the party despite compliance with the provisions of Reality material transform


 The discussion will begin with a reference to the fact that



Duration years successfully waged a struggle which supports the Syrian regime against revisionism Maki :

The decisive battle of the Revolutionary Maki faction and compliance of Syrian opposition


Revisionist faction’s stubbornness to remain opportunistic Bhtiisroth holding on to its position with the imperialist attack against the Syrian regime




Barrier 2 – A / acquisition “haredization Democratic” to “Fsiztzih” pseudo align with creeping fascist regime.

Posted on November 29, 2014 from financend

Remove the obstacle – at least three anti-fascist struggles – Two visible. First through ad hoc alliance of a broad partnership and pushing the other party vesting hinder ranks with the first fight.



Revisionists member of the Israeli Communist Party (Maki) still avoid Mlhthnn to fascist governments ” to destroy our country, to destroy us democracy!


The leadership of the “left” Israel can whine without ashamed of the fascist governments that ” destroying democracy ” in the ” demonstration of emergency ” here and ” demonstration of emergency ” there. But the revisionists want to perform advanced through action, not just words. Therefore, rather than precise, they prefer to express the ambiguity, vague, ambivalent multi-interpretation – you can interpret the words as it is also like that. And it positions so they can bake delicious interpretations reactionary retreat or different and are suitable for a revolutionary who is afraid of the charge of search fringes example.


Its taking of the 27th conference of the CPI was brought forward by the joint leadership of both parties. This conference was brought forward last year due to the crisis in the leadership of this faction of the Revisionist and revolutionary. The conference ” will be held December 13-12 in[1] . Date its taking place determined, still under the title of ” conference not-from-full “, only recently, after five rejections (which will later) to settle disputes (work of its investigation started in barrier 1 in order to keep it up Note exhaustive) between the two leaderships.


The Central Committee of the CPI recently published proposal of accountability 27th conference of the party … The report, which includes the passage below, was sentenced to party branches, and a podium discussion papers” this way “and” Alatihad. “ ” That’s how Write at the top of page 5 of this 43 edition of the road on November 5, 2014. Two days earlier, the first time this conference officially published under the title of ‘the 27th conference, together with the publication of ” sceneto resume the Front of ” suggestion of accountability . “The report was released in Arabic whole month before. But Jewish publication, dominated by revisionists, published only three sections. Forget, for now, the first section and the second ( ahead of Maki Conference: Developments in the Arab population .) Concentrate Tuesdayy:

Maki conference ahead: the battle the threat of fascism


[1]   Preparations Maki Conference


Categories: barrier | Leave a comment

Letter to Joseph Karl Marx and Iidmiir [1]

Posted on August 7, 2014 from financend

London, 5 March 1852

28, Deanstreet, Soho

And Iioii dear!

I fear that confusion might happen, because I did not understand correctly received the last, and the last two letters I wrote accidentally the words “Ministry of Revolution 7 Chambers Street, Box 1817”. The confusion was caused by “box 1817” damned that you wrote to me to be added to the old Write “, but you did not say whether it is first or second visit. However, I hope that the matter will turn out even before the arrival of this letter, which is also the letter dated Friday last contained a very large proportion of my work, part V. [2] however, the number of the VI ends did not manage to finish the week. but even if the paper [3] your published again, this delay will not affect, because without it you already have more than enough material.

Your article against Hiintzn [4] , Engels Send me too late, unfortunately, is very good, rough and thin at the same time – exactly the combination that characterizes a full-blown controversy. I showed your article No. Jones. [5] I am attaching the letter to you, a letter for publication. Since Jones writes very readable writing, with abbreviations, and you still have not made, it seems to me, an Englishman standing, I am sending you the same source, even a copy made by my wife, and the German translation, to print them side by side it – including translations. You can add the following comment to the letter of Jones about George Julian Harney, [6] which is the authority for Mr. Hiintzn, the journal of his “Red Republican” is printed the “Communist Manifesto” our comment this is “the most revolutionary document ever given to the world” ( “the most revolutionary document ever published,” while in “Democratic Review,” is his wisdom into S”hofrch “by Hiintzn – articles of the French revolution” Revue der Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung “. [7] In one of his articles on Louis Blanc relying on those articles all about” criticism right “of the events of the French. However, there is no need to rely on” extremists “English only. If an MP in England becomes a minister, it must be re-elected, and there Disraeli [8] , the new finance minister, Lord of the Exchequer, writes in one of his voters in Marchh:


“We shall endeavor to terminate That strife of classes Which of late years has exercised so pernicious an Influence over the welfare of this kingdomm.”


( “We will put an end to the struggle for positions that, influenced lately so bad effect on the welfare of this realmm”).


In this matter the City “Times” on March 2:


“If anything would ever divide classes in this country beyond reconciliation, and leave no chance of a just and honourable peace it, it would be a tax on foreign corn”.


( “If there is something that could ever split the class in this country so that reconciliation between them will not be possible, and not give a chance to a just and honorable peace, then this is the tax on imported grain.”)


And to a broken man, “human nature” [9] such as Hiintzn not conjecture that a soul aristocrats are in favor , while the bourgeois against the Corn Laws, because the former are protecting the ” monopoly “, and the latter on ” freedom ” – because for McCartney has good deeds are contradictions only this ideological shape – is enough to note the 18th century English aristocrats were in favor of “freedom” (of Commerce) and the bourgeoisie for “monopoly”, ie those taken positions employed by these two classes in relation to Law grain “today B”frosih”. “Preuβische Zeitung Neue” – is a staunch supporter of free trade.

Finally, were you I would look Messrs Democrats would do well to learn the bourgeois literature itself, before they dare to bark on literature that opposes it. These gentlemen have, for example, to study the historical works of Thierry, Guizot, John Wade and others, to render themselves the “history classes” before. Before visiting the criticism of political economy, they must know the fundamentals of political economy. Rather, for example, to open the main composition of Ricardo, to find the first page to the opening words of the preface:


“The produce of earth – all that is derived from its surface by the united application of labour, machinery, and capital, is divided among three classes of the community; namely, the proprietor of the land, the owner of the stock or capital necessary for its cultivation, and the labourers by whose industry it is cultivated “.


( “Made in Israel – all resulting surface is by integrated application of labor, machinery and capital – is divided among three classes of society, ie, the landlord, a fund or the capital needed to process and work through job is being processed.”) [10]


How little the company still vested in the United States in order to make sense, and obviously the class struggle taking hold, it proves brilliantly Czech. God. Kerry [11] (Philadelphia), North American economist of importance only. He attacked Ricardo , representing (accent) most classic of the interests of the bourgeoisie and the most stoic opponent of the proletariat, attacks him, he says, because he is a man that his work are a real weapon in the hands of anarchists, socialists, and all the enemies of the bourgeois regime. Valid not only him but also the Malthus, Mill, Cy, Torns, Wakefield, Mac-Koloc, Sr., Whatley, R. Jones and others – in short all authoritative economists of Europe – and it goes against the economic foundations for neither proved the existence of different classes give rise to antagonism between the inevitable and growing steadily, they tear the company partially preparing civil war. He is trying to refute them, but not as stupid does this Hiintzn, which ties the existence of privileged classes for political and monopolies . Kerry wants to show that economic conditions – rent (land property), profit (capital) and labor costs (per employee) – are conditions of association and harmony, and did not struggle and antagonism. In practice, this only proves he is a social relationship “immature” in the United States are estimated by him as a “normal relationship”.

As for me, it does not take credit for the discovery of the existence of classes in contemporary society, nor the discovery of the abandoned struggle between them. Bourgeois historians are describing, long before me, the historical development of this class-struggle and bourgeois economists – the economic anatomy of the classes. I resumed innovation, all-essence to prove the following: 1) the existence of classes related only under certain historical-development of production ; 2) class-struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat ; 3) this dictatorship itself is only a transition to the abolition of all classes and the classless society . Fools ignorant, kind of Hiintzn, deny not only the battle but the very existence of classes, proving that just so that they, despite all roar bloodthirsty characters love their human, they see the social conditions on which the dominance of the bourgeoisie as a the final, non plus ultra [the limit] of history, proving only that they are – mere servants of the bourgeoisie. And this service is more repulsive as those chatterboxes poorly understood both the greatness and the transience of the bourgeois regime.

Use whatever you find valuable comments above. By the way, the “decentralization” Hiintzn took us there, “the Federal Republic” of his sheet. When the views we distribute today regarding the classes will be trivial, and there will be daily use of “human mind right”, then announce them brat loudly as the product’s new “Deep thinking”, and begin to howl against the continued development of viewpoints on us. Thus, when it is based on the “depth of thinking,” he barked Hegel’s philosophy was that as long as the advanced nature, and which is now fed crumbs lost all taste, which Rogge [12] emits a while for undigestedd.

Along with this letter you will also receive the end of the Hungarian correspondence. If newspapers have been there, try to use something from there, especially since the Samara [13] , former Hungarian Prime Minister, you promised to send me an extensive article from Paris   signature .

If your newspaper began to appear, send me   more copies, to be able to expand its distribution.


Your check. Marx


PS Warm regards to you and your wife all friends here, especially my wife.

By the way. I am sending you through Hmontniir [14] Former Hohstol [15] (Ben Alsace) “Notes” [16] and several copies of speeches to the jury (the latter for Kloss [17] , as I promised him). This guy does nothing special.

Attaching the regulations [18] . Advise you arrange it in a logical order more. London has been appointed district manager for the United States. Until now we could only realize our rule in Patribis. [19]

Do not publish the declaration of the “Hirsch” [20] , if you have not already. This is not an honest person, though in relation to improving [21] and Looilic [22] He is rightt.




[1]   Joseph and Iidmiir (Weydemeyer, 1866-1818) – a member of the German and American workers; “True socialist” in 1847-1846; Under the influence of Marx and Engels moved communist positions, was a member of the Alliance of Communists “; Germany took part in the Revolution of 1849 to 1848; One of the editors of the “Neue Deutsche Zeitung”

(1850-1849); After the defeat of the revolution he emigrated to the United States, participated in the civil war alongside the North American began disseminating Marxism; Friend of Marx and Engels.

[2]   The intention of the book by Marx: “Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”

[3]   “Revolution”

[4]   Hiintzn, Karl (1880-1809) – German publicist has since radical petty bourgeois democrats, came out against Marx and Engels; Discover Switzerland and then to England. Autumn 1850 final moved to the United States.

[5]     Jones – Ernest Charles Jones (1869-1819) – a member of the English workers, proletarian poet and publicist, a leader of the left wing of Htz’rtistim, editor of the “Northern Star”, the editor of the “Notes to the People “and the” People’s Paper “; Friend of Marx and Engels.

[6]   George Golian Harney (1897-1817) – a member of the English workers, leaders of left-wing wing of Htz’rtistim, editor of the “Northern Star”, “Democratic Review,” “Friend of the people”, ” Red Republican “and other Tz’rtistiot expenses; He was in contact with Marx and Engels; In the early 50s approached the petty bourgeois circles and walked in the direction of the revolutionary workers’ movement.

[7]   refers to Marx’s book: “the class struggle in France from 1848 to 1850”

[8]   Benjamin Disraeli (Disraeli, 1881-1804), since 1871 the Earl of Beaconsfield – English writer and statesman, a leader of my turn Hsieh half of the 19th century, the leader of the Conservative Party; Minister of Finance in 1852, 1859-1858, 1868-1866; Prime Minister in 1868, 1880-1874.

[9]   hint line from Chapter 24 Heine’s satirical poem “Atta Troll” – “No talent, but definitely a character”

[10] The   book of Ricardo “on the principles of political economy and taxation”, London, 1821.

( “On the Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation” D. Ricardo)

[11]   Charles Henry Kerry (Carey) (1879-1793) – a vulgar bourgeois economist and an American, from the reactionary theory about the harmony of class interests in capitalist society. Criticism here refers to Kerry’s book “article on the level of wages.”

[12]   Arnold Ruge (Ruge, 1880-1802) – German publicist; One of the young Hegelian, radical bourgeois;Associate of Marx published “books-year German-French”;

[13]  Bertalan Samara (Szemere, 1869-1812) – politician and publicist Hungarian Minister of the Interior (1848) and head of the revolutionary government (1849); After the defeat of the revolution he emigrated from Hungary.

[14]   Montiinirim (French – Montagnards) “people-mountain”, nicknames of members of leftist parties and groups during the Great French Revolution and 18488.

[15]   Hohstol (Hochstuhl) – Democrat German petit bourgeois, immigrated to the US in 1852.

[16]   “Notes to the People”

[17]   Adolf Kloss (Cluβ, ~ 1889-1820) a German engineer, a member of the Alliance of Communists “; In 1848 the secretary of the workers’ education of Mainz; In the same year he emigrated to the United States, an official of the Navy Department in Washington in the 50 corresponded regularly with Marx and Engels, participated in the press and democratic workers’ German, English and American; thymol business with Marxism and Iidmiir.

[18] The intention of these regulations “Soviet communists” in December 1850 compiled by the Central Committee of the States in Cologne, after the split in the Communist alliance in September that yearr.

[19] In Patribis Infidelium – only nominally.

[20] Wilhelm Hirsch (Hirsch) – Clerk-management Hamburg, at the beginning of the 50s of the 19th century Prussian police agent in Londonn.

[21]   Carl Sheffer (Schapper, 1870-1812) – a member of the German Workers International, a leader of the “Soviet people justice”, a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist; Germany took part in the Revolution of 1849 to 1848; 1850 was one of the leaders of the faction split in the classroom during the Communist Alliance “; After 1856 again approached the ridge; Member of the General Council of the First International.

[22] August Willich (Willich, 1878-1810) – a Prussian officer, resigned from the army for political reasons;Member of the Alliance of Communists “, rebel-Pfalz loss of 1849. In 1850 it was one of the leaders of the faction split in the classroom during the Communist Alliance”; In 1853 he emigrated to the United States, participated in the civil war to the north.

Categories: scientific approach versus proletarian bourgeois conceptions Academy | Leave a comment

Israeli governments understand only the language of force

Posted on July 27, 2014 from financend

Axis of resistance to Zionism and imperialism and the two factions of the labor movement


These forces exercised goals in the practice known as ‘Middle Eastern’ confirms a distinction that separates two opposing trends purposeful. Sharpness of contrasting performance of the two trends only more pronounced due to activity of another trend advertised as a mediator or mediating between them. This fact Bhtfthoiotih led to the accurate determination of the member Mao: The contrast between revolutionary nations and the US imperialists and foremost is the central contradiction in the contemporary world.


In fact, the forces that are continuing to work towards the realization of their goals, the lesser the medium of living of the third trend, a trend that is being released as a judge is independent and impartial; she is exposed naked more and more, and revealed favors imperialism and Zionism – is revealed hostile to Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrian and Iranian regimes, alongside the regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and other servants in favor Tiikoniim, with big capital.


A naive approach relies on advertising “third trend” and that the country’s leaders and their servants ( “conference” between them) submissive (to none “Bikorotihm”) tycoons in general and particularly American tycoons, I quotes below. Haaretz of 10/10/2006, titled “On the second day, Dayan considered abandoning the Golan Heights, Ze’ev Schiff wrote:


33 years have passed Yom Kippur War, and not a year passes without being revealed … the fact it happened. … Just some of the mysteries that surrounded it have been resolved. However, does the IDF history department tireless effort to conceal information secret are long gone. Hard to believe, but this class using ridiculous excuses, refused for years to allow a person who was GOC Northern Command during the war, Major General (retired) Yitzhak shores, see the war diary written by one of his command.

Ze’ev Schiff adds that:

The policy of the Department of History impeded the work of investigators about the war. … The climax was when a few years ago the Northern Command officers gathered Detailed description of the area to analyze the fighting. Although invited the representatives of the Department of History meetings, the Department did not respond to their invitation.

Later contacted the department on behalf of four officers requesting them to review the war diary. The four were GOC Northern Command during the war Isaac shores, Gen. (Res) Ori Simchoni, operations officer who was in command of the war, Colonel (Ret) Holidays Mann, a former intelligence officer during the war, and historian Lieutenant colonel (retired) Avraham Zohar.

To their surprise, they were rejected on the grounds that they were investigating official. Just the announcement of who was until recently head of Northern Command, Udi Adam, the applicants are researchers from the command, removed the opposition Department of History.


It came from the book ” The Syrians Settings: Northern Command Yom Kippur War ” (published by ‘ systems ‘ in 2008) that the total has strengthened the ties between the generals (see the website of the hand armor – & ItemId = 64927 & 2404 ItemType = 0 – how they celebrated the launch of the book ). “Version Ministry of Defense” (not an official version that was written on the back of the book: “As long as it was not published official history of the Yom Kippur War, this book, a staff officer of the command were involved in writing and counted their hands on it said – is advertising next best” ) , according to Uri south, along with four other books indicates ” how necessary the writing of history officially certified for Israel “. ( ).


…………… ..

To be continued

……………… ..


Is reading enough or protest to stop the war? Proven countless times that. For stays Military Lebanese mud first, in defiance of the measures and activities energetic (protests, petitions, hundreds of courts-martial for insubordination, essays revealing and more) from Israeli organizations have emerged from the war (Mothers and limit) and those more senior teachers who worked to withdraw them adventure 18 long years, various governments have demonstrated even cavalier disregard for the lives of their Jewish nationals, supposedly for the sake of safety boast their skippers war policy. Aid organizations and Lebanese resistance to Israeli mass mobilized out to Israel. Lebanese resistance victory and defeat, first against the expansion of America, United Kingdom, Italy, France, and then, of Israel, puts an end to the bellicose adventure in Lebanon is both the welfare of the majority of Israelis and that the majority of Lebanese. Since the Israeli government once again put the Lebanese adventure subjects. Only this time, both also at the expense of their subjects, Israeli governments have been able to give a foothold in compliance with European (not that the Americans) into Lebanon. yes! Just as it seems: Lebanon wars were planned and carried out by the Israeli government under the order of the American boss – command of the American boss, in essence, if we take into account Israel’s dependence on Washington, despite explosions allegation appears impose on the whole world dictates originating from Israeli product and excuses cover-reasons (collision ambassador Argov – first Lebanon War; the kidnapping of soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev – second Lebanon War; a third Lebanon war plans waiting for an excuse – see article almost a year ago: /496/144.htmlestimates the army: the Second Lebanon War 3 will be a short and violent , seemingly never delivered, inflated representation showy, seemingly has the ability to make decisions independent, ie, without the approval of American tycoons investors giant aircraft carrier, as -Israel, owned moored is strategically located in the Middle East and the soldier multiply and make a living independently.


Speech is not ending the war. Experience has shown that only an agreement capable of that and shows that Israel prefers to keep talking without purpose – therefore requires initial discussions conditions support it.


It has been established near Maki and Hadash leadership that ” right-wing government launched a war to escape political settlement, to continue the policy of determining facts on the ground, in the agenda of US imperialism in the region, and in cooperation with unseen forces and Arab reactionary regimes.


However, Maki and Hadash condemned the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel. ” In other words, Maki and Hadash opposed to disruptions in the flow of life (after all, it is the object of rocket attacks ) in Israel, while all opposition declarative (protests) in front of the “disruption” of Israelis in Gaza proved helpless in total.


Not demand the Palestinians to enter into a violent confrontation against Israeli brutality, but when they choose to do so, along with checks, which will support without reservation any warfare they choose it.


03.08.2014 – Angelo Aidan


Defeat in Israel!


Victory loot!

Marxism and revisionism

Posted on July 15, 2014 from financend

Marxism and revisionism

Vladimir Lenin

Known saying, that, if geometric axioms were against the interests of humans, these were certainly denied. Theories in the natural sciences and history, hit the old prejudices of theology provoked and provoking a furious struggle to date the most. No wonder, that the teachings of Marx, which is used directly education and the organization of class pioneer in today’s society, outlining the functions of this class and proves the necessity – in effect economic development – converting the current regime the new arrangements, – no wonder instructed that should have to take the heat of war every step of the way her life.

Needless to mention here the bourgeois science and philosophy professors teach officially official to numb the youth adolescent propertied classes and to “goad” internal and external enemies. Science does not want to even hear of Marxism, declaring that it was disproved and liquidated; Young scholars are the builders their career refuting socialism, and elderly principles, maintain their loyalty to all kinds of “methods” outdated worn out, both are attacking the same diligence to Marx. Prosperity of Marxism, and Htbtzrotn spread ideas within the working class will inevitably cause increased frequency and sharpness of these bourgeois sorties against Marxism, which is after all the “elimination” official science eliminate it, become stronger, more malleable and more full of life.

But not at all at one time Marxism had fortified his place among the theories related to the struggle of the working class and particularly prevalent among the proletariat. The first half century of its existence (the forties of the 19th century onwards) fought Marxist theories that were hostile to him the root. In the early forties Marx and Engels had finished their accounts with the radical young-Hegelian, held at the point-of view of philosophical idealism. At the end of the forties the struggle taking place in the field of economic theory – against Hfrodonizm. Fifties finish this fight: criticizing the political parties and theories. Reflected turbulent discovery in 1848. In the sixties transmitted from the battle field general theory closer to the labor movement directly: Hbkonizm expulsion from the International. In the early seventies Germany Hfrodonist Milberger rising briefly on stage. At the end of the seventies – positivist Dihring costs. But the effect of both on the proletariat is already completely negligible. Marxism has been completely victorious all other ideologies of the workers’ movement.

At the dawn of the nineties of the last century, this victory was the perfect elementary been set in the lines. Although in Romania, traditions Hfrodonizm held it out for the longest time, the workers’ parties Son programs and their tactics actually based on Marxism. International organization of the workers movement was new – in the form of international conferences regularly, reported at once and almost without a struggle on the basis of Marxism with anything substantial. But after Marxism urged all theories somewhat integrity and hostility to him, were those trends reflected by these theories are other ways to ask them. Changed forms and the causes of the struggle, but the very struggle continues, and at the beginning of the second anniversary-year existence of Marxism (the nineties of the last century) began to struggle hostile to Marxism current in Marxism in.

Bernstein, a former orthodox Marxist, gave his name to this stream, when he went out with a bang and most complete expression of corrections-Marx, Reexamination of Marx, revisionism. Even in Russia, socialism non-Marxist extended her days more, naturally – from backwardness economy of the country and from population-peasants decisive where, population remnants of serfdom still weigh on her, – even Russia developed socialism, not-Marxist it, and became visibly Revision both the agrarian question (a Hmonitzifliztzih of all the earth), and the general questions of program and tactics exchanging Social narodniks our more remains wilted and dropouts of the old system, completion under way and infused at bottom hostile to Marxism, and give place, “corrections” to Marxism.

Pre-Marxist socialism defeated. He continues to struggle no longer a standalone basis, but the overall bass of Marxism, as revisionism. It appears, then, what are the ideological content of revisionism.

Revision of the Philosophy tagged for “science” of bourgeois professor. The professors went “back to Kant” – and revisionism dragged after neo-Kntianim, professors repeated a thousand times the words-the prayers of the priests against materialism philosophical – and Revisionists stuttered way a benevolent smile (verbatim according to the “Hand-Buch” last). Materialism “refuted” long; Professors used Hegel Cb”clb dead “, while they themselves preached idealism, which is trivial and bland thousand times more than the idealism of Hegel, moved their heads with contempt for dialectics – and the revisionists crawled after them into the swamp sordor philosophy of science, converted the dialectic,” sly ” (and revolutionary) evolution “simple” (and quiet); The professors found their government salaries idealistic work of adapting their methods and “hbikortiot “to the” philosophy “of medieval ruling (ie, to theology) – and Revisionists were approaching them, they are working to make the religion private matter” not in relation to the modern state, but with respect to Party The advanced class.

Needless to mention, what was the real class of the “fixes” such Marx – that’s obvious. Just note, the only Marxist Social Democratic International, criticized, from the point of view of dialectical materialism consistent, the same words-the very prayers Shlhigo here revisionists, was Plekhanov. This is necessary to emphasize most strongly, because our time fundamentally misguided attempts are made to put us in the old philosophical and waste under the banner of reactionary criticism Plekhanov’s tactical opportunism.

Our past to political economy, we must point out, first of all, that in this area there were “patches” revisionists multilateral and much more detailed; Try to influence the audience with “new data of economic development”. Claimed in the agricultural field, there is no concentration and no big production urging all the tiny feet of production, and in the field of trade and industry this happens very slowly. Said, crises have become more rare now, weaker, and probably cartels and corporations to allow to Capital to completely eliminate crises. Said that the “theory of collapse”, toward which goes, capitalism is bankrupt because the trend blunt and soften the class contrasts. Said, finally, that the theory of Marx-value should fix according to Bam-Szwarc.

The struggle with the revisionists on these questions made fertile awakening of theoretical thought in international socialism, like Engels’s polemic against Dihring twenty years earlier. Reasons for the revisionists were analyzed on the basis of facts and figures. Has been shown that the revisionists systematically beautify the tiny production nowadays. Data demonstrate that they appeal to the fact, whose production have great technical and commercial advantage over small production, not only in manufacturing but also in agriculture. But the development of agricultural commodity production much weaker, and modern statisticians and economists do not know for the most part correctly distinguish those industries (sometimes even the operations) special agriculture, reflecting the progressive integration of agriculture in the process of exchange of the global economy. On the ruins of natural economy tiny production takes place by worsening diets immensely by chronic hunger, the extension of the working day, the deterioration in the quality and handling of animals, for short. By those measures themselves, helped also for the production of craftsmen hold to Hmnofktorh capitalism. Every step forward in the science and technology strives inevitably and inexorably under the foundations of small-scale production in capitalist society, and the role of theory-socialist economy – to investigate this process in all its forms, complex and complicated often – to prove that we produced small that it can not hold under capitalism, that no way-peasant economy under capitalism, that it is necessary to switch to farmer point of view of the proletariat. Scientifically sin Revisionists question this generalization superficial facts captured unilaterally, without considering the relationship between them and the regime of capitalism as a whole, – and politically sin it inevitably, knowingly or not, call the farmer or push the farmer to the point -hskfh of a house (ie. to the point of view of the bourgeoisie) instead of pushing it to the point of view of the revolutionary proletariat.

In relation to the theory of crisis and collapse theory the situation was even worse revisionism. Only a short time only short-visibility people most able to think about changing the foundations of Marx’s theory under the influence of several years of rising industrial and prosperity. Soon came the reality and the Revisionists proved that the time of crisis was not yet over: After the boom comes the crisis. Changed forms, order of appearance, image individual crises, but crises remained a fundamental part of inevitable capitalist regime. While cartels and corporations to consolidate their production, they increased at the same time in front of all the anarchy of production, the failure to secure the existence of the proletariat and the pressure yoke of capital, and thus exacerbated the class contradictions, if we have not seen before. The huge corporations actually proved newest special concreteness and large scale efficient, capitalism is marching toward defeat – in terms of both political and economic crises in individual, and in utter collapse of the whole capitalist system. The financial crisis not so long ago in America, the terrible deterioration of unemployment across Europe, without speaking already about the impending industrial crisis, many signs indicate it, – all led to the theory that “the news of the Revisionists forgotten all, and probably also the heart many of the revisionists themselves. Just do not forget the lessons given by this intelligent lability working class.

The theory of value has only said that foreign and suggest a very vague longing heart-Szwarc, not given here revisionists anything and therefore left traces in the development of scientific thought.

While politics revisionism tried to re-examine the basis of Marxism, namely the theory of the class struggle. Political freedom, democracy, universal suffrage omit the ground under the class struggle – we were told – and they question the old premise of “The Communist Manifesto” the workers have no homeland. Stated: democracy, because that prevails “will of the majority”, they say it is impossible to see the state as an instrument of class domination and do not even get out of the alliance with progressive bourgeoisie, social reformer, against reactionaries.

There is no dispute that these claims of revisionists amounted method-views quite well built, – ie using the bourgeois-liberal views known recently. Liberals were always claim that bourgeois parliamentarism canceling classes and class divisions, since all citizens, without distinction, have the right to vote, the right to participate in national affairs. History of Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century, the entire history of the Russian revolution in the early twentieth century shows how many idol-dawn are missing such views. Economic differences are not blocked, but are increasing and intensifying the regime of freedom of capitalism “democratic”. Parliamentarism does not remove, but reveals the essence of the most democratic bourgeois republics, organs of class oppression. When parliamentarism helps their education and organizing mass of larger populations than the ones previously actively participated in political events, it is preparing by being not the abolition of crises and political revolutions, but the biggest aggravation of the Civil War during these revolutions. Events in Paris in the spring of 1871 and the events in Russia in the winter of 1905 showed clearly incredibly large, that does not prevent the arrival of this disgrace. To suppress the movement of the proletariat the French bourgeoisie did not hesitate for a single moment, and made a conspiracy with the enemy of the nation, with the foreign army that destroyed her homeland. Who does not understand the internal dialectic necessity of parliamentarism and Hdmokrtizm bourgeois, resulting in the decision of the dispute by acts of violence, mass, sharply more than in times past – will never be able to engage on the basis of parliamentarism this preaching and agitation consistent in principle, which prepares substantially the working masses to participate in the award-win dissension “stuff. Experience of alliances, agreements, blocks with liberal social reformer in the West, with the reformism of the liberal (Cadets) in the Russian Revolution showed convincingly that these agreements only blunt the knowledge of the masses, not increase, but rather weaken the real value of their struggle, because they are tied to fighting to foundations can fail with their struggle, the most hesitant foundations and treacherous. Hmiliirnizm French – the largest trial to use revisionist political tactics on a large scale, truly national, – gave such practical evaluation of revisionism, never forget that the proletariat throughout the world.

Natural complemented by economic and political tendencies of revisionism was his attitude toward the ultimate goal of the socialist movement. “The ultimate goal   is to zero, the movement   is everything”, said-wing Bernstein’s expresses the substance of revisionism better expression than many long logics. That this revisionist politics    determine the line of conduct in each case, to adapt to the events of the day, his face caused by small political events, forgetting the fundamental interests of the proletariat and the basic features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist development; Sacrifice all these basic interests for the benefit of real-time or sizes. And from the very nature of politics that stems clearly, that it may have different forms ad infinitum, and that these “new” to some extent, every turn of events, surprising and unexpected to some extent, even if turning it changed only when miniature and chapter-a very short time the primary development line    always making inevitably certain types of revisionismm.

Non-Nmnaoto of revisionism conditional class roots in modern society. Revisionism is an international phenomenon. All socialist think and know about things, even slightly, it is possible to have doubts about the ratio between the Orthodox and Hbrnstiinianim Germany, between Hgdistim and Hz’orsistim (especially now with Hbrosistim) France, between the Federation and the Social Democratic Party-UK independent workers, between the broker and Vandervelde in Belgium, between integralists and reformists in Italy, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks from Russia is essentially one, despite the immense diversity of national conditions and historical moments in the current situation of each of these countries. “Breakdown” in international socialism in our time basically already done, according to a one in different world when it records by a huge step forward compared to what it was 40-30 years ago, when in different countries battled uneven trends [different nature different, diverse, integrated, mixed, mixed, non-uniformity, which contain or consist different parts or components basically] in international socialism one. And that “revisionism from the left”, was picked out now in Romania, C”sindiklizm revolutionary “, he adapts to Marxism, regulations it: Lbriolh Italy, France Gardel, undermine Marx, misunderstood, to Marx, understood properly.

We can not dwell here on the analysis of the ideological content of revisionism that has not yet developed any way as opportunist revisionism, has not been international, have not had any great practical melee with even socialist party of one country. Therefore, we are limiting ourselves in that “revisionism from the right” described above.

What is expressed in non-Nmnaoto in capitalist society? Why is deeper than differences in specific national features and levels of development of capitalism? Because every capitalist land are always on the side of the proletariat of broad sectors of the petite bourgeoisie, the owners of tiny houses. Capitalism was born and always adds born out of the tiny production. A whole series of “layers medium” necessarily re-created by capitalism (an addition to the factory, work-home, small workshops scattered all over the country on the occasion demands, for example, the bicycle industry and cars, etc.). These new small producers that necessary again thrown into the ranks of the proletariat. This is quite natural, world-view petty bourgeois breaks her repeatedly through the ranks of the broad workers’ parties. This is quite natural, how it should be and will always be to the changes of the proletarian revolution, that would be a profound mistake to think that is necessary proletarization “control” of most of the population, so that revolution would be viable-fulfilled. What we are going through now often only conceptually, arguments with amendments theoretical Marx, – which erupted today in practice only questions of privacy of individual workers’ movement, such as differences tactical with the revisionists and splits the light of this, – that future more working-class experience without-doubt on a larger scale infinitely, while the proletarian revolution will exacerbate all controversial questions, coordinate all disagreements sections with direct value most for determining quo behavior of the masses, force in a storm of struggle to distinguish enemies from friends, keep allies poorly to strike decisive blows to the enemy.

Ideological struggle of Marxism with revisionism at the end of the 19th century, is only a prelude great revolutionary battles of the proletariat marching forward towards the complete victory of the enterprise, despite all the fluctuations and weaknesses of the petty bourgeois layers.

Written in March and April 1908

Categories: Marxism-Leninism – the revolutionary ideology and practice | Leave a comment

The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky Hrngt

Posted on June 8, 2014 from financend

Introduction to the Hebrew translation system of 1970 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

Hrngt proletarian revolution and Kautsky (Article extract) ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky ……………………………………… 7 Hrngt

introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

How did Kautsky Marx ………………………………………………………………………………… regular moderate liberal. 8

Bourgeois democracy and proletarian ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12

Can there be equality of exploiting and exploited? ………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

Bell Soviets dare to make state institutions …………………………………………………………………………………. 18

The Constituent Assembly and the Soviet Republic ……………………………………………………………………………………… .. 20

Soviet constitution ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24

What is internationalism …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28

Service bourgeoisie under the guise of “economic analysis” …………………………………………………………………………………… .. 33

Appendix 1 theses on the Constituent Assembly ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 43

Appendix 2 a new book and Vandervelde on the state ……………………………………………………………………………………. 45

Comments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48

Introduction to the Hebrew translation system of 1970

100th birthday of Vladimir Lenin noted throughout the world. Use this time of deepening and expanding lever study of his ideas and political, of work and personal dumplings – a source of inspiration for working people, youth and all progressive people in all continents.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Israel (RAQAH) decided – on the occasion of the 100th birthday of f. Failure. Lenin – post two new Hebrew translation of his works, which deal with the leftist and rightist deviations Marxism, scientific socialism: “The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky Hrngt”, and “infantile disease of” left-wing “communism”. Aktoaliotn not faded to this day.

Lenin’s essay “The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky Hrngt” written in October-November 1918 in response to the booklet of kilometers. Kautsky “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

While working on this essay, on October 9, 1918, he wrote and. non. Lenin’s article under the same title, this article published in the newspaper “Pravda” Two days later, on October 11.

The booklet, offered it to his attention the Israeli reader, includes, therefore, both the short article and complete the connection.

Hrngt proletarian revolution and Kautsky
(Article extract)

This title began to write a booklet dedicated to criticism of Kautsky Hobrto, “dictatorship of the proletariat”, has just been published in Vienna . However, because my work is delayed, I decided to ask the system “Pravda” to place a short article on the same subject.

Reactionary war and the most tedious, which lasted more than 4 years, did its job. Europe is reflected breath of proletarian revolution rising – both in Austria, both in Italy, both in Germany, France, even in England (very characteristic, for example, a pamphlet-July “survey socialism” [i] arch-opportunist, whose editor is a Liberal-half Ramsay MacDonald – “confessions capitalist”).

Here is a leader at the 2nd International Master Kautsky out a book on the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, the proletarian revolution – a book a hundred times more disgraceful, more irritating, more Rngti Bernstein’s famous book “preconditions of socialism”. Almost 20 years have passed since the book was Rngti it, and now appears back here, aggravation of Hrngtiot by Kautsky!

Only a negligible part of the book is devoted to the very Russian Bolshevik Revolution. Kautsky returns grandiose wisdom of the Mensheviks in full to the point, the Russian worker was a contractor with laughter. Imagine, for example, that in the name of “Marxism” is called discretion, studded with quotations from his writings liberal-half of the Liberal-half Maslov, so, how to strive to rich farmers to take over their land (New!), What is worthwhile for them grain prices high, etc. . And on those announcing belittling, totally liberal, the “Marxist” our “poor peasant see here” (ie, the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Republic) “product of constant mass of land reform socialist behalf of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ (page 48 in the booklet Kautsky).

Well, is not it? Socialist, Marxist, trying to show us the bourgeois character of the revolution and with it a mockery, a real spirit of Maslov, Fotrisob and Cadets, the organization of door-village.

“Dispossession of wealthy farmers put but a new element of unrest and civil war-production process, which requires a valid peace and security cure it” (p 499).

Unbelievable, but it is a fact. That said, word for word Kautsky, and Sbinkob and Milyukov!

Russia has already seen so many times, how the defenders of the kulaks wear the mantle of “Marxism”, to Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky not Ifliano. It is possible that for the European reader will need to meet more detail on this poor lowland subservience and fear of the liberal bourgeoisie against civil war. Russian peasant execution and order your finger on quite this Rngtiot of Kautsky – and move on.


Almost nine-tenths of Kautsky’s book were devoted to general theoretical question of fundamental importance-up: the question of the relation of the proletarian dictatorship democracy “. Here indeed stands out clearly over-complete separation of Kautsky Marxism.

Kautsky wants to persuade his readers – extending-and serious, we learned that “the most – that the concept” revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, “Marx meant not” form of government “rejects the democracy, but the state, ie ” state control “. And control the proletariat, which is the majority of the population, is possible only by strict compliance of democracy, and for example, the Paris Commune, which was clearly a dictatorship of the proletariat, was elected by popular vote. And that Marx, speaking of the dictatorship of the proletariat, not intended by type of government “(or form of government, Regierungsform)” proven “fact,” has been that he, Marx, saw possible about England and America the transition (to communism) peaceful that is, in a democratic way “(pp 21-20).

Perhaps not, but it is a fact! Such is the real way of thinking of Kautsky, furiously attacking the Bolsheviks on the violation of democracy Bhoktm, all policies advocated all his might, at every opportunity, “dictatorial and democratic system.

This is – beyond absolute alongside them opportunists (breed of David, Kolb and the other pillars of the social-chauvinism of the German, or the Fabians [ii] and independent [iii] English, or reformist French and Italian), who spoke with greater sincerity and honesty, that no they know the theory of Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat, because contrary is, in fact, the Hdmokrtizm.

This is – an absolute return of the view that the German pre-Marxist socialism, saying that we, in fact, strive popular state for free “, the view of Democrats provincial, did not understand that every country is called the oppression of one class by another.

This is – a complete denial of the proletarian revolution, which in its place stands the liberal theory of the “conquest of the majority”, of “utilizing democracy”! Bell preached and demonstrated what Marx and Engels for 40 years, from 1852 to 1891, on the necessity of the proletariat “fracture” the bourgeois state machine, completely forgotten, distorted, thrown out by Hrngt Kautsky.

Find out in detail the theoretical errors of Kautsky means – repeat what I said The State and Revolution “. Here there is no need for that. I will mention only briefly:

Kautsky denied Marxism, because he forgot that every state is a machine for the oppression of one by another class bourgeois republic and all democratic most is called oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

Proletarian dictatorship, proletarian state, not a “form of government”, but a different kind, called the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat . Pesticide necessary because the bourgeoisie had always shown resistance-madness dispossession.

(Reliance on that ridge in the 70s believed the possibility of transition peacefully to socialism in England and America “, [iv] is merely an argument of a sophist, or more simply, a cheater, deceptive with quotations and authoritative. First, Marx even then see this option as exception-rule. Secondly, so there was still monopoly capitalism, ie, imperialism, third, specifically in England and America was not then – ( currently there ) – a cult, a military that serves as a mechanism for the heads of the known state of the bourgeois.)

Where there is oppression, there can be freedom, equality, and so on. Thus Engels said: “As long as the proletariat needs the state, he is needed not for freedom, but for the suppression of his enemies. And when became possible to speak of freedom, then the state itself poor exist”.

Bourgeois democracy – which held about education and training a proletarian struggle is beyond doubt – is always narrow-minded, hypocritical, false, false, is always democracy for the rich, the poor thermal.

Proletarian democracy is oppressing the exploiters, the bourgeoisie – and therefore not hypocritical, does not promise them freedom and democracy , while employees it gives a true democracy, only the Soviet Union gave the proletariat and rifle toil vast Russia freedom and democracy, incomparable, are impossible, unimaginable any bourgeois republic democratic, taking, for example, the palaces and mansions from the bourgeoisie (without them would be off the assembly hypocrisy only), the printing houses and paper owners of capital (exclusive hand freedom pattern rifle employee of the nation will be nothing but a lie), convert parliamentarism bourgeois democratic organization of councils, according to the upcoming 1000 People of “democracy” more than the most democratic bourgeois parliament. And so on.

Kautsky tossed out … the “class struggle” of democracy! Kautsky made Rngt right and servant of the bourgeoisie.


It is impossible not to note, by the way, some of the gems Hrngtiot.

Kautsky had to admit that the council organization not only learned Russian only value, but the value of the world, it belongs to the most important Phenomenon nowadays “, he may receive” decisive “Battles” major, to come, and between capital and labor. “However, , repeating the vast wisdom of the Mensheviks, who had peace with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, “conclude” Kautsky: Union favors the Organization of struggle “, but not C”argonim state”.

magnificent! Organized, I pray you, proletarians and poor peasants! But – God forbid! – Bell dare to win! Bell you will think win it! That but win the bourgeoisie, and soon will live to regret it, because you do not have organizations “national” proletarian state. You have, in fact after your triumph, falling apart millions.

Oh, the “Marxist” Kautsky wonderful! Oh, “theorist” of Hrngtiot, incomparable!

Gem No. 2. Civil War, is a “deadly enemy” of “social revolution”, since it is, as we have heard already, “looking for peace” (for the rich?) And “lbithon “(for the capitalists?).

Proletariat of Europe! To the old behavior Revolution, as long as the bourgeoisie will not find one, do not hire a civil war against you on behalf of the Sbinkob and Dan, the Dotob and Krasnov, the Czechoslovak and kulaks!

Marx wrote in 1870: The main hope is that the war has taught the French workers to take up arms. H”mrcsist “Kautsky expects the war four years not to use weapons by the workers against the bourgeoisie (Heaven forbid! This, perhaps, is not” democratic “so), but … the conclusion of peace with kindness, kind-hearted capitalists!

Gem No. 3. It has, civil war more non-moving party: while democracy “there is” protecting the minority “(which – note in brackets – so good flesh defenders of Dreyfus predicted the French, or Hlibknbtim, Hmklinim, Hdbsim time final), the civil war heard! Hear!) “Threatens the complete destruction is defeated.”

Oh, did Kautsky does not really revolutionary? He passionately and desperately for the revolution … But for such a revolution, there are no serious struggle threatening annihilation! He “overcame” absolutely the old errors of old Engels, who admiringly Minister teacher Hillel the impact of violent revolutions [v] . He, as a historian, “serious”, has washed its hands from their delusions of those who say that civil war steels the exploited and teaches them to create a new society without exploiting.

Gem No. 4. Is was large and historically useful dictatorship of the workers and the urban petty bourgeoisie revolution of 1789? Not appointed nor part. After Napoleon came. “Dictatorship of the lower classes smoothing the way for the dictatorship of the sword” (page 26). Historian “serious” ours – as liberals, who moved their lines – firm confidence that in the not see the “dictatorship of the lower classes” – for example, in Germany – was not a dictatorship of the sword. Germany has never differed from France dictatorship of the sword coarser, more vile, – all these plots Hema, alone banished Marx and Engels, who lied no qualms in saying that today L”amh “France has more love for freedom and Gaoot- depressed, than in England or Germany, all of which indeed she came to France, thanks to the revolutions.

… But enough! It was necessary to write a special booklet to find out one of the pearls of Hrngt Depression Kautsky!


One can not stand the “internationalism” of the Lord Kautsky. Unintentionally spilled Kautsky bright light – just that, describing most expressions of sympathy for the internationalism of the Mensheviks, that too, have Tzimrooldistim [vi] – argues Kautsky sweet – are they not “brothers” of the Bolsheviks, and this is not a jokee!

And he is in this sweet description of “Htzimrooldizm” of the Mensheviks:

“The Mensheviks wanted a general peace. They wanted that Bell fighting will the slogan: no annexations and reparations. Has been obtained that have been, in their view, the Russian army to stand ready for battle …”. While the Bolsheviks put bad guys “Dzorgniztzih” to the army and cut off the evil peace-Brest … and Kautsky say with absolute clarity that the lay-needed Constituent Assembly was to remain in office, that the Bolsheviks did not have to take the power.

Well, internationalism consisted – to support the government of imperialist “our”, as supported Kerensky the Mensheviks and the Rangers, cover art of her secret, deceived the people phrase, sweetish: non “require” We beasts of prey to be good-heart “require” We (the government imperialist “get the password without annexations and reparations”.

Kautsky’s opinion is what the internationalism.

And he believes we are, this is Rngtiot complete.

Internationalism nature – sever ties with the social-chauvinists (ie, defense personnel) our government and our imperialist, revolutionary struggle against it, eradicate, the willingness of victims of most major national (and even peace-Brest), if this beneficial development of workers’ revolution International.

We know well, that Kautsky and his group (such as treble, Bernstein and others like them) were “full of resentment,” the signing of a peace-Brest: they wanted, made “Z’sth” … the submitter an instant the Russian authorities to the bourgeoisie? Provincial German ones, take-brain, but ticking and kind-hearted, were guided not by the desire, the Republic of proletarian Soviet, which is the world’s first eradicate a revolutionary way to imperialism its hold on until the Revolution in Europe, Kindle cocktails _bartzot other (provincial afraid cocktails in Europe , are afraid of civil war, which violates the “peace and security”. no, they were guided by the desire, all countries will be maintained nationalism provincial, declares itself C”aintrntzionlizm “because” moderation and Dkdknoto. “what if only the Russian Republic remains bourgeois … and waited .. .Then all the world was kind-hearted, mild, Ntzionlistim-provincial Mawasi-conquest, and it was actually limited to internationalism! ..

(One thinks Hkaotskianim Germany, Hlongtistim France, Independent (ILP) in England, tortoiseshell “brother” Lrngtiot Italy, etc., etc..

By now only fools do not see, not only that we were right, our Bmgrno the bourgeoisie (and its servants – the Mensheviks and SR’s), but we were right when we chopped the peace of Brest, after an open call for a general peace, supported by public and tearing of publication secret agreements, was rejected by the bourgeoisie of state-of consent (Hantnth). First of all, we chopped it not for the peace of Brest, then were removed at once to power the Russian bourgeoisie and thus cause untold damage to the world socialist revolution. Secondly, the price of the victims of those who say that we kept International revolutionary influence to such a degree, which is being done as we really Bulgaria, effervescent Austria and Germany, have weakened two Haimfrializmim, while we Nthzkno and began to build a real proletarian armyy.

Kautsky tactics Hrngt stems that German workers must now defend the homeland, together with the bourgeoisie, and more-all fear the German revolution, as the English might bend them a new Brest. And non This Hrngtiot. This non-parochial nationalism.

And if we, say, the conquest of Ukraine was the victim of a very large national, but the proletariat and the peasantry-door Ukraine is braced and reinforced , revolutionary fighters on behalf of workers’ revolution International. Ukraine could suffer – but the revolution International B”hshith spacing out “the German army,close to each other the revolutionary working-German, Ukrainian and Russiann.

It was, of course, “nicer” if we could eradicate both simple war the Wilhelm and Wilson both. But these are the words-following. Lmgrm external war we can not. And promote the atrophy inside can also can we. We have achieved this through a Soviet revolution, dimensions proletarian giant .

An even greater extent had achieved such a feat German workers, which would open revolution, regardless of the victims of international (it is the true essence of internationalism), which said (and illustrated it with deeds), because for them a matter Revolutionary Workers’ International Higher entirety, security, tranquility of the country or another, and even of their own state, the national state.


Europe’s grand tragedy and danger that threatens it, nevertheless, that her revolutionary party. There are parties of traitors like Hsiidmnim, Hrnodlim, Hendersons, Webbs and Co., or cringing Togo souls-of Kautsky. There is no revolutionary party.

Of course, the revolutionary movement’s powerful masses can fulfill this shortcoming, but it continues to be a major disaster, danger.

Therefore it is necessary to condemn all ways the Hrngtim, such as Kautsky, thereby supporting groups of revolutionary proletarian internationalist really exist in all countries. The proletariat will rush to turn my back to traitors, Lrngtim and another march of these groups, which it will educate the leaders. Not in vain wailing bourgeoisie in every country on “World Bolshevism”. World Bolshevism win the world bourgeoisie.

“Pravda”, No. 219, October 11, 1918 signing of f. Lenin.

The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky Hrngt


The booklet of Kautsky, “the dictatorship of the proletariat”, who recently came out in Vienna (Brand Ignaz, 1918, Vienna, p 63) is a concrete example of the best that total bankruptcy and the most abject of the International 2, which it has long been speaking Socialists straight all countries. Therefore, the analysis of sophisms Hrngtiim and utter denial of Marxism Kautsky is necessary.

But first you have to emphasize that this writer had occasion to note the very beginning of the war many times, that Kautsky broke Marxism. Articles of years in a row from 1916 to 1914 B”sotzial Democrat ” [vii] abroad and communist ‘ [viii] has been devoted to this. These articles were grouped published by the Petrograd Soviet: c. Zinoviev and v. Lenin:” upstream ” Petrograd in 1918 (550 pages). booklet, issued in Geneva in 1915 and translated into German and French languages, [ix] I wrote about “Hkaotskianiott”

“Kautsky, Ben-large basis of the 2nd International, is a typical example that most clearly how the verbal recognition of Marxism has led in fact by making L”strobizm” or L”brntnizm “(ie, bourgeois-liberal Torah recognizes the struggle” class “non-revolutionary and that expressed with particular clarity the Russian writer Struve and the German economist Brentano). we see this also from the example of Plekhanov. sophisms open-eye Moroccans are the soul revolutionary beast of Marxism programs; Marxism admit that they all, except medium-struggle revolutionary, Lhtftm and training except for education of the masses precisely in this direction. without the vision of any “supplemental” Kautsky the fundamental idea of social-chauvinism – recognition of homeland war given – and giving up diplomatic concession-off left-handed form of refraining from voting on the credit of war, drought admitting verbally oppositional his etc. Kautsky, who in 1912 signed a manifesto Hbzli [x] on the use of the revolutionary war that would come, justifies and beautifies now all the ways the social-chauvinism and, like Plekhanov joins the bourgeoisie mockery thought the revolution, every step of revolutionary struggle directly.

The working class can not achieve the objective revolutionary worldwide without wage war mercilessly against this Hrngtiot against weakness-this desire, this service against opportunism and extremely theoretical desecration of Marxism. Hkaotskianiot is not a coincidence, but a social product of the 2nd International, contradictions, mutual combination verbal submission Marxism and opportunism fact “(c. Zinoviev and v. Lenin:” Socialism and War “, Geneva, 1915, pp 14-13) .

And below, in the book “Imperialism latest stage of capitalism”, I wrote in 1916 and was in Petrograd in 1917), I analyzed in detail the theoretical falsification of all considerations Kautsky on imperialism. I brought the definition of imperialism by Kautsky. “Imperialism is a product of industrial capitalism highly-developed. The main thing – Inhalation every industrial capitalist nation to annex or enslave all territories agrarian (Kautsky highlighting) the largest, without acknowledging that, while nations inhabit them.” I pointed out the utter unwillingness of this setting and “sigolh “blurring of the most profound contradictions of imperialism, and then acceptance of opportunism. I brought my definition-I of imperialism: “Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development, when crystallized controlled monopolies and financial capital, as mattered a prominent export of capital, began dividing the world between international corporations and ended the division of any area of ​​land between the capitalist countries has increased.” I showed that criticism of imperialism by Kautsky poor despite the criticism of the bourgeois, provincial.

Finally, in August and September 1917, ie, before the proletarian revolution in Russia (October 25 – November 7, 1917), I wrote the pamphlet “The State and Revolution. Theory of Marxism on the state and tasks of the proletariat revolution”, issued in Petrograd at the beginning of 1918, and here, in Chapter 6, the “contempt of Marxism by the opportunists “, devoted special attention to Kautsky. I proved that he misrepresented the teachings of Marx, faked her, giving her an opportunistic character, “repudiated the revolution actually admitting verbally with her.”

In essence, the fundamental theoretical mistake Kautsky Bhobrto the dictatorship of the proletariat essence precisely those opportunistic distortions of Marx’s theory of the revolution, exposed in detail in the booklet “State and Revolution”.

These preliminary remarks are necessary, because they prove that the accused Kautsky openly Brngtiot long before the Bolsheviks took over state power and were condemned for it by Kautsky.

How did Marx liberal Kautsky the normal medium

The basic question, which relates to ‘Kautsky Bhobrto, is the question on the main program of proletarian revolution, namely, the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a question of utmost importance for all countries, and especially for the advanced countries, wishing for the countries fighting especially during this time. Tfsr- say without exaggeration that this is the main question of all proletarian class struggle. Therefore it is necessary to stand it carefully.

Kautsky puts this question, the two sides S”hnigod socialist “(ie, the Bolsheviks and non-Bolsheviks) is” the contrast between two fundamentally different methods: “democratic dictatorship” (page 3).

We note incidentally that calling the non-Bolsheviks in Russia, ie, the Mensheviks and SR [1] , * on behalf of Socialists, Kautsky guided by their nickname, by word and not by the actual place, which they perceive the struggle of the proletariat with bourgeoisie. great understanding of Marxism and use-of-its great! but that in more detail below.

Now has to take the main thing: the tremendous discovery of Kautsky the “fundamental contradiction” “between democratic and dictatorial methods”. This is the nail in question. Thus all, the essence of Kautsky Hobrto. And this monstrous jumble theoretically such an extent that a complete denial of Marxism so much so, that Kautsky has to admit that much to Bernstein.

(The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a question of the relation of the proletarian state to the bourgeois state, the democratic proletarian bourgeois democracy. Wrong right thing now, is not it? But Kautsky, like what a teacher gymnasium, wither with repetitions of textbooks of history, facing stubbornly backs 20th century, turning his face to the 18th century and for the hundredth time, extremely bored, in a whole series of sections, cud month rags ratio bourgeois democracy absolutism and the middle Ages.

Indeed, as if asleep chewing is beautiful.

Non means not fully understand what’s the matter. But it evoked laughter Kautsky’s efforts to present it as if there are people who preach “contempt for democracy” (p 11), and the like. Kautsky had such nonsense obscure and complicate the question, as is the question presents a show a liberal, as the goddess of democracy in general and the question of bourgeois democracy; He also denied accurate concept, this class, but try to talk about democracy “pre-socialist”. Almost a third of pamphlet, page 20 of 63, filled our water poured-chatter, very pleasant bourgeoisie, since it is a mandate chatter bourgeois democracy and blur the question of the proletarian revolution.

But the magazine title is, nevertheless, “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The Unknown to all, that this is indeed the essence of the teachings of Marx. And Kautsky had, after all the chatter not-for-matter, to the words of Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

How did so “Marxist” Kautsky – It’s been a real comedy! Listen:

“The word of Karl Marx based her view” (which Kautsky shows her contempt for democracy) – it verbatim listed on page 20 and page 60 is repeated so that even in such a way that the (Bolshevik) “mentioned at the right kennel ‘( exactly !! Woertchens des) “the dictatorship of the proletariat. which Marx once used in 1875 in a letter.”

Here is a “kennel” is Marx:

“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of revolutionary coup of the first and second. This period also corresponds to a political transition period, and the state of this period can not be anything but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” [xi] .

First, the discretion to call this famous Marx, which is a summary for all the revolutionary teachings, called “word” or even “kennel” means – to abuse Marxism, deny it until the end. Do not forget that Kautsky knows Marx almost by heart, that all Ctibotio of Kautsky clear, lying in his desk or the head line of miniature goat-boxes, including all written by Marx divided for Quote thoroughly and most convenient. Kautsky can not but know that both Marx and Engels, letters and printed works, spoke about the dictatorship of the proletariat many times before and especially after the Commune. Kautsky can not but know that the formula “dictatorship of the proletariat” is but the wording historical-concrete and more precise scientifically the task of the proletariat “break” the machine state bourgeoisie, which it (the mission) both Marx and Engels, Bhthsbm attempt revolutions of the years of 1848 and even more in the years 1871, speaking from 1852 to 1891, for 40 years.

How to explain this horrible distortion of Marxism by sketchy Marxism Kautsky? If you talk about the philosophical foundations of this phenomenon, the interest is converted distortion of the dialectic Baklktizm and Sofistikh. Kautsky great artist such conversion. To be practical political standpoint, the thing is groveling before the opportunists, that is, in the end, before the bourgeoisie. Since the beginning of the war, Kautsky, progress faster, it Clil perfection in this art to be a Marxist speech and actually serves the bourgeoisie.

You’re convinced that even more when you are studying, which means excellent “interpreted” Kautsky the “dictionary” of Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Listen:

“Marx, unfortunately, not careful note score more detail, how to describe itself the dictatorship that …” (rhetoric empty false to within her core of Rngt, as Marx and Engels gave row of very explicit directions, which topped deliberately sketchy Marxism Kautsky) “… the word dictatorship literally means the elimination of democracy. but, of course, verbally meaning of this word is also the rule of a single one personality, not related to the legal code. rule-single, separated from the tyranny that, on reflection it seems he did not institute a national basis, except insofar as transient of extremism.

Well, the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”, that is not the dictatorship of a single person, but a single class, already excludes the assumption that Marx meant by the dictatorship in the literal sense of this term.

He was speaking here not about the form of government, but the state, which inevitably will come anywhere where the proletariat conquered political power. This, Marx did not mean here the shape-government, already proven that, in the opinion in England and America the transition can be realized through peaceful means, that is to say, in a democratic way “(p 20).

Deliberately brought it full consideration, for the sake of the reader can clearly see, what tactics adopted theoretician Kautsky.

Nthsk him, Kautsky, go to the question of defining the start of the “word” dictatorship.

excellent. Access question in which he – the sacred right of each. But have to distinguish between serious and honest approach the question with an honest approach. All wishing to take seriously the matter of access given to the question must give the definition is the word for “, and then was is the question clearly and directly. Kautsky does not. The word “dictatorship” – he writes, “literally means the destruction of democracy.”

First, there is no definition. If he wanted to avoid giving our Kautsky’s definition of the concept dictatorship, why he is such an approach to the question?

Secondly, it is incorrect visibly. It is natural that liberal talk about “democracy” in general. But a Marxist will never forget to put the question “for what class?”. Everyone knows, for example – and H”historion “Kautsky knows also – that the uprisings or even strong disturbances of slaves in ancient times at once revealed the essence of the old country, * the dictatorship of the slave-owners. Is this dictatorship eliminated the democracy among slave-owners, Lmant 7 as everyone knows, that has not been eliminated. –

“Marxist” Kautsky said nonsense words-monstrous lie, because I forgot to “the class struggle, .. (.

To make the claim that liberal and false, given by Kautsky, the Marxist and true, it must be said: It is not necessary that the dictatorship would mean the elimination of democracy for that class, trays dictatorship is about the other classes, but it always means is the elimination (or intrinsic limitation of the most – After all, it’s one of the assassination) of democracy for the same position, in relation to whom or against dictatorship fulfilled.

However, this argument will be true when she does not give a definition of dictatorship. . . . . . ..

Consider the following verse of Kautsky:

“… But, of course, verbally meaning of this word is also the rule of one single person, not related to any law …”

Similar live-dogs blind shafting perchance the nose side or the other party, Kautsky inadvertently encountered here will calculate the correct one and that is, dictatorship is the rule, not related to the legal code), but the definition of dictatorship Still, Nathan said, except Moreover, non-historical truth stands out, as if the dictatorship is the rule of one person. This is even grammatically incorrect, since dictatorial control can also control a handful of people, even an oligarchy, even one status sheet. . . . .

Here are Kautsky points out the difference between dictatorship and tyranny. However, although it is clear, this score is not correct, we do not recognize him, because, he says No Touching any question of interest to us. Fairly well-known tendency of Kautsky turn of the 20th century to the 18th century and 18th century Antiquity old, and we hope that the German proletariat, after hammering out while battling the “dictatorship, will take account of this tendency and to be seated, for example, the Kautsky chair ancient history teacher of high school. truancy definition of dictatorship of the proletariat by the abstract talk about tyranny is nothing but stupidity, deceit or act-not the most skillful.

And the resulting summary, that Kautsky, submission to talk about dictatorship, piled mounds of outstanding cases to review, but did not give any setting! He could, without rely on the intellectual talents to use force to remove memory and tiny The box “all cases in which Marx speaks of dictatorship. He was getting probably the next setting, or a setting that identifies her essence:

Dictatorship is a regime that relies directly on violence, not related to any law.

Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule, occupied and supported by the labor of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, rule that is not related to any law.

And here is this simple truth, a truth light like a sun every worker has recognized (representative of the masses, and not representative layer of the top of the mob provincial, biased by the owners of capital, consisting of social-imperialists of all countries), the truth is clear and bright every representative of the exploited fighting release, questionable real Blti- For a Marxist, we are forced to “recapture during a battle” where every gentleman scholar-like Kautsky! What explain this? The spirit of servility, it absorbed the 2nd International leaders and have become informers despicable service of the bourgeoisie.

First performed Kautsky act of falsification recalling nonsense, what its literal meaning of the word dictatorship means the dictator single, and then – based on a distortion of it – declared that Marx, “ie,” the words on the dictatorship of the class is of significance not literally (unless such which it derives, that dictatorship does not imply revolutionary violence, but the occupation of Peace “the majority of days – note -” democracy “bourgeois).

There differentiate, see, you, the “state” and “form of government”. Incredibly profound difference, just as we distinguish between “condition” of stupidity in person, speaking not-wise, and the “form” Stoiotio.

Kautsky is necessary to interpret dictatorship, Mode of control “(this phrase actually used is also on the next page – page 21), then disappears revolutionary violence, violent revolution disappears. “State control” is a condition, which can take place any majority as … “democracy”! With such a devious trick gone without a hitch revolution!

But this rogue act too crude and will not save Kautsky. This requires dictatorship and is a “condition” of the revolutionary coercion, trauma history-pleasant Lrngtim, another class of the second class – this “cat tried to hide the bag.” Nonsense difference between “state” and a “form of government” is revealed to the eye. Talk Ban form of government – doubly foolish because every kid knows that monarchy and republic are different forms of government. It is necessary to prove to the Lord Kautsky that both these forms-governance, as “transitional forms of governance” capitalism, are two different types of a bourgeois state, ie, of the bourgeois dictatorship.

And then finally, talk about forms-governance is a forgery not only stupid, but also crude and tasteless Marx’s view, wilderness here with absolute clarity about the shape and character of the state and not the form of government.

The proletarian revolution impossible without the destruction of the bourgeois state machine forced-laborers and replacing it with a new machine which, according to Engels, “is not a country already in its sense” [xii] .

Kautsky aims to cover all of it, invest falsely – that requires him to stand Hrngtit.

See, I pray, to which recourse is pathetic tricks.

First subterfuge “… This, Marx did not mean here the form of government, it has been proven that in England and America is perceived as the peaceful revolution, that is to say, in a democratic way.”

Form of government does not have any real bearing on that, because there are monarchies which are not typical bourgeois state, for example, that excel in the absence of aggressive military circles, and there are republics, entirely typical in this respect, for example, republics with bureaucracy and military circles. This is a historical and political fact known to all, and Kautsky will not be able to fake.

Kautsky wanted to discuss it seriously and honestly, it was asking himself: Are there historical laws relating to revolution and do not know any exception-rule? And the answer is: No, there is no such laws, these laws mean just typical that Marx once described as the “ideal” of capitalism in the average, normal, typical.

And below. Is in the 70s was something that made England and America People coming-of-public relation in question? Anyone who knows some extent the requirements of science in the field of historical questions is clear that it is necessary to put a question. No place means – to falsify history, to play sophisms. If placed this question, there is no doubt what the answer will be: the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie; And the necessity of violence that arose – as they explained many times in the most detailed manner Marx and Engels (especially a civil war in France “and the introduction to this book) – by the way, there are military junta and bureaucracy. And precisely these institutions, especially in England and America, specifically in the chock-19th century, when Marx city’s remark – there were , (and today they exist both in England and America).

Kautsky had actually included on every step to cover up his Hrngtiot!

And please-please note how the show is here inadvertently ears-his donkey. He wrote: “peacefully, ie, in a democratic way” !!

Defining the dictatorship, Kautsky tried with all his might to conceal from the reader the main symbol of this concept, namely, revolutionary coercion. Now, however, the truth came out: question is a contradiction between reversible and irreversible peace force.

Here’s the rub. All the tricks, sophisms, counterfeit-deceit – all these are necessary to him, Kautsky, under various pretexts to avoid the violent revolution, to cover up to defy her, the actual policy across the liberal side, ie the side of the bourgeoisie. Here’s the rub.

“Historian” non-Kautsky shamelessly distorts history so much, forgetting “the main thing: the pre-monopoly capitalism – and then point his record was the 70’s of the 19th century, actually – excelled in virtue of the fundamental economic characteristics reflected discovery typical especially in England and America, love of peace and love of relatively greater freedom. And imperialism, ie, monopoly capitalism, matured finalized only in the 20th century, excels by its characteristics of economic fundamental, love of peace and love of freedom lesser, greater development of the military in all sites “did not notice” that, while consideration to what extent the typical or possible coup peaceful or violent revolution means – go down to the level of an ordinary servant of the bourgeoisie.

Second subterfuge. The Paris Commune was a dictatorship of the proletariat, and it is chosen by popular vote, that is, without the bourgeoisie to deny the right to vote, ie, “democratically”. And Kautsky triumphant: “… dictatorship of the proletariat was for Marx” (or according to Marx) “status, resulting necessarily pure democracy, if the proletariat forms the majority” (21 S, Proletariat uberwiegendem bei).

This reasoning Kautsky’s so funny, you are, indeed, feel real Richesses de Embarras (difficulty in abundance … counter-claims). First, it is known that elite, command, leadership of the bourgeoisie had fled from Paris Loorsaii. Boorsaii was H”sotzialist “Louis Blanc, which shows, by the way, the argument of Kautsky a stroke, which places attended by” all sides “of socialism. Is it not ridiculous to describe democracy in pure “with” general vote “the Parisian division into two camps fighting, one of which concentrated all the bourgeoisie fighting, politically active?

Secondly, the commune has struggled with the Versailles Government workers’ government of France against the bourgeois. What is of interest here, therefore, a pure democracy ‘and’ Vote general “, when Paris decided the fate of France? When Marx came to the view that the commune was wrong, that took the bank belongs to France [xiii] as a whole, did not Marx relied on the principles and practice of “pure democracyy” ??

Indeed, it seems that Kautsky writes in the country where the police forbid people to laugh “together”, otherwise the laughter was killed Kautsky.

Third. I allow myself to respectfully remind the Lord Kautsky, who knows Marx and Engels by heart, the next evaluation of the Commune by Engels in terms of … “pure democracy”:

“Are these gentlemen” (the anti-Aotoritristim) “see ever a revolution? Without a doubt, the revolution is, to the extent possible, that authoritarian efficient. Revolution is an act in which part of the population imposes its will upon the other part with guns, bayonets, ie , with measures authoritarian greatly. and the winning party has to necessarily hold dominated with fear, who kissed alarm among the reactionaries. had it not been relied Paris commune to the authority of the people in Arms against the bourgeoisie, could she hold more than one day? Did not entitled we, on the contrary, claim against the commune that, she used this authority to a lesser extent? ” [xiv]

So much for “pure democracy”! How to mock the provincial Engels was rough and tasteless, the “Social-Democrat” (in terms of France – of the 40s, in terms of European-General – the years 1918-1914), who imagined a thing as “pure democracy” in divided into classes!

But rather include all the nonsense that comes to Kautsky, which is impossible, since every verse of his abyss of Rngtiot.

Marx and Engels analyzed all details of the Paris Commune, showed that he was credited attempt to smash, break the “machine ready state”. Marx and Engels saw this conclusion is so important, they put this amendment in 1872 provided in the “old-fashioned” (in part) of the “Communist Manifesto”. [xv] Marx and Engels pointed out that places opened elimination of the military and bureaucracy, parliamentarism , began the demolition of “The growth of the parasite – the state,” etc., while the wise Kautsky wearing his nightcap, repeats what they said a thousand times professors liberals – tales of “pure democracy “.

Not in vain Rosa Luxemburg said on August 21, 1914, that today the German Social Democracy is a stinking corpse.

Third subterfuge. “If we speak of the dictatorship as a form of government, we can talk about the dictatorship of the class. After class, as we have said, can control, not to govern …” governors only “organizations” or “parties”.

You are confusing, confusing without a twinge of conscience, sir, “consultant-confusion ‘! Dictatorship is not a “form of government”, these are ridiculous nonsense. And Marx speaks not about the “shape-government”, but on the form or type of state. Which is not the same, not the same. Not even this is absolutely true, that status can not govern. Such nonsense can only say “parliamentary idiot”, who does not see anything but bourgeois parliament, sees nothing, except Party governors “. Each European country can show Kautsky examples of administration by its ruling class, for example, the owners of estates in the Middle Ages, despite the inadequate organizing themselves.

Summary: Kautsky distorted distortion unmatched concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, turning the ridge liberal standard, which means we will drop himself down to the liberal chattering phrases trite and missing-point in the “pure democracy”, domes and obscure content class of bourgeois democracy, avoid above all touching revolutionary Violence “on the part of the oppressed class. When Kautsky “interprets” the concept “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” Thus, the revolutionary coercion disappeared from the oppressed class oppressors, the act of liberal distortion of Marx’s theory achieved a world record. Hrngt Bernstein is nothing but a puppy-dog compared Hrngt Kautsky.

Bourgeois and proletarian democracy

The question is complicated without qualms by Kautsky, actually looks like the following.

If you do not abuse the whole creation and history, it is clear that there is no talk about “pure democracy” as long as there are classes different, but it is possible to talk about democracy in class (in parentheses say, that “pure democracy” is not just a figure of speech of burned, revealing of non understanding both of the class struggle and of the nature of the state, but empty rhetoric redoubled when, as in communist democracy, Bhtnoonh and having become bankrupt, will die, but will never be “pure democracy”).

“Pure democracy” is a false rhetoric of liberal, deceptive workers. History knows of bourgeois democracy which replaces feudalism, and of proletarian democracy which replaces bourgeois democracy.

If Kautsky devotes no-exaggeration dozens of pages “prove” it true that bourgeois democracy is progressive compared to the Middle Ages, and that it must proletariat to take advantage of its struggle against the bourgeoisie, it’s really chatting liberal, stupefying the workers, not only in Germany educated, but also in Russia This is an educated non-trivial truth. Kautsky simply pulling the wool “Teach me * in the eyes of the workers, in his book, when he dons the importance, also Weitling, also the Jesuits of Paraguay and many other things, to circumvent the essence of bourgeois democracy in our time, that is, capitalismm.

Kautsky takes from Marxism to acceptable to liberals, on behalf of the bourgeoisie (criticism of medieval, historic role in advancing capitalism in general and of capitalist democracy in particular), and takes Marxism, silencer and obscures him that no unacceptable bourgeoisie (revolutionary violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in order to destroy it). That is why Kautsky became so necessarily – valid objective situation, and whatever the subjective opinion – the position of the bourgeoisie.

Bourgeois democracy, which is a tremendous historical progress compared to the Middle Ages, always will be – and then capitalism can not but remain – narrow-minded, truncated, false, hypocritical, a paradise for the rich, a trap and a scam exploited the poor. And now this truth, which is the most important and essential part of Torah Marxist, did not understand “Marxist” Kautsky. Precisely on this question – the main question – serves Kautsky “unpleasantness” bourgeoisie instead of a scientific criticism of those conditions, who are all bourgeois democracy to democracy for the rich.

Recall first gentleman-scholar highly Kautsky the theoretical declarations of Marx and Engels, who had brushed our “forgotten” shamefully (enjoyment bourgeoisie) and later we will explain the matter very popular.

Not only the ancient and feudal state, but also “representative of the present state machine is used to exploit wage labor by capital” (Engels in his state) [xvi] . “Because the state is an institution that is transient only, which is necessary to exploit the struggle, in the revolution, to subdue the power of coercion opponents, the talk of a popular free are nonsense: as long as the proletariat needs the state, he is needed not for freedom, but for suppression of opponents, and when she can talk about freedom, the state as such ceases to exist “(Engels in a letter to Babylon from -28.3.1875). “The state is a machine for the oppression of the other class, and a democratic republic included no less than a monarchy” (Engels preface civil war “of Marx). Universal suffrage is a “measure of maturity of the working class. More it can not and will not let the country of the present” (Engels in his country. Lord Kautsky cud and explains boredom unparalleled the first part of this assumption, acceptable to the bourgeoisie. while the second part, we stressed and is unacceptable bourgeoisie, moved silently Hrngt Kautsky!). “Commune had to be Korfortzih non-parliamentary, but a working – at the same time enacting laws and makes them … Instead of deciding once in three or six years, representatives of the ruling class who must represent and repress (Zertreten Und.- ver) the people in parliament should have universal suffrage to serve the people organized in the commune, just as individual suffrage serves every job provides workers and officials in selecting plant “(Marx in his work on the Paris commune” civil War in France “).

Each of these assumptions, pretty well-known scholar-gentleman highly Kautsky, proves it on his face, denouncing his Hrngtiot. All Kautsky’s pamphlet no trace of understanding of these truths. All content Hobrto is nothing but abuse of Marxism!

Take the hockey element of countries girls today take the government in which the freedom of assemblies or pattern, take the “equality of all citizens before the law” – and see every step of the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy, well-known to running straight and a recognition. There is no country, and will be the most democratic, that would be it Makofim or reservations constitutions, guaranteeing the bourgeoisie the possibility to turn the army against the workers, to declare a state of emergency, etc. “In the case of disruption – and in fact, in the case of a” violation “state slavery -idi exploited class and attempts to act not as a slave. Kautsky shamelessly embellishes non-bourgeois democracy, eliminate, for example, which are democratic and republican bourgeoisie in America and Switzerland against striking workers.

Oh, sage and scholar Kautsky passes in silence over these! He does not understand, it’s a learned politician, that silence about all this is humility. He prefers to tell the workers children’s fairy tales like the legend that democracy means “minority protection”. Unbelievable, but it is a fact! In the summer of 1918 from the birth of Jesus, in the fifth year of the massacre in the world imperialist and choking of minorities internationalist (ie, those who betrayed treason socialism, as Hrnodlim and Long, Hsiidmnim and Hkaotskim, the Hendersons and Webbs and the like) in any democracy in the world, Minister Counselor Kautsky sweetly-sweet Siri- Hillel defense of the minority “. All who wants can read it on page 15 of Kautsky’s pamphlet. And on page 16 this learned … Aindibidoaom tell you about the Whigs and the lines [xvii] in the 18th century in Englandd!

Oh, scholarship! Oh, refined servility before the bourgeoisie! Oh, it’s civilized habit of crawling on his belly before capitalists and lick their boots! If I were a bout or Scheidemann, or Klimnso, or Rnodl, I pay master Kautsky millions, giving him kisses Judah, praising him and Farrow to the workers, would recommend “sympathies socialism” with people so belonging to an honored “Kautsky. Write pamphlets against the dictatorship of the proletariat, to talk about and the Whigs and the queues in the 18th century in England, argued that democracy is a “minority protection” and remain silent about pogroms against internationalists Republic “democratic” America – not those services lackey bourgeoisie?

Lord learned Kautsky “forgotten” – perhaps because he forgot the event, – “a small thing”, namely the protection of minority gives the ruling party of bourgeois democracy only party other bourgeois, while the proletariat, any serious problem, a deep, thorough provided instead of the “defense of minority “states of emergency or riots. As a more developed democracy, the closer situation – with deep political controversy, dangerous for the bourgeoisie – riots or civil war, ‘Law “of bourgeois democracy could see the gentleman learned Kautsky Dreyfus case [xviii] in republican France, making judges by law -lintz ‘Negroes and internationalists in the Democratic Republic of America, the example of Ireland and Ulster in England democratic, [xix] incitement and organizing pogroms against the Bolsheviks in April 1917, the Democratic Republic all-Russian, I deliberately gave an example not only in wartime but also from the days of peace, the days pre- warlike. Kautsky’s desire to master multi-facility to overlook these facts of the 20th century and on the other hand tell the workers wonderfully new things, great and interesting, the most instructive, supreme importance on Whigs and the lines of the 18th century.

Take the bourgeois parliament. We can assume that the learned Kautsky has never heard of it, how the stock market and banks to impose their authority on parliaments to a greater extent, as the development of democracy? Here is due, that does not take advantage of bourgeois parliamentarism – (and the Bolsheviks took advantage of this success, as not used it, you may, no other party in the world, as in 1914-1912 we captured all the faction works like the 4th). However, due to the fact that only a liberal can forget the historical limited and conditional character of bourgeois parliamentarism as Kautsky forgets this. At every step in all the most democratic bourgeois state the oppressed masses encounter a glaring contradiction between the formal equality, which it announces and democracy * of the capitalists, and thousands restrictions and clever tactics actually make the proletariat slaves employed. This contradiction actually open my eyes crowds decay, falsely, the hypocrisy of capitalism. Precisely this contradiction and propagandists constantly denounce explain socialism to the masses, to prepare them for revolution! When the revolution began, then turned his back on her and Kautsky began to praise the most refined of the dying bourgeois democracy.

Proletarian democracy, which the Soviet government is one of the forms, provided development and expansion worldwide incredibly democracy rather rifle vast population, exploited and toilers. Write a whole book about democracy, as did Kautsky, who devotes two pages to dictatorship and dozens of pages of pure democracy “- not realizing it, means

– Completely distort liberal manner the matter.

Take foreign policy. Any country bourgeois, and will be the most democratic, it is not carried out openly. Every site mass fraud – and in France, Switzerland, America and England democracies is wide and a hundred times more subtle than in other countries. Soviet power a revolutionary way tore the veil of secrecy over foreign policy. Kautsky did not see it, it goes silent on that, although the period of wars robbery and secret agreements on the “division of spheres of influence (ie the division of the world between the robbers-capitalists) learned to speak basic value, because that depends on the question of peace, the question of life and the death of tens of millions of people.

Consider the structure of the state. Kautsky held on “small” so that elections are “not directly” (Soviet constitution), but the essence of the matter does not see, does not distinguish essentially “class” of the state apparatus, the state machine. Capitalist bourgeois democracy with thousands of tricks – and skilled workers more succinctly, as a more developed democracy “pure” – rejecting the masses sharing government, the assembly and freedom of the printing sheet. The Soviet government is the first in the world (or strictly about, second, because it really started to do the Paris Commune) draws the crowds, and specifically the exploited masses, administration and management positions. Participation in parliament bourgeois (which 1ID1D is crucial questions very serious bourgeois democracy: where crucial Exchange, Banks) is blocked from working masses in thousands of partitions, and the workers know and feel very well, see and feel that Parliament is a foreign institution, an instrument to suppress the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, the institution of hostile class, of the exploiting minority.

Union are organizing direct working masses and the exploited themselves, stick to them the possibility to arrange their own country and manage it all means possible, and indeed the vanguard of the toilers and exploited, the urban proletariat, accepts however that advantage, it is best consolidated in large factories; It easier to select and follow Representatives. Soviet organization automatically stick on the unification of all the toilers and exploited around their vanguard – the proletariat. The old bourgeois apparatus – the bureaucracy, the privileges of wealth, of bourgeois education, of relationships, and more (privileges of these tales are more versatile, more developed democracy as bourgeois) – all this with the establishment of the organization Disable Union. Freedom pattern ceases hypocrisy, because the printing houses and paper are taken from the bourgeoisie, and it is also about the best buildings, palaces, villas, houses with estates. The Soviet government took immediate exploiters many thousands of these buildings very good, and it made according to the manner of the estate of the first democratic than the right of the assembly to the masses – the same right to the assembly, without which democracy is a fraud. Elections not-directly Councils of non-locality, not local lenient on conferences Union, Mozilla than all the apparatus, it becomes easy-traffic more open than the workers and peasants in the period, when life is vibrant and created the need to accelerate particularly the option of returning to their shelves domestic or send it general conference of the Union.

According proletarian democracy million more democratic than any bourgeois democracy; Soviet power a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic.

Not realizing it could or serving bourgeois consciousness, or a dead man certainly politically, does not see the real life of bourgeois through dusty books, a person who sees it entirely democratic prejudices and makes himself that, objectively, the position of the bourgeoisie.

Not realizing it can only person who can not put the question in terms of the exploited classes:

Is there even one country in the world from countries bourgeois democracies most, her acting class, mass, per employee Agricultural Fair, mass or even proletarian-half fruit (ie, representative of the masses oppressed, a representative of the huge majority of the population) enjoys, at least approximately, such freedom to organize meetings of the best buildings, disguised as such disposal will be large printing houses most, warehouses very good paper to express his ideas, the protection of his interests, such freedom actually raise the state management personnel status and ‘A’ state, as in Soviet Russia?

Ridiculous even imagine that Mr. Kautsky would find in any country even one thousand agricultural workers or employees who are expert in matters, might question the answer to this. Indeed instinctively really gave them admission sections bourgeois newspapers, Workers of the world are expressing sympathy for the Soviet republic, because it sees a proletarian democracy, democracy for the poor, not the rich democracy, and so is virtually every bourgeois democracy, even the best.

Governors son (and “msdirim “our country) bourgeois officials, bourgeois parliamentarians, judges bourgeois. Here is the simple truth, obvious, non-questionable, it knows by experience in their lives, feel and feel every day hundreds of millions of people from the oppressed classes in all bourgeois countries, including the most democratic.

And Russia broke completely the bureaucracy, Hrsoho to the ground, kicked all the judges of old, dissolved the parliament bourgeois – and gave representatives of free and open many workers and farmers rather, replaced the officials of the Council as to the in, or put the Union over their officials, the their councils entrusted the selection of judges. This fact alone sufficiently recognize all .hmamdot oppressed under Soviet rule, ie, a given of the proletarian dictatorship, a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic.

Kautsky does not understand this truth, understandable and visible to all works, because “forgot” * weaned “placing the question of democracy in which class ? Is considering the issue in terms of democracy” pure “(ie, non-class? Or a class?) He explains when Shylock. ‘Pont flesh “and nothing else. equality for all citizens – otherwise there is no democracy.

Of-the necessity to introduce him, Kautsky scholar, L”mrcsist * and L”sotzialist “Kautsky, a question: can prevail equality of exploiting and exploited?

It is a monstrous thing, something that may be, we are forced to ask a question such as estate’s book discussion on the ideological leader of the Second International. But, “start – finished”. You’ve taken on to write about Kautsky – explanation, the learned man, why can not be equality of exploiting and exploited.

Can there be equality of exploiting and exploited?

Kautsky considering the matter, one way:

  1. “exploiters have always been but a small minority of the population” (p 14 Kautsky’s book).

It is true that is not biased in doubt. Well, what is the way of the consideration resulting from this truth? It is possible to consider the matter seriously Marxist, socialist; Then there is the attitude taken as the basis of exploited exploiters. And it is possible to consider the matter in terms of liberal, bourgeois-democratic. Then there is the attitude taken as the basis of the majority and the minority.

If you consider the matter seriously Marxist, the imperative is to say: the exploiters become unavoidably the state (and the question is democracy, ie, one of the forms of state) control of the device status, the status of the exploiters, the exploited. So even in a democracy, as long as there are exploiting, dominating the majority of the exploited, will inevitably be a democracy exploiters. The state of the exploited must be fundamentally different in this country, democracy should be exploited and the exploiters repression, and the suppression status means – inequality of status, the publication of “democracy”.

If you consider the matter liberally, it is necessary to say: overwhelming majority, the minority obeys. The non-comply punished. and that’s all. And there is no point in talking about any class character of the state in general, the “pure democracy” in particular: it is not irrelevant, since most is majority and minority is a minority. Pont Pont flesh is flesh, and no more!

Kautsky weighs about just that:

  1. “what reasons was to get control of the proletariat, and necessary to receive a form, which is inconsistent with democracy?” (Page 21). And here comes the commentary, that side of the proletariat, majority – the most detailed explanation and multi-type, with a quote Marx and the numbers of votes of the Paris Commune. It concludes: “The regime, rooted hard like among the masses, he has no reason to harm democracy. It is not-always be able to avoid violence in cases when violence is to suppress democracy. Violence can respond to violence only. But the regime knows that his side the masses will use violence only to protect democracy and not for destruction. he was a simple suicide, if he wanted to eliminate the fundamental safest, the universal suffrage – a deep source of moral authority and powerful “(page 22).

You see: the ratio of exploited exploiters gone reasoning of Kautsky. Most stayed only a general, minority in general, democracy in general, that “pure democracy” as we know it already.

Take heart, because it was stated in connection with the Paris Commune! A prophet, therefore, to demonstrate how Marx and Engels spoke of dictatorship connection commune:

Marx: “… if acting in place of the bourgeois dictatorship set their revolutionary dictatorship … to break the resistance of the bourgeoisie … compare operating state a revolutionary and transient form …” [xx]

Engels: “… the party that won” (Revolution) “are sometimes forced out of necessity to keep control through the fear that weapons charges the reactionaries. Had it not been relied Paris Commune authority People in Arms against the bourgeoisie, would have endured for more than a day? Are we not entitled to the contrary , argued against the commune that it uses too little of this power? … “. [xxi]

And again is: “Because the state is the only institution that passes, it necessarily is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to subdue opponents, then talk about a popular free is nonsense: as long as the proletariat needs the state, the need is for her not for freedom, but for the sake of suppression of opponents, but when she can talk about freedom, the state as such ceases to exist “…

Kautsky far Marx and Engels Far from Heaven from Earth, far proletarian revolutionary liberal. Pure democracy and simple “democracy”, it speaks Kautsky is merely repeating the same “country folk free *, ie, pure nonsense. Kautsky, tone scholar of stupid Cabinet scholar-supremely, or the innocence of a child of 10, ask: What, In fact, dictatorship is necessary, when a majority? and Marx and Engels explain:

– To break the opposition of the bourgeoisie,

– To terrorize the reactionaries,

– To support the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie,

– To proletariat could force-coercion to subdue his opponents.

Kautsky does not understand these explanations. He, in love with the purity “of democracy and does not see its bourgeois, standing ‘because’ it, that the majority, if it is the majority, need not” break down the resistance “of the minority, does not have to” subdue forcibly “- enough to suppress cases of infringement democracy. Kautsky, in love with the purity “of democracy, inadvertently making it the most minor error, which always make every bourgeois democrats, ie the formal equality and false and hypocritical to inwardly) he sees as evenness works! A small thing!

Exploits can not compare exploited.

This truth, non-cable have a pleasant Kautsky is most essential content of Socialism.

Second truth: impossible is real equality, in fact, as long as not completely be eliminated any possibility of exploiting class by class.

It is possible to defeat the exploiters at once, while a successful insurrection or rebellion army center. However, except in cases of special and rare, it is impossible to eliminate the exploiters at once. It is impossible at once to deprive the owners of estates and the capitalists of any big country. And below, a single expropriation, as a legal or political act, does not decide on the matter at all, because we have to actually eliminate their place in the owners-landlords and capitalists and converted essentially different management, workers management of the factories and estates. Impossible is equality exploit, which for generations have distinguished themselves both in education, both in terms of life-wealth, are habit – and exploited, that masses for even bourgeois republic advanced democracies were the most oppressed, dark, cities, full-fear and separated. Exploiters even after becoming the inevitability that keep reality, for a long time, a series of enormous advantages: they have left the money (do not eliminate immediately the money), real-estate belonging to any, and frequently even are quite apparent, remain the connections, habits of organization and management , knowledge of all the “secrets” (customs, tricks, resources, possibilities) of management, remain higher education, closeness to the technical team high (flora and thinker bourgeoisie itself), left leg is immeasurably greater than military matters (this is very important), etc., etc. .

If the exploiters were defeated in one country only – and it is a typical case, since the revolution now once gospel United out-of-rule is rare – the remains are still stronger than the exploited, because their international connections of the exploiters are enormous. This, some abusers, among the masses of middle peasants and artisans less developed, drawn and able to continue after the exploiters, proved up to now all revolutions, including some of the Commune (that among the army of Versailles, and it “forgot” Kautsky scholar-ultra, were also proletarians) .

In this situation, assume that a deep and serious revolution to some extent absolutely crucial matter-of simplicity ratio means the majority to the minority – the greatest idiocy, stupid prejudice of liberal standard, screwing the masses.

Concealment of significant historical truth unnoticed. The essence of this historical truth, that rule is any prolonged resistance profound revolution, stubborn, desperate exploit, guards reality for years the major advantages compared exploited. Never – not anything you could imagine sweet sweet Kautsky’s silliest man – not succumb to exploit the decision of the majority of the exploited, without trying to use lead in the last desperate line of battle.

The transition from capitalism to communism is a whole historical period. As long as this period is over, the exploiters inevitably remains of their regime to restore hope, and this hope becomes a recovery efforts. Even after the defeat in the first serious exploit mature, they were not expecting Lmigorm did not believe him, neither set it to them, storming into battle in March twice over, in the heat-madness, hatred times larger than a century for the return of “paradise” they are denied, for the sake of their families, who lived such sweet life and that now “the common rabble”, “ignorant” Dan them depletion and poverty (or work “simple” …). After exploiters capitalists attracted a lot of range of the petite bourgeoisie, which it indicates the historical experience for a few decades in all countries, that is tottering, uncertain, now walking after the proletariat, and the next day, holding her fear of the difficulties of the revolution, it sets a start first defeat or defeat in semi workers, upset, running around, moaning and whimpering, passes running from one to another … Like our Mensheviks and SR’s.

And in this situation, during a desperate war, worsened, when history puts on the agenda of questions about “being or not to be” the privileges that are hundreds and thousands of years – come to claim the majority and minority, about pure democracy, for not having a dictatorship, the equality between the exploits exploited !! What a deep abyss of stupidity-the brain, the abyss of provincialism, needed it!

But decades of capitalism “peaceful” relatively in 1871-1914 gained socialist parties, acclimating themselves to opportunism, neglected stables of provincialism, small-minded, Rngtiot …


The reader noticed, probably, that Kautsky quotation, cited above book, talking about the abuse of universal suffrage (calling this right – it is noted in parentheses – a deep source of moral authority and powerful, at the same time Engels connection that the Paris Commune, the same question of dictatorship , speaking on the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie; typical is the comparison between these views of provincial and revolutionary on “authority” …).

It should be noted that the question of denial of the exploiters of the franchise is a purely Russian question, and the question of dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Kautsky him, without any hypocrisy, was the crowning Hobrto “against the Bolsheviks”, the title was consistent with the contents of the booklet and then was Kautsky right to speak directly to the right-selection. But Kautsky wanted to appear, first of all, C”tiaortikn “, is crowned Hobrto” dictatorship of the proletariat “in general, the Soviet and Russian speaking is especially in the second part of the booklet, which began in section 6. While the first part (from which I took the quotation) is democracy in question and dictatorship in general . Start talking about the suffrage age Kautsky himself a polemicist against the Bolsheviks, which eliminates shall pay as naught the theory that the theory, namely, the discretion to basics class general (and not national-special) of democracy and dictatorship, have to talk not about special ones, such as suffrage, but the general question: Can democracy be reserved also for the rich, for the exploiters even during the historical period of the overthrow of the exploiters and the exploited in the State of replacing their country?

So it can only theorist to the question.

We know the example of the Commune, we know all the considerations of the founders of Marxism in connection with the commune and the commune. On the basis of this material I analyzed, for example, the question of democracy and dictatorship booklet “State and Revolution”, written before the October Revolution. The restriction of the right to vote did not say anything. Now it must be said, that the question of restricting the right-Choice is a national question-special, and not a general question of the dictatorship. The question of the restriction of the right-selection has to go through the investigation of the special conditions of the Russian Revolution, the investigation of the special way of development. The next lecture will be this stuff. But it would be wrong to guarantee in advance that the proletarian revolution would bring with them the future of Europe with complete certainty that all or most of them, the restriction of the right to vote of the bourgeoisie. While this may be so. After the war and after the experience of the Russian revolution may be, that would be such a thing, but it is not inevitable realization of the dictatorship, it is not necessary sign rational concept of the dictatorship, it came as a prerequisite for the historical and class concept of the dictatorship.

Mark necessary condition for the dictatorship is forced resignation of the exploiting class, ie, a violation of “pure democracy”, ie, of equality and freedom, the status of it.

Only you can put the question theoretically. Kautsky proved that, not to put the question in such a way that it appears against the Bolsheviks, theorist, but an informant from the opportunists and the bourgeoisie.

In which countries, while the unique conditions of a particular use of national capitalism (so-to the exclusion or especially) the limitation or other violations of democracy for the exploiters – This is a unique national question of certain capitalism, of this or that revolution. Theoretically, another presentation is displayed, that is: Is it possible proletarian dictatorship without democracy infringement in relation to the exploiting class 7

And precisely this question, the only question the essential and important theoretically, topped Kautsky. Kautsky has all sorts of quotes Marx and Engels, except those relating to a given question, quotes that I listed above.

Kautsky talked about whatever you want, everything conceivable bourgeois liberals and Democrats, on everything that is not beyond the scope of ideas

– But not the main thing, is not it, that the proletariat can not win without breaking the resistance of the bourgeoisie, without force-coercion to subdue his opponents; And where there is a “forced-labor submission”, where there is no “freedom” does not, of course, democracy. Kautsky does not understand this.


We will experience the Russian revolution and that a dispute between the council delegates and the Constituent Assembly, which led to (debate) dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and the denial of the right to vote bourgeoisie.

Bell Soviet dare turn to state institutions

The Soviets are the Russian form of the proletarian dictatorship. If theoretician-Marxist, author violation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, had really explores this phenomenon (and repeated complaints petty bourgeoisie against the dictatorship, and proves Kautsky, repeating tunes Hmnsbistiot), it was a theorist-Marxist, who writes a book about the dictatorship of the proletariat , was the special shape, National, the Union was criticized them as one of the forms of the proletarian dictatorship.

Of course, that does not expect anything serious Kautsky, after processing “of Marx’s doctrine liberal dictatorship, but characterized it largely in terms of how he approached the question of what are the Union, and how he managed to solve this question.

Union, he writes, mentioning the creation, in 1905, created “such a form of proletarian organization, which was most all-comprehensive (Umfassendste) from other organizations, as was evident in all the hired hands” (page 31). In 1905 they were only local unions, and in 1917 became the all-Russian Federation.

“Already today – continues Kautsky – The history of the Soviet organization is a great history and multi-fame, and is expected to History powerful and bigger, and not only in Russia alone. Everywhere it turns out that against the giant forces, who are economically and politically, PA Capital financial, there is not enough “(Versagen, a German phrase it somewhat hard enough no”, and slightly weak display as impotent “)” previous methods of economic and political struggle of the proletariat. do not give up on them, they are still necessary for the normal times, but sometimes must face tasks that can not effectively perform tasks such as success is guaranteed only by uniting all political and economic instruments of power of the working class “(p 32).

Below are coming judgment on the mass strike and that, to me, “trade union bureaucracy”, required equally as necessary for the unions, “is unable to guide such mighty mass battles; made increasingly time” …

“… It, how – Kautsky concludes – Soviet organization is one of the most important phenomena of our time. He may have decisive battles between the major determinants of capital and labor, which we are marching towards them.

But we may require councils something even bigger? The Bolsheviks, who after the Revolution (November under new count, that is, as is customary here, the October Revolution) of 1917, received together with the Socialist-Revolutionaries left the majority of the boards of Russia’s delegates poodles, passed after the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly to make the council, which until now was combat organization of the status of one organization official . They destroyed the democracy which the Russian people captured March Revolution (by common calendar, as is customary here, the February Revolution). Therefore, the Bolsheviks have ceased to call themselves social democrats. They call themselves Communists “(p 33, Kautsky’s italics).

Those familiar with Russian literature Hmnsbistit, see immediately how exactly the “servile” to Kautsky copies Martov, Axelrod, Stein and Co.. Indeed, just a “slavish” because Kautsky ridiculously distorts the facts desire to prejudice Hmnsbistiot. Kautsky did not care, for example, be known for his intelligence people like Stein of Berlin, or Axelrod Stockholm, when questions were raised about the renaming of the Bolshevik Communists Union and of the value of state organizations. If Kautsky could get this knowledge, this writer was not a laugh-provoking those that brought them two they asked the Bolsheviks in April 1917, for example, B”tzot “My 4 April 1917, ie long before the 1917 revolution, not to mention already on dispersing the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918).

But his reasoning was of Kautsky, Shatktiho its entirety, is a nail question of the USSR. And the nail is true that, would have to Soviet aspire to become state organizations (the Bolsheviks in April 1917 raised the slogan, “All power Councils” and at party conventions Bolshevik same in April 1917 announced the Bolsheviks, they are not satisfied with the Republic of bourgeois parliamentary, but require republic for a labor-peasant. Sort of commune or Soviet type); Or that councils do not have to aspire to that, do not need to take the power into their hands, become national organizations, but must remain “enterprise-fighter” of the “class” one (as reflected by the wet beautify my wishes innocent of the fact that the Union led by the Mensheviks were the instrument of surrender workers bourgeoisie).

Kautsky repeated the words slave wet as he took the theoretical debate sections of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks and transfer these passages, without critically without taste and common sense, to the general-theoretical background, pan-European. Such porridge was adopted, which evokes laughter in every Russian worker a recognition, which recognized the discretion of Kautsky cited above.

Such laughter will greet Kautsky all workers in Europe (apart from a handful of die-hard social-imperialists), when we explain to them what the matter here.

Kautsky did Lmrtob Wake-Bear, lead to the absurd, unusual concreteness, the mistake of Martov. And really, see, I pray what was received by Kautsky.

Union encompass all hired workers. Against the financial capital of the previous methods of economic and political struggle of the proletariat are inadequate. Councils big role to play not only in Russia. They are crucial for the great decisive battles between capital and labor in Europe. So says Kautsky.

excellent. “Decisive battles between capital and labor” are not crucial question, which of these classes will conquer state power?

Not appointed nor part. God forbid.

Battles ‘decisive’ Union, which cover all hired workers, should not be a state organization !

What is a country?

The state is a machine subjugation of one class by another class.

Well, the oppressed class, the vanguard of all the toilers and exploited in today’s society, must strive for the Battle crucial between capital and labor “, but he does not have to touch the machine, by which the working capital is subdued! – Does not have to break that machine! – Does not have to use all-comprehensive organized for the extermination of the exploiters.

Great, great, Mr. Kautsky! “We” recognize the class struggle – as all liberals recognize it, ie, without the overthrow of the bourgeoisie …

Here is revealed the complete separation of Kautsky’s Marxism, socialism. It is, in fact, over the side of the bourgeoisie, is willing to allow all you want, except turn it from a class, oppressed by it, governmental organizations. Here has been absolutely will not save Kautsky position, accommodating all died of sickle profound contradictions with empty rhetoric.

Or Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky rejects any transfer of state power to the working class, or share that the working class would take over bourgeois machine, the old state, but does not agree in any way, the working class will break it, replace the new machine, proletarian. If so or so “interpreting” and Explain “the discretion of Kautsky, then both cases severing Marxism and beyond alongside prominent bourgeoisie.

Another Communist Manifesto “, speaking of that, what country is required for working-class winner, Marx wrote:” The state, ie, the proletariat organized as the ruling class “. And now appears ambitious person claiming that he continues to be a Marxist; He declares that the proletariat organized as one and the manager “decisive battle” against capital, does not have to make the organization a state status. “Superstition country,” she wrote Engels in 1891, it “has German consciousness general of the bourgeoisie and even of many workers [xxii] – Here’s what he discovered here Kautsky. Wrestling, work -” agree “our provincial (it” agrees “Even Plain If the workers anyway struggling, and think only about how to break the tip of their sword) – wrestling, but Bell dare to win! Bell destroy the known state of the bourgeoisie, let not put on place “organizing a national” bourgeois “organization official” proletarian !

Who joins seriously the Marxist view that the state is merely referred to the suppression of one class by another class, who to some extent really delved into it, never could get to this nonsense, proletarian organizations capable of winning the financial capital, should not become state organizations. Indeed, this point was discovered petty bourgeois sees “yet” in something-class or the class. Why, indeed, may proletariat, His status as one of the “conduct a decisive war against capital dominates not only the proletariat, but of the entire nation, all the petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry as a whole – and not allowed to him, the proletariat, His status as one of the” make getting the kingdom? Because the petty bourgeois fear of the class struggle and is not brought down to the end, until the most major.

Kautsky completely trouble, gave himself up to Gmira. Take heart: he admitted that Europe is heading towards decisive battles between capital and labor that previous methods of economic and political struggle of the proletariat are inadequate, and the essence of these methods was the utilization of bourgeois democracy, well? …

Kautsky fear from completing the thought, which derives from these.

… Well, only a reactionary, an enemy of the working class, serving the bourgeoisie, can now beautify your cute bourgeois democracy and chat about pure democracy, turning towards and gone. Bourgeois democracy was progressive in relation to the Middle Ages, and it was crucial to exploit. But now it is not enough for the working class. Now we must look not backward, but forward, to replacing bourgeois democracy a democracy, proletarian, and if the preparatory work for the proletarian revolution, training and consolidation of proletarian army were possible (and necessary) within the framework of the bourgeois state Democrat, then if the matter reached the Battle crucial “, limiting the proletariat In this context means – to betray proletarian matter, be Rngt.

Kautsky a situation is ridiculous especially since returning to Martov’s argument without notice on the grounds that it relies on Martov’s another reason, absent in Kautsky! Martov said (and Kautsky repeats to him) that Russia is still not matured for socialism, and therefore generally nature due to: early yet to make the Union instruments-fight national organizations (ie now time to turn the Union, with the leaders of the Mensheviks, instruments submission of operating the imperialist bourgeoisie ). Non Kautsky can not say directly, that Europe did not live up to socialism. Kautsky wrote in 1909, that have not yet been Rngt, that does not worry now because the premature revolution, that traitor who will remain afraid will defeat the Revolution. Directly deny that Kautsky does not dare. Here you receive Hblota such, exposes to the end of all his stupidity and cowardice of a petit bourgeois: on the one hand, Europe has matured for socialism and is heading decisive battles between labor and capital – and on the other hand, the organization of combat (ie, emerging, growing, strengthening the fight), the organization of the proletariat , a pioneer and organizer, the leader of the oppressed does not become a state organization!


Politically-viable idea that councils are necessary as a combat soldier, but should not become state organizations, tasteless infinitely more ,. Than in theory. Even in the days of peace, when the reality is there is a revolutionary situation, the struggle between workers and capitalists, for example, strike the cab, Clock irritation terrible on both sides, tremendous passion for the fight, claims frequency of the bourgeoisie that that remains is and wants to remain “master of the house “, and so on. And during the Revolution, when political life is vibrant, organization, Union, encompassing all the workers of all industries, and all the soldiers, all the rural population of the commission and the poorest – this organization during the struggle, by “logic” simple attack and Parry got there necessarily view the question clearly and decisively, an attempt to stabilize the position of interim, “completed” between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, is small-minded and procedure discriminates miserable: it was in Russia for the preaching of wet and Mensheviks others, and inevitably will, that Germany and other countries. If the Union expands to a certain extent, will provide unite and gather strength. Councils say! Wrestling, but yourselves Bell, play Lidicn all power in the country, Bell will become state organizations means – to advocate for cooperation between social classes and Peace “between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Ridiculous even to think, that was such a fierce struggle could lead to anything except abject failure. Sitting between two chairs – the eternal fate of Kautsky. He pretends that we do not agree even something with opportunism in theory, and in fact, all the substantive (ie, all relating to the revolution) he agrees with them in reality.

Constituent Assembly and Soviet Republic

The question of the Constituent Assembly and the dispersal by the Bolsheviks is the nail of each booklet Kautsky. This question is steadily returning. Implying a pitcher, how the Bolsheviks and destroyed democracy “(see above one of the quotations of Kautsky), filled to overflow any connection to the leader’s idea of ​​International 2nd. The question is, really, an interesting and important, because the ratio of the interaction of bourgeois democracy and proletarian placed here practicable before the revolution. it seems, therefore, how to examine this question “Marxist theoretician-our”.

He cites the H”tzot the Constituent Assembly, “I wrote and published B”frbdh” In -26.12.1917. And it seemed that the best proof of a serious approach to the issue from Kautsky access to the documents in hand, one can also expect. But see, I pray How quotes Kautsky. He says that there were 19 theses, does not mean that they are raised question about the ratio of the interaction between the ordinary bourgeois republic with a Constituent Assembly and a Soviet republic, and the rats Bmhfctno dispute between the Constituent Assembly and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Kautsky bypass all those proclaiming just the reader that “the most important of which (among theses) are two”: one – the SR-distribution after the elections for the Constituent Assembly, but before convening (Kautsky passes in silence so that this fifth thesis) , the second – that the Soviet Republic in general a higher democratic form than the Constituent Assembly (Kautsky again does not mean that this is the third thesis).

Here only a third thesis Kautsky quote a part in full, namely, the following assumption:

“Republic of the Union is not only a form of type greater democratic institutions (as opposed to a republicnormal bourgeois with a Constituent Assembly, crowning the Republic), but also a unique shape, capable of ensuring the transition less pain [2] socialism (Kautsky passes over the word” Normal “and words-opening of the thesis:” for beyond the bourgeois socialist regime, a dictatorship of the proletariat there “).

After quoting these words Kautsky ironically called great:

“And, alas, that this conclusion only after they were found in a minority of the Constituent Assembly. Before that no one demanded this conclusion more melanin great storm.”

This is exactly what was stated on page 31 of Kautsky’s pamphlet!

And it is a real gem! Only snitch on behalf of the bourgeoisie could introduce such a thing falsely, for the reader gets the impression that all the Bolsheviks talk about a higher type of state is nothing but a fiction, which came into the world after the Bolsheviks were a minority of the Constituent Assembly !! Lie so low he could only say a villain, sold to the bourgeoisie, or – and there is no difference between those – given the confidence Axelrod and hides his intelligence people.

It is common knowledge that soon, on my first day Russia, in -4.4.1917, publicly read the theses, which declared the country an advantage compared Commune kind of bourgeois parliamentary republic. I informed the press often, for example, a pamphlet on political parties, translated into English and appeared in America in January 1918 the New York newspaper “Evening Post”. [xxiii] not enough. Bolshevik Party convention in late April 1917 passed a resolution saying that the proletarian-peasant republic high bourgeois parliamentary republic that our party will not be satisfied with the latter, that has to change accordingly the party’s program.

How to call after all of the antics of Kautsky, who wants to convince German readers, though busy passionately demanded the convening of the Constituent Assembly only after the Bolsheviks left it in the minority, I “except for” the dignity and value of the Constituent Assembly? What can justify such a trick? [3] Is it, Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky did not know the facts? If therefore, why burden myself to write about? Why not declare honestly that I, Kautsky, writing on the basis of information received from the Mensheviks Stein, Axelrod and Co.? Kautsky want, while ambitious claim to objectivity, to cover up the role of the servant of the Mensheviks, affected by their defeat.

But these are just flowers, grains still ahead.

Suppose, Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky did not want, or can not (??) would receive informant translation of the Bolshevik resolutions and declarations on the question, they confine themselves to the bourgeois-democratic republic parliamentary. Suppose even that, although this was not possible. But my thesis from -26.12.1917 Kautsky directly mentions it on page 30 of his book.

These non theses Kautsky fully know, or might know them only what was translated for him Hstiinim, Hakslrodim Co.? Kautsky quotes the third thesis on the fundamental question, Did the Bolsheviks to the Constituent Assembly elections, whether they are people they said that Republic of higher councils bourgeois republic. But Kautsky passes in silence on the 2nd thesis.

And the second thesis says:

“The revolutionary Social-Democracy, when it placed the demand to convene the Constituent Assembly, emphasized more than once, by the beginning of the 1917 revolution, the republic of councils is a higher form of democracy than the ordinary bourgeois republic with a Constituent assembly” (emphasis added).

To view the Bolsheviks people without principles, who C”aofortonistim revolutionary “(this term, I do not remember about what Kautsky used somewhere in his book) readers Kautsky leaves German master, because theses have direct reliance on declarations not disposable !

These are the little tricks, petty, sordid, used by the Lord Kautsky. And this way he evaded the theoretical question.

Right or not-it is true that the bourgeois-democratic republic Parliamentary republic poor type or kind of commune councils? .. It is a nail, while Kautsky topped it. Kautsky “forgotten” all that Marx made an analysis of the Paris Commune. He “forgot” to the letter of Engels to Babylon from -28.3.1875, which came on the concrete and convincing expression specifically the same thought of Marx: “Commune was no longer a direct sense of this term.”

There you have the most superlative theorist of the 2nd International, which is a special pamphlet on the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, speaking specifically about Russia, which was put directly once the question of the shape of the country, the higher the bourgeois-democratic republic, goes silent on this question. What, therefore, different from this fact by passing to the bourgeoisie?

(It should be noted in parentheses, but again trailing Kautsky after Mensheviks Romans. Some are much as you want people who know “all the quotations” Marx and Engels, but also a Menshevik one, starting from April 1917 to October 1917 and from October 1917 to October 1918 never tried one analyze the question of a kind of commune. Plekhanov also sidestepped this question. had, apparently, shut up

Obviously, that come with talk of dispersing the Constituent Assembly with people who call themselves socialists and Marxists, but in fact the main question going through the side of the bourgeoisie, that is to say – dissolve pearls before swine. Pretty print this booklet to supplement my theses on the Constituent Assembly in full. What the reader will see that the question has been raised in -26.2.1917 both theoretically and historically and politically-viable.

If Kautsky, theoretician completely renounced Marxism, it could, as a historian, to clarify the question of the struggle against the Soviet Union Constituent Assembly. We know many of Kautsky’s works that he knew to be a Marxist historian, that works as Alan and Flo will remain strong asset of the proletariat, despite Hrngtiot came later. But the question which Kautsky also a historian turns his back on .lamt, ignoring known facts panel, used an informant. He wanted to show the people without-Bolshevik principles. He tells how the Bolsheviks tried to soften the conflict with the Constituent Assembly before Fizroh. There is absolutely nothing wrong, we do not deny that; I print the theses in full, and that said unparalleled clarity: you, sirs bourgeois-minute hesitant, Shtbtzrtm Constituent Assembly, or to accept the proletarian dictatorship, or we win you “revolutionary way” (theses 18 and 19).

So it always used to always act in relation to the real revolutionary proletariat hesitant petty bourgeoisie.

Kautsky was the question of the Constituent Assembly for a formal point of view. Theses told me not once, clearly, that the affairs of the revolution outweigh the formal rights of the Constituent Assembly (see theses 16 and 17). Indeed, a democratic point of view-is-is a formal point of view of the bourgeois democrat who does not admit that things of the proletariat and of the proletarian class struggle more shoes. Kautsky, as a historian, can not but admit that the bourgeois parliaments are institutions or other status. But now having been Kautsky (for action polluted renouncing revolution) Forget Marxism, and therefore does not pose the question, the institutions of a class is the Constituent Assembly in Russia: Kautsky does not pay attention to the situation in the concrete, he does not want to see the facts, it does not mean anything German readers so that theses can be not only theoretical enlightenment of the limited question of bourgeois democracy (theses 3-1), are not only the concrete conditions, set by the mismatch party lists mid October 1917 (theses 6-4), but also the history of the class struggle and the civil war in October-December 1917 (theses 15-7). This concrete history we drew the conclusion (Thesis 14), the slogan “All power to the Constituent Assembly” has become the slogan of the Cadets and members Kldin and their followers ..

Kautsky the historian does not notice any of these: Kautsky the historian has never heard that universal suffrage sometimes leads to the establishment of parliaments petty bourgeoisie, often reactionary parliaments and anti-revolutionary. Marxist historian K. Kautsky heard that one form of matter the choice, form of democracy, and something else – the class content of the given institution. This question of the class software Constituent Assembly placed directly solved my theses. It is possible that the solution is not correct. Nothing was more desirable to us than a Marxist criticism of our analysis-side. Under write sentences completely stupid (and many are in Kautsky) that, if anyone bothers to criticism of Bolshevism, Kautsky had access to such criticism, but -hri This is a matter that Hugh such criticism. He also does not place the question of a class analysis of the Union, on the one hand, and of the Constituent Assembly on the other. And therefore can not be an argument, arguing with Kautsky. Remains, therefore, to show the reader that it is impossible to read Kautsky but Rngt.

Dispute between the Union and the Constituent Assembly has its own history, which could not avoid it even though the historian does not stand on the point of view of the class struggle. But also in the history of this practice Kautsky did not want to touch. Kautsky leaves readers Germans the fact known to all (it turn a blind now only Mensheviks jury), the Union also when control of the Mensheviks, ie, from the end of February to October 1917 were divided opinions with institutions and rule-state “and that is, bourgeois). Kautsky was, in fact , on the point of view of acceptance, acceptance, cooperation of proletariat with the bourgeoisie; as not deny it Kautsky, the point of view it- is a fact, Hmtasrt by all Hobrto. There was no need to dissolve the Constituent Assembly, and the means – There was no need to bring to the end the struggle against the bourgeoisie, drawer, have been completed between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Why, then, has been silent on such Kautsky, Mensheviks were an honorable about this from February to October 1917 but did not achieve anything? If it were possible to reconcile the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, why, then, could not complement it with the Mensheviks control? The bourgeoisie stood out-side, away from the Union, the Union were called (by the Mensheviks) “revolutionary democracy”, while the bourgeois “elements with limited rights.”

Kautsky leaves German readers that actually Menshevik “period” control (February to October 1917) called revolutionary democracy councils, and thus recognized the supremacy compared to all the other institutions. Only by concealing this fact received by the historian Kautsky, that the dispute between Union bourgeoisie has no history, that is performed immediately, suddenly, for no reason, by virtue of their bad behavior of the Bolsheviks, and in fact, actually experience old half-years and above (and for the revolution time myriad) of intransigence Hmnsbistit, complement the efforts of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie – he who persuaded the people futility of these efforts and rejected the proletariat away from the Mensheviks.

Councils are a combat organization of the proletariat, a great organization with a great future, admits Kautsky. If so, any position collapses like a house of cards Kautsky or delirium petit bourgeois avoiding sharp struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Is not the whole revolution is an endless struggle and despair, while the proletariat is the class of all the oppressed advanced, the center and the focal point of the aspirations of all the oppressed of all kinds for their release. Union – an instrument struggle of the oppressed masses – reflected and articulated way-nature the mood and this change in the views of those masses quickly, the full-extent and great loyalty infinitely more than other institutions of any kind (this, incidentally, one of the sources for this, Soviet democracy is climbing top of democracy).

Union managed 28 February (by counting old) until 25 October 1917 intact two conferences All-Russian rifle’s huge population of Russia, the workers and soldiers, seven or eight-tenths of the peasantry, besides a multitude of conferences of local, regional, municipal, Blinds district. During this time, the bourgeoisie was not enough to convene any institution representing the majority (except M”hhtiiatzot Democratic ” [xxiv] false visibly, abusive, exasperated to the death the proletariat). The Constituent Assembly reflected the state of mind of the masses, it politically divided into groups, which are also reflected Conference All-Russian Union First (June). For the convening of the Constituent Assembly (January 1918) took place the 2nd Conference of the Union (October 1917) and the 3rd Conference (January 1918), and two of these have proved clearly superior, the crowds marched to the left were filled with revolutionary spirit, turned their backs Mensheviks and SR’s, crossed over by the Bolsheviks, ie turned their backs petty-bourgeois leadership, the illusion of consensus with the bourgeoisie and passed alongside the proletarian revolutionary struggle for the sake of elimination of the bourgeoisie.

Out, therefore, that although the outer history of the Union shows the inevitability of dispersing the Constituent Assembly, the reactionary her. But Kautsky insists on “password” his lose revolution, the bourgeoisie will celebrate the victory over the proletariat, and only flourish “pure democracy”! Mundus! Fiat Justitia pereat [4]

And these are brief summaries of the All-Russian conference of the Union in the history of the Russian Revolution:


All Russian conference

The Soviets

Several delegates Several delegates

The Bolsheviks

the 1st  (6/3/1917) 790 103 13
The 2  (10/25/1917) 675 343 51
The 3 (1/10/1918) 710 434 61
4th (3/14/1918) 1232 795 64
5th (7/4/1918) 1164 773 66


Just look up these numbers to understand why the defense of the Constituent Assembly or the talk (like Kautsky speech) that, Slbolsbikim does most of the population, we are only laugh.

Soviet constitution

As I pointed out, denial of the right-choice bourgeoisie is not a sign of a necessary, inevitable, of proletarian dictatorship. Even in Russia, the Bolsheviks, who long before the October Revolution raised the slogan of dictatorship that did not speak in advance about the denial of the right-election abusers, part-makeup of the dictatorship was never “According to the plan of a particular party, but grew and grew evident during struggle. the historian Kautsky did not notice, of course, that. he did not notice that the bourgeoisie, in the days Full Mensheviks (makers-compromise with the bourgeoisie) councils, she set herself apart from the Union, boycotted them, put itself against them, stirred plotting against them. Union incurred without any constitution and more than a year (from spring 1917 to summer 1918) were held without a constitution. (wrath of the bourgeoisie against the organization independent and omnipotent (as comprehensive-all) of the oppressed, fight – shameless, conducted for reasons of greed, the most polluted – this struggle of the bourgeoisie against the Soviet Union, and finally overt participation of the bourgeoisie (from the Cadets to the right SR, Mmiliokob to Kerensky) in connection with Kornilov – all these prepared the formal exclusion of the bourgeoisie Union.

Kautsky heard Hkornilobstz’inh, but York from the top-greatness on the historical facts and the course of the struggle and the forms, which determine the forms of dictatorship: what matter here, really, facts, whether this is democracy “pure”. “Criticism” of Kautsky, directed against the denial of flux selection bourgeoisie, excels because so … so sugary sweet innocence, was perhaps relates to the heart which comes from a child, and arouse disgust when coming from someone who has not yet been officially recognized as flawed-all.

“… Which capitalists, with the existence of a right-choice general, would comprise a small minority, were completing faster with Gorlm- (33) … lovely, is not it? Kautsky smartphone seen many times in history – and even knows a great observation of real life – with -ahozot and capitalists are, take into account the wishes of the majority of the oppressed. Kautsky smartphone stands firm on the point of view of “opposition”, ie, the point of view of combating intra-parliamentary. so although writing is just literally: “opposition” (p 34 and many others).

Oh, learned historian and politician! You ought to know that “opposition” is a concept of the struggle for peace, the only parliamentary struggle, ie, a concept that matches a non-revolutionary situation, a concept that corresponds to the “absence of revolution.” Revolution comes to the enemy mercilessly brutal civil war – no lamentations of a petit bourgeois reactionary, afraid of such a war as fearful and weak from her Kautsky, will not change this fact. Seen from the point of view of “opposition” to the question of the civil war cruel, when the bourgeoisie is not deterred from crime; – such as members of Versailles and Knoniotihm with Bismarck indicate something about each person, relating to the history not Petrushka Gogol * penny bourgeoisie calls for help foreign countries and often intrigue together with them against the revolution, it is quite comical. The revolutionary proletariat must, as advisor confusion “Kautsky, wearing a nightcap and see the bourgeoisie, which organizes anti-revolutionary risings of Dotob, Krasnov, Czechs, paying millions terrorists – to see her Opposition” Galit. Oh, the depth of thought!

Kautsky interesting the formal-legal side only thing, and Bkorac to our consideration on the Soviet constitution, you are inadvertently reminded of the words of Babylon, lawyers are people reactionary up deep down. “In fact – writes Kautsky – do not make the capitalists only devoid of rights. And who is the owner of such capital legally? A-assets? Even in a country like Germany, which kept reaching way economic progress, and the proletariat its multi-number is – the establishment of Soviet Republic was makes great masses devoid of political rights. German empire in 1907 was a number of busy work-producing and their families in three large groups – agriculture, industry. and trade – about 35 million in the officials and hired workers, and a group of independents 7 million. Well, the party could be a majority of salaried workers, but a minority of the population “(p 33).

This is one of the examples here Kautsky considerations. Well, is not it that grunt-pleading against the bourgeois-revolutionary? Why, Mr. Kautsky, the introduction of copyright-free type all “independent” As you know is that the vast majority of Russian peasants gift does not hold salaried workers, ie, do not take up the rights? Is not it a fake?

Why do you, a learned economist, did not you bring citizens, .hidoaim you well and included it- 1907 German statistics on wage labor in agriculture by classification farm groups? Why do not you show the German workers, the readers of Hobrtc, data, and on which it was – it turns out, some are taking advantage of what few they exploit any number of “owners of the farms in the village,” according to the German statistics?

Because, your Shrngtiot just made you an informant of the bourgeoisie. Owner-shareholders, you see, is a legal concept undefined, and Kautsky on several pages fiercely attacked the “arbitrariness” of the Soviet Constitution. “Serious scientist” This process allows the English bourgeoisie centuries bourgeois constitution, a new (new for the middle-right), whereas for us, – workers and peasants of Russia, this representative of the science-serving does not give any date, precipitating us. Constitution requires of us is processed by the last letter in several …

…”arbitrariness”! Think a moment-a moment, some contaminated groundwater of groveling before the bourgeoisie, of pedantry blunt, revealed by such reproach. When lawyers bourgeois and reactionary for the most part until deep down in the capitalist countries centuries or decades worked out detailed rules for most, wrote hundreds of volumes of laws and explanations-laws that oppress the worker, bind the hands and feet of the poor , which make thousands of excuses and obstacles to all simple working man of the people – oh, then the bourgeois liberals and Mr. Kautsky not see here “firmness”! Here “OK” and the Law “! Here everything is calculated, written and registered, how can “squeeze until the end,” the poor. Here there are thousands of lawyers and officials bourgeois (which Kautsky all goes silent, apparently just for that reason, Marx gave great importance to breaking the machine bureaucratic …) – lawyers and bureaucrats who know how to interpret the rules so, the worker and peasant class will never be able to break the wire barriers of these laws. This – not the “arbitrariness” of the bourgeoisie, not the dictatorship of the exploiters, filthy and greedy, who drank blood saturation of the people – not appointed nor part. This is – “pure democracy”, Hmithrt every day more and more.

And when the working classes and the exploited, for the first time in history, being cut off by the imperialist war from their brothers across the border, made up their councils, called for building political the same mass – which the bourgeoisie Dicatm, dulled their senses – and started their own to build a new , proletarian, begun in the heat of battle cruel, fire civil War, to outline the fundamental assumptions without taking advantage of the country – then all the children of the bourgeoisie villains, all the gang of blood-suckers, obsequious with Kautsky, started screaming about “arbitrariness”! And really, how can these cities, the workers and peasants, “mob” It interpret their laws? Where are your emotions take Justice – are toiling simple, do not benefit from the advice of lawyers, scholars, of bourgeois writers, of Kaotskim and veteran officials, the wise?

Speeches in -28.4.1918 [xxv] cites Kautsky master the words: … “The masses themselves determine the order and dates of the elections” … and “hdmokrt pure “Kautsky concludes:

… “Well, the thing is, probably, that that all voters gathered before its discretion determines the order of selection. The arbitrariness and the possibility of getting rid of an opposition elements among the proletariat itself comfortable in this way will be brought up to the highest rung” (page 37).

Well, what distinguished these things ultrasonic words spilling ink, hired by capitalists, screaming oppression diligent workers, “who want to work” by the crowd during a strike and why the statement Hfkidotit- bourgeois order of bourgeois democracy election “pure ” not arbitrary? Why the sense of justice among the masses, emerged struggle against the exploiters for generations, with masses purchasers expertise and an understanding and Hmthslim this desperate struggle, to be poor than among a handful of bureaucrats, intellectuals, lawyers, who were raised on prejudice bourgeois ?

Kautsky – a true socialist, Bell dare suspect the sincerity of my father very respectable family, the screaming straight-from-it straight. He favors an enthusiastic and confident of victory for the workers, of the proletarian revolution. He would like but it only intelligent, sweet petit-bourgeois and provincial painted caps the night of their first-up movement of the masses to the struggle intense and full of rage against the exploiters, and certainly without civil war – tie the rules development of the revolution, rules moderate and orderly …

Profound moral indignation learned our ultra-Iodoskh Goloblib [5] The number of German workers in -14.4.1918 that the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Union decided to Union representatives and right SR’s Party Mensheviks. “This step – writes Kautsky Iodoskh , hot entirely noble anger – directed not against certain individuals, who committed certain acts, deserving of punishment … the Constitution of the Soviet Republic does not say anything about the immunity of deputies – members of the Union, notpersonalities certain, but the parties have been excluded here from Union “(p 377 ).

Yes, it really is horrible, this is intolerable withdrawal pure democracy, which according to the regulations will make the revolution Iodoskh our revolutionary Kautsky. We, Bolshevik Russians, we had to first ensure immunity Lsbinkobim Co., Llibrdnim [xxvi] and Lfotrisobim ( “activists”) [Xxvii] and Co., then write a book-laws criminal declaring that “must penalties participation in the war against revolutionary Czech Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Ukraine and Georgia with German imperialism against the workers of their country, and only later, on the basis of a book-it’s criminal laws, we may, in accordance pure democracy “, with the exception of the Union” certain individuals “. yet obviously, that Czechoslovak receiving through Hsbinkobim, Hfotrisobim and Hlibrdnim (or using propaganda) money from the capitalists Anglo-French and Hkrsnobim receive shells from the Germans with the Mensheviks of Ukraine and Tbilisi, were sitting meekly and quietly, until we prepare a book-laws criminal true, and Democrats we were satisfied with the pure role of “opposition” …

Moral indignation aroused equally strong in Kautsky fact that the Soviet Constitution denies the right to vote of those “who hold hired workers to produce Rave”. “Worker-owner at home or small business – writes Kautsky – with one apprentice, can live and feel the proletarian right, and there is free suffrage” (page 36).

Which withdrawal pure democracy “! What injustice! Until now, though, let all Marxists and confirmed it in thousands of facts that owners of small businesses are the exploiters of hired workers without conscience and stingy hardest. But Iodoskh Kautsky takes, of course, not the status of small business-owners (who it invented the theory of class struggle futile?), But individuals, taking advantage of such “proletarians life and feel complete.” “Frugal Agnese famous”, which has long been believed she was dead, revived under the pen of Kautsky. This thrifter Agnes De and put to use in German literature some decades before that “pure democracy,” bourgeois Eugene Richter. He predicted disasters in unspeakable dictatorship of the proletariat, the confiscation of the capital of the exploiters; He asks, his expression was innocent, who is a legally-capital. He took a sample is gathered poor and frugal ( “Agnese sparing”) that “dictators of the proletariat” Rei-taking heart from my last nickel. There was a time when all the bourgeois social democracy thrifty Agnes scoffed, “It’s pure democracy Eugene Richter. But that was long ago, so long ago, when Babylon was still alive, he said frankly and honestly the truth is that here our Party much Nazionale liberal; It was so long ago, when Kautsky was not yet Rngt.

Now “Agnese Frugal” was revived in the form of “owner of a small business with one apprentice, who lives and feels very proletarian.” Bolshevik baddies hurt him, taking away his right to vote. Indeed, “every assembly election,” as it Kautsky himself, can Soviet republic allowed to enter the artist tiny and poor, relating to, say, a factory particular, if it is, exceptionally, not taking advantage, if he really “lives and feels proletarian right “. However, can we rely on the knowledge of life, the sense of injustice of an organized person and acting (oh, horror!) Without the rules of assembly factory workers simple? Is not it obvious that it is better to give the right light to all exploiters, all these employers hired workers, rather than risk the possibility that workers will hurt Agnes Frugal “and the Art of living and feeling tiny proletarian right”?


Please die for-despised villains of Hrngtiot – winning the blessing of the bourgeoisie and the social-chauvinists [6] – the Soviet constitution that, it denies the right-choice abusers. Good thing, because it will stimulate and deepen the split between the revolutionary workers of Europe and Hsiidmnim and Hkaotskim, Hrnodlim and Long, the Hendersons and Macdonalds, the old leaders and old betrayers of socialism.

The masses of the oppressed classes, righteous leaders and owners of revolutionary consciousness among the proletariat will be with us. Enough to allow proletarians are and the masses are familiar with the constitution of the Soviet, and they immediately say: Here is where are our people true here where she Workers Party true, government workers real, as it is cheating the workers chatting on reforms, as had been gouging us all the leaders mentioned above, but seriously struggling against the exploiters, seriously carries out the revolution, struggling to full effect for the liberation of the workers.

If abusers were denied-selection by the Union after the “practice” of the annual Union means that these councils are really organizations of the oppressed masses and not of social-imperialists and social-Ftzifstim sold bourgeoisie. If councils are denied the right-choice abusers, it means that councils are institutions of compromise petit bourgeois with the capitalists, not institutions of nonsense parliamentary (of Hkaotskim, Long and Macdonalds), but the institutions of the proletariat revolutionary really, Director struggle for life and death with the exploiters.

“Kautsky’s book is hardly known here”, writes me from Berlin these days (today- – 30.10) is quite knowledgeable friend. I would advise our ambassadors in Germany and Switzerland did not spare the thousands to buy this book and distribute wholesale free-workers with recognition, to trample in the mud that social democracy “European” – read: imperialist and reformist – it recently became L”fgr stinks. ”


At the end of this book, on page 61 and 63, sobbing Lord Kautsky on the “new theory” (as he calls Bolshevism afraid to touch analysis of the Paris Commune by Marx and Engels) “finds favor even among the established democracies, such as, for example, , Switzerland “. “Non-sense” to him, Kautsky, “If this theory are given German Social Democrats.”

No, it’s perfectly understandable, because we are tired of the revolutionary masses, after suffering a serious of war, Hsiidmnim and Hkaotskim one.

“We” have always been in favor of democracy – writes Kautsky – and suddenly we ourselves give up on it!

“We”, the opportunists of Social Democracy, have always been against the dictatorship of the proletariat, and hangers Co. recently said it openly.

Kautsky knows this and vainly share is that mountain goats from the readers eye-striking fact of the “return to the bosom of” Bernsteins and hangers.

“We”, the revolutionary Marxists, have never created for ourselves an idol democracy “pure” (bourgeois).Plekhanov in 1903 was, of course, a Marxist revolutionary (to the tragic turning point that led to the position of a Russian Scheidemann). And Plekhanov had said at the party conference, which discussed making program that proletarian revolution will take, if necessary, the right-selection from the capitalists, disperse any parliament that he, if he revealed against-revolutionary. That precisely such a view is only compatible with Marxism, it will show all the people, even the posters Marx and Engels, that I listed above. It derives predominantly from foundations of Marxism.

“We”, Marxist revolutionaries, not performing for the people of these speeches, they liked to appear Hkaotskianim all nations, Bhtrfsm before the bourgeoisie, to imitate the parliamentary bourgeois, as they passed in silence on the nature of bourgeois democracy in our Bdorsm but the expansion is , the bringing itto the endd.

“We” said to the bourgeoisie: You, exploiters hypocrites, talk about democracy, and simultaneously put on every step of the thousands of obstacles to the participation of the masses of the oppressed policy. We take you Blsoncm and require, for the sake of those masses, the expansion of bourgeois democracy that the around in order to prepare the masses to revolution for the sake of Migorcm exploit. And if you, the exploiters, try to resist Lmhfctno proletarian We would subdue you mercilessly, we deprive you of your rights, and not enough: do not give you bread because the Republic of proletarian our will exploit without rights, deprived of fire and finished, because we seriously, and Using the example Hsiidmnit or Hkaotskianit socialists.

Here’s how we talked and how to talk about “we”, the revolutionary Marxists. And precisely because of that the masses will be for us, be with us, while Hsiidmnim and Hkaotskim will pit-heap of Hrngtim.

What is internationalism

Kautsky persuading the multi sees and calls himself an internationalist. It shows the Hsiidmnim C”sotzialistim government. ” Defending the Mensheviks (Kautsky does not say directly, that is in solidarity with them, but bring their views in full), Kautsky showed supreme concreteness, what kind of “internationalism” of his. Since Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky is not alone, but a representative of the flow, which grew inevitably conditions of the Second International Longuet in France, tortoiseshell Italy, Nobbs and Grimm, Graber and Nan Switzerland, Ramsay MacDonald in England, and the like), then stand on the “internationalism” of Kautsky instructive enough.

Emphasizing that the Mensheviks also had Btzimroold (a diploma, certainly, but … a little rotten Diploma), Kautsky describes as follows the views of the Mensheviks, they agree is:

… “The Mensheviks wanted peace in general. They wanted that all the fighting will have the slogan: no annexations and reparations. Has been obtained that have been the Russian army, according to this view, stand ready to fight. And if the Bolsheviks demanded immediate peace at any price, they were ready , when necessary, to make peace indistinguishable, they struggled to force the conclusion of force, increase them the Hdzorgniztzih of the army, the largest anyway “(page 27). The Bolsheviks have been, according to Kautsky, do not take the power and settle the Constituent Assemblyy.

Well, the internationalism of Kautsky and the Mensheviks whole essence is: the imperialist bourgeois government to demand reforms, however, continue to support it, to continue supporting the war waged by this government, as long as all the warring parties do not accept the slogan: no annexations and reparations. Such a view also expressed often tortoiseshell, even Hkaotskianim (Haase and others), as well Longuet and Co., who declared that we, ie, in favor of “homeland security.”

Theoretically, this is an absolute inability to separate from the social-chauvinists and complete mixing the question of homeland security. This conversion is politically parochial nationalism and internationalism over the side of reformism, denial of the revolution.

Admission defense of the homeland “is, from the point of view of the proletariat, the justification for this war, recognition of legality. And since the war remains an imperialist war which the Monarchy and Republic) – regardless of where are the armies of the enemy at the moment, in my country or in a foreign country – the admission of Homeland Security is actually supporting the imperialist bourgeoisie, predatory, treason complete socialism in Russia during the period of Kerensky, the Republic Hborgnit- democracy, the war continued to be imperialist because it was conducted by the bourgeoisie as a ruling class (and war is the “continuation of politics”); And the most concrete expression of the imperialist character of the war were the secret agreements on the division of the world and robbing foreign countries, were drawn up by the former tsar with the capitalists of England and France.

The Mensheviks deceived the people in humility, presenting such a war as a war of defense or a revolutionary war. Kautsky, the Mensheviks agree with the policy, than screwing the people, the small bourgeois role, serving the bourgeoisie by screwing the workers harness them in a chariot of the imperialists. Kautsky performs typical provincial policy hypocritical and narrow-minded, mentally figure (and to introduce recognition calculates mass-Abel), as if presenting a password change it. History of bourgeois democracy condemns this illusion; the bourgeois democrats for screwing the people have always come up and always come up with “password” as you wish. The thing is examining the sincerity, the practical confrontation with the talk, to go beyond the idealistic phrase, or recommend-a mirage, but to strive to find a real class. Imperialist war ceases to be imperialistic while not die in or animals, phrases, or provincial hypocritical and narrow-minded increase “Password” sugary sweet – but when the class, the principal imperialist war and everything connected with it millions wires economic (and even ropes), Mmogr fact, and at the helm replaces the class The real revolutionary – the proletariat. Otherwise it is impossible to escape imperialist war – and the imperialist world, the world of thieves.

By agreeing to the policy of Foreign Affairs of the Mensheviks, presenting this policy internationalist and Tzimrooldit, Kautsky, first, shows that the decay of the majority Htzimrooldi, opportunistic (not in vain, we left Htzimrooldi, [Xxviii] immediately Hstiigno with it!), And secondly – and this is the main tenets – Kautsky passes from the position of the proletariat to the position of the petty bourgeoisie, the revolutionary status reformist stance.

The proletariat’s revolutionary struggle to eradicate imperialist bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie – “Productivity” reformist of imperialism, for adaptation to it, surrender to him. When Kautsky was still a Marxist, for example, in 1909, when he wrote the “road to power”, the gene is indeed the idea of revolution as a result of failure to avoid a war, spoke of the approach of the revolution. Manifest Hbzli [xxix] of 1912 says directly and decisively on a proletarian revolution in connection with that imperialist war itself between the groups of German and English, indeed erupted in 1914 and in 1918, emerges as a result of the war started revolutions, the place to explain the non-Nmnaotn, to consider and review the way revolutionary tactics, methods and tricks of understanding the revolution, Kautsky began to call the reformist tactics of the Mensheviks – internationalism. Is not this Rngtiot?

Kautsky praises the Mensheviks, therefore, insisted on maintaining the combat readiness of the army. While the Bolsheviks condemned it, the heightened “Hdzorgniztzih of the army”, he had already anyway. And means – praising reformism and submission to the imperialist bourgeoisie, condemned the revolution, denied that maintaining combat readiness means Kerensky was even in existence bourgeois army command (and will even Republican). Everyone knows – and the course of events proved it clearly – that this republican army preserved the Kornilov spirit because of the command staff Kornilov. Bourgeois female officers could not help but Kornilov, who continue to imperialism, not to suppress the proletariat. Leave all the foundations of the imperialist war as they were, the foundations of the bourgeois dictatorship, small repair, beautify trifles ( “reforms”) – Here is a tactic that consisted essentially Hmnsbistit.

on the contrary. Without “Dzorgniztzih” of the army was not carried out and there is no way to make any major revolution. For the army is the most rigid instrument of support for the old regime stronghold fossil of bourgeois discipline, support controlled by capital preservation and education of slavish submission and subjection to capital toiling. The counter-revolution has never suffered, could not carry on the work of armed military. France – Engels wrote – workers were armed after every revolution; “So for the bourgeois, who were at the helm in the country, the first order was to break the workers disarmed” [xxx] . The armed workers were the first germ of a new army, organizational cell of a new social order, override this cell, do not let it grow – was the first order of the bourgeoisie. The first order of every victorious revolution – Marx and Engels stressed this many times – was: to break the old army, dissolve it, replace it with a new one. A new social class, rising to power, never could, and now can not even get this rule and to strengthen it, but after that crippled and completely dismantled the old army ( “Dzorgniztzih” – yelling that provincial reactionary or just cowardly provincials); But after undergoing a very difficult period, multi-suffering without any army (such agony that time many also moved to the Great French Revolution); But after gradually brought, a civil war is difficult, a new army, a new discipline, a new military organization of the new class. Kautsky the historian understood this before. Hrngt Kautsky forgotten.

What right Kautsky read Lsiidmnim “government socialists” if he says “they” tactics of the Mensheviks in the Russian revolution? The Mensheviks, who supported Kerensky, who entered his Council of Ministers, were also government socialists. This conclusion can not Kautsky absolutely avoid, if only tries to place the question on the status of messenger, director imperialist war. But Kautsky avoids placing a question on the ruling class. Question, which is an obligation for the Marxist, that the mere placing this question was condemns the Hrngt.

Hkaotskianim Germany, Hlongtistim France torte Co. in Italy suggest the following consideration: socialism is contingent upon equality and freedom of nations, by definition somewhat self; So when attacked our country, when the enemy army broke our land, credit and debit She socialists defend the homeland. But this consideration, theoretically, is or abuse of complete socialism, or trick crooks, and politically-practical consideration is identified with the consideration of Aicron completely dark, who can not even think about the nature of social, class war and the tasks of a revolutionary party during war reactionary .

Socialism is opposed to violence against nations. There is no doubt about it. But socialism is completely against the coercion of people. However, other anarchists-Christians and followers of Tolstoy, no one yet concluded from this that revolutionary socialism against forced labor. And that means – to talk about “violence” in general, without examining the conditions which distinguish reactionary revolutionary violence, that is to say, to be provincial, denying revolution, or simply to fool yourself and others Bsofistikhh.

The same applies also to violence against nations. All the essence of war – violence against nations, but this does not prevent socialists to be in favor of a revolutionary war. The class nature of the war, this is the fundamental question facing socialist (if not Rngt). Imperialist war of 1918-1914 years is a war between two groups of the imperialist bourgeoisie division of the world, dividing the spoils, for the robbery of small and weak nations and Hhnktn. Such assessment of the war gave Hbzli Manifesto of 1912, and this evaluation confirmed the facts. Who abandoned this point of view about the war, no socialist.

If during Wilhelm German or French during Klimnso say I’m entitled and obliged, as a socialist, defend the homeland, if the enemy has invaded my country, it’s not a socialist discretion, not an internationalist, proletarian revolutionary’s not, but the provincial-Ntzionlist. For judgment is gone struggle revolutionary class against capital, disappears assessment of the war as a whole – from the point of view of the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat – ie, gone internationalism, left nationalism poor, rough and old-fashioned hurt my country, and more things that I do not have any interest – here’s what boils down to this consideration Here parochial narrow-minded nationalism that. It seems that, if someone in relation to individual violence, about one person, would think: socialism is against violence, well I’d rather make infidelity, than sit in prison.

French, German or Italian, who says socialism against violence against nations, therefore I defend, when an enemy invades my country – betraying socialism and internationalists. That one person sees only his own country, or more than all the … bourgeoisie “his”, without thinking about the relationship Haintrntzionliim, making the imperialist war, making the link in the chain of his bourgeois imperialist robbery.

All provincials, all Haicronim Khi-darkened mind and just think that, as people think Hrngtim Hkaotskianim, Hlongtistim torte Co., namely: the enemy of my country, and the rest do not care. [7]

Socialist, proletarian revolutionary, internationalist, thinks otherwise: the nature of the war (it is reactionary or revolutionary) does not depend on that, who attacked and who was his country’s “enemy”, but that, what class is waging a continuation of a policy of war it is. If the war given war is an imperialist reactionary, that is, run by two teams in world bourgeoisie imperialist, violent, predatory and reactionary, every bourgeoisie (even in a small country) becomes a partner in the robbery, and roles, the role of the representative of the revolutionary proletariat, prepare the proletarian revolution in the world, rescue unit horrors of World Kitchen. Must I consider the matter not from the perspective of national “mine” (since this is the consideration of dumb poor, the provincial nationalist who does not realize that is used is tool-fun by the imperialist bourgeoisie), but in terms of my participation in my training, propaganda, approximately proletarian revolution worldwide.

Indeed this is internationalism, is the job of an internationalist, a worker-revolutionary, a true socialist. Here this is the alphabet, which forgets “Hrngt Kautsky. And Hrngtiot his becomes even more noticeable when approving the strategy of Hntzionlistim petty-bourgeois (the Mensheviks in Russia, Hlongtistim France, tortoiseshell Italy, Haase and Co. in Germany) moves he criticized the strategy of the Bolshevik. And wailing review it:

“Bolshevik Revolution was based on the assumption that it will serve as a starting point of a general European revolution, the bold initiative of Russia would cause the proletarians of all Europe to rise.

If you rely on this hypothesis, I do not care, of course, what are the forms to receive the peace of the Russian separate, what are the difficulties, what is the loss of territories (literally: mutilation, VerstUmmelungen) to bring it to the Russian people, what is the meaning of self-determination of nations, give it. So I did not care Moreover, Russia is able to defend itself or not. European revolution, according to this view, was used for better protection of the Russian revolution, she had to bring all nations Bell shadow over the territory of Russia’s last full self-determination and genuine.

Revolution in Europe, which brings about socialism and strengthens it, should have as a means to settle the obstacles placed in Russia by way of realizing the socialist production by the delay in economic cedar.

All this was very logical and well-founded, if only we assume the fundamental hypothesis be fulfilled: that the Russian revolution inevitably open the European revolution. Oh, and how to be the case, it would not rise?

So far, no substantiated hypothesis hook. And now accuse the proletariat in Europe, they have betrayed the Russian Revolution, left. This is an accusation against known, because those who place responsibility for the behavior of the European proletariat? “(Page 28).

And Kautsky addition, continues to regurgitate that Marx, Engels, Babylon-once mistaken about the coming revolution awaited, but never built their tactics on the expectation of a revolution “fixed date” (page 29), while the Bolsheviks, ie “put everything on one card of a general European revolution”.

We brought a long quotation deliberately so, to show the reader, how much “agility”, which falsifies Marxism Kautsky and converts it into a reactionary view, parochial, narrow-minded.

First, overt stupidity opponent ratio and subsequently refute it is a trick of the people-very smart. While the Bolsheviks were building their tactics on the expectation of a revolution in other countries at a fixed time, it was so silly, is not in doubt. But the Bolshevik Party did not do this folly: the letters of the workers of America (08/20/1918) I have reservations about this nonsense directly, I said, we are looking forward to me coming American revolution, but not on a fixed date in advance. Polemic against the policy of the Left SR and Left Communists “(January-March 1918), I developed not ever the same idea. Kautsky has made little distortion … tiny, and he built his criticism of Bolshevism. Kautsky Mix together the tactics calculated to let the European Revolution in the near future, more or less, but not on a fixed date, with tactics calculated to let the revolution at a fixed time. forgery small, very small!

The second tactic is nonsense. The first duty is Marxist, proletarian revolutionary per every internationalist – is a must, as is only right in terms of Marxist Thought the objective situation that gave rise to the war in all European countries, is only compatible with the tasks of the proletarian International.

Convert a large and important question on the foundations of revolutionary tactics in general question concerning tiny mistake that could have been done revolutionaries-the Bolsheviks but made him, Kautsky denied without any hitch at all revolutionary tactics!

As Rngt policy, the theory that he is not even put the question of the objective prerequisites of revolutionary tactics.

And Ann reached the point in the second.

Secondly, the calculation with respect to a European revolution obligation is for the Marxist, if there is a revolutionary situation. It is true Alfabitit of Marxism, the socialist proletariat’s tactics can not be similar even when there is a revolutionary situation and when that does not exist.

If Kautsky put Wu said, that it is obligatory for any Marxist, he realized that the answer obtained is definitely against him. Long before the war the all Marxists, all Socialists, a European war created a revolutionary situation. When Kautsky was not yet Rngt acknowledged clearly and decisively – both in 1902 ( “social revolution”) and in 1909 ( “The road to power”). Manifest Hbzli acknowledged that the name of the entire 2nd International Not in vain the social-chauvinists and Hkaotskianim ( “centrists”, people oscillating between revolutionary opportunists) of all countries fear-terror validated against the appropriate declarations of manifest Hbzli!

Well, the expectation of a revolutionary situation in Europe was not the tendency of the Bolsheviks, but the general opinion of all Marxists. If Kautsky avoids an authenticator questionable suggestion that the Bolsheviks, ie, “always believed in the almighty power of coercion and desire”, this is not more highly recommend ringing Rica, covering the escape – escape shameful – of Kautsky placing the question on the revolutionary situation.

And below. Is the revolutionary situation actually come or not? This question could not Kautsky place. This question fanning economic facts: hunger and exhaustion generated at each site as a result of the war means – a revolutionary situation. This question respondents also political facts: starting already in 1915 revealed clearly in all countries in the process of splitting the socialist parties of old and rotten, a process of distancing the masses – the proletariat of the leaders of the Social-chauvinistic left, to the ideas and mood of revolutionary, to revolutionary leaders.

On August 5, 1918, when Kautsky wrote Hobrto not see these facts could only person who is afraid because of the revolution, the traitor it. And now, in late October 1918 revolution gospel Europe rises eye-all and very fast. “Revolutionary” Kautsky, like, that will be considered sooner Marxist, was discovered a short-McCartney such provisions, which – similar to the provincials of 1847, Marx Hlaigm – did not see the approaching revolution !!

We reached the third point.

Third. What are the unique tactic of revolutionary condition that there is a revolutionary situation in Europe? Kautsky, when he has done Rngt, fear must put this question is for any Marxist. Kautsky meditate upon narrow minded provincialism typical farmer or dark: Are arrived “general European revolution” or not? If reached, it also is ready to be revolutionary! But then – we note – all harp (similarly to those scoundrels, who pushed and enter the ranks of the Bolsheviks won) declares himself a revolutionary!

If not, then Kautsky turns it back on revolution! It does not have, Kautsky, even the slightest understanding of the same truth, that the revolutionary-Marxist and provincial and petit bourgeois masses differentiates ability to preach the necessity of revolution in dark vests, prove the non-Nmnaoth, explain its benefits to the people.Prepare for it the proletariat and all the toiling and exploited massess.

Kautsky ascribed to the Bolsheviks nonsense, as if put everything on one card assuming that the European revolution will come at a fixed time. This nonsense turned against Kautsky, that the consideration actually received the following assumption: the tactics of the Bolsheviks was correct whereas the European revolution came up to August 5, 1918 Indeed date Kautsky mentions as the time of writing of Hobrto. When after a few weeks after this August 5, it became clear that Europe comes from the gospel of revolution, all Hrngtiot of Kautsky, any forgery about Marxism, any inability to deliberate revolutionary and revolutionary way to questions – were discovered in all their glory!

When accused of betraying the proletariat of Europe – writes Kautsky – it is the accusation against an unknown.

Mistake, Mr. Kautsky! Look in the mirror, and saw them “absolutely unknown,” against whom this accusation is directed. Kautsky pretending ignorance, if not used to see, who pointed the blame and what it means. Kautsky actually know very well that this charge is raised and raise H”smaliim “German Hsfrtkaim, [xxxi] Liebknecht and his friends. This accusation expresses Ruda recognition that, because the German proletariat committed treason Russian Revolution (and international), when the strangled Finland, Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia. This charge is directed first of all and above all, not against the masses, the oppressed always, but against those leaders who, like Lsiidmnim and Lkaotskim not fulfilled their duty, the duty of revolutionary propaganda, propaganda revolutionary labor duty revolutionary masses against backwardness, and which were in fact complete contrast The revolutionary aspirations and interests, always flashing in the depths of the oppressed class. Hsiidmnim directly, crudely, cynically, for the most part for the sake of personal benefit, were traitors to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie side pass. Hkaotskianim and Hlongtistim did the same thing, Bhssm, Bhtnoddm, refer them timidly faith look back at those who have power at the time. Kautsky all his writings during the war was depressing the revolutionary spirit instead of saving it, develop it.

This will remain just as a gravestone historical stupidity provincial leader’s “middle” of the Social-Democratic Party official, Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky did not even realized what enormous theoretical importance, what is even more significance propaganda and propaganda of “blaming” the proletariat of Europe that they abandoned the revolution Russian! Kautsky does not understand me “blame” on condition that the censorship of “Empire” German – is (perhaps the only form in which the Socialists German, who betrayed socialism, Liebknecht and his friends, express their reading German workers to overthrow the Hsiidmnim and Hkaotskim reject “leaders” like, released their advocacy of stupefying and humiliating, go contrary to them, while ignoring them over their heads to the revolution, rise to the revolution !

Kautsky does not understand this. How could this man understand the tactics of the Bolsheviks? One might expect from a man, who denied the revolution in general, consider him and assess the conditions of the development of revolution in one case “difficult” the most?

Tactics of the Bolsheviks was correct, was the tactic of the internationalist unit, since it was based not on fear of cowardice heart against the world revolution, not on the “Jose faith” corny it, not the will of nationalistic narrow defend the homeland, “your” (Homeland bourgeoisie yours), and the rest “green” – it was based on a calculation of true (everyone knew him before the war, before Hrngtiot of social-chauvinists and social-pacifists) of the European revolutionary situation. This tactic was the only internationalist, as the maximum that can be performed in one country be made for the sake of development and awakening of the revolution, for the sake of her support in all countries. This tactic has been vindicated by the success of the petition, because Bolshevism (and not at the right of the Bolshevik Russian, but because the profound sympathy of the masses in all a tactic of revolutionary-fact) made Bolshevism world, gave an idea, a theory, plan, tactics, differentiated manner concrete, practical, social-chauvinism and social-pacifism. Bolshevism hit until the end of the old International, rotting of Hsiidmnim and Hkaotskim, Hrnodlim and Long, the Hendersons and Macdonalds, which now will start to get involved in another one between the legs, while “dreaming” about “unity” and bring life to a dead corpse. Bolshevism has created the ideological and tactical elements of the 3rd International, the real proletarian communist, taking into account the achievements of the peace and the experience of the revolution begins.

Bolshevism spread throughout the world the idea of “proletarian dictatorship”, translated these words from Latin first in Russia, then all languages of the world, showing on the model of the Soviet government that the workers and poor peasants even a backward country, even if they are experienced, educated and accustomed to the organization remotely, could for a year, with enormous difficulties, the struggle against the exploiters (which supported the bourgeoisie of the world entirely ) to maintain the rule of the toilers, to establish democracy infinitely superior and wider than the previous democratic world, to open the work of tens of millions of workers and peasants for the realization of practical socialismm.

Bolshevism actually helped the development of the proletarian revolution in Europe and America so much force as she could not help to just any party in any country. While Slfoali world became too-Day clearer that the strategy of Hsiidmnim and Kaotskim was unable to redeem the imperialist war and laboratories hired by the imperialist bourgeoisie, that this tactic does not deserve to be an example for all countries – at this time the masses of proletarians of all countries is done every day clearer that Bolshevism deserves to be an example of tactics for all .

Not only pan-European revolution, but the world proletarian revolution ripens all to see, and helped her, rushed her, supported her victory of the proletariat in Russia. Is all this a bit is the absolute victory of socialism? Of course, a people. No one country to al-hand to do more. However, one country, however, thanks to the Soviet government , has done all this so much, that if the Soviet government of the Russian ran over a day after world imperialism, say, in an agreement between German imperialism and the Anglo-French, then in this case, a case the worst bad guys, was Bolshevik tactics tactic discovery brought immense benefit to regard socialism, which supported growth in world revolution invincible.

Service bourgeoisie under the guise of “economic analysis”

Kautsky’s book, as we have said, have been called – while the title was pronouncing correctly the content – not a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but “bourgeois repeated attacks against the Bolsheviks.”

Theories “recurrence” of the Mensheviks the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution, ie, the old distortion of Marxism by the Mensheviks (rejected in 1905 by Kautsky!), Warm up again just by our theoretician. We’ll have to dwell on this question, as there will not be boring Russian Marxists.

Russia is a bourgeois revolution, said all the Marxists of Russia before 1905. The Mensheviks, converted to Marxism, liberalism, concluded here: Well, the proletariat does not have to go far plausible bourgeoisie, he must pursue a policy of compromise with it. The Bolsheviks said that this is a bourgeois-liberal theory. The bourgeoisie seeks to make the country making way bourgeois reformist , rather than revolutionary manner, and save as much as possible both the monarchy and the property owners of the land estates and so on. The proletariat must manage the revolution bourgeois-democratic to the end, without giving tying “itself with the reformism of the bourgeoisie. The ratio of power class bourgeois revolution formulated the Bolsheviks: The proletariat, attach to the peasantry, neutralize the liberal bourgeoisie and destroys up to the end of the monarchy, the middle Ages, the land property of the owners of estates.

Indeed, the Soviet proletariat with the peasantry as a whole reveals the bourgeois character of the revolution, for the peasantry as a whole is available to small producers on the basis of commodity production. Below, adding even then the Bolsheviks, the proletariat, attach to the semi-proletariat (all the toilers and exploited), neutralizing the middle peasantry and overthrow the bourgeoisie: This is the essence of the socialist revolution, as distinct from a bourgeois-democratic revolution. (See the 1905 booklet: “Two Tactics” re-copied file “for 12 years”, St. Petersburg, 1907).

Kautsky participated indirectly in this debate in 1905, to express his opinion, according to the wish of the Menshevik then Plekhanov, in essence, against Plekhanov, which provoked then ridicule a special press Bolshevik, now Kautsky does not mention even one word to these debates (afraid of denouncing himself with his pronouncements!) and thus negates any possibility of German reader to understand the essence of the matter. Lord Kautsky could not tell the German workers in 1918, how in 1905 he sided with the Soviet working with farmers, and not with the liberal bourgeoisie, and under what conditions the gene is on this alliance, which program is planned this alliance.

Kautsky shrink back, under the pretext of “economic analysis” boastful rhetoric about “historical materialism”, now protects the surrender of the workers and the bourgeoisie , to explain in detail, with quotations from the Menshevik Maslov, the old liberal views of the Mensheviks; However, with quotations proves is a new concept for backward Russia, and the conclusion of this new idea is the old conclusion, that the spirit of revolution bourgeois bourgeoisie does not go too far! And so – in spite of what Marx and Engels said, comparable to the bourgeois revolution of 1793 to 1789 in France with the bourgeois revolution in Germany in 1848!

Before we proceed L”nimok “main and main content of the” economic analysis “of Kautsky, we note that already the first sentences reveal amusing confusion of ideas or lack of consideration of ideas Author:

“The economic foundation of Russia – declares” theoretician “ours – is to this day agricultural economy, yet rather small peasant production. Whom live around -4/5 or may even 5/6 of the population” (p 45). First, a theorist but not least, are occurred to you, how can take advantage of being in this mass of small producers? Of course, not more than -1/10 any number, “much less towns that enticed largest production there more? Take even an incredible high number, place, the fifth of the small producers are taking advantage of, the losers in the right-of their choice . then accepted that 66% of the Bolshevik 5th conference of the Union represented the majority of the population . this has further added that the left SR’s always been a significant part of the Soviet regime in favor, that is, in principle all the left SR were in favor of government Soviet regime part of the left SR uprising adventurous opened in July 1918, then are parted, formerly their party, two new parties, “narodniks-Communists” and “komonistim revolutionary ” [Xxxii] (from the left SR, it raised another party old positions of the most important state: first belongs to, for example, Sachs, another – Koligaiib). it follows that Kautsky himself debunked – unintentionally! – the legend funny, like the Bolsheviks standing next to a minority of the population.

Secondly, theorist but not least, you thought about that, because small farmers reeling manufacturer necessarily between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? This Marxist truth endorsed by all the modern history of Europe, “forgot” Kautsky just the right moment, because what is null and void the “theory” Hmnsbistit, it is steadily coming back! Had Kautsky not “forgotten” However, he could not deny the necessity of proletarian dictatorship in the country, which constitute the majority of micro-producers from bonds.

Examine the main content of the “economic analysis” from our theorist.

That the Soviet regime is a dictatorship, it is undeniable – says Kautsky. “But is it a dictatorship of the proletariat ?” (Page 34).

“The farmers are under the Soviet constitution, the majority of the population, which has the right to participate in the enactment of laws and the administration. It is, what is presented to us as a dictatorship of the proletariat, was. Revealed, those carried it consistently and status, generally, could be Blti- means to achieve the dictatorship, something that can be achieved only by party – was revealed as a dictatorship of the peasantry “(page 35).

And Kautsky kindness, very satisfied depth consideration and witty, trying his hand-sharpening words: “is, therefore, as the least painful realization of socialism is guaranteed only then, when it is delivered to the farmers” (page 35).

The most detailed manner, with very scholarly citations line Mmslob semi-liberal, demonstrates our theoretician new concept for farmers interested in high grain prices, low labor wages of workers in the city and so on and so forth. New ideas are, incidentally, formulated boredom more, the less directed attention to new phenomena really the post-war period, for example, that, because farmers demand for grain is not money, but goods that farmers lack the instruments of labor, unobtainable quantity provides for all the money he. But that particularly below.

Well, Kautsky charges the Bolsheviks, the party of the proletariat in that it gave the dictatorship, the interest in the realization of socialism, to the petty-bourgeois peasantry. Great, Mr. Kautsky! What, then, should be the ratio, according to the enlightened mind, from the party of the proletarian peasantry, the petty bourgeois?

That our theoretician preferred to remain silent – probably recollect the saying goes: “speech – silver, silence – gold.” But Kautsky revealed the secrets the following considerations:

“At the beginning of the Soviet Republic formed councils peasant organizations, peasant women in general. Now, however, declares a republic is that councils are organizations of the proletarians and poor peasants. Wealthy farmers lose the right to vote in the Council. The poor farmer is considered here as the mass and permanent land reform socialist during the dictatorship of the proletariat” (page 48).

What deadly irony! It can be heard in Russia from any bourgeois: they all are happy gloating and laughing, that the Soviet Republic openly admits the existence of poor farmers the most. They make fun of socialism. This is their right. But “socialist” mocking it, after the most devastating war of four years staying with us – and will remain for a long time – most poor farmers, “socialist” This can be born only in terms of mass Rngtiot.

Heard on:

… “The Soviet Republic interferes in the relations between rich peasants and the poor, but not by redistribution of land. To eliminate the shortage of townspeople bread, are sent to villages companies operate unarmed, taking the peasants rich reserves. Grain. Some of this wheat is delivered to the urban population, and some two – door peasantry “(page 48).

Of course, Kautsky the socialist and Marxist deeply resents due thought, it could spread means far more than the environments major cities (and here he is spreading across the country). Socialist and Marxist Kautsky turns words-reassurances, saying coldly (or stupidity) of unparalleled, unequaled, coldly captivating the provincial: “… they (the expropriations of assets of wealthy farmers) brings a new element of unrest and war citizens production process “… (civil war, inserted ‘the process of production” – is something supernatural) … “which is needed to cure non-delay peace and security” (page 49).

Yes, yes, about the peace and security of exploiters and speculators-grain hide the balances, trampling the grain monopoly law, starving the urban population – with respect to all of these must, of course, Marxist and socialist Kautsky sigh, weep. We are all socialists, Marxists and internationalists – who chant masters Hkaotskim Heinrich-and Bars (Vienna), Lelong (Paris), Macdonalds (London) and the like – all for the revolution of the working class, but … but to such an extent that violate the tranquility and safety of speculators-grain! It’s filthy and services for the capital-covering we Reference “Marxist” on “production process” … If this is Marxism, then what is called a bourgeois servility?

See, I pray, what is received by our theoretician. He accuses the Bolsheviks thus, they present the dictatorship of the peasantry dictatorship of the proletariat. At the same time accusing us that we bring civil war to the village (we attribute it to our right ) that we send to the village squads operate militants, declaring openly that fulfill are the “dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry poorest”, because they help the latter, confiscating in the speculators, with the rich peasants grain reserves, hidden by them in violation of the law of monopoly bread.

On the one hand, our Marxist theoretician-is for pure democracy, for the surrender of the revolutionary class, the leader of the toiling and exploited, most of the population (including, if therefore, the exploiters). On the other hand, he explains

Us the inevitability of revolution bourgeois character – bourgeois, because the farmer as a whole stands on a background of bourgeois social relations – while claiming that shield is the point of view of proletarian, class, Marxist!

Instead of “economic analysis” was made porridge, clutter type A. Instead of Marxism were obtained excerpts liberal teachings and preaching service of a slave bourgeoisie and the kulaks.

The question is complicated by Kautsky explained fully Bolsheviks already in 1905. Yes, our revolution bourgeois, so long march we together with the peasantry as a whole, understood this clearly superior, hundreds and thousands of times since 1905 we talked about it, never tried to not skip the essential step of this historic process, and to cancel orders. Kautsky’s efforts to “denounce” condemn this point, but the clutter in his views, his fear to recall what he wrote in 1905, when there was still Rngt.

But in 1917, in April, long before the October Revolution, before we came to power, said openly and explained to the people: stop now that you can not revolution, the country has progressed, capitalism took a step forward, impoverishment has reached proportions that were absent, and it will require (if you want Who it or not) to step forward, to socialism. Another advance, otherwise save the country, tormented and tortured during the war, otherwise ease the torment of the toilers and exploited – is impossible.

Indeed out that, as we have said. Course of the revolution confirmed the correctness of our consideration. First with the peasantry “as a whole” against the monarchy, against the landlords, against the medieval (and just as the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Afterwards, with door-peasantry, with the proletariat half, with all the exploited, against capitalism , including against a rich village, kulaks, speculators, and just as the revolution becomes a socialist , try to put a false wall, a wall of Sinai, between one revolution per second , to distinguish them something else, except for the degree of training of the proletariat and the degree of unification with door-village means – the greatest distortion of Marxism, lowering provincial, conversion to liberalism. This means using the authoritative scholarly apparent progressiveness of the bourgeoisie as opposed to the Middle Ages – to push and introduce the reactionary defense of the bourgeoisie versus proletariat socialist.

Union, by the way, are the form and type of performance infinitely more democratic precisely because of that, Sbahdn and mortgaged policy the masses of workers and peasants form are the barometer, the closest “people” (in the sense in which he spoke of Marx in 1871 on a populist revolution true) and felt most of the development and increase in maturity, political and class of the masses . Soviet Constitution was not written by “program” any not connected cabinets, not forced upon the toilers by lawyers from the bourgeoisie. No, this constitution grew grew during its development of the class struggle , cable matured class contrasts, and precisely the same facts, which Kautsky had to admit them, prove it.

First Union merged the peasantry as a whole . Indeed backwardness, underdevelopment, darkened the poorest farmers have the leadership to the kulaks, rich peasants, capitalists, petty-bourgeois intelligent. It was time dominance of the petty bourgeoisie, of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (see those and only those socialists are able to fool or Rngtim such as Kautsky). The petty bourgeoisie inevitably, inevitably, wavered between dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (Kerensky, Kornilov, Sbinkob) Shinn dictatorship of the proletariat, because the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of any independent thing, because of the fundamental features of the economic situation. Incidentally, Kautsky denies the denial of absolute Marxism, avoid it, and analyzes the Russian revolution, with the legal concept, formal – used by the bourgeoisie in order to cover the control and screwing the masses – of “democracy” forgetting that fact expresses democracy “Sometimes the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and sometimes reformism helplessness of provincials succumbed to dictatorship so and still in Kautsky accepted that the country capitalistic were bourgeois parties, was the party of proletarian, leading after the majority of the proletariat, the masses of (Bolsheviks), but there were no parties in the petty bourgeoisie! There were no class roots, roots petit-bourgeois Menshevik and SR in!

Hesitations of the petty bourgeoisie, of the Mensheviks and plasterers, open the eyes of the masses and rejected the most enormous, the “people of the land, the proletariat-half M”mnhigim” stuff. Councils were the majority (in Petrograd and Moscow until October 1917) the Bolsheviks; the SR’s and Mensheviks, a schism.

The Bolshevik Revolution award-victory meant – the end of the hesitations, the complete elimination of the monarchy and the property owners of the land estates (until the October Revolution is not eliminated). The bourgeois revolution in the way we performed. General peasantry marched us. The antagonism between the socialist proletariat can not: was discovered on a moment. Union united the peasantry because of her class divisions within the peasantry had not yet matured, had not yet burst out.

This process has evolved in summer and autumn 1918 counter-revolutionary uprising Czechoslovak caused the kulaks. Russia moved over a wave of revolts kulaks. Door-village – no cups, no newspapers, but from life itself has learned that there is no reconcile its interests and the interests of the kulaks, rich peasants, the rural bourgeoisie. “Left SR”, as petty bourgeois party, reflecting the hesitations of the masses, and indeed in the summer of 1918 were divided: Some of step with the Czechoslovak and the uprising in Moscow, when Frosiian, to take over the telegraph – one hour! – Announced the elimination of Bolshevik Russia; after -Then betrayal of the commander in chief of the army, fighting the Czechoslovaks, Morbiob etc.); the second part, mentioned above, remained with the Bolsheviks.

Worsening food shortages in middle cities growing strongly question the monopoly of bread (the “forgotten” theoretician Kautsky economic analysis, marl ads, rehearsed desks Maslov 10 years ago!),

Old state, the owners of estates and bourgeoisie, even Democratic-Republican was sent to the village armed squads who were actually available to the bourgeoisie. It does not know the Lord Kautsky! That he does not see “a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”! God forbid! It is “pure democracy”. Especially if it was than the bourgeois parliament! That, Sabksntiib and SS. Maslov, in Hkrnskim, Tseretelli and a similar audience of SR and Mensheviks, have been arrested in summer and autumn 1917 the members of the committees ground – that Kautsky “not heard”, it is silent!

The whole point is that a bourgeois state, which realizes the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie through a democratic republic can not confess to the people that it serves the bourgeoisie can not tell the truth, is forced to act hypocritically.

And a kind of commune, the Soviet state, says openly and directly the truth to the people, declaring that it is the dictatorship of the proletariat and door-peasantry, and specifically by the truth that pulls alongside tens and tens of millions of new citizens – who were oppressed in any democratic republic – that go into orbit policy, democracy, management of state councils. The Soviet Republic sends villages squads armed workers, primarily the more advanced, capital cities. These issues are working to village socialism, pulling alongside the door-village, organize it and give her information helping her suppress the resistance of the bourgeoisie.

Those familiar with the issues and stayed in the village, they say, that our village only in summer and autumn 1918 experienced the revolution itself “October” (ie, proletarian). Came a turning point. The wave of revolts kulaks replaced awakening and low-rise village, raising the number of “committees door-village”. Army commissars among the rising number of workers, a number of officers and the workers, divisional and corps commanders among the workers. While silly Kautsky, frightened by the crisis of July (1918) [Xxxiii] and the cry of the bourgeoisie ran after her run-servility and writing a whole pamphlet, imbued opinion, that the Bolsheviks on the eve of their deployment to the peasantry, while silly it sees “reduction” (page 37), the Department of supporters of the Bolsheviks in the distribution of the left SR them – at the same time the real Department of Bolshevism advocates expanding boundless as independent political life emerging tens and tens of millions of low-village, released kulaks and village bourgeoisie and influence.

We have lost hundreds of Left SR’s intelligent character-less peasants and kulaks understand, we have gained millions of low-village representatives. [8]

A year later, after the proletarian revolution in the capital cities was, influence and with it, the proletarian revolution in remote rural areas, strengthened the Soviet government completely and Bolshevism, finally proved that the country does not exist any force against him.

Complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution together with the peasantry as a whole, the proletariat of Russia has finalized a socialist revolution, when the village was able to split, join alongside the proletariat and the rural semi-proletarians, unite them against the kulaks and the bourgeoisie, including the peasant bourgeoisie against.

Indeed, were it not for the proletariat the Bolshevist of capitals and industrial centers of the largest could muster the door-village against a rich farmer, then it was proven “non-adult” Russia’s socialist revolution, then the peasants would remain “whole”, ie, remains under the leadership economic, political and spiritual of the kulaks, the rich-village, the bourgeoisie, then the revolution would not have goes beyond the bourgeois-democratic revolution. (But even that, say, in parentheses, there was no proof that the proletariat should not have taken power, since only the proletariat brought to the end the revolution, the bourgeois-democratic, just proletariat carried out anything serious for approximation of proletarian revolution in the world, only the proletariat established the State Soviet – step two after the commune, in the direction of a socialist state.)

On the other hand, if the Bolshevik proletariat tried immediately, in October-November 1917 – he could not wait fragmentation of the village, without knowing train and to do so was trying to start “with orders to” war civil or chauffeur socialism “in the country, was trying to get by without Ghosh (Soviet) time with the peasantry as a whole, without a line of temporary concessions peasantry medium, etc. – then it was a distortion Blnkisti [Xxxiv] of Marxism, it was an attempt by a minority to impose its will on the majority, then it was folly theory, an understanding of the fact that that all-peasant revolution is still a bourgeois revolution, and no line transitions, phases of transition , it is impossible to make it backward country socialist revolution.

Kautsky has confused all the theoretical question and most important political fact, been simply a servant of the bourgeoisie, screaming against the dictatorship of the proletariat.


This mess, and possibly greater than, let Kautsky another question, an interesting question and most important, namely: whether, in principle, was organized right, and later is carried out purposefully activity legislature of the Soviet Republic of changing agrarian – socialist transformation this very difficult and at the same time important most? We were grateful infinitely for all Western European Marxist islands, Recognizing know if only the most important documents, was serving us. The review of our policy, because that would help us greatly, also helps ripening revolution worldwide. But Kautsky, instead of criticism, presents a theoretical hodgepodge incredibly, makes Marxism to liberalism, and in fact empty shenanigans, filled with hatred, petty tricks against the Bolsheviks. Please judge-reader:

“It was impossible to continue to maintain the property and land big, it made the revolution. It turned out immediately. It was impossible not to hand it over to the population peasant” … (not-true, Mr. Kautsky, you put the “clear” for you in place of the status of different will ask this; the history of the revolution has shown that the coalition government of the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, the Menshevik and SR, conducted a policy of holding property and large-scale ground. this proved especially the law of the US. Maslov and arrests of members of the committees ground [xxxv] . without ” dictatorship of the proletariat “peasant population” would not win the Squire, reunited with the owner of the capital.)

… “But on the question, what forms have had this happen, there was no unity. One would have different solutions ..” (more than any worries Kautsky “unity”, “socialist”, and no matter who will call itself by that name .. that, in the presence of major capitalist society from-necessity that will come to different decisions, forget it) … “from a socialist was more rational to give the largest enterprises in state ownership and entrust the processing of large estates by peasants, who until now were engaged in them as hired laborers in the form of syllables cooperative. but this solution is conditional on compliance with working in rural those who do not exist in Russia. another solution possible was delivered property large-scale ground state ownership, while dividing it into smaller plots, delivered on lease to farmers with limited land. then was fulfilled something more socialism ” …

Kautsky Always use well-known proverb: On the one hand it is impossible not to admit, on the other hand have a confession. It offers various solutions side by side, without browse thinking – the only real thought, Marxist – What are the transitions from capitalism to communism under such descend. Russia-steer workers are employed, but they are few, and Kautsky did not touch the question, erected by the Soviet regime, how to be processed for public utilities and members of the ground. But ridiculous thing is, Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky wants to see “something socialism” in the distribution of plots and lease towns. In fact nothing but a petty-bourgeois password and “mhsotzializm “There’s nothing here. If “state”, leases the land, will not be the kind of commune, but will be a bourgeois parliamentary republic and this is indeed the constant hypothesis of Kautsky), the leasing of land smaller divisions would be a typical liberal reform.

Kautsky passes in silence that, Soviet authorities abolished all property ground. Worse. He performs distortion unbelievable and quoting orders of the Soviet regime that disappeared are the most essential.

Declaring that “production tiny aims to fully private ownership of the means of production” that the Constituent Assembly was the “only authority” capable of stopping the division (claimed, was aroused laughter in Russia, because everyone knows that the workers and peasants see as having the authority to the Union alone, while the Constituent Assembly has become the slogan of Czechoslovak and owners of estates) – Kautsky continues:

“One of the first decrees of the Soviet government ordered: 1. The ownership of the owners of estates on land immediately canceled without any compensation. 2. estates, and all lands of the monarchy, the sectors, the churches, with all the living and dead inventory, with buildings and estates, with all accessories and tools, are transferred to the ground committees of rural areas, subject to the regional councils of delegates farmers to resolve the land question by the Constituent Assembly. ”

Citing these two items alone Kautsky came to the conclusion:

“Reliance on the Constituent Assembly has remained a dead letter. In fact farmers NOTES individuals could drive rural land as they see fit (p 47).

Here you models of “criticism” Kautsky! Here you work “Mdanito, resembles more than any forgery. Recognizing German reader is inserted, the Bolsheviks surrendered peasantry on the question of private ownership of land! That the Bolsheviks permitted the peasants Bamford (” individual areas “) to act as they please!

Whereas in fact, the order cited Kaotski- first order issued on 26 October 1917 (old count) – consists not 2, but 5 sections, add eight counts of “teaching” and this provision states that “should serve as guidance” .

Article 3 of the decree states that economies go through to the people , that are necessary are “making definitive list of all the seized property ‘and’ the protection of the most rigorous revolutionary”. And the directive states that “the right of private ownership of land idle for ever”, that “plots of land with farms with high culture,” “do not require distribution”, that “all inventory farming and industrial areas of the expropriated land; the living and the dead, goes for exclusive use of the state or the community, depending on their size and importance, without compensation “because” all land enters the bottom of all fund-folk “.

And below, simultaneously with the dispersion of the Constituent Assembly (01.05.1918) received Union Conference 3 “Declaration of the rights of the working people and the exploited”, now included in the Basic Law of the Soviet Republic. This declaration Article 11 ‘1 says that = private ownership, the land has been canceled “and” percent-for example, and agricultural declared as a buyer national “.

Well, relying on the Constituent Assembly did not remain a dead letter, as a representative institution to another all-folk, with great authority infinitely more to the peasants, took upon himself the solution to the agrarian question.

And below, 19 (6) In February 1918, the Law on the socialization of land, confirming once again eliminating any cost to the ground, removed the optional use of both land and all inventory of privately owned Soviet authorities under the supervision of the Soviet federal government ; Among the tasks of the Authority is offering land use

“The development of the collective economy in agriculture, as opposed to individual farms worth more as an economy of savings in labor and products – there beyond a socialist economy” (Article 11, point 6).

This law, comparative land use leader, answering the fundamental question “Who has the right to use the land”:

(Article 20). The only land plots in personal and social needs in the areas of the Russian Soviet Federative Republic may use: a) his education cultural purposes: 1) state, in the form of the Soviet government institutions and federal, provincial, cylindrical, regional, rural and regional-rural). 2) social organizations (under the supervision and levels of local Soviet rule). B) the purpose of engaging in agriculture: 3) agricultural communes. 5) rural companies. 6) families and individual personalities “…

The reader can see that Kautsky completely distorting the matter and presented to the German reader a completely distorted way the agrarian policy and agrarian legislation of the proletarian state in Russia.

The most important theoretical questions, thoroughness, Kautsky could not even place!

These are the questions:

(1) The comparability of land use,

(2) Nationalization of the land – the ratio of these two measures to socialism in general, and the transition from capitalism to communism in particular.

(3) social processing of land, the transition to agriculture small and large fragmented social farming; Haas adequate provision of Soviet legislation this question the requirements of socialism?

Regarding the first question from-the need to determine first of all the two main facts: (a) the Bolsheviks, also taking into account the experience of 1905 (I will be relying, for example, to work the land question, the first Russian revolution) pointed out the importance of the democratic-progressive, democratic-revolutionary password comparability, and in 1917, before the October revolution, spoke with perfect clarity on this. (B) fulfilled by the law of the socialization of the land – the law that “soul” is the slogan of the use of comparative land – declared the Bolsheviks precisely and with absolute clarity: It is not our ideas, we do not agree with this slogan, we think it is our duty to realize it, because this is the demand of the overwhelming majority of farmers. While the concept and requirements of the toiling majority necessary because hes themselves Iakrom: It is impossible not to cancel them, not “jump” on them. We Bolsheviks will help pull your password peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, and move them as quickly as possible-socialist and easy as possible.

Theorist-Marxist, who wanted to help the workers’ revolution in scientific analysis, have been, to answer, first, the right is the notion of comparability in land use and quality is a revolutionary-democratic state, the importance of bringing the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the end. Secondly, the Bolsheviks did right, moved with their voices (and fulfilled loyalty is finished) the law concerning petty-bourgeois comparability?

Kautsky did not even know how to tell, what is theoretically nail question. Kautsky never been able to refute the assumption that the concept of comparability is a progressive and revolutionary significance bourgeois-democratic coup. No coup it can go further. As it approaches to the end, it also reveals a lighter, faster and easier than before crowds that an insufficient are bourgeois-democratic solutions, because it is necessary to go beyond the framework of which, go to socialism.

Peasantry, sent its tsarism and the owners of estates, dreaming of comparability, and no force could disturb that farmers, being delivered are the owners of country estates and bourgeois parliamentary republican. Proletariat say the peasants: we will help you reach capitalism “ideal” because comparability of land use is the idealization of capitalism from the point of view of a small manufacturer. At the same time it seems to you that the non-producer is a thing that is necessary is to pass syllabic processing of land. It will be interesting to see how Kautsky tries to refute the truth of such training farmers on the struggle of the proletariat!

Kautsky preferred to evade the question …

Furthermore, Kautsky simply cheated the German readers, suppress them, that the land law the Soviet government gave direct benefit to the communes and cooperative companies, and establish them in the sun.

With the peasantry to the end of the bourgeois-democratic revolution-with the door-peasantry, with part of the proletarian and semi-proletarian peasantry forward to the socialist revolution! It was the policy of the Bolsheviks, and was the only Marxist policy.

While Kautsky confused, without knowing to even one question! On the one hand, he does not dare to say that the proletariat had to share their views with the peasantry on the question of comparability, because the feel is the futility of disagreement are (yet it Kautsky in 1905, when it was not yet Rngt, gene directly and clearly Workers Alliance and peasants Revolutionary gameplay). On the other hand, Kautsky cites approvingly the opinions parochial liberalism of the Menshevik Maslov, “proving” his utopianism and reactionary of equality petty-bourgeois viewpoint of socialism and moves silently on progressivity and truly revolutionary struggle against the petty bourgeoisie for equality, for the sake of comparability from-you saw the bourgeois revolution -dmokrtit.

In Kautsky obtained jumble infinity: Take heart, that Kautsky (1918) insists on the bourgeois character of the Russian Revolution. Kautsky (1918) requires: Bell not exceed the scope of this! And it Kautsky himself sees “something socialism” (about a bourgeois revolution) petty bourgeois reform of the delivery of small plots of land-poor peasants (ie, closer to comparability) !!

Please understand-who could!

Kautsky, besides, reveals inability to take into account provincial real policy of a particular party. He quotes the phrases Menshevik Maslov, ~ does not want to see the policy’s actual Menshevik Party in 1917, when the Coalition “with estates and Cadets protective effect on land reform liberal and agreement with the owners of the estates (proof: the arrests of members of the Committees ground and draft-law of the US. Maslov).

Kautsky failed to notice that P. phrases. Maslov the reactionary utopia of equality petty-bourgeois cover up the fact the policy Hmnsbistit of an agreement between the farmers and the owners of the estates (ie, of screwing the farmers by the owners of estates) rather than a revolutionary overthrow of the owners of estates by peasants.

Indeed, just “Marxist” is, Kautsky!

Rather Bolsheviks took into account carefully the difference between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist: Taking to end the first, they opened the gate to switch to the second. This is a revolutionary policy unit and a single Marxist policy.

Indeed, in vain Kautsky repeats the liberal refinements blunt: “Never and nowhere has not been influenced by small farmers for the production of collective theoretical ideas” (50).

Very clever!

Never and nowhere to small farmers of a big country not under the influence of a proletarian state.

Never and nowhere were small farmers open class struggle of the poorest farmers with rich farmers, until a civil war right between them, provided the support propagandist, political, economic and military-door village by the proletarian state power.

Never and nowhere was getting rich like that of speculators and wealthy village due to the war, such as the impoverishment of the peasant masses.

Kautsky repeats scrap, old cud, afraid even to ponder the new tasks of the proletarian dictatorship.

And, not least Kautsky, if the peasants lack the manufacture of tiny devices, and the proletarian state helps them to obtain machines for processing of land collectively – Is this “theoretical conviction”?

We will question the nationalization of land. Our narodniks, including all the Left SR, deny, that step is performed here – the nationalization of land. In theory they are right. If we remain within the framework of commodity production and capitalism, as much by eliminating private ownership of land is not only the nationalization of land. The word “socialization” expresses only a trend, aspiration, preparing the transition to socialism.

What, then, should be the attitude Marxists nationalization of the land?

-kaotski Also here can not even put the theoretical question, or – which is worse – deliberately bypass the question, though known Russian literature, Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky knows the old debates among Russian Marxists on the question of nationalization of land, Hmonitzifliztzih of land (delivery of large estates to the local councils ), the division of the land.

Mocking the very Marxism Kautsky’s argument is that giving big handle state and our society, tiny plots-land farmers with limited land would realize “something from socialism”. We said already, that socialism is not any. But that was not enough; There is also a bourgeois-democratic revolution, brought to the end. Kautsky was a big disaster, he trusted the Mensheviks. And as a result, something happened amusing Kautsky, protects the bourgeois character of Mhfctno, accusing the Bolsheviks it occurred to them to march to socialism, he has reformed liberal guise of socialism, without pushing this reform to eliminate entirely the whole legacy of the Middle Ages property relations ground! In Kautsky, like the Mensheviks advisers, received the protection of the liberal bourgeoisie, frightened revolution, instead of protecting the bourgeois-democratic revolution consistent.

Indeed. Why should become state property and only the large estates, and all lands? The liberal bourgeoisie thereby achieves the most excellent keeping the old days (ie, very little consistency in revolution) and the greatest ease of return to the old. The radical bourgeoisie, ie, bringing to the end the bourgeois revolution, raising the slogan of nationalization of the land.

Kautsky, who in the past is far, almost 20 years ago, wrote a treatise Marxist great on the agrarian question, can not fail to know the instructions of Marx that, the nationalization of land is-is the motto consistently bourgeoisie Kautsky can not but know the polemic of Marx with Rodbrtos and excellent explanation of Marx Theory of surplus value “, which also presented a special concreteness means revolutionary, bourgeois-democratic standpoint, the nationalization of the land.

  1. Menshevik. Maslov, who Kautsky in such an Motzlh Mount in consultant himself, rejected the assumption that farmers will be able to agree to Russian nationalization of all land than ever it’s also peasants). To some extent this view of Maslov could have to be in contact with the theory of “original” His (repeats the bourgeois critics of Marx), that is, with the denial of absolute rent and recognition ‘Law “(or Fact”, by expression of Maslov) ” diminishing fertility of the soil “.

In fact already the Revolution of 1905 revealed that the vast majority of peasants of Russia, both .bni rural communities and owners of individual economies, supported by nationalizing the entire land. 1917 revolution proved it, and after this transition the proletariat has fulfilled it. The Bolsheviks remained loyal to Marxism, without trying (as opposed to Kautsky, accusing us that – without a shadow of proof) to “skip” the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Bolsheviks helped first of all those ideologists of the bourgeois-democratic memorials most radical, most revolutionary proletariat and closest – ie, the Left SR, perform which was essentially the nationalization of land. Private ownership of land was abolished in Russia from -26.10.1917, ie , from the first day of the proletarian revolution, the socialist.

This established the foundation, the most perfect in terms of the development of capitalism (without break Marx and Kautsky can not deny it), and at the same time it creates a ground operation, flexible in terms of the transition to socialism. From the point of view of bourgeois-democratic peasantry revolutionary Russia does not exclude-far more in terms of it, whatever “ideal” rather than nationalization of the land and the equal use of it, and nothing “radical” than (same examination) can not be , and indeed, the Bolsheviks, only the Bolsheviks, by virtue of a victory of the revolution, the proletariat , helped the peasantry to the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the very end. And that fact alone did all possible to ease the transition to the socialist revolution and Lhtsto.

According to this one can judge, a jumble of non-incredible filed reader Kautsky, accusing the Bolsheviks non-understanding the bourgeois character of the revolution, and reveals, himself, withdrawal Marxism to such an extent, that passes in silence over the nationalization of the land, and highlights the reform least revolutionary (from the point Visibility bourgeois), liberal, socialism as something “!

We arrived here to the third question of the questions presented above, the question of to what extent the proletarian dictatorship led Russia into account the necessity of a social process beyond the earth. Again Kautsky make something very similar to forgery: he quotes “theses” of one Bolshevik, talking about collective job transition process of land! Since quoting one of these theses, called “theoretician” Our fanfares:

“This, that something is declared as a task, the task, unfortunately , is not resolved. Agriculture in Russia was discussed collective meanwhile remain only on paper. More never and nowhere small farmers were not for the production collective based on theoretical ideas” (50).

More ever, and nowhere was an act of such literary deceit, witnesses declined Kautsky. He quotes “theses”, and goes quietly on the Law of the Soviet regime. He talks about “theoretical opinion”, and goes silent for proletarian state power, whose hands are both factories and goods! All Marxist Kautsky wrote the agrarian question “in 1899 on the question of means, in the hands of the proletarian state , for a phased transfer of small farmers to socialism, forgot Hrngt in 918 N. Kautsky.

Of course, a few hundred communes agricultural farms Soviet, supported by the state (ie, processed by partnerships workers of large farms at the expense of the state) – it’s a little carburetor, but is it possible to call a “review” the circumvention of this fact by Kautsky?

The nationalization of the land , carried out in Russia by the proletarian dictatorship, promised more than the fulfillment of the revolution bourgeois-democratic all the way – even in the event victory of the counter-revolution was facing the nationalization back to the partition (this case I have analyzed specifically the book of the program’s land Marxist revolution 1905). Besides the nationalization of the land has given the greatest opportunities for the farmer proletarian state socialism.

Summing up: Kautsky has given us, in theory, no-described porridge, while denying the full Marxism, in fact – servility to the bourgeoisie and its reformism. Nothing to say, a good review!


Kautsky begins his “economic analysis” of industry, wonderful judgment as follows:

Russia has a large capitalist industry. Maybe we can build on this foundation of socialist production? “One would have to go out, while the essence of socialism was that, in practice factories and mines were taking them to the property are” (literally, those assets were), “to manage the economy in each of the factories alone” (52). “Just a day, on August 5, when I write these lines, – adds Kautsky – inform Moscow about one speech of Lenin on August 2, in which, as in like, he said: ‘Workers hold them in their hands the factories, and the peasants do not return the land owners of estates. password: the factory – the workers, the land – so farmers had no password to a social-democratic, anarcho-syndicalism, but “(53-52).

We brought this judgment in its entirety, to the Russian workers, who formerly respected Kautsky, and indeed rightly honored, to see for themselves the tricks of cheating, passing the bourgeoisie.

Hair-please imagine: August 5, issued a lot of orders already on the nationalization of factories in Russia, and yet, no single factory is not “appropriated to the ends” by the workers, but all of them were transferred to the ownership of the Republic – on August 5 it , Kautsky, on the basis of deceit real-interpretation of one sentence in his speech that introduces readers knowledge of the German thought, as if Russia delivered the factories act both! And later Kautsky over dozens of rows ruminating about it, do not give any factory workers separately!

This is not a criticism, but a trick of serving the bourgeoisie, who was hired by capitalists for the sake of imposing a workers’ revolution libel.

The factories must be submitted to the state, or community, or consumer companies – writes Kautsky over and over again and after-all adds:

“This is indeed the way to go now attempted to Russia” … now !! I mean, what does that mean? August?Kautsky really could not order from his Stein, in his Axelrod or with other friends of the Russian bourgeoisie translating least one of the decrees on the factories?

… “What went so far as applicable, does not see yet. Anyway this side of the Soviet Republic is of great interest for us, but it still remains as a character in the dark. The orders have no shortage of” … (So Kautsky ignores their content or Malimm the reader!), “But lack of reliable information on the operation of these orders. production socialism is impossible without Statistics all-sided, detailed, reliable, provides information quickly. and such statistics could not yet create a Soviet republic. everything we knew about the activities of economic contradictions and can not be checked any . this is of course one of the consequences of dictatorship and extermination of democracy. There is no freedom of the press and of speech … “(53).

Here’s how history is written! Press “free” of owners, shareholders and members of Dotob was Kautsky getting information about factories “go to the workers.,. Really great is” serious scientist “In class it! No fact of an infinite number of facts indicating that the traitor factory delivered only republic that authority managing them lies with the institution of the Soviet government, an institution composed while attending preferable elected trade unions – the Supreme Council of the farm folk – no facts, these facts do not Kautsky want to even touch. doggedly, stubbornly person’s case, he one-stop claiming one thing: Give me democracy of peace, without civil war, without a dictatorship, with statistics well (the Soviet Republic has set up an institution statistical and attached to all the best forces in statistics in Russia, but, of course, does not quickly get statistics ideal). In short revolution without revolution, without a fiercely without acts of coercion – Here’s the claim of Kautsky. it seems that, if they were demanding strikes without passion stormy 6 to workers and employers. Try and distinguished-please the “socialist” such and the official liberal rank?

And based on “factual material” one, that is, deliberately skirting and finished at the many facts, Kautsky “concludes”:

“It is doubtful whether the Russian proletariat received – in terms of real practical gains, and not orders – Soviet republic more than it was getting too Constituent Assembly, which, just like the boards, accounted for the majority Socialists, albeit with a different color” (58).

Pearl, is not it? This said, we advise Kautsky’s disciples spread at great length among Russian workers, since Homer better assessment of the political decline Kautsky could not give. Kerensky, too, was “socialist” members operate, but with a “different color”? Kautsky the historian is satisfied with the nickname, title, Natalie “themselves Mensheviks and right SR. On facts indicating that during the Kerensky the Mensheviks and right SR supported the imperialist policy and robbery and usurpation on the part of the bourgeoisie, the historian Kautsky does not want to hear; That, the Constituent Assembly gave the majority precisely these heroes of imperialist war and bourgeois dictatorship, is going through a modest silence. This is called “economic analysis”! …

In conclusion one more small model of the “economic analysis”:

… “Soviet Republic after 9 months of existence, instead of spreading general well-being, had to explain what is due to the general distress” (page 41).

Cadets accustomed to such considerations. All the servants of the bourgeoisie speak to Russia: let us, namely, the general reported 9 months – after the war broke 4 years, all sided with the help of foreign capital sabotage and uprisings of the bourgeoisie in Russia. No remains completely no difference, no shadow of a difference in effect between Kautsky and a counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. C”dmoii fake sweet talk socialism “, repeat what is said – roughly, without Crcorim, without embellishment – people Kornilov, Dotob and Krasnov men in Russia.


These lines were written on November 9, 1918 to November 10 published reports were received from Germany on the start of a revolution wins. First in Kiel and other northern towns located on the beach and the sea, which has power to councils axes workers and soldiers, later in Berlin, where the government also passed to the Council. [xxxvi]

The summary, which I had to write a booklet on Kautsky and on the proletarian revolution, becomes unnecessary.

November 10, 1916.

Appendix 1
theses on the Constituent Assembly

  1. The demand to convene the Constituent Assembly included in all illegality program of social democracy revolutionary, since the bourgeois republic constituent assembly is the highest form of democracy, and since the Republic of imperialism, headed by Kerensky, by establishing the parliament, made the rigged elections and a series of violations of democracy.
  2. The revolutionary Social Democracy, presenting the demand to convene the Constituent Assembly, emphasized not ever actually started the revolution of 1917, the Republic of the Union is a higher form of democracy than the ordinary bourgeois republic with a Constituent assembly.

3; The move towards a capitalist socialist society and the dictatorship of the proletariat is the Republic of Councils delegates to the workers, soldiers and peasants not only form a higher kind of democratic institution (as opposed to bourgeois republic with standard constituent assembly, crowning it), but also a unique shape, capable of ensuring the transition to the less painful to socialism.

  1. The convening of the Constituent Assembly Bmhfctno according to lists submitted in mid-October 1917 takes place under conditions which prevent the possibility of true expression of the will of the people and especially the toiling masses by this Constituent Assembly elections.
  2. Firstly, proportional election system gives the true expression of the will of the people only if, on the party lists correspond to the real dividing essentially the same group of people party, reflected on these lists. Here, however, we know, the party, which had from May to October the largest number of favor among people, especially among the peasantry, the party of Socialist Revolutionaries, access lists uniformity of the Constituent Assembly in mid-October 1917, but split after the elections for the Constituent Assembly , Peggy convening.

Therefore, no formal coordination between the will of the voters in droves and the composition of the elected Constituent Assembly – there can not be.

  1. Second, the source is even more important – source of informal, not a legal, but a socio-economic class – the lack of coordination between the will of the people and especially the will of the working classes, on the one hand, and the composition of the Constituent Assembly, on the other hand, is the fact that elections Constituent assembly were held, when the vast majority of my people could not yet know the extent and value of the October revolution, Soviet, proletarian-peasant, which began on 25 October 1917, ie after the submission of lists of candidates for the Constituent assembly.
  2. The October Revolution, which conquered power for the Union, took political control from the bourgeoisie and handing it control over the proletariat poor, moves into view successive stages in its development.
  3. She started with a victory in the capital on October 25-24, the conference All-Russian council’s 2nd axes workers and soldiers – the vanguard of the proletarians and this most active part of the peasantry politically – giving priority to the Bolshevik Party and put it at the wheel government.
  4. revolution encompassed later, during November and December, all lots of the army and the peasantry, and was the expression first of all clearing organizations top the old and election-re (unions military and witnesses of the farmers cylindrical, Executive Council of the Central Council delegates to farmers, etc. ‘), expressed the conciliatory period last revolution, the bourgeois heart, and not proletarian – organizations which have been unavoidably get off the stage under pressure from mass-nation deeper and wider.
  5. The powerful movement of the masses of the exploited this re-establishment of institutions, instructors of their organizations has not ended even now, in mid-December 1917, the Conference of the railway workers, was not completed, it stages along.
  6. Well, the distribution of class forces in their struggle for class groups in Russia in November and December 1917 is different in principle from that fact, which can been found expression in the party list of candidates for the Constituent Assembly mid-October 1917.
  7. The recent events in Ukraine (partly also in Finland and Byelorussia, as well as in the Caucasus) indicate also the distribution sharpen the class forces, ongoing process of struggle between nationalism bourgeois of the Verkhovna Ukrainian, finished Finnish, etc., on the one hand, and the Soviet regime, the revolution proletarian-peasant each of these national republics – on the other.
  8. Finally, the civil war, which began an uprising against-revolutionary Cadets and members Kldin against the Soviet authorities, against the de facto government-farming intensified absolutely class struggle and eliminated any possibility of solving democratically-formal sharpest questions, posted by history before the peoples of Russia and head-first and before the working class and the peasantry her .
  9. The only complete victory of the workers and peasants to the uprising of the bourgeoisie and the owners of the estates (which was reflected in the movement of Cadets and members Kldin), only military suppression mercilessly of this revolt of the slave-owners are able to ensure effectively the proletarian revolution-peasant. Course of events and the development of the class struggle in the revolution led to the slogan “All power to the Constituent Assembly”, a password that does not take into account the achievements of the revolution, the labor-peasant, does not account under Soviet rule, which does not take into account the decisions of the conference All-Russian round 2 of council delegates to the workers and soldiers of the conference all-Russian round 2 of the peasant delegates councils etc. – this slogan has become the slogan Cadets and members Kldin and their comrades. The entire nation became clear that slogan actually means – a battle to overthrow the Soviet regime, and that the Constituent Assembly, which the Soviet government apart, therefore, was sentenced to death politically conscious.
  10. questions the life of the people is one of the most acute problem of peace. Real revolutionary struggle for peace began in Russia only after the revolution of 25 October, and this victory gave the first fruit in the form of the publication of the secret agreements, concluding a ceasefire and the start of negotiations general public about peace without annexations and reparations.

The broad masses get only now, in fact, the possibility of full and visible to see the policy of revolutionary struggle and examine the results. When the Constituent Assembly elections, the mass of the people were deprived of this option.

It is clear that even this side of the matter is inevitable discrepancy between the composition of the elected Constituent Assembly and the true will of the people on the question of ending the war.

  1. The resulting total of the circumstances mentioned above, is that the Constituent Assembly, which convenes under party lists who were there to proletarian revolution-organs, under the control of the bourgeoisie, comes inevitably to conflict with the wishes and interests of the working classes and the exploited, opened in 25 October socialist revolution against the bourgeoisie. It is only natural that the affairs of this revolution stand above the formal rights of the Constituent Assembly, even if those formal rights were not undermined by the lack of recognition – the law on the Constituent Assembly – the right people to re-select the deputies at any time.
  2. Any attempt, direct or indirect, to see the question of the Constituent Assembly from the formal-legal framework of bourgeois democracy Normal, without taking into account the class struggle and the civil war – is a betrayal of the proletariat and beyond the point of view of the bourgeoisie. Warn all, any man, because of this mistake, to find themselves among the top few of Bolshevism, who appreciated the October Revolution and the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship – an absolute duty of revolutionary Social Democracy.
  3. The only chance to solve non-painful crisis, created in force discrepancy between elections for the Constituent Assembly and the will of the people, and the interests of the working classes and the exploited, is the fulfillment broad and as quickly as possible of eligible voters re-axes of the Constituent Assembly by the people, and a combination of the Constituent Assembly itself Law Executive Council of the central election-year threat and declaring unconditional of the Constituent Assembly on the syllable under Soviet rule, the Soviet revolution, in its policy on the question of peace, the question of land and workers’ control, joining a total of constituent assembly camp opponents of the counter-revolution of Cadets and members Kldin.
  4. without these conditions the crisis regarding the Constituent Assembly can be solved only in a revolutionary way, through intensive steps, fast, firm and decisive action on the part of the Soviet regime against the counter-revolution Hkdtit-Kldinit, and whatever your password and institutions (and member Constituent Assembly), which witness a undertake this counter-revolution. Any attempt to tie the hands of Soviet power in this struggle will not only aid the counter-revolution.

Written in 12 (25) December 1917 Printed 13 (26) In December 1917, the newspaper “Pravda” No. 213.

Appendix 2
a new book of Vandervelde state

I happened just after I had read Kautsky’s book to know Vandervelde’s book “Socialism against the State” (Paris, 1918). Matching these two books is obvious. Kautsky – idea of ​​the leader of the 2nd International (1914-1889), Vandervelde – formal representative, as chairman of the International Socialist Bureau. Both represent the complete bankruptcy of the 2nd International, both the Art of “all the agility of journalists experienced, covering words Marxist bankruptcy this, the defeat they and their passage alongside the bourgeoisie. one shows concreteness particular the typical opportunism German, liver, abstract theoretically, the forger roughly Marxism, interrupted from Marxism all that is unacceptable bourgeoisie. the second is about the kind typical Romanian – to a certain extent you could say: west Europe (ie – west Germany) – ruler of opportunism, more flexible type, less heavy, spoofs the fake Marxism more refined through the primary trick itself.

Both are fundamentally distort the teachings of Marx about the state, and the teachings on the dictatorship of the proletariat, and yet more Vandervelde delayed the first question, and Kautsky – on the other. Both obscure the close relationship, inextricably bound between these two questions. Both speech – revolutionaries and Marxists, in fact – Rngtim, directed all their efforts on various pretexts to justify the withdrawal Marxism. Both have no shadow of it penetrates to in-content of all the works of Marx and Engels, there is not a shadow that distinguishes socialism actually a caricature of bourgeois his, namely clarifying the tasks of revolution as distinct tasks of reform, clarification of revolutionary tactics as distinct reformist, clarifying the role of the proletariat elimination method or order, regime of slavery hiring, as opposed to the role of the proletariat of powers “major”, broken down with the bourgeoisie a particle welfare-redundant redundant and deprived.

We will bring some of the material for its own reasons and Vandervelde to confirm this assessment.

Vandervelde quotes Marx and Engels carefully – very similar to Kautsky. And, like Kautsky, he quotes Marx and Engels anything you want, besides not completely accepted the opinion of the bourgeoisie, distinguishes a revolutionary reformist. The conquest of political power by the proletariat – much as he wanted because it is already inserted by the practice exclusive parliamentary framework. That, Marx and Engels, after the Commune, found absolutely necessary to add the Communist Manifesto “somewhat outdated to explain it true that the working class can not simply take over the machine ready state, that is to break it – it did not say even one word, Vandervelde, like Kautsky, embryos, if agreed between them, in complete silence precisely the most fundamental experience of proletarian revolution, precisely what distinguishes the proletarian revolution bourgeois reforms.

And Dnrooldh, like Kautsky, speaking on the dictatorship of the proletariat, to deny it appropriate excuses. Kautsky did so with crude forgeries. Vandervelde does the same thing in a more refined manner. In the appropriate section, Section 4, the “conquest of political rule by the proletariat”, dedicating it clause-year “5” to the question “dictatorship of the collective of the proletariat”, “quotes” Marx and Engels (I repeat: skipping precisely what relates mainly to the very breaking The old state machine, the bourgeois-democratic) and concludes:

… “Socialist describe themselves as usual the social revolution this way: a new Commune, this time victorious, and at one point, but in all the main centers of the capitalist world.

Speculation; But conjecture does not contain anything that may at one time, when already apparent that the other-war period, many countries look Antgonizmim unbelievable between classes and social convulsions.

However, if the lack of success of the Paris Commune – not to mention the difficulties of the Russian revolution – proves anything, it is precisely the impossibility of putting an end to the capitalist regime to which the proletariat would be ready enough to use the same rule, which circumstance can pass over “(P. 73).

And nothing more than the essence of the matter!

Here they are, the leaders and representatives of the 2nd International! In 1912 they sign the manifesto Hbzli, which speak directly about the relationship between that war actually broke out in 1914, and the proletarian revolution, just threatening it. When the war came and created a revolutionary situation, they begin, Kaotskim and Ondrooldim those, withdraw all kinds of excuses revolution. Well, will not mind seeing a revolution of its kind in the commune is merely a hypothesis is not impossible! And it certainly seems Kautsky’s judgment on the possible role of the European Union.

But that’s how all liberal scholar speaks, that, no-doubt, agree now that a new Commune “not impossible” that a big role to play councils and so on. Proletarian revolutionary differs from the liberal thereby, that as a theorist, a surgeon is precisely the importance of the new state of the commune councils. Vandervelde passes in silence over what they say in detail on this topic Marx and Engels, their analysis the Commune.

A man of action, a statesman, must Marxist make it clear that only traitors of socialism could just get out of the mission: to clarify the necessity of the proletarian revolution (the kind of commune, sort Union, or, say, a sort of third parties), to explain the necessity of the preparation, conduct propaganda among masses for the revolution refute the parochial prejudices against the revolution and so on.

All this kind of thing does not do Kautsky and Vandervelde – and precisely because of that, they themselves are traitors of socialism Hema, who want to keep the workers on their reputation as socialists and Marxists.

Take the theoretical presentation of the question.

The state also democratic republic is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another. Kautsky knows this truth, recognize it, agree with it – yet. “But bypassing the most fundamental question, what class, why and by what means to suppress the proletariat, as to conquer the proletarian state.

Vandervelde know, know, agrees, citing the main premise of Marxism (page 72 in his book), but … no word on “non-moving” (capitalist masters) regarding the suppression of the resistance of the exploiters !!

Vandervelde, Kautsky, completely bypassed subject I received unpleasant ‘it. And it is the essence of their Hrngtiot.

Vandervelde, like Kautsky, a great artist act of replacing the dialectic eclecticism. On the one hand, it is impossible not to admit, on the other hand, has to confess. On the one hand, the concept of a nation can understand the Rules “(see pound hotel – nothing to say, scientific work – page 81 in his book of Vandervelde), on the other hand, the concept of a country can be understood” as a government “where” nothing scholarly trite and pointless that, while approved, writes Vandervelde diligently alongside quotations from Marx.

The Marxist meaning of the word “state” differs from the usual sense – writes Vandervelde. Because there can be “misunderstanding”. “The state, in Marx and Engels, not a broad sense, is not a state institution management, representing the general interests of the company (societe la de generaux interets). This is – a state-government, country – the institution of authority, a state – an instrument of control of the status of the other status “(p 76-75 Vandervelde’s book).

The elimination of state speak of Marx and Engels only in the second … “Opinions definitive too may prove to be inaccurate. The State of the owners of capital, based on the control status of one, and a proletarian, has set itself the goal of eliminating classes, there are stages beyond the many” (p 156).

Here you “behavior” of Vandervelde, differentiated only slightly-from-almost Kautsky’s action, while essentially identifies with him. Dialectic rejects absolutes, explains the parts of opposites and the significance of crises in history. Aklktikn not want opinions “too absolute”, to poke and instill the desire parochial, petty-bourgeois revolution to convert the stage of transition ”

So that the phase transition from a state – class institution with control of the capital, and the state – the institution of the control of the proletariat is precisely revolution, mainly is the eradication of the bourgeois state machine breaking its destruction – the so Hkaotskim and Hoondrooldim pass in silence.

That the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie from-necessity that replaced the dictatorship of one class, the proletariat, that after the “transition stages” of the revolution will come across the stages of the gradual demise of the proletarian state – however obscure Hkaotskim and Hoondrooldim.

And it is the essence of their political Hrngtiot.

This essence, theoretically, philosophically, of converting the dialectic eclecticism and Bsofistikh. Dialectics is concrete and revolutionary, the “transition” dictatorship of one class dictatorship of other status differentiates it Beyond “proletarian state Democratic non-state (” the demise of the state. “Eclecticism and Hsofistikh of Hkaotskim and Hoondrooldim blur, the will of the bourgeoisie, all concrete, which infects the fight class, and show instead the general concept of “beyond *, it is possible to plant (which indeed bury nine-tenths of the official Social Democrats the denial of a revolution in our time!

Vandervelde, Caklktikn and sophist more skilled, more subtle than Kautsky as using recommended that: “Beyond the state in the narrow sense to the state in the broad sense” can bypass all the questions of the revolution, and whatever they Admit it, bypassing all the difference between revolution to reform, even the difference between a Marxist liberal. For a European educated bourgeois, would think to deny “general”, “transitional stages” in the “rules” like this?

“I agree with fart – writes Vandervelde – crying, it is impossible to carry out the socialization of the means of production and exchange without filling first with Guy following conditions:

  1. Making the current state, the controlling institution of one class to another class, what Langer calls the State-Amal folk, through conquest of political power by the proletariat.
  2. Separation of state – an institution of authority, and the state, institution management, or, to use the phrase of Simon Mann, the institution of government in people – such things “(89).

Vandervelde writes it prominently, emphasizing in particular the importance of these assumptions. But it’s just wrong really eclectic mush, complete separation Marxism! The “State of grassroots effort is not merely a repetition of” free folk country, it dressy German Social Democrats in the ’70s, and that Engels denounced utter nonsense. The phrase “State-Amal. Folk” is a phrase worthy of petty bourgeois democrats (like our Left SR) – rhetoric, that converts the class concepts Al-class. “Vandervelde puts it aside both the conquest of state power by the proletariat (by one class) and the state “Popular”, without realizing it, that of all. those accepted porridge. in Kautsky with “pure democracy” of getting her porridge, her rejection of anti-revolutionary, provincial, of missions, revolutionary class of tasks class dictatorship, proletarian, state of the class (proletarian).

And below. Governance people disappear and give way to the administration objects only when die each country. Using a relatively distant future it blocks and obscures Vandervelde the day job next : the eradication of the bourgeoisiee.

Such a trick also is a liberal bourgeoisie fawning service. Liberal agree to open this speech, what would be, who does not fulfill the need to govern the people. Indeed, why not engage in fantasies such innocuous? But the suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie dispossession by the proletariat – that we shut up slightly. It demands that the class interest of the bourgeoisie.

“Anti-state socialism” This is Vandervelde dip proletariat. Bow It is not very difficult, as a democratic politician knows bow before voters. And under cover of “bow” Content is provided anti-revolutionary, anti-proletarian …

Vandervelde returns in detail the words Aostrogorski [Xxxvii] in this regard, several fraud, violence, bribery, deceit, hypocrisy, accessible to the poor, hide under the external shape civilized, combed smooth, urbane of bourgeois democracy today. But the conclusion of these Vandervelde does not draw. Herein, oppressive bourgeois democracy and the laboring masses utilized, whereas proletarian democracy will have to suppress the bourgeoisie – that he does not notice. Kautsky and Vandervelde are blind about it. The class interest of the bourgeoisie, after trailing petit-bourgeois traitors those of Marxism, requires the circumvention of this question, the muting or denying the necessity of this repression.

Provincial eclecticism against Marxism, Hsofistikh against dialectic, provincial reformism, hypocritical against the proletarian revolution – here that should have been crowned Vandervelde’s book.


A summary of the comments, as cited in any writings and. non. Lenin, expense 5 (Russian), Volume 37

[1] SR – Socialist Revolutionaries

[2] By the way. This transition phrase “least painful” Kautsky quotes often, non-qualified, then Kautsky after making several pages falsification and faking the quotation: Probably referring irony. But since the assassination mean this is beyond the means of “painless”! Of course, such measures not hard to sneak up and tuck-nonsense opponent. Distortion also helps circumvent the argument essentially: the least painful transition to socialism is possible only within an organization such as Tel door-nation (Union) and the Centre party in aid of state power (the proletariat) such an organization.

[3] By the way: many lies Hmnsbistiim Bhobrto of Kautsky! This is a mockery of the Menshevik wrote full of resentment.

[4] will be justice, even if he lost the world!

[5] The main character in the book Sltikob-Shchedrin “gentlemen Goloblibim” (translator).

[6] I have just read the main article Frankfurt Gazette “, 22/10/1918, No. 293), circular and several enthusiastic admiration for booklet Kautsky. Newspaper Stock Exchange members satisfied. Certainly! And a member of the Berlin wrote to me that “Fortbrts” Hsiidmnim newspaper, declared in one of his articles he prepared to sign his name under almost every line of Kautsky. We welcome, welcome!

[7] The social-chauvinists (Hsiidmnim, Hrnodlim, Hendersons, Hhomfrsim Co.) refuse to talk about the “Internationale” during the war. They consider traitors “… socialism, the enemies of the bourgeoisie,” their “. They favor policies conquests of the bourgeoisie- their . Social-pacifists (ie, socialists and pacifists provincial speech actually) express all sorts of emotions “internationalist”, rebelling against annexations, etc., but in fact continue to support the imperialist bourgeoisie their own . The difference between the two types is not serious, such as the difference between the capitalist, the desert harsh and sweet-talking capitalist.

[8] At the 6th Union (6-9.11.1918) participation of 967 delegates, with critical opinion, of which 950 Bolsheviks, and -351 have an advisory capacity, of which 335 Bolsheviks. Overall 97% Bolsheviks.

[i] “The Socialist Review” ( “Socialist survey”) – a magazine, journal Labor-independent reformist England;Out London 1908 to 1934 as years of imperialist world war participated in the Monthly meters. McDonald, P. Snoaodn, a. Lee and others.

[ii] and. non. Lenin mean members “Fabian Society” – the organization reformist Englishman, was established in 1884. Members of the “Fabian Society” were mainly representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia – scientists, writers, politicians (cm. And b. And father, Rabbi. McDonald in. Shaw and others) . They denied the necessity of class-struggle and socialist revolution. They argued that the transition from capitalism to socialism is possible, but the way of reforms tiny, incremental changes to the Company. and. non. Lenin described the Fabian Because of extreme opportunism “.

[iii] “non-dependent” – members of the Labor Party-independent of England (Party Labour Independent) organization reformist founded by the leaders of the “terrier-Ionionim new” in 1893 under the awakening zinc-strikes and the growing movement for independence status English working bourgeois parties.

[iv] refers to the opinion of Marx in his letter to Kugelmann of -12.4.1871 (K. Marx and F.. Engels. Selected Letters, 1953, p 263) and Marx’s speech at the Congress rally-Hague with Amsterdam on September 8, 1872 ( K. Marx and F.. Engels. reporters, expense 2, about 18, p 154). Jack’s letter. Marx to Gd. Kugelmann use Lenin in his book “State and Revolution”.

[v] See. F. Engels, Anti-Dihring, Chapter 4, paragraph. Marx, F.. Engels, Selected Writings, published “library workers”, Vol.

[vi] “Tzimrooldistim” – Participants Association, established the first international socialist conference on 8-5 September Btzimroold 1915. Lenin called this conference as “a first step in the development of the International Movement Against the War”. Delegates at the meeting realized 38 parties and organizations of 11 European countries. The Hooah”m of Mfsd”r (b) – Party-Social Democratic workers Russian (Bolshevik) – represented at the meeting and. Failure . Lenin and C. S. Zinoviev. Within the association there was a struggle between the “left Htzimrooldi”, headed by the Bolsheviks, and the centrist majority Hkaotskiani (This is called “right Htzimrooldi”). Htzntristim sought reconciliation with the social chauvinists and the rehabilitation of the Second International. Left Htzimrooldi demanded social-chauvinists distribution, a revolutionary struggle against the imperialist war and the establishment of a new International, revolutionary, proletarian. First Congress of the Communist International made a decision to see the association Htzimrooldit as settled.

[vii] “Social-Democrat” – an illegal newspaper, organ of the Central Committee of Mfsd”r, published from February 1908 to January 1917. The first issue was Russia and later moved overseas spending. From December 1911 the value of the “social-democrat” Lenin. The paper published more than 80 articles and lists of Lenin, including – his article, “the slogan United States of Europe”, which first drew the conclusion about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country first.

[viii] “communist” – journal organized by Lenin. It was issued by “Social-Democrat” in common with c. to.Fiatkob and the. B. Bush, who financed the publication (also participated in v. Island. Bukharin). Out No. (double), one (September 1915), which were published in three articles by Lenin : “The bankruptcy of the 2nd International” sincere voice of a French socialist “and social imperialism and Italyy”.

[ix] guidance booklet, “Hsotzialtm and war (the ratio of Mfsd”r war).” workbook attended c. the. Zinoviev, but mainly written it on me by Lenin. pamphlet “Socialism and War” public evening meeting Htzimrooldi, held in September 1915, available on Russian and German, and was divided among the conference participants.

[x] manifest Hbzli – manifesto on the war, received by the Special International Socialist Congress in Basle, held on 25-24 November 1912. The Manifesto warned the people against the danger of imperialist world war imminent, showed the predatory aims of this war, and called workers of the world for a decisive fight for peace, potentially putting versus “capitalist imperialism, the power of international solidarity of the proletariat”. The manifest Hbzli inserted branch decision of the Congress in Stuttgart (1907), which was formulated by Lenin, so that in the event of the outbreak of the imperialist war Socialists must take advantage of the economic and political crisis, caused by the war, the struggle for socialist revolution.

[xi] The quotation was taken from the work of Jack. Marx ‘criticism Gotha Program “; Selected Writings, published “school work”, Vol.

[xii] See the letter D. Engels to a. Babel from 28-18 March 1875.

[xiii] This idea was expressed by D. Engels Preface “Connecting the jack. Marx’s “War of citizens in France”;Selected Writings, published “library workers”, Vol.

[xiv] Lenin quotes an article by F.. Engels “the authority” (1873); Selected Writings, published “school work”, Vol

[xv] The intention Preface “of Jack. Marx and F.. Engels German publisher of “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” written in 1872; Selected Writings, published “school work”, Vol.

[xvi] F. Engels, “The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State”; Reporters selected, removing “library workers”, Volume II

[xvii] and the Whigs and queues – Political parties in England, appeared in the 80-70 years of the 17th century. Whig Party expressed the interests of the financial and bourgeois circles taxes become pregnant, as well as some of the aristocracy Hmborgnt. Whigs laid the foundation for the Liberal Party. Party lines are represented by the land-owners and top clergy of the Church of England, the protection of the feudal past traditions and fought against liberal and progressive requirements; Eventually laid the foundation for the Conservative Party.

[xviii] and. non. Lenin mean provocative sentence, which was organized in 1894 by reactionary circles of cult-monarchists French anti-military General Staff Officer French Jew Dreyfus, accused of a false charge of espionage and state treason. His conviction of Dreyfus, sentenced to life imprisonment – the fruit of inspiration of the reactionary military circles – was used by reactionary circles of France inflame anti-Semitism and attack against the republican regime and democratic freedoms. In 1898, the socialists and progressive representatives of bourgeois democracy (including – a. Cheap, Jean. Jaures, a. France and others) began his examination-again campaign of the Dreyfus trial. This campaign has politicized and divided the country into two camps: Republicans and Democrats, on the one hand, and a lump Monarchists, clericals, anti-Semitic and nationalist – on the other. In 1899, under pressure from public opinion, pardoned Dreyfus; In 1906 the Court of Appeal decided that Dreyfus innocent. He was reinstated in the army.

[xix] intention brutal suppression of the uprising in Ireland for the release urged the control of the British in 19166.

Ulster – in the northeastern part of Ireland, inhabited mainly the English army of Ulster along with the English army took part in suppressing the rebellion of the Irish people.

[xx] article by Jack. Marx’s “political apathy”, written in London in 1873.

[xxi] article by F.. Engels “the authority”; Hebrew: ditto.

[xxii] Lenin, Preface mean “F’s. Engels’s treatise kilometers. Marx’s “Civil War in France”, Hebrew above.

[xxiii] booklet and. non. Lenin “political parties in Russia and the functions of the proletariat” was printed English newspaper “The Evening Post” on January 15, 1918, in the journal of the American Socialist Party left “The Class Struggle” No. 4, November-December 1917 and set out a special edition.

[xxiv] democratic consultation All-Russian Petrograd was convened in September 1917 by the Central Executive Committee Hmnsbisti-S”ri to resolve the question of power. The true purpose Complimentary consultation was – to distract the masses of the people tides of revolution. consultation realized over 1500 man. Menshevik and SR leaders did everything to weaken the representation of delegates councils of workers and peasants and to expand the number of delegates of organizations petit-bourgeois and bourgeois different, and thus ensured themselves the majority of consultation. Councils of workers and peasants delegates, representing the vast majority of people, received only 120 seats.

Democratic consultation took the decision on the organization of a “pre-parliament” (temporary Council of the Republic). This experience was eye-producing shows that Russia introduced a parliamentary system. Pre-parliament should have served as a consultant by the institution of the Provisional Government. Lenin insisted on the need to ban the pre-parliament, as it was to remain – to sow illusions, as if this institution is capable of solving the tasks of the revolution. Hooah”m Party discussed the draft of Lenin and the decision was made to exit the Bolsheviks Pre-Parliament, to overcome the opposition of Kamenev and defeatism others, who were in favor of participation in it. In one (20) in October, the first day of pre-opening of parliament were Bolsheviks him.

[xxv] and. A. Lenin was referring to his article “positions on the agenda of the Soviet regime,” published on April 28, 1918.

[xxvi] Hibberdene – ironic nickname attached to leaders Hmnsbistiim – Lieber and Dan and sides, because the newspaper Bolshevik Moscow “social-democrat” No. 141 of August 25 (September 7) in 1917 appeared in the feuilleton of Bedny called “Leeuwarden”.

[Xxvii] called “activist” group called Mensheviks, who since the early days of the October socialist revolution begun using armed methods of struggle against the Soviet regime and the Bolshevik Party. Menshevik-activist organizations-calibrations were anti-revolutionary conspirators, supported Kornilov and Bkldin, Berrada Ukrainian bourgeois-nationalist, narrow participated in the revolt, allied with the armies of foreign invaders. In 1918, with the support of the Menshevik Party, activists managed to convene, under the pretext of discussing food issues, several meetings of “work”, in which demand was raised elimination Union.

[Xxviii] of the left Htzimrooldit Lenin founded at the initiative of the Socialist International Btzimroold conference in September 1915. It has united eight delegates – representatives of Mfsd”r Hooah”m and left-wing Social Democrats of Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the Polish opposition SD and SD ‘ d of the Latvian Galilee. “Left Htzimrooldi” headed by Lenin, waged against the centrist majority at the meeting and made suggestions and decisions of the manifesto, which condemned the imperialist war and was denounced their betrayal of the social-chauvinists (See Note 6). Members left Htzimrooldi, played an important role in establishing communist parties in their countries.

[xxix] Lenin quotes of the foreword, “the work of Marx, Engels’s” Civil War in France “; Hebrew: ditto

[xxx] Hsfrtkaim – members of the revolutionary organization of German Left SD. The “Spartak” was founded at the beginning of the First World War by Jack, Libknlt, see. Luxembourg, D. Mering, Jack. Zetkin, s. Mrclibski, to. Iohics ( “Tiskh”) and and. Pick. April 1917 SD party went Hsfrtkaim the independent German. In November 1918, during the revolution in Germany, were organized Hsfrtkaim Alliance Spartak “, severed relations with independent and founded the German Communist Party, the founding conference was held on 30 December 1918-1 January 1919.

[Xxxii] the distribution of two new parties – “Communists narodniks” and H”komonistim revolutionary “- the Left SR party took place after the assassination of the German ambassador Mirbc and rebellion of the Left SR.

“Communists narodniks”, condemned the anti-Soviet policy of the Left SR, approved the policy line of the Bolshevik Party alliance with the middle peasantry. Many of them were Soviet institutions. On 6 November 1918, a special conference of the party took the decision unanimously party dissolution and merger with KR (b).

“Revolutionary Communist Party” was formed organizationally at the newspaper group’s “will to labor”, held in Moscow on 30-25 September 1918. The party platform condemned the terrorist acts of the Left SR and attempts to obstruct the Peace of Brest. Constituent Conference expressed its opinion in favor of co-operation with the Bolsheviks and recognized the necessity of support under Soviet rule. but their program was full of contradictions. Recognizing that the Soviet government creates prerequisites for the establishment of the socialist regime, are simultaneously denied the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the transition from capitalism to socialism. after the Congress resolution 2 of the Comintern, which says that every country should be only one Communist Party, the revolutionary Communist Party received in September 1920 a decision on joining Lmk”r (b). In October of that year Hooah”m of KR (b) the party organizations have allowed the former party members of “Revolutionary Communists”.

[Xxxiii] The term “crisis Juliet” Lenin mean counter-revolutionary revolts of the kulaks in various parts of the country in the summer of 1918, organized by the Menshevik and SR with the support of foreign invaderss.

[Xxxiv] Blnkizm the flow of French socialist movement, led by a revolutionary par excellence, an important representative of the French utopian socialism, Louis Aogiost Belenky (1881-1805). Hblnkistim expected redemption of mankind from the slavery rented not by way of the class struggle of the proletariat, but by contact from a small intelligent minority “(f. Failure. Lenin). They do not take into account the specific situation and underestimated ties with the masses.

[xxxv] refers to the draft-law Hs”rit, submitted by Minister of Agriculture cm. to. Maslov provisional government a few days before the October Revolutionn.

Draft-law has outlined a fund ground lease by the unions, which transferred all the lands of the monarchy and monasteries. Land property of landlords preserved. They give a fund-lease only those lands, which before-so leased to farmers, yet farmers’ payments for “leased land” given to those estates.

The arrests of members of the Committees ground carried out by the Provisional Government in response to the peasant uprisings to seize the land and the owners of estates by peasants.

[xxxvi] reasons unmediated November 1918 revolution in Germany was the defeat of Germany in World, undermining the country’s economy, disasters and misery of the masses of the people and the army, demanding to stop the war. A great impact on the revolutionary events in Germany invested Great Socialist October Revolution in Russia.

Even though the revolution in Germany has risen-and proletarian revolution could not solve the tasks the national and social liberation of the German people, was a great progressive importance. As a result of the revolts of November the bourgeois-democratic, committed to a certain extent the methods and measures proletarian, was eradicated in Germany monarchy and established a republic bourgeois-democratic, promised the “freedoms bourgeois-democratic elementary, set legally every work of eight heed ,. Revolution of November in Germany filed Help Soviet Russia is important, given the possibility to eliminate predatory Brest peace.

[Xxxvii] refers to the book: from. Aostrogorski. “Democracy and political parties”. The first edition appeared in Paris in 1903. The book includes a long history of Homer factual England and the United States, falsely denouncing the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy.

Categories: Marxism-Leninism – the revolutionary ideology and practice | Leave a comment

State and Lenin’s revolution

Posted on May 24, 2014 from financend

Notes editing and translation

  1. The Hebrew version presented herein is essentially a version of the Hebrew edition of the following:

hook. non. Lenin, Selected Writings,

Translation – h. Goldberg, ed. Levite from. Dorman

General Federation of Hebrew Workers in Eretz-Israel

KM Press

Ts”i, 1950

  1. The translation edition above was compared to the Russian source carefully and amended in accordance with the supreme goal stands before us is to achieve maximum accuracy delivering a variety of nuances and meanings of Russian origin. Changes in Hebrew since the fifties of the 20th century, forced us to change some of the words and phrases took eighth. Goldberg, but usually tried to keep a fluent style and excellent translation fix only what really needs to be amended.
  2. The text in square brackets [] belongs to all this electronic edition and is not originally listed Russian and Hebrew translation above. Because we were prevented from using scoring, we brought a Latin transliteration of some of the names of the people. The non-Russian names are their original spelling, and Russian names are transliteration for the reader’s convenience and built according to the simple rule “pronounced as written” letters expressing pairs except a single sound, and apart from “c” for “c” and “j” for “the” “short”:
Czech c
The “short” (as in: Shay, MD) j
That sh
Z. ch
H, about not Dgosh kh
The author often uses plurals family names of political opponents. Transcript provided at these names is singular.
  1. The three forms of Hebrew transliteration of the name Marx found in the literature: Marx, Marx, Marx, we chose the latter, and we also used all derived: Marxism, Marxist, etc., although in terms of historical accuracy (family trees), “Marks” is probably more correctly.

State and Revolution

Table of Contents

State and Revolution. Marxist theory of the state and functions of the proletariat revolution ……………………………………… 3

Preface to the first edition …………………………………………………………………… 3

Preface to the second edition ……………………………………………………………………… 3

Section I ………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Class society and the state …………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

1 . State – the result of non-completion of class contrasts …………………………………………………………… .. 4

  1. Special squads of armed men, prisons, etc. ………………………………………………………………. 5
  2. “demise” of the state and violent revolution ……………………………………………………………………………… 8

Chapter II …………………………………………………………………………………… .. 12

State and Revolution. Experience the years 1851 to 1848 …………………………………………………………………………. 12

  1. At the outset revolution …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
  2. summaries revolution ………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 13
  3. Raising the question by Marx in 1852 …………………………………………………………………………. 16

Chapter III …………………………………………………………………………………… .. 18

State and Revolution. Experience of the Paris Commune in 1871, Marx’s analysis ………………………………………… 18

  1. What is the heroism of the Communards in their attempt? …………………………………………………………………………… 18
  2. what to replace the broken political machine? …………………………………………………………………… .. 20
  3. The elimination of parliamentarianism ………………………………………………………………………………………………22
  4. Organization of national unity ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
  5. The elimination of the parasite – State …………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

Chapter IV ……………………………………………………………………………………… 28

continue. Additional notes of Engels ………………………………………………………………………………… .. 28

  1. “housing question” ………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 28
  2. The controversy with the anarchists ……………………………………………………………………………………… .. 29
  3. The letter to Babylon …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
  4. Review the proposal of the Erfurt Program ……………………………………………………………………………… 32
  5. The introduction 1891 civil war “of Marx ……………………………………………………………… 35
  6. Engels on the Overcoming of democracy ………………………………………………………………………… .. 38

Chapter V ………………………………………………………………………………………. 40

Economic foundations of the demise of the state ……………………………………………………………………………… 40

  1. Raising the question by Marx …………………………………………………………………………………… .. 40
  2. The transition from capitalism to communism …………………………………………………………………………… .. 41
  3. The first phase of communist society …………………………………………………………………………. 43
  4. The top phase of communist society ………………………………………………………………………… .. 45

Chapter VI ……………………………………………………………………………………… 49

Newell Marxism by the opportunists …………………………………………………………………………… 49

  1. Plekhanov’s controversy with the anarchists …………………………………………………………………………… 49
  2. Kautsky’s controversy with the opportunists ……………………………………………………………………… 49
  3. Kautsky’s controversy with Fnkok ………………………………………………………………………………… 53

At that first edition …………………………………………………………………. 58

State and Revolution

Marxist theory of the state

And functions of the proletariat revolution

Preface to the First Edition

The question of the state currently receives special significance both theoretically and politically-viable. Imperialist war greatly quickened and intensified the process of transformation of monopoly capitalism state-monopoly capitalism. The suppression of the working masses, oppression-terror by the state, increasingly merging with the capitalist alliances Almighty, became more and more threatening. The advanced countries – we mean towns once “them – become prisons army of slave labor for the workers.

Horror and calamity far-example, the bed was long war, make the situation unbearable crowds, increase the bitterness. The proletarian revolution goes international and is clearly maturing. The question of attitude to the state receives therefore practical value.

Fundamentals of opportunism, accumulated decades of peaceful development in proportion, creating the stream of social-chauvinism, which controls within the official socialist parties throughout the world. This stream (Plekhanov [Plekhanov], Fotrsob [Potresov], Rashkovsky [Breshkovskaya], Rubanovich [Rubanovich], and then, in a veiled slightly, gentlemen Tseretelli [Cereteli], Chernov [Chernov] and Co. in Russia; Scheidemann [Scheidemann] respect [Legien], David [David] and the like Germany; Rnodl [Renaudel], Gad [Guesde], Vandervelde [Vandervelde] in France and Belgium; Hiindmn [Hyndman] and the Fabians in England, etc., etc.) socialism in theory, chauvinism fact, excels adaptation-serving bitch of the “leaders of socialism” to the interests not only of the national bourgeoisie, “their”, but, clearly, the state “their”, that these so-called great powers, Ruben exploit and enslave already a whole host of small nations and weak. and if war nothing but imperialist war for distribution and redistribution of this kind of booty. struggle to free the toiling masses from the yoke of the bourgeoisie’s influence in general, and the imperialist bourgeoisie in particular, is impossible without a struggle with opportunistic prejudices about “the state”.

Let us consider first the teachings of Marx and Engels on the state, Bhtacbno more broadly on the same side of the matter is forgotten or distorted distortion opportunistic. Then we will examine in particular the words of the main representative of these distortions, Karl Kautsky [Karl Kautsky], the most famous leader of the Second International (1914-1889) became bankrupt so miserable during the present war. Finally we will have the summaries of major experience of the Russian Revolution of 1905 and particularly of 1917. The latter concludes, apparently now (early August 1917), the first episode of development, but all this revolution in general can only be understood as a link in a chain of socialist revolution proletarian, arising under the influence of imperialist war. The question of the attitude of the socialist revolution of the proletariat to the state receives therefore not only a political and practical value, but also very timely, as the Goddess of information to the masses, what will do in the near future for the sake of Hsthrrotm from the yoke of capital.


August that. 1917

Preface to the second edition

The current edition, second, printed almost without changes. More only Article 3 of Chapter II .


Moscow .

December 17, s. 1918

Chapter I

Class society and the state

1 . State – the result of non-completion of class contrasts

The teachings of Marx happened to her today what happened once the teachings of thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes during the liberation war. While the revolutionaries were alive, they rewarded beyond class oppressors continually persecution, welcomed the teachings fiercely, the most rampant hostility, the most wanton campaign of lies and slander. After the death of revolutionary these attempts are made to turn them into an icon harmless, so to speak, make them saints, to give honor and glory to the names , invent one “consolation” of the oppressed classes and to deceive them, by the way neuter program of revolutionary doctrine, incidentally harmless revolutionary, by an abomination. About L”aibod “of Marxism has so few now-operation between the bourgeoisie and the opportunists among the workers’ movement inside. Forget, blur, distort the revolutionary side of this law, the revolutionary soul. Highlight, which glorify the comfortable bourgeoisie or what felt comfortable for her. All social chauvinists are now “Marxists”, please do not make jokes! And the German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday were experts destruction of Marxism, there is now talk frequently, more and more, the Marx “national-German”, he taught, so to speak, associations operate so beautifully organized act of war for robbery!

In such a situation, when the Marxist falsifications up immensely popular, first of all, our job will be to restore the real Marx’s theory of the state to its former glory. For it is necessary to bring a whole host of long quotations tracts of Marx and Engels themselves. Certainly, quotations years in the lecture cumbersome, and will help its popularity at all. But it is impossible to give them up. Has to absolutely all segments, or at least the decisive passages numbers Marx and Engels on the question of the state, and as far as possible in full, so that the reader can form no idea independently on complex views of the founders’ basic scientific socialism and the development of these views, and to provide documents to show clearly the distortion of these views by H”kaotskianiot “now prevails.

Let’s start the most popular book of the bull. Engels [Engels]: “The Origin of the family, private property and the state”, while in 1894 published sixth edition Stuttgart. We will have to quote the German original, translations from the Russian, although many are, are mostly incomplete or may be unsatisfactory at all.

“State – says Engels, summing up his historical analysis, – not under any power forced on society from the outside. It also does not state” the reality of the idea of ​​moral “,” image and reality of reason, “as the wave. The country is the fruit now rank-development certain; the state is an admission that this society was complicated internal contradiction inconsistent, split opposites that complement them and is unable to get rid of them. and to wastewater, classes have economic interests opposed, not devour each other and the society as a whole during the war an fruitful, it was necessary to force , who, apparently, over the company, the power will weaken the collision and stop it within the limits of “order”. and this force, originating from the company, but he puts himself upon her, and alienate her more and more, it is the state. (pp 178-177 The sixth German edition).

Here expressed with full clarity the basic idea of Marxism on the question of the historical role and value of the state. The state is the result and the discovery of non-completion of class contrasts. State creates a place, time and extent, it is impossible to objectively complete the class contrasts. Conversely, the existence of the state proves that class contrasts can not be reconciliation with each other.

And here is precisely in this section the most important and fundamental starting distortion of Marxism, two main lines.

On one side are the ideologues bourgeois, especially petty bourgeois, under the pressure of historical facts undisputed forced, they admit that the state only exists where there are conflicts of class and class struggle, and then they “fix” Marx in the state appears as the body of imposing peace between classes. According to Marx, there was no state can take shape, and could have taken place, which could lead to peace between the classes. Professors and publicists at-home husband and provincial are – often on the basis of authoritative words of comfort Marx! – The state actually brings peace between the classes. According to Marx, but does not state body of control class, Body of oppression one class by another, is the creation of the “arrangement” stabilizer and the law provides this repression, weakening class conflict. According to the opinion of the petty-bourgeois politicians out, the order is actually an expression of reconciliation between the classes, and not the oppression of one by the other; Loosen the collision is to say, in their opinion, make peace, and not to take classes oppressed the means and opportunity to eradicate the oppressors.

For example, the revolution of 1917, when the question of the value and role of the state arose in all its greatness, arose in fact, when such action immediately, the scale of the action-mass – Browse all SR-Sea (Socialist-Revolutionaries) and Mensheviks at one entirely to the petit bourgeois theory of “bringing peace” between classes by “state”. Resolutions and innumerable articles by politicians of both these parties soaked up a theory-purpose home and this provincial of “bringing peace”. Never petty bourgeois democrats understand that the state is capable of Full Body certain class who can not come to terms with his Hantifod (with stand opposite). Attitude to the state is one of the most visible manifestations, indicating that the SR-s and Mensheviks are not socialists at all our (what we, the Bolsheviks, were always prove), but they petit-bourgeois democrats who treasure-tusks almost-socialist.

But distortion “Hkaotskiani” of Marxism is far more finely. Both “theoretical” There is no denying here the state is an organization of class rule and class contrasts not accept them. But distraction from the following fact or obscure it: if the state is the result of non-acceptance of the conflicts of classes, whether it is power standing above society and ” alienating more and more to society”, it is clear that the release status oppressed is possible not only without a violent revolution but also without the destruction of the political power apparatus created by the ruling class and which is embodied in the “alienation” of this. This conclusion, obvious in theory, Marx concluded, as we shall see below, with full clarity on the basis of a concrete historical analysis of the roles of the revolution. And precisely this conclusion is “forgotten” and distorted Kautsky – it will prove in detail below Hrtzatno.

  1. Special squads of armed men, prisons, etc.

“… Compared to the organization Gentil (for households or tribes) oldest – continues Angeles – the country is evident, first, one which divides the territorial division of its subjects …”

This division seems to us “natural”, but it cost the long struggle with the old organization, the organization by clans or families.

“… The hallmark hand is – the establishment of government social not identify more directly with the population organizing itself as an armed force. Government special social This is necessary because an armed organization of the population, acting force myself become impossible since the split into class society … Governance social exists in every country. it is made up not only of armed personnel, but also from the actual accessories thereof: prisons and coercive institutions of all kinds, unknown family structure (tribal) of the Company … ”

Engels spreads before us the concept of “force” known as a force originating from the company, but he puts himself upon her and goes and transposes itself from it. What is mainly composed of this power? Special squads of armed men, they possessed in prisons and the like.

We may mention the special detachments of armed men, the typical social administration from any country “is not the same as directly” with armed population, with “an armed group operating force itself.”

As the great revolutionary thinkers to stimulate the struggling Angeles placing their class-consciousness of those particular things, in the eyes of the husband-dominant household are considered less than worthy spectacle of faith, are seen as more routine, sanctified by solid prejudices, and even fossils. The standing army and police are the main tool in the power of political control, but whether it be otherwise?

From the perspective of the vast majority of Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, which turned Engels, people who even a single great revolution which has not not been before their eyes – not possible otherwise. Of course they are not at all what that “an armed group of populations, executive power itself.” McCartney, one of western Europe or Russia, which will be brought before him the question, why was created the necessity combat unit of the armed men, is placed above society and alienating her (police, army-ruled), will be inclined to answer that in two of the three phrases borrowed from Spencer [Spencer ] or by Mikhailovskiy [Mikhajlovskij], rely on the bifurcation of social life, the fragmentation functions, etc.

Such reliance seems “scientific” roses beautiful man-home husband, overshadow the primary and elementary division hostile class society it is impossible to reconcile.

Were it not for this split was “organization-population gunman acting force himself” Outstanding While complex structure, the level of his technique and so on across the organization primitive herd of monkeys bearing sticks, or the people savages or men united in clans, but the organization That was possible.

However, it is not possible, because of socio-civilization is divided into classes of enemies, there is no possibility of mutual acceptance, and arming “executive force himself” would bring them to an armed war. Formed state is established a special force formed battalions of special armed men, and every revolution, destroy it the state apparatus, shows us clearly how the aims of the ruling class to set up again the troops special of armed men, serving it , and how would-class oppressed to create a new organization type it will be capable of serving not the exploiters but the exploited.

On this subject up and Engels in theoretical same question, raised by us all a great revolution actually, tangibly and scale of operation masses, namely, the question of the mutual relationship between the companies ‘special’ of armed men and the “organization-population gunman acting force himself”. We shall see below how this question concretely illuminated by experienced revolutions in Europe and Russia.

But the bitten-please lecture by Engels.

He notes that while there is that rule social is weak, for example somewhere in North America (the text speaks in a rare case out-of-the rule about capitalist society, and those parts of North America in the pre-imperialist her, the settler free was the majority), but generally increasing this rule:

“The Government Social increasing degree class contrasts within the country are becoming worse, and if the state were in contact mutually growing and become the most populated. If you look, for example, Europe’s contemporary class struggle and competition conquests brought it to power social so high that it could swallow the Company and the country as a whole … ”

These words were written in the early nineties of the last century. The introduction last of Engels cleared on June 16 of 1891 points to imperialism – are in full control of corporations, both in the power of the omnipotent of large banks, both in the politics of colonial petition, etc. – but it started then in France, and was even weaker in America north and Germany. From then walked “competition conquests” huge step-forward, all the more so after the beginning of the second decade of the twentieth century, the earth is completely divided between the “occupiers competitors’ ones, ie between the major powers robber. Military and naval armaments increased since the rate is unbelievable, and the robbery of the war years 1917 to 1914 between England and Germany for world domination, the division of the spoils meant that, S”bliat “all forces of society by the rule-robbery of the country reached to complete Holocaust .

Engels knew back in 1891 to vote on the “competition conquests”, as one of the hallmark of the most important mark the foreign policy of the Great Powers, and the sons of Belial those of social-chauvinism in 1917-1914, during the competition is intensified many times and brought about the imperialist war, covering the protection of business-robbery of the bourgeoisie “their” recommend “homeland”, the “defense of the republic and the revolution”, etc.!

  1. State – a device utilization oppressed class

Special social economy rule, standing above society, are necessary taxes and state loans.

“… Officials of state – Engels wrote, – that they rule the social and the authority to collect taxes, stand, an arm of the company, over it . These are no longer satisfied with respect-respect of the free, voluntary, it has been customary for the institutions of the family company (or tribal), even if they could acquire such attitude … “created special rules on personal sanctity and inviolability of state officials. “Police work-poorest” has more “authority” than the elders, but also the head of the military government in a civilized country can envy the tribal elder, winning from now “attitude-respect, not fear or track stick.”

Here the question was raised regarding the status-benefit of the officials, government bodies, political, and especially noted: what is it that places them above society? We shall see below how this theoretical question was solved effectively by the Paris Commune in 1871 and was obscured by reactionary way Kautsky in 1912.

“… Since the state was created out of the need to curb conflicts of classes; since it was created in the bone collisions of these classes it, is revealed, usually, as of the strongest, dominant economically, with the help of state made is also the dominant political and acquires by They compared a new means to subdue and exploit the class oppressed … “not only the country ancient feudal were the bodies of exploitation of slaves and serfs, but also” state representatives in our time is a tool to exploit wage labor by capital. but there who would follow periods out of the the rule, when that class struggle reach such a balance-forces, the country’s government gets for a while independent position in relation to two classes, including simulated mediator … “this was an absolute monarchy centuries XVII and XVIII , Bonapartism of the first and second Empire in France, Bismarck [ Bismarck] in Germany.

This is – we add our part – the government of Kerensky [Kerenskij] Russia Republican, after passing the persecution of the revolutionary proletariat, while the Soviets have been already powerless due to the introduction of democratic petty bourgeois, while the bourgeoisie still not as strong as consumed to disperse simply the Union these.

Democratic republic – continues Engels – “using the wealth of his rule indirectly, actually this is the use of very safe” – that is, first, by “bribing officials directly” (America), secondly, by “an alliance between the government and the Stock Exchange” (France and America) .

Banks and the rule of imperialism in our time “developed” to the wonderful art both these machinations to achieve in life and maintain the omnipotent conversion of all kinds of wealth in the Democratic Republic. If, for example, during the first months of the Russian democratic republic, one might say, honeymoon pairing of “socialists” SR-s and Mensheviks with the bourgeoisie, conducted OT Fltz’inski [Palchinskij] within the coalition government campaign of sabotage against all measures curbing the capitalists and their skin-raid, restraining Bziztm the military state Treasury supply, if the gentleman Fltz’inski left the government (and has been, of course, Bfltz’inski else, really similar to the previous one), “gave” him the capitalists pay a fine job of 120000 rubles a year, it means that it’s what? Bribery, directly or not-directly? An alliance between the government and the syndicates, or “merely” friendly relations between them? What role here Htz’rnobim and Htzrtlim, Haoocsntiibim [Avksentyev] and Hskoblbim [Skobelev]? – What are allies directly millionaires-only thieves or indirectly?

The full power of “wealth” is therefore confident than in the Democratic Republic, because here does not depend on a shortcoming or another of the political machine, political topped the worst of capitalism. Democratic Republic is the least best possible political capitalism, and capital is taking over (with the help of Fltz’inskim, Tz’rnobim, Tzrtlim Co.) on this great understatement, thus establishing the rule so safely, securely so that no exchange no exchange of virility, not exchange institutions, not exchange-parties of the Democratic Republic -hborgnit not shocking this regime.

There is more to say, Engels calls with full clarity the universal suffrage as an instrument for the control of the bourgeoisie. Suffrage – says he, apparently relying on the long experience of German Social Democracy, – is tantamount to “Meter-maturity of the working class. Top it can not and will never give current state”.

Democrats petty bourgeois type of SR-s and our Mensheviks, and also their brothers, their own flesh and blood, all the social-chauvinists and opportunists of Western Europe, expect just get “more than that” universal suffrage. They themselves believe and also bring in the people you thought-false, universal suffrage is capable of, so to speak, “current state” to truly manifested the will of the majority of the toilers and secure the fulfillment of this desire in life.

Here we can only indicate this false notion, only point out, in the opinion of Engels explicit, precise and absolutely clear Mstrst every step Bhtftn and Btamoltn of socialist parties “official” (ie, opportunist). Detailed denunciation of all falsehood same idea, Engels sprinkles it away, is provided by us below, lecture of the views of Marx and Engels on the state “present”.

General summary of his views in his Engels gives most popular, reads as follows:

“Well, the state exists not ever. There were companies that took place without her, and they had no idea about the country and rule-country. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily linked to split society into classes, became the country – because of this split – an absolute necessity. Now approaching, we quick steps to the stage by the development of production, to the point that the existence of classes in these ceased to be a necessity for him, and what is more it becomes an obstacle right on through to production. classes will pass on the way to necessity, as established in the past from the road. when the cease classes exist cease anyway even the country. the company, organize the production in a new way on the basis of free and equal association of many manufacturers get rid of all known political scene would be so unworthy of it completely to the side Antiquities disability and skill-bronze ax. ”

We do not often quoted this occasional preaching and propaganda literature of social democracy today. And even when it is occasional, then bring it to the majority in, seems to us as if issuing an here bow before an icon, ie, to express honor officially Engels, without any effort to ponder: What is broad and deep boom-revolution, implied the removal of all state machine to the Museum of Antiquities “. The majority do not see any understanding about what, in fact, that Engels calls him the name of the state machine.

  1. “demise” of the state and violent revolution

Engels about the “demise” State common and known widely so, they are often so, they show markedly so, in what the North most of forgery mode of Marxism and giving a figure opportunism him, it is necessary to dwell on these things in detail . Bring the whole issue, from which are drawn from things;

“The proletariat taking over state power and turns the means of production first acquired by the state. But from this it eliminates any event itself as the proletariat, eliminates any case all class distinctions and class contrasts and with them the country. The company held and held so far, making its way in opposites class, needed was for her country, ie organization of the exploiting class in order to maintain conditions of production at its outer, that is to say, especially to maintain power conditions suppress the exploited class (slavery, servitude permanently hired labor), determined by the method of production exists . state was also represented by an official of the company as a whole, the concentration of this body publicly, but it was presumed representative so only to the extent that was the state of the class represented in that period alone the company as a whole: in ancient times – it was the state of the citizens with the slaves; in the middle Ages – state nobles feudal; our time – the state of the bourgeoisie. at the state becomes finally truly representative of society as a whole, it is making itself redundant. there will be no more social status, who hold him in charge; when he ceases to class rule and cease to struggle for survival of the individual, which is the fruit of anarchy that controls currently in production, and therefore imports end collisions and explosions resulting from deviations from this war of existence – will never again oppress him nor body will need a special force for repression: the state will not be necessary. The first act, in which the state will truly representative of all of society as a whole – taking the means of production available to the company’s name – would also be its last independent act as a state. Intervention of state power company relations are therefore unnecessary in all fields, one by one, and paralyzed by itself. Where people come just government control objects and directing production processes. There is no “cancel” the state is starving for granted. In this respect the recommended should be evaluated on “a free folk,” It was recommended her for a while right-fulfillment propaganda, but after all, it is scientifically has no legs. In this respect, one should assess the requirement of the so-called anarchists that the state would be eliminated in a single day “(” anti-Dihring. “” Debunking science by Mr. Eugen Dihring [Dühring] “, pp 303-301 third German edition.)

It can be said without fear of error, because of this issue of Engels, ideas lush beautifully done just the idea of ​​the state “dying” According to Marx, the real asset of the socialist parties, socialist thought in our time, in contrast to the Torah anarchist “cancel” state. Indeed, cut like Marxism, it says downloaded into opportunism that “means” like leaving only a vague idea about a gradual change, slow, equal-rate, the lack of jumps and storms, the lack of existence of the revolution. “Demise” of the State under the prevailing perception walking, mass, so to speak, means, without a doubt, the blurring of the revolution, if not utter denial.

But “means” such is merely a distortion of Marxism, the most rough distortion convenient only to the bourgeoisie, which is based on a theoretical perspective and assumptions that we forget the most important considerations, expressed even cease “summary” of Engels, we brought in full.

beginning. In fact the beginning of this issue Engels says that when the proletariat takes over political control, it is “therefore it eliminates the state as state”. The mean it – “not commonly thought.” Usually ignore it altogether or thinking that something like “weak,” “Hegelian” of Engels. In fact expressed in those words a summary trial of one of the greatest proletarian revolution, the essence of the experience of the Paris Commune in 1871, a matter which will be discussed in more detail in our place. In fact Engels speaks here of the “liquidation” State of the bourgeoisie by the proletarian revolution, in the words of nothing demise converted the state remains proletarian after the socialist revolution. According to Engels the bourgeois state does not “dying”, but ” burnt itself out ” by the proletariat revolution. After this revolution dies proletarian state or semi-state.

again. The state is “special power suppression”. This definition of Engels, excellent and extremely deep, given here in full clarity. And from it derives, that instead of “special force to suppress the” proletariat by the bourgeoisie, the oppression of millions of working by a handful of wealthy, should be “a special force to suppress the” bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is actually a “cancellation state as”. It’s the “action” of taking over the means of production in the name of the company. After all, it is obvious that parts like the “special forces” of (bourgeois) Special Force “another (proletarian) it is impossible for him under any circumstances take place in the form of” demise “.

Third. The “demise” – and also prominently and more colorful – the “falling asleep” Engels speaks clearly and completely explicit in relation to the period after “the state takeover of the means of production in the name of all society”, that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that political form of “state” at that time will be the most complete democracy. But none of the opportunists, Hmslfim shameless doctrine of Marx, not imagined, it is here in Engels therefore “Hirdmoth” and “gooiath “of democracy . Although at first glance it seems a very strange thing. But the “unintelligible” is just someone who thought deeply about, that democracy also is a country, and then that democracy will only pass, after the state disappears. The bourgeois state can “eliminate” Only a revolution. The state in general, ie, the most complete democracy, can only “die”.

quarter. After placing Engels raises the famous: “The state is dying,” it is at once explains concretely, this assumption is also directed against the opportunists and the anarchists. Moreover, first and foremost up and Engels assumed the “demise of the country” that conclusion directed against the opportunists.

Can intervene, that 9990 people out of 10,000 who read or heard about the “demise” of the state, they do not know or do not remember at all, Engels directed his conclusions from this assumption not only against anarchists. And nine out of ten people who stay and certainly do not know what a “free country folk” and why comprehensive attack on this slogan is also an attack on the opportunists. Thus history is written! This creates imperceptibly forgery of the great revolutionary doctrine, spirit-home husband reservations ruling. The conclusion against anarchists repeated thousands of times, corny to superstition, was inserted into the brains of most simplistic form, acquired a stable of court-earlier. Whereas the conclusion against the opportunists blurred and Forget “!

“A free folk” was a requirement Frogrmtit and password welfare of the German Social Democrats in the 70 no political content, except for formal description-a-home-the idea of democracy, does this slogan. If it was implied in the waves of the democratic republic, Engels was equally prepared to “justify” “for a while” this slogan from the point of view of propaganda. But this was an opportunistic password, because it was not only because the decoration of bourgeois democracy, but also an understanding of the Socialist criticism about any country in general. We are in favor of a democratic republic, the best form of state for the proletariat in the period of capitalism, but we can not forget that slavery is leased to the fate of the people, even the most democratic bourgeois republic. Again, every state is a “special force to subdue” the oppressed class. So each country is a non- free and non- folk. Marx and Engels Yarrow This is not one of the members of the party in the 70th.

fifth. That connection of Engels, which retain all their memory to the demise of state law, the law also has a set of violent revolution. Historical assessment of its role becomes in Engels fame really sing-violent revolution. And here is this “no one remembers” and socialist parties of our time it is not acceptable to talk or even just think about the significance of this idea, and propaganda and preaching daily among the masses these ideas do not play any role. But in fact related are inextricably linked B”gooiat “state as a unit solid and coherent one.

Here is the verbatim words of Engels:

“The violence that fills the role in history (” except it’s doing-bad “), we were revolutionary role; it is, in the words of Marx, is used as a midwife in every company there is, while she was pregnant with a new society; the violence, which is the same device that with the help battery her social movement new way and breaks the forms of political Ssbko life and I went rigid, – all this there is no single word in Mr. Dihring. only in sighs and groans guess is the possibility that there eradication of farm-exploiters will be necessary perhaps violence – and it is sad very, folks! for all the violence of destruction, in his opinion, the dimensions of the user in. and all this is said without a note that elation moral and ideological exalted, every victorious revolution brought in its wake! and all this was said in Germany, the violent clash, which could also be forced the people going there to grow, at least, the same benefit, it would eradicate the spirit of slavery and slave, penetrated into national consciousness because of the humiliation of the thirty Years War. and he went-reasoning of priests, STATE thought dark, withered and helpless, dare offer himself before the most revolutionary party, which was not like history? ” (P 193 Third German edition, end of Chapter IV, Section II ).

How can one Torah, one of the song-glory that violent revolution, served continuously by Engels German Social Democrats from 1878 to 1894, that is, until the day he died, and the theory of the “demise” of the state?

Normally unite these two with Aklktitzizm, by pulling just, lacking any idea, or sophistry, by pulling out arbitrary (or aimed to please-the spirit that power in their hands), pluckin time this court, once another court, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the first line put the “demise” instead. Instead of dialectics come Haklktitzizm: This is a usual phenomenon, the most prevalent social-democratic literature of today’s official relation to Marxism. Certainly, there is no new exchanges. We have seen such a spectacle even the history of classical Greek philosophy. Along with fake Marxism in the spirit of opportunism paint Haklktitzizm color dialectic, to facilitate the mass delusion and this act as satisfying Similarly, when he brings it were considered all sides of the process, all trends, the effects of opposing etc., but in truth of which he is not giving any revolutionary complete understanding of the process of social development.

We have already said above, and we will discuss this in more detail below what we have said, that the teachings of Marx and Engels on the necessity for violent revolution, there was a bourgeois state. It is impossible to replace it with a proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) through “demise”, but can usually be replaced only by violent revolution. Song Fame, sung in her mouth Angeles and corresponding perfectly to the statements multiple of Marx in this respect – (recall, I pray closing words of “poverty of philosophy” and The Communist Communist “, this open declaration and proud about the inevitability of a violent revolution; we recall-please review program Gotha from in 1875, almost 30 years later, it discusses Marx boiling the opportunism of this program) – song-fame is not at all the fruit of “admiration”, is an act of recitation, by no means polemical ploy. Underlying the whole theory of Marx and Engels lies the necessity to educate the masses systematically view like this and precisely this view of violent revolution. The fact that the social-chauvinistic currents and Hkaotskianiim rulers now all forgotten and neglected preaching like this , such propaganda, most prominently reflects the Torah is their betrayal.

It is quite possible the proletarian state can seize the role of the bourgeois state without violent revolution. Abolition of the proletarian state, ie elimination of any State that is not possible except through “demise”.

Detailed and explicit development of these views gave Marx and Engels, study all in itself revolutionary situation, their analysis the lessons of the experience of every revolution and revolution is another. To this part of the teachings, most important, we pass it.

Part II

State and Revolution. Experience the years 1851 to 1848

  1. The dawn of the revolution

The first works of mature Marxism, “poverty of philosophy” and The Communist Communist “, are just watery eve of the revolution of 1848. This meant that, apart from the General Teaching fundamentals of Marxism, we have, to some extent, also a reflection of the concrete revolutionary situation of the time, and therefore, I believe, would be more expedient to review what was said by the authors of those works about the country shortly before the conclusions drawn by the experience of years 1851-1848.

“The working class – writes Marx B”dlot philosophy” – will set the course of development, under the old bourgeois society, such incorporation, which will not be room for classes and encountering their massive opposites; will no longer be any political rule essentially, that the political regime he is the official expression of class conflicts in bourgeois society. ” (P 182 ed in Germany in 1885).

Trainer will greet the general formulation given here to the idea of ​​the disappearance of the state after the abolition of classes compared to the formulation given Communist Manifesto “written by Marx and Engels a few months later, we were in November 1847.

… “As we have described the general steps of development of the proletariat, we followed the civil war, hidden or so, taking place in the current, until eventually it bursts Revolution visible, and the proletariat founder of the rule by the eradication of violence of the bourgeoisie” …

“We have seen above that the first act in the workers’ revolution is making” (literally lifting) “proletariat to the level of a ruling class, the conquest of democracy” …

“The proletariat will use to political power, to gradually remove all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, ie – the organized proletariat ruling class theory, and increase as quickly as possible all the productive forces”. (Pages 31 and 37 edition of the German Seventh, 1906).

Here we have the wording of one of the ideas of Marxism indicated and the most important question of the state, and the idea of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” (in the words adopted by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune), yet there is also a definition of the most interesting of the country, a definition which also is the kind of “words forgotten “of Marxism. ” State, ie – the proletariat organized theory class ruler “.

This definition of the concept of the state has not explained preaching and propaganda literature of the Social Democratic Party official. Moreover, it is forgotten precisely because it is not given to compromise with reformism, is a slap in the faces of ordinary opportunistic prejudices and illusions wave-home husband on the “peaceful development of democracy”.

The proletariat needed a state – it repeated the opportunists social-chauvinists and Hkaotskianim, claiming that it is the theory of Marx and B”schm “adding that, firstly, by Marx needed proletariat just a dying, that is built in a start to die right away and you will forever perish . And secondly, for working people needed “a”, “meaning – the organized proletariat ruling class theory”.

The state is a special organization of force, is an organization of violence for the suppression of one class. Who is therefore the class, the proletariat must suppress it? Of course, only the exploiting class, ie the bourgeoisie. For working people needed a country just in order to suppress the resistance of the exploiters, but only the proletariat can win on the act of oppression that, to achieve in life – only the proletariat, as he Hmamr only revolutionary to the end, the only one who can unite all the toilers and exploited in the struggle against the bourgeoisie, to eradicate the opposite.

Exploiting classes have political control is needed to support the exploitation, namely the sake of greed business negligible minority, and to the detriment of the vast majority of people. The exploited classes and political control necessary for complete elimination of all exploiting it, that is to say, for the benefit of the majority of the people against the negligible minority of the modern slave-owners, ie the owners of estates and the capitalists.

Petty-bourgeois democrats, these so-called socialists who converted the class struggle hallucinations agreement between classes, they also describe the proceeds socialist way-delusion, not to eradicate exploitative class rule, but in the form of a peaceful surrender of the majority and the minority before the missions. Utopia petty-bourgeois, closely linked with the country’s admission on class, led in practice to the betrayal of the interests of the working classes, as shown, for example, the history of the French Revolution in 1848 and 1871, as it has shown the participation experience “socialist” bourgeois ministries England France, Italy and other countries at the end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century.

Marx fought all his life with petty-bourgeois socialism that seated now revived in Russia by the parties, SR-s and Mensheviks. Marx developed the theory of the class struggle consistently up to the theory of political power, up to the theory of the state.

Overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie is possible only by the proletariat, a special status, economic conditions of existence that eradication of such instruments, give him the opportunity and the power to carry it out. While the bourgeoisie crumbled, makes dusting the peasant class and all classes the petty bourgeoisie, it is unifying the proletariat, unites and organizes it. Only the proletariat – in his capacity as the largest manufacturing economy – can be a leader for all working masses and the exploited, the bourgeoisie exploiting them, oppressive and suffocating them less often, and even worse, than the proletariat, but they are not able to struggle independently for their releasee.

Theory of class struggle, Marx adopted on the question of the state and the socialist revolution, inevitably leads to confession controlled politics of the proletariat, to the admission of his dictatorship, ie, the government has no partner whatsoever, and relies directly on the armed force of the masses. Overthrow of the bourgeoisie can be realized only by making the proletariat ruling class , capable to suppress the inevitable resistance, the desperate bourgeoisie, and organize all the masses of toilers and exploited, for the new structure of the economy.

Require proletariat has political power, centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to suppress the resistance of the exploiters and to instruct the vast masses of the population, the peasants and bourgeois-tiny, the semi-proletarians and direct them to device “socialist economy.

Marxism educates the Workers’ Party, educates it the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of taking power into his hands and lead the nation into socialism, direct and organize the new regime, as teacher, guide and leader of all the toiling and exploited the installation of life-their company without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie. Conversely, opportunism prevails today educator within the Workers’ Party people uproot themselves from the crowd, representatives of workers receiving wages greater, “aligning” Not bad under capitalism, familiar mess of pottage their supremacy, ie people departing from the position of the revolutionary leaders to the people in his war against the bourgeoisie.

“The state, ie, of the proletariat organized as the ruling class” – this theory of Marx tied inextricably linked with all the teachings on revolutionary role of the proletariat in history. The highlight of this role is the proletarian dictatorship, the political control of the proletariat.

But if we say proletariat needed a state, as a special of violence against the bourgeoisie, the conclusion arises here: Is it possible to create such an organization without first destroying, without first destroying the state apparatus created by the bourgeoisie for her herself ? This conclusion comes from “The Communist Manifesto” up close, and it speaks Marx, summing up the experience of the years 1851-1848 Revolution.

  1. A summary of revolution

The question of interest to us, the question of the state, Marx editor of the summaries of revolutions of the years 1851-1848 in this section, we bring out his “18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”:

“But the revolution does craft thoroughly. She has not had been through hell. She does her work in a systematic manner. Until December 2 Year” in 1851 (the day the coup State wrought Louis Bonaparte “) ended the first half of preparations, and now she finishes the other half. first it refines the government parliamentary meadows it will have the possibility to overthrow him then. Once that is accomplished, it refines most of the executive branch , bringing it expressed purest, isolated her, introducing her other hand as a sign-accusation alone, to concentrate against all the forces of destruction that “(our emphasis). “After the revolution will end the second half that of neighboring countries, will rise from her seat and all of Europe will applaud with joy: Beautiful’ve been striving, old mole!”

“Executive branch this, the organization bureaucratic and military imbalance, the mechanism of state highly complex and artificial, encompassing military officials it a half million people and army soldiers also half a million, creature-parasite that immense, Hmlff as networking the whole body of French society clogging the pores, rose during the absolute monarchy, with the decline of feudalism, it sunset, this creature helped to hasten. ” The first French Revolution developed the concentration of power, “but at the same time expanding the scope of government power, the institutions and the number of assistants. Napoleon completed this state machinery”. Legitimate monarchy and Monrciit July “did not add nothing, apart from a more extensive division of labor” …

“Finally, the parliamentary republic, in its war with the revolution, was forced to increase, along with the means of coercion, the means and the concentration of government power. All revolutions perfected the machine in this place cause it to break ” (emphasis added). “Parties struggled for power and stood in the head, one by one, see the occupation of the royal building this enormous spoils of the main falls hand-winner” ( “18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, pp 98, 99, 4th edition, Hamburg, s. 1907 ).

It makes an excellent analysis of Marxism huge step forward compared with the “Communist Manifesto”. There is still the question presented in the abstract to state very general terms and phrases most. Here is displayed concretely and fired a conclusion very precise, clear and concrete-practical: all previous revolutions perfected the political machine, while there cause it to break, smash it.

This conclusion is the main thing, the basic theory of Marx on the state. And precisely this fundamental thing is not only forgotten by the Social Democratic Party official ruling, but Nstrs explicitly (as shown below) by the most prominent theoretician of the Second International, Jack. Kautsky.

The Communist Manifesto “given the general summaries of history, forcing see the state as an organization of class domination and bring to a conclusion necessary, that the proletariat can not overthrow the bourgeoisie without first conquering political power, without reaching political sovereignty, without turning the state to” proletariat organized as the ruling class “, and that this proletarian state begins to die immediately with a victory, because a society without class contradictions state is not necessary and is not possible. No question was raised, what should therefore be – from the perspective of historical development – the replacement of the bourgeois state that proletarian state.

This is exactly the question that Marx raises and solves in 1852. faithful to its philosophy, the philosophy of dialectical materialism, Marx assumes thoroughly historical experience of the great revolution-years – from 1851 to 1848. Marx’s doctrine is also here, as always, summary-trial , summary lit the light of the knowledge-rich history and philosophical world-view deep.

The question of the state is shown concretely: how to get up, historically, the bourgeois state, the same state machine required to power the bourgeoisie? What are Tmorotih, what is its evolutionary course of bourgeois revolutions and in the face of independent tour of the oppressed classes? What are the roles of the proletariat in relation to this political machine?

Concentrated political power, special bourgeois society, stood up period of the decline of absolutism. Two institutions are most characteristic for this state machine: the bureaucracy and military establishment. Thousands of wires that connect these institutions actually bourgeoisie, it is not one of the essays of Marx and Engels. His experience of each worker explains this relationship in tangible and very convincing. Muammar-workers learn to predict the flesh this connection – because he takes up so easily so and adjusts it so well that the Torah about the inevitability of this connection, turn the Democrats bourgeois deny it, either out of ignorance or out of carelessness, or they prove recklessness is greater than that, they admit it “in general”, but forget to draw from the appropriate practical conclusions.

Bureaucracy and the permanent army are a “parasite” on the body of bourgeois society, a parasite spawns internal contradictions tearing-apart of this company, but definitely a parasite, “clogging” the pores vitality. Opportunism Hkaotskiani, now the dominant Social Democratic official, believes that the approach that views the state as an organism parasites , is finished and the special property of anarchism. Indeed, this castration of Marxism is very convenient for those owners of homes, brought socialism to the most shameful disgrace, to the justification of the imperialist war and decoration, in the innocence of her concept of “homeland security”, even though-yes – then this is an absolute castration.

Development, Hstclloto and Htbtzroto of bureaucratic and military apparatus it progresses through meadows all European bourgeois revolutions abundantly seen from the decline of feudalism. In particular, the petty bourgeoisie is the one that continues alongside the big bourgeoisie and surrendered her to a great extent with the help of this mechanism, which provides the upper layers of the peasantry, the small craftsmen, traders, etc. jobs in proportion to their comfort, quiet and respectful, that put their owners over the people. Notice, for example, to what happened in Russia six months after 27 February 1917: official positions, especially given earlier for Black Hundred, were being denied Cadets, Mensheviks and SR-Sea. All reforms really did not think of these, in fact, Bhtamtzm reject “until the Constituent Assembly” – and slowly postpone the Constituent Assembly until the end of the war! And the distribution of the spoils, the concept of jobs of ministers, deputy ministers, governors, military etc. etc. not delayed at all, and this matter will not wait any constituent assembly! The match combinations coalition was simply the expression of division and redivision of the “spoils” division carried out throughout the country, the highest and lowest circles, all central and local management. The sum total of half year objective – February 27 – 27 August 1917 – is not in doubt: the reforms were rejected, the distribution of jobs officials took place, and The mistake “distribution corrected by a few re-distributions.

But the more cultured “redistribution” of bureaucracy between the parties, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois variance (the Cadets, SR-s and Mensheviks, to use the example of Russian), also are taking up the oppressed classes, and the proletariat at their head, vividness the hostility chasm to all bourgeois society. This suggests the necessity for all bourgeois parties, even democracies and “hdmokrtiot-revolutionary “including the most, increase the persecution of the revolutionary proletariat, to strengthen the apparatus of persecution, namely to strengthen her political machine. Such a course of events compels the revolution “to concentrate all the forces of destruction” against the political regime, forcing her to put her face to be not that the improvement of the political machine, but the destruction, the annihilation .

Studies not make sense, but the development of events in reality, the living experience of the years 1851 to 1848 resulted in raising such a task. How careful Marx stand on the factual basis of historical experience, we see from it in 1852 is still up concretely the question, what change the political machine in question destruction. That time has not yet given trial material to that question, which was put on the agenda by history only later, in 1871. But in 1852 it was only possible to determine precisely the historical-scientific observation, the proletarian revolution closeness to the task of “concentrating all the forces of destruction” against the government political, to the mission to “break” the political machine.

The question may arise here, would be the inclusion of true experience, observations and conclusions of Marx, copied broad areas than the history of France in the three years from 1851 to 1848? In order to clarify this question first mention of Engels note and then move to the factual data.

“France – Engels wrote the preface to the third edition of the” 18th Brumaire “- France is the country, which brought the historical class struggle, occasionally, more than any other country, to victory. These political forms changing-and increasingly, the program operated War classes this and which formed its results – arrived in France Lbitoin most prominent. after France was the center of feudalism in the middle Ages, and land-masterpiece monarchy class uniform since the Renaissance – broke it during the Great revolution feudalism and established the rule of the bourgeoisie combination, clearly a classic one, unparalleled not know any other European country. and the rising struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie ruling brings to light the most severe form, which is not known in other countries “(p 4th edition 1907).

The last remark been prescribed, after 1871, there was a lull in the revolutionary struggle of the French proletariat, although the truce, even if it is very long, does not preclude all possibility, the proletarian revolution to come would be revealed over France as a land-masterpiece of war Hmamrot until the end of the majority.

But please take a general view of the history of US introduction late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. See It seems that the same process occurs very slowly and multi-tones more and across the arena broader – on the one hand the process of reconstitution of the “rule of parliamentary” both in the republican (France, America, Switzerland) and the United Monarchy (Britain, Germany to a certain extent , Italy, Scandinavia, etc.), and on the other hand, the process of the struggle for power of the bourgeois parties and the petty bourgeoisie, distributed and returned and gave them the “booty” jobs as clerks, without changing the foundations of the bourgeois regime, – and finally, the process of improving and fortification of ” the executive branch “of the bureaucracy and the military.

No doubt, these are the general lines of each new evolution in the capitalist countries in general. In the three years from 1851 to 1848 showed that France quickly, and concentrated them in a prominent evolutionary processes common to all the whole capitalist world.

But especially proves imperialism, shows the capital of the banking, the capitalist monopolies enormous, the increase in excessive of monopoly capitalism to being monopolistic capitalism-state – all these show the strengthening of unusual “state machines”, the growth unheard of mechanism clerical and military context of increasing persecution of the proletariat both in monarchist and republican freest countries.

World history brings us now without a doubt, a large scale infinitely more than in 1852, to the “concentration of all the forces” of the proletarian revolution for “demolition” political machine.

What converts it to the proletariat? That gave the Paris Commune most instructive material.

  1. Raising the question by Marx in 1852

Mehring published in 1907 [Mehring] magazine “Neue Zeit” (XXV, 164, 2) excerpts from the letter of Marx to and Iidmiir [Weydemeyer] dated 5 March of 1852. This letter contains, inter alia, the following excellent break:

“As for me, can not be attributed to me is not right, I discovered the existence of classes in modern society, and the right to discovering the struggle between people. Historians bourgeois explained a long time before me the historical development of the class struggle is, and bourgeois economists explained the anatomy economic classes . what has resumed I, is proof of these things: 1) that the existence of classes related only occasionally certain historical conditions of development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Produktion), 2) that the class struggle leads inevitably to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that the dictatorship is itself only serves Go to the abolition of all classes and a non-class “…

With these words, Marx succeeded in expressing prominently surprising, first, the main difference between the root and the teachings and doctrines advanced thinkers and deepest of the bourgeoisie, and secondly, the essence of the teachings of the state.

The main thing is the theory of Marx is the class struggle. They say and write very often. But it is not true. And from this mistake often results from an opportunist distortion of Marxism, forgery in the same spirit, is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. That the theory of class struggle was created not by Marx, but even before Marx by the bourgeoisie, and generally accepted is the opinion bourgeoisie. Who admits only class war is not yet a Marxist, he could no longer stay within bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. Who came to the Marxist theory of class struggle alone – it is cutting back on Marxism, emasculating him, aperture, making it convenient for the bourgeoisie. Is the only Marxist who extends the admission of class war to admission of the dictatorship of the proletariat . Here deepest difference between a Marxist and just a petit bourgeois (or bourgeois even larger). This touchstone should examine the veracity of understanding of Marxism and its admission. And no wonder, that at that history put in effect the proletariat to this question is not only all the opportunists and reformists, but all the “Hkaotskianim” (those undecided on the two sections between reformism and Marxism) are provincials poor and democratic petty bourgeois, who reject the dictatorship of the proletariat. The booklet of Kaottki “dictatorship of the proletariat”, published in August 1918, ie long after the first edition of this book, is an example of a distortion of Marxism-home and vile heresy which essentially on admission painted it, in theory . (See my pamphlet “The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky Hrngt”, Petrograd and Moscow, s. 1918).

Description of the nature of the position of the bourgeois Marx, cited above, entirely appropriate to today’s opportunism main representative figure, the former Marxist Kautsky, that this opportunism limits the admission of the class struggle and makes it the only area of bourgeois relations. (After all, in this domain, this framework will not refuse even to admit one educated liberal “in principle” the class struggle!). Opportunism does not bring the war of classes admission to the main point of fact, until the period of transition from capitalism to communism, to overthrow the bourgeoisie and for the complete elimination. This time, in fact, is not necessarily a period of class struggle vicious never before seen forms of previously unknown so far, and therefore the country at that time had to be a democracy in the new form (democracy for the proletariat and the lack of any general) and dictatorial in the new form (against the bourgeoisiee).

In addition. The essence of Marx’s doctrine on the state adopted only who realized that the dictatorship of Muammar one is indispensable not only for every class society in general, and not only for the proletariat launched the bourgeoisie, but is also essential for a historical period Shlomo separates capitalism from “society without classes “, between capitalism and communism. Forms of bourgeois states are extremely versatile, but the essence is the same: all these states are revealed finally, inevitably, one way or another as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie . The transition from capitalism to communism also, of course, carries within it necessarily enormous wealth of diversity of political forms, but their nature necessarily be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat .

Chapter III

State and Revolution. Experience of the Paris Commune in 1871, Marx’s analysis

  1. What is the heroism of the Communards in their attempt?

It is known that in the fall of 1870, a few months before the Commune, Marx warned the workers of Paris and proved to them that the attempt to overthrow the government would be folly of despair. But later, in March 1871, when imposed on the workers a decisive battle, and they responded to him, when the uprising was a fact, Marx greeted with great enthusiasm across the proletarian revolution, despite the bad omens. Marx did not clinging Bktrogim rigorous, teach compulsory movement, which burst “not timely” as he did so, the celebrity is not good, Rngt-Russian Marxism, Plekhanov, in November 1905 had written encouragement to the struggle of the workers and peasants, and after December 1905 windshriek liberalism “no it would be appropriate to take up arms.”

However, Marx not only admired the heroism of the Communards who “stormed the sky”, as he puts it. This revolutionary mass movement, if not achieved its goal, Marx saw historical experience of enormous importance, a certain step of the global proletarian revolution forward, practical step, the more important of the hundreds of programs and discussions. There analyze this experience to derive lessons tactic, check the light theory – here’s mission, established by Marx himself.

“Patch” the only Communist Manifesto, “Marx seen to be done, is done on the basis of the revolutionary experience of the Parisian Communards.

Latest introduction the new German edition of “The Communist Manifesto” signed by two of his friends, marked on 24 June of 1872. In it the authors say, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the program of the “Communist Manifesto,” “a few paragraphs now been prescribed”

… “Especially – they continue – Commune proved that” the working class could not take control of the state apparatus quantity-it and use it for its own purposes’ “…

The words in quotes for this second paragraph borrowed by members of Marx’s book “Civil War in France”.

Well, it took a major primary and one of the Paris Commune, Marx and Engels thought of enormous significance so, the Amendment substantive Communist Manifesto “.

This is very typical, precisely this major correction distorted by the opportunists, and its meaning, of course, is not known to nine-tenths of the readers of “The Communist Manifesto”, if not ninety-nine hundred. Below, in the section dedicated especially distortions, we’ll talk in greater detail about this distortion. Now we will have enough comment that “understanding” belief, vulgar above the famous phrase of Marx is Marx emphasizes here, so to speak, the idea of ​​slow development in contrast to the occupation regime and the like.

And non contrary . Marx’s idea is that, because the working class to break, smash the “political machine ready”, rather than just the simple conquest.

On 12 April 1871 ie during the days of the Commune, Marx wrote to Kugelmann [Kugelmann]:

“If you look at this last chapter of the book” 18th Brumaire “See look, I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution: do not turn over at the military-bureaucratic machine, as was the case so far, but break it” (Marx’s emphasis , originally written Zerbrechen ), “and this is clearly a precondition for any genuine popular revolution on the continent. and that is really the essence experience of our heroes Paris”. (P 709 ” Neue Zeit “, XX , 1, b. 1902-1901. Kugelmann Marx’s letters were published in Russian no less than two expenses, one for editing and with an introduction of my own).

With these words: “breaking the military-political machine bureaucratic” given the essence of the main lesson of Marxism on the question of proletarian revolution in relation to the functions of the state. And actually took it not only completely forgotten, but distorted directly by “interpretation” controls, Hkaotskiani Marxism!

About the citing of Marx on the “18th Brumaire”, then brought above the relevant passage in full.

Of particular interest in two places cited in paragraph Marx. First, it reduces the conclusion land border. This was understandable in 1871, while England was still an example of a pure capitalist land, but without the military and substantially without bureaucracy. Thus, Marx took England to the rule, because at that time there seemed a possibility of a revolution, and even of a popular revolution, without the precondition of the demolition of “political machine ready”.

Now, in 1917, during the first great imperialist war, canceled the reduction of Marx. Even England and America, representatives of the biggest and the last – the whole world – the “freedom” of the Anglo-Saxon sense a lack of military and Hbirokrtizm, deteriorated also completely into the machinery-muck, the machinery bloody European-General of the institutions, bureaucratic-military, exterminators everything beneath them , suppressing all the weight of their hand. Today in England and America would be “a prerequisite for any genuine popular revolution” – with its capital , the destruction of the “political machine ready” (prepared there in 1917-1914 to the point of perfection rule-imperialist “European”).

Secondly, deserves special attention very profound remark of Marx, saying that the destruction of the bureaucratic-political machine military is “a prerequisite for any revolution in popular real.” This concept of revolution “popular” by the Marx seems strange, and Hflcnobaim and the Russian Mensheviks, students Strooh [Struve] Those who wish to be considered Marxists, could, perhaps, to declare this expression in Marx as “a verbal slip.” They took Marxism to castration liberal-seedy, apart from the contrast between the proletarian bourgeois revolution there is nothing more for them, and this contrast they see a dead endlessly.

If we take for example the revolutions of the twentieth century, then we will have of course, considered the Portuguese revolution and the Turkish bourgeoisie. But this is not this is not “popular”, because a lot of people, the vast majority of his, does not appear in a prominent, active, independent, economic and political demands of his own, not one, not another revolution. Whereas the Russian bourgeois revolution of the years 1907 to 1905, although there were no achievements “caution” are won by occasional revolutions Portuguese and Turkish, was, without doubt, a revolution “genuine popular” because a lot of people, most of it, “overlays the low” social deepest, stifled by oppression and exploitation, rose independently, drowned the course of the revolution all the requirements seal their , and efforts to their own , build their own way a new society in place of the old society was destroyed.

In any country in Europe of 1871, on the mainland, did not constitute the majority of the proletariat. Revolution “popular”, actually sweeping the majority into movement, could be just which encompassed the proletariat and the peasant class together. These two classes then constituted the “people”. Consolidated other two classes, The machine military-bureaucratic state “presses, oppressing, exploiting them. Break this machine, to smash it – this is the true interests of “the people”, the majority of the workers and the majority of farmers, it is a “precondition” to the Soviet freely between door-peasants and the proletarians, and in the absence of such an alliance will not be a democracy robust and there is no possibility of compensation socialist.

Such an alliance sought, of course, also the Paris Commune, did not achieve its goal due to several external and internal reasons.

If so, when Marx spoke of a “popular revolution” real, though not distracted him at all of the special features of the petty bourgeoisie (of them spoke much and often), took into account accurately the ratio of forces in practice between classes in most countries in continental Europe in 1871. on the other hand stated as fact that “breaking” the political machine is required by the interests of both the workers and the peasants, it unites them up before them a common task of removing the “parasite” and converting it into something new.

What then?

  1. what to replace the broken political machine?

This question Marx said in 1847, The Communist Manifesto “, the answer is still completely abstract, or rather, a response indicating the problems, but not the ways of solving them. Convert it to the Organization of the proletariat as the ruling class “democratic occupation” – that was the answer of the “Communist Manifesto”.

Without setting utopias, Marx expected that the experience of the mass movement is restore, what concrete forms him will manifest itself the organization of the proletariat as the ruling class, how will integrate this organization with “democratic occupation” the most complete and consistent.

The Commune, although it is very small, Marx puts a civil war in France “under the scalpel more rigorous analysis. Hereby bring the most important places of connection:

In the 19th century developed into a “concentrated state power, came from the medieval citadel institutions spread all over everything – Soldier, police, bureaucracy, a church jury.” As we turn the antagonism of class between capital and labor, the “law of the state and put more and more a form of social power to suppress the working class, the machine power class. After every revolution, indicating a particular step ahead of the class struggle becoming ever more repressive nature of state power”. After the revolution of 1849-1848 became the rule of the country “national war weapon capital against labor”. Second Empire solidifies it.

“The exact opposite of the empire was the Commune.” “It was a specific form ” of this republic, which the report card was not only put an end to the monarchy shape of class rule, but class rule itself” …

What was, in fact, form “specific” Republic of proletarian, socialist? What was the state it began to create?

“… Her command of the commune was first: eliminating Soldier and filling replaced by the armed people …”

This requirement currently written plans of all parties, who want to be called a socialist. But what is the value of these programs we consider best according to the behavior of SR-s and our Mensheviks, precisely after the revolution of February 27 they actually depart from fulfilling this requirement!

“… The commune will join along municipal elected in general elections various Paris neighborhoods. They were accountable to the electorate, and could dismiss them at any time and hour. Obviously, most of whom were laborers or authorized representatives of the working class …”

“… The police, was until now a tool of the state government, all its functions of political appropriated immediately from it, and it became an institution of the commune, responsible for her and replaceable at any time … and the same officials in all other sectors of machinery … each public service, since the service of members of the Commune to that of the last clerk, hired was hired workers . all privileges and payments of representation granted to officials of state-Remy-degree, have gone along with these titles themselves … for places canceled the regular army and the police, Electric power material of the old regime, rose break the spiritual suppression device, the rule of judges appointed priests … lost an imaginary dependence … prospectively would also need to be elected openly, to be accountable to their constituents and can be dismissed at any time … ”

Is, Cbibol, places replaced the ruined political machine “only” fuller democracy: abolition of the regular army, the determination to be elected duty and the possibility of dismissal of all officials. But “only” that, in fact, mean – a huge conversion of institutions other institutions, are fundamentally different. Here we see one of the cases of “making quantity to quality”: democracy is fulfilled to the fullest integrity and consistency as possible, ceases to be a bourgeois democracy and becomes a proletarian, ceases to be a state (= a special force for the oppression of one point) and becomes something that in fact is no longer a country.

Still it is necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and the opposition. For the commune was a special necessity, and was one of the reasons for the defeat, she did it firmly inadequate. But the body is now most repressive population, and minority, as was the case always, even during slavery, even during the period of bondage and slavery permanently rented. And since most of the people itself suppresses its oppressors, again no longer needed Force special “oppression! In this sense, the state begins to die . Instead of specialized institutions of minority preferable-rights (officials with privileges and command of the army-final), can the majority itself to do this directly, and when filling the roles of political control becomes more popular-General, as much as diminishing the necessity same rule.

In this respect deserves special attention installing highlighted by Marx, installed Commune: Cancel all payments represent money, eliminating any financial privileges of state officials, setting the salaries of all senior-level positions in the country to ” the wage of the worker “. Here especially manifested in the most tangible crucial turn – bourgeois democracy into a proletarian democracy, democracy of the oppressors to the democracy of the oppressed classes, special state as the force that “a certain class oppression to the suppression of the oppressors by the general power of the majority of the people, the workers and peasants. And on this point, the most tangible – the question of the state, which is, I believe, is also the most important point – forgotten the lessons of Marx excessively! Popular interpretation – they have no number – this is not it. “Acceptable” to go over it in silence, as “innocent” as it were, who now, as Christians, after reaching the status of a state religion, “forgot” the “naivete” of early Christianity and the democratic-revolutionary spirit.

Lowering the salaries of high state officials seem “simply” as a requirement of Dmokrtizm primitive, naive. Leaving the basic one “of modern opportunism, the former Social Democrat, Ed. Bernstein [Bernstein], practiced often-repeated exercises bourgeois triviality jokes about Hdmokrtizm “primitive”. Like all opportunists, like Lkaotskianim today, had little understanding of, first, that the transition from capitalism to socialism is impossible without a “return” to some to Hdmokrtizm “primitive” (because without it, how can you go to fill state functions by the majority of the population and on- by each population?), and secondly, that “primitive Hdmokrtizm” based on capitalism and capitalist culture is nothing like that Hdmokrtizm primitive ancient days or the days before capitalism. Capitalist culture has created industry-Large, factories, railways, mail, phones, etc., and on this basis do the vast majority of functions “political control” old very simple and can be filled with the simplest tasks, such as registration, updating, testing, in these functions will be under the power of all people literate, and it will be possible to fill them strictly for “wages” normal “in the works”, and this can (and should) take these roles slightest degree-plus, the “authority” .

Obligation to be elected and the possibility of dismissal at any time , apply to all subjects-holders, without exception, setting salaries at the regular rate of “wages acts”, regulations democratic ones, simple and “hmobnot granted “unity entirely in the interests of the workers and the majority of farmers and serve at the same time as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These regulations relate to changing the political structure of society, purely political change, but they come, of course, the full meaning and significance only with the “dispossession are driving”, materializes or about to be realized, namely making the capitalist private ownership of the means of production to public ownership.

“Commune – Marx wrote – actually fulfilled the slogan of every bourgeois revolutions: cheap government – from canceled by the army and bureaucracy, two counts biggest-spending.”

Only a negligible minority of the peasant class, as of the other layers of the petty bourgeois, “rising up”, only very few of them “made people” bourgeois sense, ie, become wealthy, bourgeois, or officials with a safe position and privileges. The vast majority of farmers in all the land of capitalism, if only it has the status of farmers (and these capitalist countries are the majority), depressed by the government and aims action to eradicate it, the government aims to “cheap”. But to realize this ambition can only proletariat, and realize it is doing at the same time a step towards changing-socialist structure of the state.

  1. The elimination of parliamentarism

“Commune – Marx wrote – not intended as a parliamentary institution, but the institution works and does – legislator and executioner as” …

… “Instead of setting one of the three or six years, any member of the ruling class will represent the people in Parliament and Dachau (ver- und Zertreten), should universal suffrage to be used from now the people organized in communes, to find his factory workers, supervisors, auditors, as suffrage private used any other employer for this purpose. ”

Review this fine-parliamentarianism, given in 1871, is also included, thanks to the control of social-chauvinism and opportunism, the count of “forgotten words” of Marxism. Ministers and parliamentarians according to their profession, traitors-proletariat and Sotzialisti- “business” nowadays assumed the entire parliamentary review anarchists flaunt it, and it’s incredibly clever foundation announced on all criticism of parliamentarism as “anarchism” !! No wonder, the proletariat of the countries parliamentary “progressive”, snub-looking “socialists” My own kind of Hsiidmnim, Davids, Hlginim, Hsmbaim, Hrnodlim, Hendersons [Henderson], Hoondrooldim, Hstaoningim, Hbrntingim, Hbisoltim [Bissolati] Co., no wonder he often tends more and more to his sympathy for anarcho-syndicalism, although they are a brother, himself and the flesh of opportunism.

But for Marx was not a revolutionary dialectic has but the imagery of fashion-empty, it kind of rattled ringing, mouth render it Plekhanov, Kautsky and so on. Marx knew disconnect mercilessly anarchism because of the inability of this benefit also from the “pigsty” of bourgeois parliamentarism, especially as seems clear that there is no revolutionary situation in reality – but at the same time also knew criticize proletarian-revolutionary genuine parliamentarianism.

Every few years to determine who the man of the ruling class to suppress and crush the people in parliament – this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics.

But if we raise the question of the state we have, if we see the parliamentary institution of the state, from the standpoint of the proletariat roles in the field of this , then, starting from Aya parliamentarism? How can you live without it?

Again and again we must say: the lessons of Marx Hmiosdim the commune forgotten investigated so that “social democrat” of today (ie traitor-socialism these days) does not hold any other criticism of parliamentarism other than anarchist or reactionary from.

Starting from parliamentarianism is, of course, does not represent the elimination of regulated and dismissing the principle of choice, but making institutions representing institutions from-text “employees do.” “Commune was not meant to serve as a parliamentary institution, but the institution works and does – legislator and executioner alike.”

“No parliamentary institution, but an institution working”, said this violates the right of Bat-eye of the current parliament and “my little dog-house” of Parliament in the Social Democracy! Please look at which country-Parliamentary it, from America to Switzerland, from France to England, Norway and so on: the work “political” really do behind the scenes and perform it bureaus, Staffs. Parliaments just chatting with a special trick the “common people”. This is true to such an extent that even in the Russian republic of bourgeois-democratic republic, before she could set up a real parliament, have been discovered immediately all these sins of parliamentarism. Heroes rotten husband-home, such as Hskoblbim and Htzrtlim, Htz’rnobim and Haoocsntiibim managed to destroy the Soviets by the example of the most despicable bourgeois parliamentarism and turn them into text-empty houses. Soviets cheating masters of Ministers “socialist” The muzhiks innocent and holding their rhetoric and resolutions. The government turned-going dance-Quadrille constant, aimed, on the one hand, sit in turns, “at the cake” of job-respect and income, SR-s and Mensheviks as many as possible, and on the other to “catch the attention” of the people. And offices, headquarters’ employees “work” political “!

“Dalu Neruda” ( “something people”), the organ of the party “Socialist-Revolutionaries” ruling, admitted not long editorial system – candidly wonderful people of “good society”, everyone are dealing with political prostitution – that even those ministries that are in the “socialists” (Mind you the phrase!), even where the remains basically the old bureaucracy on machinery, and he plays the role Diogenes and practice in “free” totally sabotage the revolutionary beginnings! Indeed, even without this confession comes, nothing factual history of participation SR-s and Menshevik government does not prove it? This characteristic here is nothing but a gentlemen Htz’rnobim, Hrosnobim [Rusanov], Hznzinobim [Zenzinov] and the other editors of “dello Neruda” have lost all sense of shame at the way their daughter had ministers with Cadets, to the point, are not ashamed to tell publicly, as a result of which, with their faces turn red, the “their” ministries everything as the front !! Democratic-revolutionary rhetoric defraud innocent-through rural and procrastination office-clerical Corry-spirit “of the capitalists – Here are the essence of the coalition of” integrityy “.

Commune converted parliamentarism addict and rotting of bourgeois society and replaced it with institutions that freedom of opinion and discussion is degenerating them and became cheating, that Parliament should work themselves, fulfill themselves the laws they check themselves in life, results-laws received, being themselves accountable to their constituents. Representing institutions continue to exist, but parliamentarism as a special method, the division of labor between the legislation-laws and execution, as a position of surplus rights for Parliament, no here. No elected institutions, we can not imagine the existence of a democracy, even a democracy, proletarian, and without parliamentarism, we can and should , if criticism of bourgeois society is not for us Mast-words hit or miss, if the desire to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie is our aspiration serious and preparation, not just rhetoric on ” electioneering “to hunt her voices of workers, like the Mensheviks and SR-s, as in Hsiidmnim and Hlginim Hsmbaim [Sembat] and Hoondrooldim.

It’s very instructive, according to Marx the roles that clerks are also required commune, and democracy, proletarian, he takes him to Compare officials of “all give labor another,” meaning the plant capitalist standard, which has “workers, supervisors and auditors.”

You do not find in Marx none of utopianism, in the sense that he admits he is not up fantasy image of a “new”. No, he explores the birth of the new society out of the old, natural-historical process, explores the forms of transition from the old to the new company. Is there before him the factual experience of a mass proletarian movement and trying to derive practical lessons. It “learns” from the Commune, just as all revolutionary thinkers were not afraid biggest learn from the great movements of the oppressed classes, and never turned them I preached morality “pedantic (similar to that of Plekhanov:” I did not it would be appropriate to take up arms “, or Tseretelli’s “status to determine qualifications for himself”).

The elimination of bureaucracy at once, everywhere, to the end – do not speak at all. It is a utopia. But smash at once the old bureaucracy and begin to build a new, which will be gradually transferred from world each quota, – this is not a utopia, it is an attempt Commune, this role-standing directly on the agenda of the revolutionary proletariat.

Capitalism allows to simplify the management functions of the “political” cancel “driving-power” and to exhaust all about organizing the proletariat (as the ruling class) the tenant on behalf of all the company ‘workers, supervisors, accountants. ”

We are not utopians. We do not “fantasists” the possibility to take place immediately without any government, no authority; These anarchist fantasies, which are founded on a misunderstanding of roles dictatorship of the proletariat are foreigners Bsrsn Marxism and actually serve only to pause for a socialist revolution that human beings will be others. No, we want a socialist revolution with the men as they were now, that without discipline, without supervision, without the “overseers and accountants” can not exist.

But there seem to remove all armed exploited and toiling – the proletariat. As They saw “specific state officials, can and should begin immediately, overnight, convert it to a simple function of” overseers and accountants “, functions already present are certainly by the level of development of the cities in general and can definitely be filled hired a job worker”.

We will arrange the big production, and will serve as a starting-point for us what has been created by capitalism; We, the workers, ourselves , relying on our experience in practice, we will discipline-iron extremely severe, supported by the political regime of workers armed, and thus pass the civil servants and the role of the “overseers and accountants” (of course, together with technicians of all sorts, types and degrees) , receiving a modest salary, who simply our mission, responsible for us and can be replaced by us – here is the mission of the proletarian our herein can and should we start with the realization of the proletarian revolution. Start this largest production base brings itself to the “demise” regimes bureaucratic, by creating gradually in such disarray – order without quotation marks, the order does not resemble slavery leased, – which all roles are becoming simpler and more functions of supervision and inspection, will be filled in by all the people, one at a time that will become routine and will eventually canceled as functions and special of a special class of people.

German social-democrat one clever seventies of the last century marked the mail as an example of a socialist economy. It’s very true. Postal sector today is organized by type of monopoly capitalist -mmlcti. Imperialism is gradually becoming the corporate organizations of this kind. On the backs of the toilers H”fsotim “busy work and suffering from hunger, standing here in her bourgeois bureaucracy. But the mechanism of social sector management-ready here. There overthrow the capitalists, to break the arm of iron workers armed with the resistance of the exploiters, to break the bureaucratic machine of the present state – and then we have Mechanism discharged from the foundation ,, parasite “, a mechanism well-equipped technically, workers statements themselves will be able to certainly operate, wages technicians, supervisors and accountants, to pay everyone , like all officials “state” in general, wages of working. Here is a task concrete, practical, can be realized immediately in relation to all corporations, task redeeming the toilers of exploitation and takes into account the experience I actually applied it (especially in the political construction) by the commune.

All economy organized like popular e-mail, provided technicians, supervisors, auditors, as officials, will receive a higher salary not hired a worker’s job “, and will be subject to supervision and training of the armed proletariat – this is our goal closest. Here in this country we need and that its financial bass. Here it is the thing that will save the elimination of parliamentarianism and elected institutions, and that that will rid the working classes from lowering them into prostitution of these institutions by the bourgeoisie.

  1. Organization of national unity

“… The same graph short of the national organization, places not enough to serve Him sufficiently, states explicitly that the Commune would … be the political form of even the smallest village …” from the communes were to be elected deputies to the “National Assembly” which in Paris.

“… The few roles, but very important, that would stay longer in the hands of the central government, were not eliminated – such a claim was misleading malicious intent – only to be delivered into the hands of officials Komonliim, ie, strictly responsible officials …”

“… The structure Comunale was not going to destroy the unity of the nation, but rather to organize it. He said to make national unity a reality by eliminating the political regime that claimed to be the embodiment of that unity yet wanted to be an independent nation and to rise above it. In fact, was not this political regime but psoriasis-parasites on the body of the nation … the task was to eliminate the arms of government repression of the old regime, while illegally confiscating their duties justified by the authorities purporting to patronize the company, and handed over to the responsible servants of society. ”

How did not understand the opportunists of Social Democracy nowadays these arguments of Marx – and perhaps the more correct to say: how did not want to understand – as evidenced than any book publicized Hrostrti, “preconceptions socialism and functions of social democracy” by Hrngt Bernstein. Because here in connection with the above words of Marx wrote Bernstein, this plan “by the political program similar in all lines of major similarity Proudhon’s federalism [Proudhon] … with all the other differences between Marx and Proudhon” petty-bourgeois “(Bernstein gives the the words “petty-bourgeois” in quotation marks, as needed, in his opinion, be used for irony), relatives are over the thoughts in these sections as possible. “of course – continues Bernstein – the value of the municipalities is growing,” but the eyes of a dubious thing, the primary role of democracy will be canceling (literally scattering, mass – Auflöesung) such of existing states and a fundamental change in this (coup – Umwandlung) of organizing, as described themselves Marx and Proudhon – train national assembly deputies to the assembly district or cylinder, that they in turn will be composed of delegates communes – in all the previous form of national parliaments will disappear altogether “(Bernstein,” assumptions “, pp 134 and 136 in the German edition of 1899).

It’s amazing really: mixing the views of Marx on the “abolition of political power-parasite” with the federalism of Proudhon! But there is something in the case, because there is no opportunist imagined at all, Ridge did not speak here of federalism contrary to centralism, but about breaking the old state machine, the bourgeois, bourgeois exists in all countries.

Opportunist imagine only what he sees next to him, the husband-home environment parochial and stagnation “reformist” – specifically local elected institutions, “municipalities”, and nothing more! The proletarian revolution have been forgotten opportunist even think.

This is ridiculous. But it should be noted, in this respect had Bernstein not be disputed. Many contradicted the views of Bernstein – especially Russian literature Plekhanov, Kautsky European literature, but none of them are not talking about the distortion of this , the Bernstein misrepresented Marxx.

So much so that he had lost the ability to think opportunist revolutionary way and to pronounce on the revolution, he attributes the H”fdrlizm “Marx and Proudhon attaching it to the founder of anarchism. While Kautsky and Plekhanov who wish to be orthodox Marxists and protect from revolutionary Marxism, pass it in silence! Here one source abomination extreme views concerning the difference between Marxism and anarchism, which is characteristic also Lkaotskianim abomination and opportunistic, and we’ll talk more about it.

At the logic of Marx on the Commune no memory of federalism. Marx in complete agreement with Proudhon in fact, there is no opportunist Bernstein sees all. Marx disagrees with Proudhon precisely the point, Bernstein finds similarities between them.

Marx in complete agreement with Proudhon demanding “break” the current political machine. Compare this to the Marxism and anarchism (both Proudhon and according to according to Bakunin [Bakunin]) does not want to see the opportunists and Hkaotskianim that at this point, and these are deviated from Marxism.

Marx divided both Proudhon and Bakunin precisely on the question of federalism (not to mention the dictatorship of the proletariat). Out of petit-bourgeois views of anarchism derives from the principle of federalism. Marx is a centralist. Bhgionotio, cited above, there is no retreat from centralism. Only people who believe in “superstition” owner of a home may resemble the elimination of the bourgeois state to eliminate centralism!

Indeed, if the proletariat and door-peasants take into their hands control of the country, organize freely in communes , and unite the action of all the communes in attacks on the capital, eliminating opposition to the capitalists, abolition of private ownership of the railways, factories, land, etc., and its delivery to the disposal of the nation as a whole , to the Company as a whole, would it not be centralism? Would not it be the most consistent democratic centralism? Moreover, even proletarian centralism?

Bernstein also can not imagine at all that possible is a voluntary centralism, union communes nation of free will, free fusion of the proletarian communes during the demolition of bourgeois control and the bourgeois state machine. Bernstein, as provincial, describes himself as centralism can only be imposed from above, only officials and military personnel can impose and maintain it.

And if Marx View option prior to falsify his views, he stresses deliberately accusation about the commune , she wanted to, so to speak, to destroy national unity, to cancel the central government, is nothing but a distortion-informed. Marx explicitly uses the phrase “to organize the unity of the nation”, to provide the centralism conscious, democratic, proletarian centralism against the bourgeois, military, bureaucratic.

But … deaf deaf is someone who does not want to hear. Here opportunists of social democracy today, rather they are those who do not want to hear about the elimination of the political regime, the elimination of the parasite.

  1. The elimination of the parasite – state

We brought the words of Marx have been appropriate and we still have to be completed.

“… This is the fate mode of the new creation in history – written by Marx – we see it in the form of shapes fashioned social life, and even forms already obsolete, it seems their only similarity whatsoever. The same cost her commune that new that breaks (smashes – Bricht) the rule of the modern state: see it resurrected medieval commune … as an alliance of small countries (such as Montesquieu [Montesquieu] and Hz’irondistim) … exaggerated form of the old war against the decentralization of balance … ”

“… Communal structure meant to restore the social body all the forces who now prey to this parasitic psoriasis,” country “, she earns at the expense of society and hinders the free movement. The fact that this was only to promote the revival of France …”

… “The structure Comunale intended to subject the manufacturers village under Hdrctn spiritual life of the main cities in each roll and roll and hand protecting the interests hands in the urban workers, the natural representatives of their interests. The very existence of the Commune brought, granted, the self-government local, no longer a counter-weight to the political power, now become superfluous. ”

“The elimination of political power” was “parasitic barnacle”, “Rate”, “destruction”; “Political power now made redundant” – Here are the expressions which Marx spoke about the country, assessing and analyzing the Commune.

All this was written fifty years ago, and now as there is a need to conduct excavations to raise consciousness and bring the broad masses of the non-distorted Marxism. The conclusions, drawn from observation to the last great revolution which took place during the lifetime of Marx, were forgotten just when the imminence of queue great revolutions of the proletariat today.

“… The interpretations numerous provoked the Commune, and the interests of the many and various found its expression, all prove that it was a political form offers the greatest flexibility, while all forms-the previous government were, by their nature, forms of oppression. The secret nature – was this: it was essentially government of the working class , the fruit of the struggle of class against class appropriates creator, it was the political form at last discovered, which can realize the economic liberation of labor … ”

“Without this last condition was building Comunale impossible and something scam …”

The discovery were utopians “political forms, which might undergo a change-socialist structure of society. Anarchists renounced any question of political forms. The opportunists of Social Democracy nowadays accepted the bourgeois political forms of the parliamentary democratic state borders qua non “and a masterpiece”, which he prayed and bowed before him, and all striving to break the shapes of those declared as anarchism.

Marx raised from the history of socialism and the political struggle to the conclusion that the state should disappear, and that the transitional form of disappearance (the transition from state to non-state) would be in the form of “proletariat organized as the ruling class”. But Marx did not take him to discover shapes the political future of this. He contented himself with watching accurate to the history of France, the analysis and the conclusion that brought 1851: it comes to the destruction of the machine the bourgeois statee.

And at the outbreak of the revolutionary mass movement of the proletariat, Marx began to study it, despite its failure, shortness of her life and apparent weakness, explore and find what they are forms discoveredmovementt.

Commune – is the way “which finally discovered” by the proletarian revolution, and ‘As it can realize the economic liberation of labor “.

Commune – is the first attempt of a proletarian revolution to break the bourgeois state machine, and is the political form “at last discovered”, which can and must be converted into the broken machine.

Further Hrtzatno seems that the Russian Revolution of 1905 and 1917, continuing a different environment, under other circumstances, the commune factory, and historical analysis confirms the genius of Marx.

Chapter IV

continue. Additional Angeles Notes

Marx gave the main question of the value of the Commune. Engels returned often to this issue, as he explains the analysis and conclusions of Marx, illuminating parties other of the question, and sometimes violently so and so prominently, especially oil necessary to dwell on these notes.

  1. “housing question”

In his book on the “housing question” (1872), Engels already takes into account the experience of the commune, as he stands on the issues several times a revolution in relation to the state. Interestingly, concrete discussions on the subject of clearing and clearly visible, on the one hand, the similarities between the proletarian state and the present state – lines that provide the basis both cases speak of the state , but on the other two lines stand out the difference between them, or eliminating obtrusive transition state.

“How to solve the issue of housing? Society of our times is resolved exactly like any social question differently: by balancing economic gradient of demand and supply, but it is a solution, he leads is always the question again, I mean, he does not give any solution. how resolved this question by a social revolution? it depends not only on the circumstances of time and place, it also involves questions of sailing away from that, one of the most important of which is about eliminating the contrast between city and village. since we are dealing with connection methods utopias concerning the structure of the company in the future, it will be published by time in vain, if we stay on it. one thing is certain and is, even today, there are large cities houses residential sufficiently to fill immediately the shortage of actual apartments, by the rational utilization of these buildings. this is of course fulfillment only by expropriating the current owners and the provision of housing in these houses are lack of shelter or workers now living in apartments populous balance. and Msicbos proletarian political power, will buy such necessary for the benefit of society, easy realization, as other Hnisolim and confiscation of apartments on- current state “. (Page 22 in the German edition, 1887).

Here there was discussed the transformation of the political regime, but it is the government action plan. Nisolim and confiscation of apartments are also carried out under the provisions of the current state. The proletarian state also is formally “issue an order” to seize and confiscate apartment houses. But clearly, the mechanism publisher-old practice, the bureaucracy involved after bourgeoisie, will not do at all to their fulfillment of the provisions of the proletarian state.

… Than necessary to determine that the actual takeover of the working people on the devices work, the entire industry is tantamount to the opposite of “redemption” Prodi. In the latter case goes right to ownership of the apartment, the plot-agricultural land, the instruments work to private practice; While in the first case remains the joint ownership residential houses, factories and instruments of work by “working people”. It is doubtful whether the use of those houses, factories, etc. will be delivered – at least during the transition – to individuals or associations without covering your expenses. Even abolition of private ownership of land does not require the abolition of ground rent, but only to its delivery to the Company if a change-shape. The actual takeover of the working people of all devices work, therefore, does not negate in any way the existence of the rental and leasing. “(P 68).

The question that this affair concerns her, namely, the economic foundations of the demise of the country, we will discuss in the next chapter. Engels expressed very carefully, saying that “the question is” whether the proletarian state will provide flats without payment, “at least during the transition.” Handing over apartments, which are intellectual people, families in private fee also requires the payment collection, also some criticism, and sequencing all-he’s division of the apartments. All of these require some form of state, but not in any way require military and bureaucratic apparatus special issues-jobs with special privileges. And the transition to a state of things which will give a free apartment, involves B”gooiath “the country’s total.

Speaking on Hblnkistim, after the Commune and under the influence attempt to hold a position of principle of Marxism, put Engels, in passing, that this position:

“Necessity of political action of the proletariat and its dictatorship, as a transition to cancellation of classes and the state together with them” (VAT 55).

Audit-lovers will be verbal or “exterminators-Marxism” bourgeois seen, probably, a contradiction between the admission of this state Signing off “and the denial of such a formula, an anarchist, previously quoted paragraph from the” anti-Dihring “. There was the amazing thing, which placed the opportunists Engels count of “anarchists” – accusing the internationalists anarchism by social-chauvinists welfare today more and more.

Indeed, Marxism always ordered the cancellation of classes along with the abolition of the import country. Break the famous anti-Dihring “about” the demise of the country “, accusing the anarchists not simply because they demand the abolition of the state, but because they preach, you could, as it were, to cancel the state” overnight “.

According to the doctrine “social-democratic” controls currently distorting the attitude of Marxism to anarchism on the question of abolition of the state, a complete distortion, it would be most useful to mention the controversy one of Marx and Engels with the Anarchists

  1. The controversy with the anarchists

This debate is from 1873. Marx and Engels said Italian Socialist file articles against Proudhonists, “autonomists” or “anti-Aotoritristim” Only in 1913 these articles were published in German translation in the “Neue Zeit”.

“If the political struggle of the working class – wrote Marx, his ridicule the anarchists on the denial of the politics – getting forms revolutionary, if instead of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie put workers the revolutionary dictatorship theirs, then they are doing, Ldidcm, crime threat of desecration principles that to provide the daily needs, miserable, rude, to break the resistance of the bourgeoisie give state workers a revolutionary shape and form transition, under which lay down their arms and cancel the state “… (” Neue Zeit “from 1914 to 1913, year 32, 40 vol Ltd ‘).

Here is the “abolition” of the state, whom Marx threw only harsh words, contradicted the views of the anarchists! Not at all to the idea that the country will be eradicated together with the extinction of classes, or canceled with the cancellation, but the opinion, that the workers withdraw from the use of weapons, from organized violence, that is, from the state , a goal ahead: “to break the resistance of the bourgeoisiee”.

Marx emphasized the intention – to not castrate the true meaning of his struggle with the anarchists – the “revolutionary shape and form-crossing ” of the state, needed proletariat. State proletariat needed only for a while. We do not share at all the anarchists on the question of abolition of the state as a goal . Just so we say, in order to achieve this goal have to take advantage of temporary utilization devices, methods, tactics of political power and be directed against the exploiters, just as that for the abolition of classes needed temporary dictatorship of the oppressed Hmamr. Marx chooses to put the question to the anarchists clearly and most acute: while workers unloaded the burden of capitalists over them, whether they should “lay down their arms,” or use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? And the systematic use of weapons from one class against another class, – Is not this “transitional form” of state?

Please ask any Social-Democrat himself: Is this raises the question of the state is the controversy with the anarchists? Is the great majority of the official socialist parties of the Second International up to this question?

Engels lectured them ideas more broadly and more popular. He first laugh all confused thoughts in Proudhonists, calling themselves “anti-Aotoritristim”, ie rejected all authority, all subordination, all power. Take, for example, a factory, a railroad, a ship at sea, – says Engels, – Is not that clear, that without subordination particular, and hence without a certain degree of authority or rule can not run anybody institutions technicalities these complex based on the use of machinery and the systematic co-operation of many people?

“If I bring up these arguments – Engels wrote – against the anti-Aotoritristim most extreme, then they can only give me this answer:” Yes! Yes is, but here in question is not an authority we provide counsel for strength, but the imposition of mission specific . “These people believe that we can change anything, If we change the name.”

After Engels shows therefore that authority and autonomy are relative concepts that field their use varies at different stages of social development, and the nonsense that these absolute concepts, once he adds, that the field of use of the machines and the field of heavy industry is growing, then it goes generic for authority to the question of the state. He writes:

“Had the autonomists want to say only this, social organization of the future will place an authority only within the conditions of production imposed on us, we could go with them to agree. But they are blind to all facts requiring the authority as a necessity, and they are fighting a storm of mind against the words” .

“Why do not the anti-Aotoritristim satisfied shouting against the political authorities, against the state? All socialists are in agreement that, state, and along with it political authority will be eradicated following a social revolution that would come, namely, the political nature is taken of those social functions, and become functions of administrative, simple , the supervision of social interests. but the anti-Aotoritristim require political state would be eliminated with a wave of one hand before they are destroyed Sholidoh social relations. they demand that the first action of the social revolution will be the cancellation of the authority.

“Do I happened these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is, without a doubt, this authoritarian as possible. A revolution is an action, which is part of the population imposes her will on the part of another with guns, bayonets, cannons, namely by means of authoritarian greatly. and the winning party is sometimes forced to necessarily maintain its control with fear kissed hoeing in the reactionaries. if it were not the Paris commune relies on the authority of the people in Arms, which is against the bourgeoisie, nothing was there is more than one day? we can not, on the contrary, to prove the places that used less too than in the authority of this? well: either – or. or anti-Aotoritristim do not know themselves what things they have made, and in this case they are seeded but confusion. or they know what they call, but in this case they betray the affairs of the proletariat. indeed, both cases they serve only the reaction “(page 39).

This section touches on questions that clarified the issue regarding the ratio of the interaction between politics and the economy with the demise of the state (this issue was devoted to the next chapter). These are the questions concerning the political and social transformation of administrative tasks simple and on the “political state”. This last phrase, which can especially provoke misunderstanding, indicates the process demise of the state: at a certain stage of the demise of the state could be called the state of the dying in the name of a non-political.

Although in this case the most worthy Angeles attention manner of presentation-question for anarchists. Social Democrats, seeking to have students Angeles, argued from 1873 thousand thousand times with the anarchists, but rather argued no way Marxists can and should argue. Anarchist perception regarding the cancellation of the country is confused and non-revolutionary – is how Engels put the question. Anarchists did not want to see the revolution in the making and development, special problems in relation to violence, authority on the subject. Power state.

Criticism of anarchism, repeated to the Social Democrats in our generation, superstitious amounted pure home-owner, “stated, we are, then we thank the country, while anarchists do not admit it!”. Of course, that such superstitions have disgusting hearts of revolutionary workers and Calculation of thought to some extent. Engels says otherwise: He stresses that all socialists admit disappearance of the state, as a result of the social revolution. Then it concretely raises the question of the revolution, the same question, the Social Democrats of opportunism used to circumvent it, assuming that only anarchists, L”aibod “, so to speak. And recalling this question, Engels grabbing the bull by the horns: Is not this was the obligation of the commune use more power revolutionary state , namely the armed proletariat organized as the ruling classs?

The official Social Democracy generally avoided ruling on the question of the concrete tasks of the proletariat revolution and excused herself, simply, in the words of provincial-clown or, at best, an evasive answer-sophistry: “See see.” From that given the right Anarchists to speak out against such social democracy, and say it is abusing its role, the role of the revolutionary education of the workers. Engels uses the experience of the last proletarian revolution, in order to explore the most concrete way, what and how the proletariat to do in relation to banks and to the country.

  1. The letter to Babylon

One of the rationales listed, most if not specified, the writings of Marx and Engels on the question of the state to the next paragraph, the letter of Engels to Babylon [Bebel] on 28-18 March of 1875. This letter, – we note in brackets – printed, so far as we have, for the first time -idi Babylon in the second volume of his memoirs ( “life”), published in 1911, ie 36 years after it was written and sent. In the same letter to Babylon, which stretches Engels criticized the proposal of “program-Gotha,” that Marx criticized it in his famous letter to the temple [Bracke], it is especially concerned with the question of the state and write this:

“The country folk free became a free state. According to the meaning grammar of these words it’s a free country means a country which is free to its citizens, that is a country with a government tyranny. The show was to stop this chattering about the country, especially after the Commune, who did not have a sense equity. the term “country folk” served anarchists too gouge our eyes to it, even though already a book by Marx against Proudhon and later “Communist Manifesto” clearly says that with the installation of a social regime socialist dissipation (sich Auflöst) the state itself and disappears. since the state is the only institution in a period of transition, requiring him during the struggle and revolution, to subdue by force the enemies it is absolute folly to talk about a popular free: As long as the proletariat needs the state, is needed not for freedom, but for the sake of defeating the rivals since the founding Can we talk about freedom, then the constant state, as a state, to exist. therefore, we believe that you should always put in place the word country the word “Community” (Gemeinwesen), a German word old, handsome, corresponding French word “commune” “(p 322 -321 German original).

It should be to note that this letter revolves around a party, Marx criticized in a letter written just a few weeks after the letter of Engels, presented here (letter of Marx is marked on May 5, 1875), and at the same time live Angeles London with Marx. Therefore, the foregoing Angeles last sentence: “We”, he suggests, without a doubt, Marx behalf of the German Workers’ Party leader to throw out the plan the word “country” and replace it with the word “community”.

What a scream about “anarchism” would raise their heads “Marxism” current, tailored for the convenience of the opportunists, if such an amendment offered them the program!

They shout. It Thllm bourgeoisie wages.

We’ll do our part. When you check the program of our party we must definitely get attention to the advice of Engels and Marx, in order to be closer to the truth, so that we turn Marxism outdated, after purifying it of distortions, to circumventing a more proper way the working class liberation struggle. Among the Bolsheviks there will not be, of course, opposed the advice of Engels and Marx. Perhaps only difficulty will be in determining the term. German has two words for teaching “committee”, which select Engels other means is not a single community, but the entire community, a community. Russia has no such word, and we may have to hold the French word “commune”, although even that has its own non-convenience.

“Commune was no longer a sense of self” – Here is the most important sentence, theoretically, sealed Angeles. After that we wanted to above, this statement fully understood. The commune has ceased to be a state, if it was not oppress the majority of the population, but the minority (the exploiters). The bourgeois political machine has broken places; Instead of power unique to suppress the population appears herself on the stage. All of these – are deviations from the state in its self. The commune was entrenched even, were “starving” it traces the country on their own, and had to “cancel” the institutions of the state: they cease to operate, if they come into a situation that they have nothing to do.

“Anarchists peck our eyes to the concept of” country folk “; things are meant Engels first Lbkonin and to his attacks on the Social Democrats in Germany. Engels admits the justice of those attacks, as much The state folk” She is nothing but nonsense and a departure from socialism, as well as “state of the Popular free.” Engels tries to repair the struggle of the Social Democrats with the anarchists, to make this struggle correct in principle, purify the prejudices opportunistic on “state.” alas! the letter of Engels was a term of 36 years, untouched. below it seems that after the publication of this letter to Kautsky obstinately repeats the same mistakes, in fact, the issues that Engels warned.

Babel replied to Engels in a letter dated 21 September 1875, in which he wrote, among other things, that “he strongly agree” to know Engels on the proposed program and that he scolded Blibknct [Liebknecht] on Otrnoto (page 334 in the German edition of Memories of Babylon, Volume II) . But if we take Bebel’s pamphlet “Our goals”, which is totally incorrect assumptions about the state.

“The state should become a country founded on class domination country folk” (German edition “Unsere Ziele”, 1886, p 144).

This edition was printed in the ninth (ninth!) Booklet of Babylon! No wonder, therefore, repetition such opportunistic logic in relation to the state absorbed the German Social Democracy, especially after clarification Angeles revolutionary shelved, and the circumstances of life “distracted” from the revolution, in the long run.

  1. Review the proposal of the Erfurt Program

When we are standing on the theory of Marxism on the question of the state we can not disregard the criticism of the Erfurt Program proposal, sent by Engels to Kautsky on June 29, 1891 and was published only ten years later in the “Neue Zeit”; You can not skip it, because this review is devoted mainly to refuting the opportunist views of the Social-democratic political structure issues.

Incidentally, we note that Engels brings economic issues of great note, which proves, some due to very carefully and meticulously follow the changes of modern capitalism, and how to know why some extent to meet the problems of our era pre-imperialist. Here’s remark: in connection with the words “lack-programmatic” (Planlosigkeit), used to describe the proposed plan nature of capitalism, Engels wrote:

… “Once we move from stocks to corporate-hijack entire industrial sectors and turn them into a monopoly, then it not only stops private industry, but also the lack-program” ( “Neue Zeit”, 20 years, 1902-1901, Volume I , p 8).

Here the most fundamental thing that caught theoretical evaluation of modern capitalism, ie imperialism, ie, capitalism has become capitalism monopoly. This must be emphasized that the most common error in this respect is the bourgeois-reformist religious law that estimates, monopoly capitalism or state-monopoly no longer capitalism, could it be called “state socialism” and so on! Full programmatic certainly did not let the corporations, do not give it to this day and are unable to give. But if they give the program notes, an enormous amount of capital computers pre-production rates scale national or even international, when they regulate the production in a planned way, then we add yet be within capitalism, even if the new stage of his, but without certainly, within capitalism. “Nearness” of capitalism like to socialism should serve as a reason to representatives of the proletariat the real proof of its proximity, the ease, the possibility of realization, the urgency of the socialist revolution, and by no means a reason for this, we consider the tolerance revocation of this revolution and to Nafer capitalism, which are involved in all reformists everyone.

But back to the question of state-please. Three kinds of valuable comments most Engels gives here: First, the question of the Republic; Second, the connection between the national question and the structure of the state; Thirdly, regarding local self-management.

As a republic, Engels made this the center of gravity interest of the proposed audit plan Erfurt. If elevated our minds the importance of receiving the Erfurt Program in Social Democracy International as a whole, how the program has become an example for all of the Second International, it can be said without exaggeration, stretching Here Engels criticized the opportunism of the whole Second International.

“Political demands of the proposal – wrote Engels – missed suffer long. Missing it (Engels’s italics), was located actually had to sayy.”

And below makes clear that the German constitution is basically a copy of the Constitution reactionary most of 1850, that the Reichstag is only – as reflected by Wilhelm Liebknecht – “fig leaf of absolutism” and that will fulfill the “turning all instruments of labor to property-rule” on the basis of the Constitution , legalizes the tiny country and tiny marinas German alliance – is “obvious nonsense”.

“It is dangerous to touch it” – adds Engels, know very well that it is impossible to introduce a wave in the program the demand for a republic in Germany. But Engels does not complete quite simply, with this apparent consideration that “all” satisfied with it. Engels continues: “Still have to move the matter, one way or another. The necessity of suggesting opportunism spreading (Einreißende) just now most newspapers Social Democratic Party. Out of fear lest renewed law-anti-socialists, or the memory of statements morality Unity declared Full-time law, like now, the party will see the currently prevailing legal order in Germany as sufficient fulfillment of all demands by peaceful means “.

The basic facts of this, the Social Democrats Germans acted in fear of the renewal of the law of emergency, raises Angeles, first and foremost, and he calls it, without Crcorim, on behalf of opportunism, and states, precisely because the lack of a republic and freedom in Germany will be hallucinating about “ways of peace” Hsrot- Dawn. Engels is sufficiently careful not to tie his hands. He admits, in countries where the Republic or larger freedom “can we imagine (just” imagine “!) A peaceful development leading to socialism, but in Germany, he repeats the words:

… “Germany, whose government is omnipotent almost, and the Reichstag and all other elected institutions do not have the rule of real, – who came to Germany to declare something like this, and when there is no need to make such a statement, it means that he removes the fig leaf over absolutism and stabilizes itself to cover nakedness of it “…

Indeed, it was found that most of the official leaders of the Social Democratic Party, shelved these comments were made Lmhfi-absolutism.

“… Politics such as this may eventually but to direct the party to through incorrect … those raised primarily political questions abstract general, and shade are the concrete questions closest, stand in evident on the agenda with the coming of the great events of the first, with the coming crisis the first political. what results might this bring, apart from that, all of a sudden, at the crucial moment, the party found helpless, because here there is the crucial questions in her vagueness and inconsistency, because these questions were not discussed ever …

“Forgotten it, forgotten considerations elementary largest before this day people wait, this persecution after the plates in an instant and fight for them without considering the consequences that might come, sacrificing the future of the movement on the altar of the present – all this is happening, perhaps, out of arguments” dishonest “. but opportunism is, and will continue to be opportunistic, and opportunism” sense “is, perhaps, the most dangerous …

“If there is anything that is not in doubt, he is in this, our party and the working class can come to power only the reality of the political form such as a democratic republic. The latter is even a special form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as we have already seen the great French Revolution …”

Engels repeats here most prominently the same basic idea, which pervades through all the works of Marx, and Democratic Republic is the closest opening dictatorship of the proletariat. That this Republic, in does not remove all the control of capital, and therefore the suppression of the masses and the class struggle, inevitably leads to escalation of this war, to Htglaoth, development and expansion, so much so that, when the moment comes the possibility of providing the interests root of the oppressed masses, this option is fulfilled without delay, and only in one way: the dictatorship of the proletariat, under the guidance of these masses by the proletariat. Both are “forgotten things” for each fragment Marxism of the Second International, and you forget this extraordinary vividly exposed by the history of the Menshevik Party during the first half of the 1917 Russian Revolution.

The question of the Federative Republic in connection with the national composition of the population Engels wrote:

“What should stand in place of the current German?” (On its reactionary monarchical constitution and dividing the tiny country which is no less reactionary, distribution commemorating the special features of the “Prussian”, under which Germany will deploy them within overall). “In my opinion, can the proletariat be used only in the form of a republic one and undivided. Federative Republic tantamount today usually necessary Territories mighty of the United States, although Orientalist it is already becoming an obstacle. She might have to serve as a step forward in England, where live on two islands four nations if the Parliament one is working there are three methods-legislation differ, side by side. it was long an obstacle Switzerland little, if one can tolerate where federal republic, it’s because the Swiss satisfied with the role of a member of the passive purely in European countries. for Germany to be imitating Switzerland federalist because a big step back. two points distinguish between State-Soviet unified country entirely, and: each country included in the alliance has legislation for civil and criminal special, system-kits special of its own, and more so, on the side of The elected representatives of the people there The representatives of the countries, which indicates each canton, as a single entity, irrespective of, whether big or small is. ” State of the United States in Germany is beyond towards a single unified whole, and the “revolution from above” of the years 1866 and 1870- have not repel back, but supplemented by a “movement from below”.

Moreover, Engels is not indifferent to the question of state forms, but, on the contrary, he tries to analyze very precisely the forms of its transition especially to determine in each case, on the basis of the concrete-historical qualities, what the nature of the shape-transition given. Beyond what is, and what.

Marx Engels also protects well, from the standpoint of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution, on democratic centralism, the republic one and undivided. The Federative Republic sees he goes out-of-rule and an obstacle to development, or as a transition monarchy to a centralized republic, march forward “under certain conditions special. And among these special conditions prominent national question.

With all the criticism of Marx and Engels draw, inexorably, the reactionary of the tiny country and covering national question covers the reactionary that in some concrete cases, we do not find them anywhere, even a hint of a desire to escape the national question – a desire that sinners which sometimes close to the Dutch and Polish Marxists, next to that of the very legal war against nationalism husband-domestic narrow-minded tiny states “their”.

Even in England, there was also sufficient geographical conditions, even a partnership tongue, also history that dates back hundreds of years to “destroy” alleged the national question of partial-England areas, even here brings Engels consider the obvious fact that the national question has not ceased to exist, and therefore considers is the Federative Republic march forward here. ” Of course, there’s even the slightest criticism of the withdrawal of the Federative Republic faults and the struggle for a republic, democratic-centralist.

But the democratic centralism Engels does not in any way that catches bureaucratic means, used the concept of bourgeois ideologues and petty-bourgeois, and even Anarchists latter. In the opinion of Engels does not at all negate centralism wide local self-management, distances absolutely every Birokrtizm all “command” from above, when the communes and protective cylindrical managements on the goodwill unity of the country.

… “Well republic once” – writes Engels, who opened their views Hfrogrmtiot of Marxism on the state – “but not in the sense of the French Republic Current, which is nothing but a body Empire, founded in 1798, Vach without the Emperor. From the year 1792 until 1798 enjoyed every province French, all Community (Gemeinde) French administrative self-control, according to the American example, and this need we too. American and French first Republic showed and proved, how to organize the management of self and how one can sort things out without bureaucracy, and being seen even Canada, Australia and colonies other English . Board self-provincial (cylindrical) and community such institution is much freer than, for example, federalism Swiss, although the canton where he is independent is very relative Bund “(ie, the Federated States intact),” but is independent in relation to the district ( Zirka) and in relation to the community. governments Cantonese appoint provincial governors (Stthltrim) and Hfrfktim, which does not exist in the English language, and that our future will have to be definitely like the Hlndrtim and Hrgirongsrtim Prussian “(commissars, cherry-roll, governors, and in general, officials who are appointed from above). Accordingly offers Engels formulated the program the section on management of self in this way: “Management of self-control in the provinces” (spindle or cylinder), “the district and the community by officials elected in general elections; the elimination of all the local authorities and cylindrical who are appointed by the State”.

,, Newspaper Pravda “, which was closed by the government of Kerensky and ministers” socialist “Others (Issue No. 68, dated May 28, S. 1917), has already had occasion to show how this section – of course, it is not only – Stu us completely pseudo-socialist representatives of pseudo-revolutionary democracy huge deviations from Hdmokrtizm . of course, people who have tied themselves to coalition “with the imperialist bourgeoisie, their ears deaf ears to such comments.

It is very important to note, Engels, equipped with facts, disproves, on the basis of the most precise example, the ancient law very profitable, especially among the petty-bourgeois democracy, the Federative Republic carries, so to speak, more freedom than a centralized republic. This is not true. The facts cited by Engels regarding the centralized French Republic from 1798 to 1792 and Switzerland’s federalist contradictory thing. In reality centralized democratic republic gave more freedom When she handed Federalist Republic. Or in other words: domestic freedom, cylindrical, etc. The largest is, as far as history, by the Republic centralist , not federal.

This fact, as a general question about all the Federative Republic and centralized management and local self-regard, was dedicated and dedicated attention in inadequate preaching and propaganda of our party.

  1. The introduction 1891 civil war “of Marx

Preface to the third edition of the “Civil War in France” – This introduction marked on 18 March 1891 and was first printed in the journal “Neue Zeit” – gives Engels, – with Comments incidentally interesting issues involved in relation to the state – Summary of prominent remarkably of the lessons of the Commune . This summary, deepened by all the experience of a period of twenty years separating the author and the Commune, and directed particularly against the “superstitious belief in” common in Germany, we should rightly be consideredthe last word of Marxism on the question under discussionn.

“After the revolution in France – notes Engels – workers were armed;” so bourgeois sitting at the helm saw themselves first need to disarm the workers. Hence the fact that after every revolution won power of the workers, was groundbreaking new struggle ending defeat of the workers’ …

A summary trial is a bourgeois revolutions brusque alike. Caught here in great essence of it – among other things, the nature of the question of the state (is there an oppressed class arms?). And precisely this essence bypassing most often are professors under the influence of bourgeois ideology and petty-bourgeois democrats. The Russian revolution of 1917 occurred honor (honor of Kooniakim) the fate of Tseretelli “Menshevik,” “also-is-Marxist”, emit through the chatter this secret of bourgeois revolutions. In his speech “historic” on June 11, was thrown from a Tseretelli said on the validity reluctance of the bourgeoisie to disarm the Petrograd workers, When he gave, of course, this decision also his decision is also a necessity “political” at all!

Tseretelli’s historic speech dated June 11 will be used, of course, by every historian of the revolution in 1917 that illustrate the most tangible, how Vesta block of SR-s and Mensheviks, run by Lord Tseretelli, and moved to the side of the bourgeoisie against the revolutionary proletariat.

Another way remark of Engels, also related to the question of the state, directed to religion. Known German social democrat, as she went and rotted, and became increasingly opportunist, also deteriorated more and more frequent distortion of provincial famous formula: “a declaration of religion as a private matter”. In other words, this formula has been interpreted so as if the question of religion is a private matter even for the party the revolutionary proletariat !! This is a complete betrayal of the revolutionary program of the proletariat rebelled Engels, who in 1891 buds are very slim of opportunism in his party, and therefore spoke very carefully:

“As places were almost without exception workers or representatives acting certified excelled in all decisions in the nature proletarian character. Times announced these decisions on the reforms, which the bourgeoisie had gone from them only out of cowardice Coast, while he constituted a necessary element in the operation free of the working class. A it is the realization of the principle, that for the state has no religion but merely a private matter. or places issued regulations that were intended directly for the benefit of the working class and some of them have deepened to undermine orders-old company “…

Engels stressed the intention of the words “for the country” by sending it the scored straight at the eye of the opportunism of the German, who declared religion as a private matter for the party, and it took the party the revolutionary proletariat to the level of husband-home “free mind” the basest , right indeed permit status of lack religious person, but it departs from the position of a struggle party against the religious opium stupefying the people.

The historian of the German Social Democratic future, which plan highlights the roots of collapse shameful in 1914, will find quite a bit of interesting stuff in this regard, starting from the announcements articles leader’s ideology of the party, Kautsky, announcements evasive, opening wide open opportunism, and ending with the attitude of the party to the “Bewegung-Los-von-Kirche” (the movement for separation of religion) in 1913.

But to return Please summarize the lessons of the Commune the proletariat warrior, Engels summed up twenty years after the Commune.

Here are the lessons, Engels raises them in the first line:

“The oppressive rule of the government concentrated earlier, army, political police, the bureaucracy, the rule established by Napoleon in 1798 and which every new government has received it since then the desired device and used it against its opponents – the government, in fact, the law would fall everywhere in France, just fell in Paris itself.

“Commune from the beginning has been to recognize that the working class to take power, not be able to prospectively manage their affairs with mechanism-old state; and to the working class did not leave out his hand over power, he scored but just for himself, he must, on the one hand, to remove the all repressive apparatus-old, who until now against it, and on the other hand, it must ensure himself from his representatives and officials, by declaring that everyone, without exception, can be replaced at any time and hour “…

Engels emphasizes again and again that not only the monarchy, but also in the Democratic Republic adds state to state, meaning it retains the fundamental characteristic trait: Make-bearing positions, the “public servants”, the arms, to be masters itt.

“Against this phenomenon is the transformation of the state and institutions of state servants now sir, inevitable in all countries that were until now, has taken second places means tested. First, it appointed to all positions – management, law, education of the people – just people chosen in general elections, and the like also installed the right to dismiss elected ones at any time by the decision of their constituents. Secondly, it paid all officials, high low only a salary similar to that received by other workers. the high salaries paid at all was 6,000 francs * . by doing so established shutter reliable to the pursuit of jobs and to careerism, and even regardless seats Haimfrtibiim elected officials representing institutions, mandates additional installation commune leaders “…

Engels came here to the interesting boundary line, it becomes a democracy consistent, on the one hand, socialism, and on the other hand, it is demanding socialism. That the state required for elimination to make the functions of the State Service of Supervision simple operation and calculation, which are not more than darting out of reach and power of the majority of the population, and later also of all population. While the rate of careerism requires exact Sarah “respectable” civil service, although it is not putting much, not be able to act as a bridge-jumping bearing high salary jobs in banks and stock companies, as is done regularly in all the freest capitalist countries.

But Engels fails same error, Ssogim, for example, some of the Marxists, the question of the right of nations to self-determination words, under capitalism there is no self-determination possible, and the regime of socialism is unnecessary. Such speculation, supposedly witty, but in fact incorrect, you can also express respect all democratic institutions, including in regard to the modest salary of the officials, that is not entirely consistent Dmokrtizm be impossible under capitalism and socialism regime die every democracyy.

It’s – Sufism, such that old joke: Does a person become ice, if one hair hair Ttmatnh.

Development of democracy to the end-purpose , search the forms of such development, being reviewed in light of the act , etc. – all this is the role of one of the roles of the struggle for socialist revolution. No Dmokrtizm, separately, does not bring socialism, but Hdmokrtizm reality is never “come apart” but “coming relies”, is also running its impact on the economy, speeds up the design of this makeover, and is influenced by the economic development and so on. This is the dialectics of living history.

Engels continues:

“Explosion (Sprengung) It’s the rule of the old state and convert it to the new, truly democratic, are described in detail in the third chapter of” civil war. “But it was necessary to touch here again a few lines of this change, because this is Germany we find that superstition in the country has moved from philosophy and entered the general recognition of the bourgeoisie and the consciousness of many workers. state, according to the doctrine of philosophers it, is “the realization of the idea” or the kingdom of Heaven on earth, copied the language of philosophy; the state is field-action fulfilled it or be realized truth and justice eternal. hence the veneration state and all involved in admiration to superstitious takes root easily, since people are practicing from childhood to think that it is impossible to achieve and maintain the affairs and interests common to all the company an if the old way, ie by the state and its officials, who were allocated jobs highest paying . the people pretend that they are taking steps very brave forward, when they are released from the belief that the monarchy heritage and support the right of democratic republic. but in reality the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one by another class, and the Democratic Republic generally no less than a monarchy. case the best the country has seen misfortune hereditary proletariat, having won the war for the sake of class rule; Similar to the commune must be victorious proletariat immediately cut the branches most pernicious of this evil – until a new generation, which will increase Btnai- a new free and will be able to throw away all these scrap-state “.

Engels warned the Germans, who happened to be replaced monarchy republic to forget the principles of socialism on the question of the state in general. Now called the warnings as a percentage aimed directly gentlemen Htzrtlim and Htz’rnobim, that their activities “coalition” found in superstition and veneration-nonsense it!

Two more comments. 1) If Engels said that a democratic republic, “no less than” a monarchy, the state continues to be a “machine for the oppression of one class by another”, it does not mean the things that the form of oppression is important for the proletariat, as Maurice went to “some anarchists. Form a broader, freer, more open of the class struggle and class oppression give tremendous relief proletariat struggle to cancel classes at all.

2) What was the point that only a new generation be able to throw away perfectly all these scrap-state? – This question relates to the question of overcoming democracy, and in this regard we are going through right now.

  1. Engels on the Overcoming of democracy

Engels had occasion in this regard his opinion on the topic of jamming science , called “social democrat”.

In the introduction to remove articles Of the 1870 subjects with different contents of “international” for the most part ( “Internationales aus dem” Volksstaat “* * “), – introduction, marked on 3 January 1894, ie, written a year and a half before the death of Engels , he writes, that all the articles used the word “Communist”, and not “social-Democrat”, the name of social democrats called themselves at that time Proudhonists France, Hlslianiim [Lassalle] in Germany.

… “Which also have not seen, Marx and I, the possibility to use the term flexible so mark the point of view of our special. Today situation is different, and the word it (” Social-Democrat “) may perhaps be kosher (mag Passieren) Although it continues to be an accurate (inappropriate – Unpassend) for the party, its program is not merely socialist in general, but communist explicitly – about a party whose political aim ultimate goal is to overcome the whole state, and therefore democracy. indeed, never the names of the political parties real(Engels’s italics) them perfectly appropriate; the party develops, the name remainss. ”

Dialectician Engels twilight of his day, loyal dialectics. Marx and I, he says, was an appropriate name, exact science party, but there was no real party, ie a mass proletarian party. Now (at the end of the nineteenth century) has a real party, but its name is scientifically faulty. But there is nothing, “That’s enough”, provided that the party will evolve, and only that-precision scientific name will not be lost on her and stop her from developed with a view to correct!

Indeed, even us, the Bolsheviks, could a clown console style-Engels: we have a real party, it is developing wonderfully; “Sufficient” too ugly word, meaningless, like “Bolshevik”, which does not express anything definitely, except that random, conference-Brussels-London in 1903 we were the majority … [ translator’s note : “Bolshevik” – meaning Russian, roughly, ” Ben majority faction “]. Now, when the persecution against our party in July and August from Republicans and democracy husband-home “revolutionary” gave the word “Bolshevik” great respect in the eyes of the entire nation, which is also marked persecution of those step-ahead historic huge so, walking our party development real , I would also I might, I raised doubts about holding my proposal in April [ translator’s note : these are the “April theses” famous], change the name of our party. Maybe I would suggest to my colleagues that “compromise” be called a communist party, and leave word in brackets the Bolsheviks …

But the question of the party’s name far less important question of the attitude of the revolutionary proletariat to the state.

Regular discussions on the state is always made the same mistake, champagne and Engels warned here that it indicated the way our words earlier. Ie always forget that the cancellation of the country is also eliminating democracy, the demise of the state is also the demise of democracy.

Such apparent assumption seems very strange and incomprehensible; Maybe even someone wakes up with fear, lest we wait for the arrival of this social system, not to be used in the principle of subordination of the minority to most, because democracy is the admission of this principle?

No. Democracy and the subordination of the minority generally do not overlap. Democracy is a sale subject to the minority and the majority, ie, is an organization for violence systematically one class against the other, a part-populations of the other part.

We set our aim to finalize the abolition of the state, namely the elimination of all organized and systematic violence, all violence against people in general. We do not expect the arrival of the social system, not to be used in the principle of subordination of minority and the majority. But, we wanted to socialism, sure we would catch would be communism, and thus disappear all the necessary violence toward people in general, bending of personhood in defeating the part-populations of divided populations else, that people will get used to comply with the terms of the elementary of social without violence and without subordination .

To emphasize this element of habit, Engels speaks about the generation new S”igdl new social conditions, free, and be able to throw away perfectly all these scrap-state “- of any state, including even the Democratic-Republican state.

In order to clarify this matter should analyze the question of the economic foundations of the demise of the state.

Chapter V

Economic foundations of the demise of the state

The most detailed discussion of this question was given by Marx in his article “Review Gotha Program” (letter to the temple of May 5, 1875, published only in 1891 in “Neue Zeit”, IX , 1 and published in Russian in a special booklet). Polemical part of this excellent work deals with criticism Hlslianiot, darkened, so to speak, to share in the positive, namely the analysis of the relationship between the development of communism and the demise of the state.

  1. Raising the question by Marx

Comparison superficial of the two letters, a letter Marx to the temple of May 5, 1875 letter Engels to Babylon dated 28 March 1875, cited above, might imagine, Marx is a “state” much Angeles, and great is the difference between the views of the two authors of the country .

Engels has to Babylon completely stop the chatter about anything the state, the program completely uproot the word state, replacing it with the word “community”; Engels argues that even places that already did not have a sense of self. Whereas Marx speaks of the “future state of communist society”, ie he acknowledges the state also alleged inevitability of communism regime.

But opinion such as this would be a misapprehension. Contemplation-a closer look, the views of Marx and Engels on the state and the demise quite perfect, and the expression of Marx stated explicitly aimed officialdom dying thiss.

Clearly, there is no talk at all about determining the moment of the “demise” future , especially that we know in advance that it would be a long process. Imaginary difference between Marx Engels clarified by different threads, each of which discusses them, by different tasks, each of which had preceded him. Engels imposed on the role tangibly demonstrate Babylon, striking, in broad terms, the nonsense prejudices earnings relative to the state (and which basket they shared a large extent). Marx touches only casually question it , that is interested in another issue: the development of communist societyy.

All Marx’s theory is to use the theory of development – in its most consistent, complete, deep-thinking and rich in content – about contemporary capitalism. It is natural that the question regarding the use of this theory in relation to the collapse of capitalism is imminent and the development of the future of communism in the future , rose and rose before Marxx.

Are therefore data , on the basis of which one can raise the question of the future development of future communism?

On this basis, it is born of capitalism, which is the fruit of historical development of capitalism, the results of such a social force that capitalism gave birth . Marx also no trace of utopianism efforts friend, guess vain who can not be known. Marx raises the question that communism, as a naturalist or more, for example, a question on which the development of new biological forms, from which we know has been the emergence and transformation trend.

Marx removes first her imbroglio, Gotha program puts into question the interaction between state and society.

… “Modern society – he writes – is a capitalist society, which exists in all countries of civilization, cleanest and to a lesser extent or balance a mix of the medieval spirit, developed more or less, which has a different shape, more or less in different countries influenced by features-the historical development specific to any country and land. in contrast, “modern state” completely changing the nature with all the political border. Prussian German Empire – is completely different than in Switzerland, England is completely different than in the United States. “modern state” is therefore a fiction.

But with all the striking diversity of shapes of various countries in various countries-civilization, one thing they have in common, is that they are on land bourgeois society of our time, more or less developed capitalist perspective. Therefore, they have a lack of these fundamental traits in common. In this sense, one can speak of “the modern state” as opposed to the future to come, when the current root dies, this bourgeois society.

The question that arises from this is: What consideration shall statehood in communist society? In other words, what are the social functions plus exist then, as a function of the state today? This response should be given only scientifically; Even if a thousand times would wind the word “with” the word “state” whether they are for unity, not promote this solution also question something … ”

So where Marx laughing all the talk about “country folk”, and he put the question as though he warned that there a scientific answer to it can be used only for certain data scientifically approved.

The first thing, determined with great accuracy by any theory of evolution, by any science at all – and it forgot utopians, and it forgets the opportunists today, who are scared of socialist revolution – it is a fact that, historically should be, without a doubt, stage special or a special episode of transition from capitalism to communism.

  1. The transition from capitalism to communism

“… The capitalist society and this communist – continues Marx, – separating a period of revolutionary change will apply in the first up and turned into the other. For this is also suitable period of transition politically, and the state in this period can not be anything else but a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat … ”

This conclusion is based on an analysis by Marx, the proletariat’s role in the current capitalist society, the development of this company data and impossibility of reconciling conflicts of interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

First would raise the question as follows: To the proletariat obtains his release, he must defeat the bourgeoisie, conquer political power, to establish its proletarian dictatorship.

Now the question is worded slightly different formulation: the transition from capitalist society evolving towards communism, to communist society is impossible without a “political transition period”, and the state of that period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

So what is the attitude of this dictatorship to democracy?

We have seen that the “Communist Manifesto” simply puts the two concepts in one line: “Making the proletariat ruling class” and conquering democracy “. On the basis of the above can be defined more precisely how democracy changes the transition from capitalism to communism.

Capitalist society, most convenient development condition, we have full Dmokrtizm more or less Democratic Republic. But this Dmokrtizm always stressed the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation, and therefore he adds always be, in fact, but Dmokrtizm for the minority, only for class-owners, only for the rich. Freedom of capitalist society always remains similar, roughly, freedom prevailed in ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Terms of capitalist exploitation strongly oppressed slaves contemporary employees and the lack of pressure distress so, “that their free democracy”, “politics”, and during the events in the Pacific, most suppressed normal population from participation in political and social life.

Justness of this assertion is confirmed in a palpable perhaps by Germany specifically, according to the policy that took place legal, constitutional time beautifully and solidly, almost pulled a century (1914-1871), and during this time she knew here Social Democracy, more than any other country it, to work for “exploiting legal,” and for organizing a large part of such a political party workers, as that has not happened anywhere else in the world.

What, then, this rate of salaried slaves conscious and politically active, the biggest lesson from what you might find in another country a capitalist society? One million members of the Social-Democratic Party – out of 15 million laborers! Three million organized in trade unions – out of 15 million!

Democracy for negligible minority, democracy for the rich – is thus Hdmokrtizm of capitalist society. If we look closely mechanism of capitalist democracy, he saw looks at everything, both in private “little ones”, petty as it were, of the right to vote (capping the meeting place of permanent issuance of Women exceptions, etc.), are the technique of the representative institutions, are obstacles to real convening meetings (public buildings are not for “beggars”!), are pure capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., – it seems exceptions and limitations of Hdmokrtizm. All these restrictions, discriminating, spending exceptions, barriers mouths of the poor, seem trivial, especially to people who have never seen themselves in distress and came into close contact with the oppressed classes in the lives of the mass (and non Such people are nine-tenths, if not ninety-nine hundredths of journalists and bourgeois politicians) – but these restrictions summarizing them, reaching the door of the people from politics, pushing her from active participation in democracy.

Marx very well capture the essence of this capitalist democracy, saying the analysis Commune: the oppressed allowed once every few years to determine who will be the representatives of the oppressor class represents shall designate and repress the parliament!

But the way of the development of capitalist democracy that, limited necessarily rejecting secretly the poor classes, hypocritical, then, and false in her core, – way of development forward is simple and smooth, which leads straight “to democracy more and more” as describing what professors liberal and petty-bourgeois opportunists. No. Forward development, ie to communism, going through the dictatorship of the proletariat, and can not move forward in a different way, that there is no other power and no other way to break the resistance of the capitalists-exploiterss.

However dictatorship of the proletariat, ie organization of the oppressed to being avant-garde ruling class for suppressing the oppressors, can not bring with it the expansion of democracy only just. Along with the huge expansion of Hdmokrtizm is done, for the first time , Ldmokrtizm for the poor, Dmokrtizm for people, not for the rich Dmokrtizm, brings dictatorship of the proletariat series of regulations denial of freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them, to liberate humanity from the yoke of slavery rented, we must break down the opposition force – and it is clear that where there is oppression, where there is violence, there is no freedom, no democracy.

Engels was well expressed in his letter to Babylon, saying, recall the reader, that “the proletariat needs a state not for freedom but for subduing enemies, and since the founding of the possibility of talking about freedom, there will be no state.”

Democracy for the vast majority of the people and suppressing the exploiters, the people suppressors, suppression by force, ie, exclusion of democracy – here this is the change that form of democracy during the transition from capitalism to communism.

Only communist society, when the resistance the capitalists has been completely broken, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no more classes (ie, there is no longer a difference between the attitude society by social means of production), – only then “the state disappears and you can talk about freedom “. Only then can come true and full democracy really come true, without any exception. And only then begin to democracy perish , because it is a simple fact that the people were plucked from capitalist slavery, atrocities, brutality, folly and humiliation many of capitalist exploitation, begin to slowly get used to keeping the rules of life-together, the rules of elementary-known for generations, repeated For thousands of years all books alphabet, starting to get used to save them without violence, without coercion, without submission, without a mechanism unique to coercion, called the statee.

The expression “the state is dying ” successfully elected, he also instructs the gradual nature of the process and also on his Stichit. Only habit can act, and no doubt will run such an operation, because all around us we see millions of times, how people practice easily save rules of life-Tzavta they need, if there is no survivor, if nothing arouses indignation, protest and revolt, and creates the necessity for suppression .

To sum up: in capitalist society we have a democracy truncated, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. Dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, is the first to give democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the minority, the suppression of the exploiters. Only Communism alone is capable of giving really complete democracy, and it may be more complete, the hurry to be unnecessary, therefore be in a hurry to die for granted.

In other words, under capitalism we have a sense of self, a special machine for the oppression of one by another, the majority by the minority oppression. Of course, success in action such systematic suppression of the exploited majority by the minority of exploiters, requires extreme cruelty, cruel oppression, rivers of blood are needed which indeed makes humanity the way to a state of slavery, serfdom, rent.

Later, during the transition from capitalism to communism still needed oppression, but it has been the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. Special mechanism, known as special oppression, “the country” is still necessary, but this is already state of transition, that is not this more a sense of self, that the suppression of the exploiting minority by the majority of slaves employees yesterday is comparatively easy task, simple and natural so , it will cause less bloodshed than the suppression of uprisings in many slaves, serfs and hired workers, it will cost mankind far more cheaply. And it can be done while the expansion of democracy, which will apply from now on the overwhelming majority-populations so, from now on going and constant need for machine-special oppression . Exploiters, of course, unable to suppress the people without a machine very complex for a mission like this, but people can overwhelm the exploiters even with a “machine” simple, even without a “machine”, almost without a special apparatus, using only an organization just a mass armed (eg councils of workers’ and soldiers axes, – we should point out here, Bhkdimno the latest).

Finally, only Communism creates an exact need for the country, that those who oppress, “There is no one” in class , in a systematic struggle with a certain part of the population. We do not utopians, we do not deny at all the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of outbreaks private individuals , and also does not negate the need for the necessary exceptions to suppress outbreaks such . But, first, there is no need for a special machine, special Bmngnn oppression, the people will do it armed itself simply and easily, as all cultural audience even in today’s society separates fighting or preventing rape a woman. Secondly, we know that the main social cause of outbreaks of deviations, expressed in violating the regulations of living-together, is the exploitation of the masses, hardship and poverty. With the elimination of the main cause of this will start inevitably ” perish ” is also exceptional outbreaks. We do not know how quickly and to what gradation it will come, but we know they will die. With the demise die even the statee.

Marx, who immersed himself in utopias, described in detail which can be defined now regarding this future, namely: define the difference between step (step, chapter) lower and upper phase of communist society.

  1. The first phase of communist society

Critique of Gotha Program “Marx refuted at length the idea of ​​a cart that socialism regime will implement the” fruit of his non-truncated “or” full “. Marx shows that from the fruit of social work of all society as a whole must be deducted a reserve fund and a fund for expanding production, the renewal called “decaying”, etc., but also has to deduct consumer products fund administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, retirement homes, etc. .

Instead the General Court, non-obvious, obscure the basket ( “full fruit of labor – carry”), Marx gives a sober account, how socialist society will have to manage the economy. Marx went for analyzing concrete living conditions in such a way that it will not capitalism, and says in this respect:

“Here we have an interest” (in analyzing the program of the Workers’ Party), “not with a communist societythat has developed on the basis of equity, but with a communist outgoing but just out of capitalist society, and therefore it bears still, in every respect – economic, moral and intellectual, – the mark of the old society, close out “.

Now, this communist society, which has just gone into the world of capitalism, which carries more the old company seal, in all respects, read Marx stage “first” or lower communist society.

The means of production have already been owned by private individuals. The means of production belong to society as a whole already. Each member-company, that fills a specific part of the social-necessary work, receives approval from the company, he performed such and such amount of work. According to this authorization is receiving public warehouses ingredients suitable amount of goods. After deduction of the amount of work allocated to fund public, thus getting all the Company operates the same amount he had given her.

Theres so-called “equality”.

But at the basket says on the social patterns like this (called normal socialism, but Marx referred to are the name of the first phase of communism), that this is “equitable distribution”, that this is “the equal right of all people the fruit worth of work”, the basket wrong and Marx explains his mistake.

Although – says Marx – here we have “equal right”, but this is still a “bourgeois right”, which, like all right, she assumes the inequality . All right it’s operating scale is worth about people different , in fact, are not the same, are not equal; And therefore have an equal right of “constitute an infringement of inequality and injustice. Fact is, that every one who did all the work of social work is part of his friend, gets an equal share of social production (except for the aforementioned deductions).

But individuals are not wrong people are equal: it stronger and it’s weaker, it married and it’s not, that there are more children and other less so on.

“… The work is worth, – concludes Marx – that is, equal participation in public consumption fund, one will, in practice, than the author, found that proportion and so on. To avoid all this, it is necessary that the right instead of being equal, would be an equal …”

It follows that the first stage of communism still is unable to provide justice and equality: more remain differences in wealth, and differences are unjust, but will no longer be the possibility of exploiting man by man, that is impossible to put a hand on the means of production , the factories, machines, land, etc. and make them private property. Incidentally Refuting trial petty-bourgeois blurred the basket on “equality” and justice ” in general , shows Marx the course of development of communist society, forced to initially cancel only the” injustice “takeover of the means of production by individuals, and not able to cancel out soon the The rest of injustice, is included in the distribution of commodities, “according to work” (and not according to needs).

Vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors too, including fried [Tugan] “our”, scolded always socialists, they forget the alleged inequality of men and “holmim “cancel this inequality. Such reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme their ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists masters.

Moreover, Marx takes into account accurately the “inequality” inevitability of humans, but it is mindful also that the transfer of the means of production co-ownership of the company as a whole ( “socialism” using the usual word) does not remove the faults of distribution and the inequality of “bourgeois law”, which adds control , as long as groceries divide “by workingg”.

… “But those shortcomings – adds Marx – are inevitable in the first phase of communist society in the same way that she had when she left after the cords-birth long of capitalist society. Never could the court transcend regime, economic and cultural development of society, the development of conditional regime it ‘…

That is, the first phase of communist society (normally call it socialism) is eliminated “bourgeois law” is not completely, but only part, just as the rate of economic revolution has been achieved, meaning only in relation to the means of production. “Bourgeois law” recognizes private property of individuals; Socialism makes them property rule . Degree , and only if it is canceled “bourgeois laww”.

But this court continues to exist at the other , ie, a regulator (determines) the distribution of goods and the division of labor among the members of society. “Anyone who does not work shall not eat” – this socialist principle has been fulfilled; “For an equal amount of work, an equal amount of fruit-work” – also this socialist principle has been fulfilled. Although yes, it is not yet communism, and it still does not eliminate the “bourgeois law”, which gives people an equal amount of production equal amount of labor for an equal (unequal actually).

This is a “disadvantage”, says Marx, but it is impossible to avoid it in the first stage of communism, that, without setting Utopianism, do not think that the people who will destroy capitalism, learn immediately to work for society without any legal norms , and the abolition of capitalism also does not give at once the economic pre-conditions to change this .

And other norms, beyond the bourgeois Trial “- no. And to some extent still needed in the country, which together with cost saving rule on the means of production, save for equal work and equal distribution of the produce.

The state is dying, if not already capitalists, and there have been classes, and can not be further depresswhat class it iss.

But the state has not died completely, that more must safeguard the “bourgeois law”, the temple inequality in fact. To complete her death state of complete communism is necessary.

  1. The top phase of communist society

Marx continues:

… “At the top of communist society, after the canceled sit-person division of labor enslaves him; after called off at that time also the contrast between the work of intellectual and physical; when it ceased work to be merely a means for life, and shall be made herself the purpose of life first; as with development comprehensive information will increase as the productive forces, and all sources of social wealth Make full Zrmm, – only then will it be possible to overcome completely trouble-horizon of the Court bourgeois, and now you can register on the banner: “each according to his talents, to each according to his needs”.

Only now can we appreciate all of the comments were right Engels, when mocked without mercy on the futility of the phrase “freedom” and “state. As long as there is a state, there is no freedom. When will freedom, not a state.

Economic foundation demise total of state will serve the development of high so of communism, it was gone contrast between physical work and that mental and gone, therefore, one of the most important sources of inequality in the society today, and is also a source that can not be absolutely removed at once but only by moving production facilities to the Company, by expropriating the capitalists only.

Dispossession that will give the possibility to the development of the enormous productive forces. And when we see how capitalism inhibitor already immensely this development, and that if not for this delay, it was possible to move a lot of things forward on the basis of technique achieved already in our time, we may say with certainty, that expropriating the capitalists will bring development enormous productive forces of society. But how rapidly this development will continue to progress, how fast you get up to separation labor dispute, to the exclusion of the contrast between the physical intellectual work, to making life work-first ‘necessity’ – so we do not know and can not knoww.

Therefore, we may speak only about the demise of the inevitability of the country, highlighting that the process is prolonged, that depends on it fast development of the upper stage of communism, and assuming for the time being completely open the question regarding the dates and concrete forms of the demise of this, the material for solving such questions – no .

The state could die altogether, after which the Company will adopt the rule, “each according to abilities, to each according to his needs”, ie, after people get used so much for rules basic elements of life and society and their work will be fruitful so, that they would work voluntarily according skills . “The narrow horizon of bourgeois law”, which compels a person to calculate his strictness rigid Shylock, that will work, God forbid, half an hour more than the author, that will, God forbid, hired as its author, – this narrow horizon will then behind us. Ingredients division not require so from now the determination of general commodities amount due to each; Everyone will be free to take “according to his needs”.

From the point of view of the bourgeois is easy to declare a social structure such as a “sheer utopia” and joked that the socialists promise to anyone, without any criticism of the work of the individual citizen, the right to receive from the Company any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc.. Such banter Potter himself today most “scientists” bourgeois, who show by both the ignorance and the defense of capitalism, protecting involved in the best-pleasure.

Ignorance Is that not occurred to any socialist “ensure” that the upper stage of development of Communism will come, but the vision of the Socialists major that will come, presume productivity of labor, unlike the present, and the reality of a person who is not a party home like the present , which could, as students “Stock Exchange” in Fomialobski [Pomyalovskij], corrupt “just” social property warehouse and demand the impossible.

Each time, does not reach the stage “top” of communism, require the Socialists criticized the strict efficient on the company and the state on the rate of work and the rate of consumption, but this review must begin in the dispossession of the capitalists, under the supervision of the workers on the capitalists, and this review should be made not by state of officials, but by a state of workers armed .

Defense biased, bourgeois ideologists (and their hangers as Messrs Htzrtlim, Htz’rnobim Co.) defended capitalism, is included in this, their controversies and their conversations about the distant future are overshadowed by the looming question is essential that the politics of the present : expropriating the capitalists, making all the civil employees and serve the “syndicate” big one , namely the whole country, and the total enslavement of all the work of this syndicate the entire country truly democratic, state councils of workers and soldiers delegates.

In fact, as the learned professor, followed by the man McCartney, followed by Messrs Htzrtlim and Htz’rnobim talking about utopias missing-Shahar, promises demagogic of the Bolsheviks, the impossibility “to introduce” socialism, mean they are definitely the top rung of communism, that people not only who promised to “introduce it,” but that opinion no one else had the idea to ensure this, that it is impossible, in general, “to introduce it.”

And here we got the same question of the scientific difference between socialism and communism, Engels said he touched her better judgment, cited above, concerning the distorted name “social democrats”. The difference between political first step, or lower, and the upper stage of communism will certainly, over time, a huge, but now, during the period of capitalism, would be absurd to admit it, and perhaps only anarchists individuals are able to do about the first order (if more remain among the anarchists people, not learned anything after incarnation “Plekhanov”, the Hkrofotkinim [Kropotkin], of Garvey [Grave], Cornelissen [Cornelissen] and other “stars” of anarchism, the Social-chauvinists made or Anarchists of digging-war “, in the words of Genesis [Ge ], one of the few anarchists who kept their honor and conscience).

But the scientific difference between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism, Marx called Stage “Sunday” or bottom of a communist society. If the property means of production become common , the same applies here as well use the word “communism,” but without forgetting that this is communism is not complete. The majority of inquiries Marx is it, Marx systematically adopted even here the materialist dialectics, the theory of evolution, he saw communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastic manner fictional settings, settings “invented” the false argument about words (what is Socialism, what’s Communism), gives Marx’s analysis which can be called: the stages of the economic maturity of communism.

Combining first, first his level yet no communism could be due entirely economically, completely free traditions has or trail of capitalism. Hence it is an interesting phenomenon that, of maintaining “the narrow horizon of the Court bourgeois ” Combining communist regime first. Bourgeois law regarding the distribution of products of consumption assumes, of course, assuming that an early and necessary, even a bourgeois state , that statement is nothing but zero without mechanism that can compel the observance of legal normss.

Is not only a communist regime takes place during a specific time bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state exists – without the bourgeoisie!

This may seem a paradox, or simply play all the dialectic, which often accused the Marxist People who touch when all she learn the contents very deep.

In fact show us life every step of the remains of the old in the new, both in nature and in society. And not act arbitrarily was the part of the ridge, when staring a little piece of “bourgeois sentence” in communism, but he took nothing inevitable economically and politically in the company rising from capitalismm.

There is enormous value to democracy struggle of the working class with the capitalist release. But democracy does not even limit him there is only one way stations from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to communism.

Democracy means equality. Of course, what a great value of the proletarian struggle for equality, and equality password, if understood in the sense of eliminating absolute class . But democracy means only equality informal , and immediately after the realization of equality of all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, after realizing equal work, equal wage-labor, exceeding necessarily before humanity the question of continuing the way of formal equality to equality actual, ie to the realization of the rule, “each according to abilities, to each according to his needs”. What are transit stations this way, what are the practical regulations, for which humanity will go towards this ultimate goal, we do not know and can not know. But the important thing that we find out for ourselves what is false beyond measure is the concept of bourgeois usual on socialism, which is supposedly something dead, frozen, fixed forever it is made, first, when in fact it only with socialism will begin movement made rapid progress, real, mass movement really, participation the majority of the population, and then a whole population of them all, progress in all areas of social and personal life.

Democracy is a form-state, one of its various forms. This means that, like every state is nothing but the use of organized, systematic violence against humans. It is on one side. But, on the other hand, it means a formal acknowledgment equal citizens, equal right of all to determine the structure of the state and its management. Which in turn is related that, at a certain stage of development of democracy, it unites first the class that occupies a revolutionary position compared to capitalism, the proletariat, and give him the possibility to break, shatter to pieces, to wipe the machine-bourgeois state, and even bourgeois-republican, the permanent army, the police, the bureaucracy, and replace them with democratic machine more , yet it is a political machine – in the form of mass-armed workers undergoing general participation of the entire people in the militia.

Here “quantity turns into quality”: a step like that of Dmokrtizm involve deviations from bourgeois society, at the beginning of a change-socialist structure of society. If indeed all participants in the management of the state, then capitalism can no longer hold. And the development of capitalism is itself creates the preconditions necessary that although “all” can participate in management of the country. One of the earliest of these is the literacy general, has already been achieved already by some capitalistic most advanced, then came “teaching and disciplining” of millions of workers by machinery immense, complex, rule-social mechanism of mail, Msilot- iron, the big factories, big trade, banks, etc., etc..

Due to the presence of pre-conditions for economic , it is possible immediately after the overthrow of the capitalists and bureaucrats, move the hands, overnight, the supervision of production and distribution, the calculation of labor forces and commodities – to the armed workers, to the whole armed people. (Do not mix the question of supervision and personnel calculation on the question of scientific education professionals, such as engineers, agronomists, etc: These gentlemen are working today, they are subject to the capitalists, they will benefit even more work tomorrow, because they are subject to the armed workers.)

Calculation and criticism – this is the main thing needed L”hsdrto “proper functioning of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are becoming salaried employees here in the state, embodied in the form of armed workers. All citizens become employees and workers of the “syndicate” state of surrounding the entire nation. The essence of the matter is, they work equally adhere properly to the extent of the work and receive equally. Their calculation of these things, supervision, brought about by capitalism to the simplicity of very large, to simple actions greatly, they are under the power of any person literate, acts of surveillance and recording, knowledge of the four arithmetic operations and giving proper bills * .

While most people will begin independently and everywhere such criticism, such a control over the capitalists (who became henceforth employees) and respect for the masters-intelligent, who continue to hold manners capitalists, that time will be monitored this truly universal, comprehensive, supervision of the entire nation, and then it will be impossible to get out from under any circumstances, “there will be no retreat.”

Each company will have one office and a single factory with equality of work and equality of pay.

But discipline “House Instrumental” This is from the proletariat won the capitalists, sent the exploiters, the discipline he imposes it on all of society as a whole, is by no means our ideal, is not our ultimate goal, there is only step necessary to purify society radically from degradation and abominations of capitalist exploitation and for continuing progresss.

From the moment that now everyone or, at least, the vast majority have learned to manage their own country, took this matter into their own hands, “arranged” the monitoring of minority zero of the capitalists, the masters-in miniature, seeking to maintain the trappings of capitalism, the workers who Corruption -hkfitlizm deepened them, from that moment begins to disappear any need for what management it. It may be a more complete democracy, also will hasten the moment, there will be more need for it. As The State “embodied in the form of armed workers, – which is” no longer a sense of self “- will be more democratic, also should be rushed to the beginning of the demise of any country whatsoeverr.

That when all learn to administer and manage really independently the social production and will independently review and supervision to eat-and do not-do, the lovers-mastery, the swindlers and other “guardians of tradition capitalism”, then the respect in any case of evasion of supervision and criticism of the entire nation, respects so and will become a rare sight Mel-so, and will result, surely, after also punished quickly and severely so (that operate militants are men of action, not intelligent-miniature sentimental, and probably never will fool them ), to the need to maintain the basic rules of the non-life composite of all-human team will be very soon a habit .

At that moment the door wide open transition from the first phase of communist society to the upper heart, and yet to the demise of the country’s total.

Chapter VI

Newell Marxism by the opportunists

Question of the state’s attitude toward the social revolution and the attitude of the social revolution to the state, as the goddess of the revolution in general, but little occupied the most prominent theorists and publicists of Haintrntzional II (1914-1889). But the most characteristic thing in that process of gradual growth of opportunism that led to the collapse of Haintrntzional second in 1914, is that even when accessed to this question closely, struggled to get around it, or feel itt.

You can usually tell, to evade the question of the relation of the proletarian revolution to the state, the easy opportunism and breadwinner him, led to the distortion of Marxism and Newell finishedd.

To describe, albeit briefly, the process of this dismal women ahead the most prominent theorists of Marxism, Plekhanov and Kautsky the.

  1. Plekhanov’s controversy with the anarchists

Plekhanov devoted to the question of the attitude of anarchism to socialism pamphlet: “Anarchism and Socialism”, published in German in 1894.

Plekhanov outsmarted discuss this issue, completely bypassing the current affairs and the most urgent, the most significant political struggle with the anarchists, were the question of the attitude of the revolution to the state and the question of the state in general! Prominent Bhobrto two parts: the first – a historical-literary, containing valuable material history of the ideas of Stirner [Stirner], Proudhon and others. The rest – provincial, containing agglomerated logics, following to say it is impossible to distinguish between an anarchist and criminal.

This combination is very entertaining and most characteristic of Plekhanov any action at the dawn of the revolution and during the Russian Revolution: that same Plekhanov was discovered in 1917-1905, half doctrinaire and half provincial, tailing behind bourgeois politics.

We saw Marx and Engels Bhtflmsm with the anarchists, most worked diligently to find out how their views on the ratio of the revolution to the state. Incidentally removing “Review Gotha Program” by Marx, in 1891, Engels wrote that “we (that is, Engels and Marx) we were so basically boiling struggle with Bakunin and his anarchists – have not been two years since the International Congress (I) in The Hague.”

Because here the anarchists actually bothered to announce the Paris Commune as “their” so to speak, as it confirms the teachings, as they had not understood the lessons of the Commune and the analysis of these lessons, conducted by Marx. Anarchism is not appropriate given nothing even close to authenticate the concrete political questions: necessary to break the old state apparatus? – And what to replace itt?

But to speak of “anarchism and socialism” while bypassing the whole question of the state, without realizing any development of Marxism before and after the Commune, it means that inevitably degenerate into opportunism. That opportunism is needed most of all, both of these questions here will not be raised at all.Already it only constitutes a victory for opportunismm.

  1. Kautsky’s controversy with the opportunists

Russian literature translated into works of Kautsky, without doubt, a greater number, far more than any other literature. Not for nothing kidding failure of these social democrats Germans, whose Kautsky often read in Russia than in Germany (stated in brackets: joke that has content historic deep much more than these gates who made it, namely: The Russian workers, provoked in 1905 a huge demand, there example, the most exquisite pieces of literature Social democratic excellent in the world and have received a lot of translations of those works and releases a lot, if that did not sound like other countries, such violation, stated that, to the land of our movement proletarian young Netta experience the mighty of the neighboring country, the more advanced ).

Especially famous here Kautsky, except to lecture its popular-Marxism, his polemic with Bernstein and the opportunists headed. But there is one fact that almost is not known, and which is impossible to miss, if women ahead goal at how the deterioration of Kautsky until it reaches the loss-marbles disgraceful and awesome and to protecting social chauvinism during the greatest crisis in 1915-1914. And that fact: before leaving the battle against the most important representatives of the opportunists in France (Miliirn [Millerand] and Jaurès [Jaurès]) and in Germany (Bernstein), Kautsky showed very much hesitation. The newspaper Marxist “sunrise” [ “zarya” = Dawn] was published from 1902 to 1901 in Stuttgart and defending the views of the proletarian-revolutionary, forced to debate with Kautsky and call its resolution in Congress Socialist International in Paris in 1900, – Resolution hesitant, evasive, compromising relative opportunists – the name resolution “of caoutchoucs”. German literature printed letters Kautsky then, they discovered no less hesitation before leaving on a journey against Bernstein.

However, a much greater value there is the fact that today, when we study the history of betrayal of Marxism Kautsky’s new, we distinguish essentially polemical So with the opportunists, in raising the question and be heard, systematic overflow into opportunism rather on the question of the state.

Take an the first great work of Kautsky against opportunism, his book “Bernstein and the Social Democratic program.” Kautsky, Bernstein contradicting opinions in detail. But here apart from typical.

Bernstein ‘Leave early socialism “of his who were publishing Hrostrti, accuses Marxism B”blnkizm” (guilt, since that was repeated thousands of times by the opportunists and liberal bourgeoisie in Russia against the representatives of revolutionary Marxism, the Bolsheviks). The process is delayed Bernstein especially on “Civil War in France” of Marx and try – as we have seen, in an extremely successful – to identify the point of view of Marx on the lessons of the Commune with the point of view of Proudhon. Especially aroused the attention of Bernstein that Marx’s conclusion, highlighted by him in the introduction of the 1872 Communist Manifesto “, saying:” It is impossible, that the working class would receive the state machine and operate as it is for its own purposes. ”

It said “liked” so long Bernstein eyes, until he returns in his book no less than three times, it means interpreting opportunistic, very distorted.

Marx, as we have seen, that is, the working class must break, smash, blast (Sprengung – explosion, an expression he used in Engels) the whole political machine. But according Dbrnstiin out, as though Marx in these words warned the working class against the revolutionary conquest of power is too great.

Marx’s idea of ​​castration in obscene than that we can not imagine.

How, then, would most detailed Kautsky midst of disproving the Hbrnstiiniadh?

He shirked distortion depth investigation, falsified opportunism in Marxism at this point. He led the passage quoted above from advancing Angeles civil war in France “and said that according to Marx no working class can simply take over the state machine ready , but in general can he accept arms. That said, nothing more. In this regard, that Bernstein attributed to Marx the idea, which is the exact opposite real idea of Marx, in this regard, that from the year 1852 onwards ridge was up in the first row to the role of the proletarian revolution “break” the called political – in this regard we do not find in Kautsky single word .

Is, the most significant difference between Marxism and opportunism on the question of the proletarian revolution roles blurred by Kautsky!

“The question of solving the problem of proletarian dictatorship – wrote Kautsky” against “Bernstein – can we entrust completely quiet hand in the future” (p 172 German editionn).

It is not therefore a polemic against Bernstein, but, in fact, giving up to him, was giving opportunism, that the time is not required more opportunistic than “deposit in totally peaceful future in hand” all the major questions about the roles of the proletarian revolution.

From the year 1852 to 1891, for forty years, Marx and Engels taught the proletariat that it break the political machine. Came Kautsky in 1899, and in the face of betrayal finished betrayed opportunists Marxism this point, it removes a way stealing the question of the vital need to break this machine and replaces it on the question of concrete forms of refraction, and he finds his refuge in the shadow of truth parochial “certain” (and barren), whose The concrete forms we can not know in advance !!

Abyss that separates Marx and Kautsky in terms of their attitude towards the proletarian party’s role to prepare the working class to the revolution.

Women now we have another connection of Kautsky, creating a more mature, dedicated also to a great extent to repudiate the errors of the opportunists. This Hobrto the “social revolution”. Here the author took a special issue on the question of “the proletarian revolution” and “the proletarian regime”. The author gave a lot of valuable things, but rather on the question of the state has been silence . Booklet comes anywhere on the conquest of political power, and nothing else, that is, the author chose this formulation, which constitutes a waiver opportunists, because it allows the conquest of power without the destruction of the political machine. For this purpose, Marx declared it in 1872 as “an antiquated thing” in the “Communist Manifesto”, rather it was resurrected by Kautsky in 19022.

Booklet devoted a special section “forms and weapons of the social revolution.” Here it is also the political mass strike, even a civil war, even the “power devices of modern great state, such as the bureaucracy and the army”, but the lesson already taught commune workers, there is no sound. Indeed, Engels warned not for nothing, especially the German Socialists because “awe superstition” to the state.

Kautsky lecturer in the matter as follows: the winner proletariat “will realize the democratic program”, and he interprets the clause. The new issue of 1871 given the replacement of bourgeois democracy, proletarian democracy, there is no sound. Kautsky Potter himself banal things, heard “conservative”, such as these:

“Obviously, it does not come to power, as long as there are existing arrangements. The very revolution requires a long struggle and deep-penetrating, which he has been able to change the social and political structure of our present.”

There is no doubt that this is “obvious” as clear to her the truth, that horses eat oat and the Volga River gushing into the Caspian Sea. It’s a shame that with empty rhetoric and swollen struggle “deepens” circumvented a crucial question for the revolutionary proletariat, the question: what , then, is expressed in “depth” revolution in its relation to the state of democracy, the difference from the previous revolutions, the non-proletarian.

By bypassing this question gives Kautsky actually critical point this waiver opportunism, as he announces that terrible war – in speech , while emphasizing the value of “the idea of revolution” (really a large value of “idea” that, if you are afraid to preach to the workers the lessons of the revolution concrete?), or as he says: “first of all revolutionary idealism”, or announces, operating in the UK today, “certainly if the value is much greater than that of the bourgeoisie”

“Socialist society – writes Kautsky – can exist … various forms of plants, side by side: a bureaucratic (??), Trade-Unionist, cooperative, private” … “There are, for example, plants that can not survive without bureaucratic organization (? ?) – such as the railway. here the organization can democracy take shape this: workers choose delegates, representing something like a parliament, and this parliament determines the arrangement of work and supervising the management of the bureaucratic apparatus. other factories can deliver possession of the unions-workers, and others can be organized according to cooperative principles “(pages 148 and 115 of the Russian translation, edition of Geneva, 1903).

This assumption is wrong and constitutes a step backwards compared to what diverting Marx and Engels in the 70th on the model of the lessons of the Commune.

From the perspective of the organization “bureaucracy” as it were necessary, the railway does not differ in any way from the big industrial plants mechanized, in general, any factory, large trading house or large capitalist farm. All of these enterprises requires technique most severe discipline, punctuality greatest meticulousness any one part of the work assigned to him, for fear of turning off any plant or machinery malfunction or breakdown products. All of these enterprises will, of course, the workers’ chosen vintages, which will serve as a sort of parliament “.

But the whole essence is, S”cain-parliament “It will not be a parliament in the bourgeois parliamentary institutions. All the main thing is, S”cain-parliament “It will not be but” establishes arrangements and supervising the management of the bureaucratic apparatus, “as Kautsky imagines, whose mind is beyond the scope of bourgeois parliamentarism. Certainly socialist society “shall”, “quasi-parliament” It’s working the delegates’ arrangements’ ‘and supervise “the management” mechanism “, but this mechanism will not be” bureaucratic “. With the conquest of political rule will break working the bureaucratic and old, will destroy to the ground, will not leave a stone upon a stone will be replaced by this new mechanism, consisting of those workers and administrators themselves, but taken immediately measures, not become these bureaucrats – are the measures which have been discussed by Marx and Engels: 1) not only that they would be selected, but will be replaced at any time; 2) salaries will be higher than the works; 3) be introduced soon, everything will come into play Audit and Supervision, everything will be done for a while “bureaucrats” and therefore could anybody be “bureaucratt”.

Kautsky did not dwell at all understand the words of Marx: “Commune was not a parliamentary institution, but the institution works and does, legislator and executive alike.”

Kautsky had little understanding of the difference between parliamentarism Plain, combining within a democracy ( not for the people ) with Birokrtizm ( counterparty people ), and Dmokrtizm proletariat, which will take immediately measures to eradicate the Hbirokrtizm the roots, and which will be able to realize these measures to the purpose, to the complete elimination of Hbirokrtizm, to the full leadership of democracy to the people.

Kautsky found here again that “awe of superstition” to the state, “Superstition” Bbirokrtizm.

Now we move to the final work and best of Kautsky against opportunists, to Hobrto “path to power” (I think, not published in Russian, because we came during the reaction reached its peak, in 1909). This booklet has as a major step forward, because that it is not the revolutionary program in general, as the pamphlet of 1899 against Bernstein, not the functions of social revolution irrespective of the time of her arrival, as the booklet “social revolution” from 1902, but this is where the concrete conditions which force us to admit that the “Age of revolution” – is approaching .

The author clearly indicates the worsening contradictions of imperialism in general and the class fills a very big role in this respect. After the “revolutionary period of 1871-1789 years” for West-Europe, started in 1905 for a period similar to the East. The worldwide war is approaching with frightening speed. “The proletariat can now no longer talk about a revolution before her time.” “We entered a revolutionary period.” “The revolutionary era begins”.

These statements are obvious. This booklet is worthy to serve as yardstick for comparison: what promised Social Democratic Party to be before the imperialist war broke out, and what has deepened Paul (even Kautsky himself included) after the war broke out. “The situation at this time, – wrote Kautsky’s pamphlet in question, – carries the danger is we (ie the German social democracy), it is easy to think of the more moderate, than we in fact”. It turned out that the Social Democratic Party is in fact moderate and opportunist more than you would think!

This is more typical of that with explicit messages so of Kautsky about the era of revolutions had already begun, it is also in this booklet, according to his devoted mainly to clarify the issue of “political revolution”, he goes over in complete silence on the question of the state.

The sum-total of the indirect-question, ignores and evasions of those shows necessarily the transition into opportunism, which we will have to talk to him now.

German social democracy, in the form of Kautsky, as if it declares: I am loyal to the revolutionary views (1899). I inevitability especially recognizes the social revolution of the proletariat (1902). I know it, a new era of revolutions reached (S. 1909). Nevertheless, since arises the question of the proletarian revolution in relation to the functions of the state (S. 1912), I once again turn back against what Marx had said back in 1852.

Just so the question was raised directly Kautsky’s controversy with Fnkok [Panneckoek].

  1. Kautsky’s controversy with Fnkok

Against Kautsky out Fnkok, as representatives of the current “radical-left”, which included in its ranks Rosa Luxemburg [Luxemburg], Carl Wardak [Radek] and others, and who defended the revolutionary tactics, and was consolidated opinion, Indignantly repudiated by Kautsky goes and grabs the position ” Center “, swaying lack of principles between Marxism and opportunism. The justice of this view completely proved the war, when the flow of “center” (wrongly called Marxist) or stream “Hkaotskianiot” showed himself in all his poverty ugly.

In an article concerning the question of the state, “the mass action and revolution” ( “Neue Zeit”, S. 1912, XXX , 2) described Fnkok the passive position of Kautsky C”rdiklizm “The Age idle waiting.” “Kautsky refuses to see the process of revolution” (p 616). After Sfnkok raises the question this way, it is open on the subject that interests us: the proletarian revolution in relation to the functions of the state.

“The struggle of the proletariat” – he wrote – “is not just a struggle the bourgeoisie for political control, but a struggle against political control … content proletarian revolution is eliminating devices-power of the state and disposal (literally: diversification, Auflösung) by devices-power of the proletariat … the struggle will end only after the come, the results of the final, complete destruction of the state organization. organization of the majority demonstrates an advantage by doing so, it eliminates the organization ruling minority “(p 548).

The wording, he dressed in Fnkok ideas, poorly very large defects. But the idea is clear nonetheless, and interesting to see, how secret it Kautskyy.

“So far – wrote Kautsky – was the contrast between the Social Democrats and the anarchists that, the former wanted to conquer political power and the last – to destroy it. Fnkok want it and it” (p 724).

Whereas Fnkok poor lecture ambiguities and lack-concrete (apart from the rest of the drawbacks of the article, are not interested in the subject in question), caught Kautsky precisely the essence of the principle of matter, formulated by Fnkok, and the question of principle, the main left Kautsky completely the position of Marxism, and moved to perfectly alongside opportunism. The difference between the Social Democrats and the anarchists set him an incorrect setting perfectly, and generates a fake Marxism altogether.

The difference between Marxists anarchists is that (1) first, the sky ahead goal the complete elimination of the state, seeing this goal would be reached only after the abolition of classes by the socialist revolution, rural construction of socialism, leads to the demise of the state; Last wish complete destruction of the country overnight, not understanding the conditions that allow the realization of such liquidation. (2) the first to think it necessary, the proletariat, after conquer political power, completely destroy the old state machine and replace it with a new, complex organization of the armed workers, by such places; The latter, requiring the demolition of the political machine, imagine in an unclear, what will replace it the proletariat and what use is revolutionary government; Anarchists also reject the use of the revolutionary proletariat to the state government, its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) first require the preparation of the proletariat in the revolution by utilizing the present state; Anarchists reject this.

Unlike Kautsky actually represents Fnkok the Marxist argument before us that Marx is ordered, the proletariat can not simply conquer political power, in the transfer of the old state apparatus-new hands, but he has to break, smash this mechanism, replace it with a new one.

Kautsky Sir Marxism to the opportunists, that actually matter demolition machine his political disappeared completely – this demolition, the opportunists can not under any circumstances agree to it, and then he puts them one broke evasion, in the sense of the meaning of “occupation” To get a simple-majority.

To compensate for the distortion Marxism Kautsky used as a scholar moved: he drives “quotation” from Marx’s own words. In 1850 Marx wrote about the necessity of “a decisive centralization of power in the hands of political power”. And Kautsky asks loudly: Fnkok not want to destroy “centralism”?

And it is just a trick, a sort of identification recognized that Bernstein Marxism and Hfrodonizm their views on the federation rather than centralism.

“Quotation” is taken over by Kautsky not the thing at all. Possible both centralism-old state machine and the new one. If the workers voluntarily unite their armed forces, this will be centralism, but I ruined foundations will be finished “of the centralized state apparatus, military-status police, bureaucracy. Kautsky does something totally cheating ignoring well-known in their discussions of Marx and Engels on the Commune and pulls out a citation that does not belong to the question under discussion.

“Maybe want Fnkok cancel the policy functions of the officials?” – Continues Kautsky. “But we do not exist without officials even in the party organization and professional, not to mention the management of the country. Our program requires not the elimination of state officials, but the election officials by the people” … “question for us now is not on the form to receive a mechanism for management in “State of the future”, but the question is whether our political fight abolishes (literally sink, Auflö Öst) the political regime, before we occupied it (Kautsky’s italics). what the ministry officials could be canceled? ” Kautsky read the names of ministries: Education, Law, Finance, war. “No, none of the current ministries not be removed by our political fight against the government … I repeat, to avoid misunderstanding: The question at issue is not, what form social democracy gives the winning state for the future”, but the question is, how to change our opposition to the current state “(p 725).

This is misleading postcard. Fnkok explicitly raised the question about the revolution . This is also clearly stated in the article title and cited. By this sudden leap forward into the question of the opposition, although Kautsky replaces the revolutionary point of view opportunist. This goes out to him: for now – opposition, and after the conquest of power’ll speak. Revolution disappears ! This is exactly what is needed by the opportunists.

Question is not on the opposition and the political struggle at all, but rather the revolution . Revolution included in it, the proletariat destroying the “administrative apparatus” and the whole state apparatus and replacement with a new one, made up of workers armed. Kautsky reveals “awe of superstition” to the “ministries”, but why it is impossible to replace them, for instance, expert committees-which by the council workers and soldiers delegates, governing full and comprehensive?

The main thing is not all that, if you would continue “ministries”, or they may be “commissions of experts” or not these other institutions, all this does not matter at all. The main thing is, whether retained the old state machine (in thousands of wires connected with the bourgeoisie and permeated the whole routine and rigidity), or it is destroyed and replaced with a new one . Revolution should be expressed not that, a new class command, will manage the state machine with the old , but that he will break this machine and command using the machine and manage new , – the idea of elementary that of Marxism, Kautsky obscures, or did not understand it at all.

His question about officials clearly shows that he did not understand the lessons of the Commune and Marx’s doctrine. “We can not take place without officials even in the party organization and professional” …

We can not take place without officials capitalism, under the rule of the bourgeoisie . Oppressed proletariat, the laboring masses are enslaved by capitalism. Hdmokrtizm under capitalism small, cramped, curtailed, distorted by all the circumstances rented slavery, misery and poverty of the masses. For this reason, and only this reason, arrive bearing-positions in our organization and political unions to corruption (or may be corrupt, to be more precise) by the life circumstances of capitalism and they show tendency to become bureaucrats, ie displaced people from the masses, the people stand above the crowd , those privilegess.

This is the essence of Hbirokrtizm, and every time that dispossessed the capitalists, not eradicated as long as the bourgeoisie, does not avoid M”birokrtiztzih “some even of senior-proletarian positionss.

In Kautsky get things like this: Since the matter is left-elected positions, which means that officials will remain even under socialism, bureaucracy will remain! And actually it is not true. Precisely patterned Commune showed Marx, that under socialism constant with-jobs to be “bureaucrats”, to be “officials” cease if the leaders do not the principle be chosen only that, but also the possibility of replacing them at any time, plus also the determination of their salary to a moderate level of wage worker , etc. even the replacement of parliamentary institutions institutions’ employees, meaning lawmakers laws and institutions taking them into practice. ”

Indeed, all the words of the reasoning of Kautsky against Fnkok, especially grounds specified Kautsky, that we even within the unions and political parties, we can not do without officials, all these show that Kautsky coming back here “arguments” old Bernstein against Marxism in general. Bernstein book-betrayal, “preconceptions socialism” fought against the concept of democracy “primitive” against what he calls as “Dmokrtizm doctrinaire”: seats Aimfrtibiim [ translator’s note : explicit instructions favorites], jobs not to receive an award, representatives of central helpless etc. Shortness of-hand proof of Hdmokrtizm “primitive” Bernstein draws on the experience of the British trade-in Ionionim by means of Webbs [Webb]. Stated that for seventy years of development of trade-in Ionionim, supposedly evolved Full Freedom “(page 137 German edition), the presence of these non-ability of Hdmokrtizm primitive Hmiroho regular Bdmokrtizm: parliamentarism with Birokrtizm.

Trade-in fact evolved Ionionim not “complete freedom”, but slavery under capitalism , of course, “You can not take place” in which no line concessions predominant evil, violence, falsehood, remove the door to the people management matters “top”. Socialism regime inevitably return much of democracy “primitive” life, because this is the first time their history of-civilization, masses of people to rise up to the participation of independent not only in voting and elections, but also in daily management . Socialism regime will be alldirectors by rotation, and soon get used to this, no one will managee.

Marx intellect critical-analytical genius saw in the regulations practicality of the commune it tipping , opportunistic fear him and do not want to acknowledge it, out of cowardice faith and of unwillingness to part completely over the bourgeoisie, and even anarchists ignore it, either because Hifzonm or because of a misunderstanding of terms social revolutions of the general mass. “We must not even think about the destruction of the machine the old policy, because how can we do without ministries and without officials” – that reflects the opportunist, rife with parochialism, and in fact, not only does not believe in the revolution, the power of the work of the revolution, but it also drops him fear of death (just as afraid of her Menshevik and SR-our Sea).

“We need to think only about the destruction of Machine-old state, there is no need to delve into lessons the concrete of the proletarian revolution earlier and examine what and how to replace that being destroyed” – so thinker anarchist (the best of anarchists, of course, and it dragged, wake gentlemen Hkrofotkinim Co., after the bourgeoisie); And therefore deserve to anarchist tactic of desperation , rather than revolutionary work of concrete tasks, unflinching brave work, that brings it into account the practical conditions of the mass movement.

Marx teaches us to avoid two mistakes together, he teaches us courage beyond the border of destroying all machine-old state, while he teaches us to put the question concretely: Thus and thus was able to place in a few weeks to start building called political new , proletarian, when she realizes In this way the aforementioned measures to increase Hdmokrtizm and uprooting Hbirokrtizm. Please learn-revolutionary courage with the Communards, their regulations seem practical to plotting line practical operations-critical, immediately possible, then, as we walk this way , we get to the full destruction of Hbirokrtizmm.

Possibility of such destruction is guaranteed by that socialism will shorten the working day, will raise the masses to a new life and to put the majority of the population under the impressive all , without exception, to play “functions” policy, which leads to the demise total of any state at alll.

… “The role of strike-mass – continues Kautsky – can never be aimed at destroying the political control, but only to bring the government into giving way particular question or to replace a government hostile to the proletariat in the next government for it (Entgegenkommende) … but never and under no conditions does it” ( in other words, the victory of the proletariat on a government hostile) “can lead to destruction of political control, but only to the displacement (Verschiebung) the balance of power within the political control inside … and the purpose of our political fight continues with this being, as yet, occupation rule-state by obtaining a majority in parliament and transforming parliament master of the government “(pp 726, 727, 732).

It has been explicit and vile opportunism most practical denial of the revolution while admitting it in theory. Kautsky’s mind is sailing over the next towards the proletariat nascent government “- and this is a step back into provincialism compared to 1847, when he declared,” The Communist Manifesto “on” the theory of proletarian organization ruling class. ”

Kautsky will have to achieve the “oneness” with Hsiidmnim favorite, Hflcnobim and Hoondrooldim, all of whom agree to fight for the government “ahead of next proletariat”!

And we will go towards a rift between us and these socialist-traitors and we will fight to demolish all the old political machine, armed proletariat itself to be the government . After all, these two “melodies” radically different.

Kautsky sit now in the congenial company of Hlginim and Davids, Hflcnobim, Hfotrsobim, Htzrtlim and Htz’rnobim who agree totally fight for the “shifting power relations within the political control”, for “the achievement of a majority in parliament and for full control of Parliament on the government”, – a higher purpose, bereaved sustained attention to the opportunists, the whole remains within the framework of bourgeois parliamentary republic.

And we go a rift between us and the opportunists; And any owner-consciousness of the proletariat will be with us in the fight not for the sake of “shifting power relations”, but for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie , for the destruction of parliamentarism bourgeois democratic republic climbing behalf of the commune or the Republic of Councils of Workers’ and Soldiers axes, for the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

* *


Right Kautsky socialism international standing trends such as “magazine Socialist” Germany (Begin, David, Kolb [Kolb] and many others, including the Scandinavians Staoning [Stauning] and Ranting [Branting]), Hz’orsistim and Vandervelde in France and Belgium, tortoiseshell [ Turati], Treves [Treves] and other representatives of the Italian right wing party, the Fabians and Abel-dependent “(” party of independent workers “, in fact, was always dependent on the liberals) in England and so on. All these gentlemen, which play a tremendous, very often a decisive role in the parliamentary work and Writings party, explicitly reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, and fulfill opportunism visible. These gentlemen see the “dictatorship” of the proletariat C”mnogdt “democracy !! In fact, do not differ in any substantial difference from the petty-bourgeois democrats.

Having regard to the notice of this fact, we may draw the conclusion that the Second International in the majority of official representatives, we will fall completely into opportunism. Commune not only forgotten, but distorted. Moreover, not planted in masses of workers the recognition that here is getting closer to the time, they will have to stand up and break the Institute for the old and replace it with a new one, and make such a way that their control over the political basis for once-building socialism of the company – but also planted in the hearts of the masses the opposite, and conquering power, “a title that left thousands of loopholes-haven opportunism.

Falsification and the silencing of the question of the attitude of the proletarian revolution to the state, could not fill a huge role in this period, while the state, equipped with the military personnel increased due to competition imperialist, became monsters of war, which destroy millions of people in order to settle the dispute: Who will rule in England or Germany, financial Capital or another.


Manuscript came after that:

“Chapter VII

Experience of the Russian Revolution of years 1905 and 1917

Subject, it shows title of this chapter, is great and so widespread, that can and should write about volumes. In this booklet we will have to be reduced, of course, only the main lessons of experience, relating directly to the proletariat and the revolutionary positions in relation to political power. ”

(Here stopped manuscript.) Editors Russian edition.


At that first edition

This pamphlet was written in August and September 1917 have been edited so the program to the next, seventh: “experience of the Russian Revolution of years 1905 and 1917”. But apart from the title did not have time to write out this chapter even a single line: “disturbed” the political crisis on the eve of the October Revolution of 1917. disturbing the social, “one has only to rejoice. But the second part of the booklet ( ‘A dedicated Russian Revolution of years 1905 and 1917 “), I believe, would be necessary to delay for a long time; The “revolutionary experience” pleasant and helpful actually more to do than write about it.



November 30, 1917.

* Nira Caledonia nominal increases this amount to 2400 rubles, and according to the rate of 6,000 rubles now. Sin-sin atoned them Bolsheviks, offering, for example, municipalities salary of 9,000 rubles, and are set for all state-maximum salary of 6,000 rubles – a sum sufficient

* “On international issues of” country folk “”

* Once the state comes the main function of its acts of calculation and regulation are on the workers themselves, the same time it stops being “political state”, – “political character is taken as a social function and become functions of administrative Simple” (see above Section IV Section 2 – The controversy of Engels with the anarchists).

Posted in Literature, Russia0 Comments

The Nat Turners of the 21st century

The new film on the former slave, Nat Turner, whilst deeply flawed should inspire people to find out more about this historical heroic figure, beyond populist narratives. More importantly, his legacy of revolt should inspire the generation of Black Lives Matter to struggle against new forms of domination in our capitalist, imperialist white supremacist patriarchal world.

In 1967 William Styron, a white Virginian published his novel entitled “The Confessions of Nat Turner” which caused a firestorm amongst black intellectuals for the manner in which it portrayed the historical figure of Nat Turner, who led a slave uprising in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. Styron portrayed Nat Turner as a depraved fanatical sex-craved creature. Nat Turner was wholly devoid of political and religious motivations and lusted after white women. Nate Parker’s film, “The Birth of a Nation” which depicts the famous slave revolt also caused controversy when it came out in the US in October 2016 and in London in early December.It received a standing ovation at the Sundance Film Festival where it won the Grand Jury Prize and the Audience Award. Soon after, Fox Searchlight purchased the film for $17.5 million. Nate Parker is a gifted actor who directed, produced, co-wrote and played the lead role in the movie. Moreover, in August this year he was dogged by controversy during the height of his publicity tour to promote the film. As Parker went on tour the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite went viral, which some anticipated could help the fortunes of the film to win an Oscar.  However, voices on social media vociferously boycotted the film on account of the fact that in October 1999 a 19-year-old Nate Parker, with his roommate Jean Celestin of the same age, were both accused of raping an 18 year old white female student at Penn State University. In 2001 Parker was acquitted of the crime and Celestin was given a two-year sentence for sexual assault that was eventually overturned. In 2012, the 30-year-old woman committed suicide.

A candlelit vigil was held outside the ArcLight Cinema in Hollywood in mid-October during the first public screening of the film by the group called Fuck Rape Culture.” The group issued a statement that helped cast a shadow over the film and particularly its director, Nate Parker. It said: “FRC recognizes the need to hold space for those celebrating the advancement of people of color in Hollywood while continuing to fight for the victims of sexual assault and rape around the world.”

Parker was besieged with a barrage of questions and demands for accountability during his promotional tour that many believe he handled with deflection. In August 2016 Parker maintained his innocence and stated on Facebook in relation to the alleged crime and victim: “I see now that I may not have shown enough empathy even as I fought to clear my name.”

Exacerbating the controversy around Parker is also his depiction of women in the film (a point, I will return to shortly).

Overall, there is a divide between those who are pro- and those who are anti- the movie as a result of the controversy surrounding its director and Jean Celestin, who assisted Parker in co-writing and developing the film.

Historical inaccuracies

Whilst the acting was excellent, particularly of Nate Parker and Aga Naomi King (respectively as Nat Turner and Turner’s wife, Cherry), in the light of considerable historical work on Nat Turner, the film is grossly historically inaccurate. As the writer-director, Nate Parker should have prefaced the film with the words: “While Nat Turner’s revolt was a true event, I have taken creative license with some aspects of the plot.” Instead at the beginning of the film there are some vague misleading words that state that the film is based on true events.

Leslie Alexander, an African American historian points out that Parker failed miserably in his mission to maintain historical fidelity in his depiction of the leader of the rebellion.” She correctly  argues that the film contains only a smidgen of historical fact.”

Firstly, nowhere in the film is there a depiction of Nat Turner being interviewed by Thomas R. Gray after his arrest on October 30, 1831 whilst in Southampton County prison. Gray was a Southern physician and lawyer who interviewed Turner as he awaited trial. It is this most significant interview that was published by Gray in 1831 as The Confessions of Nat Turner, that could have assisted Parker to frame the story line and give the film some valid historical authenticity and fidelity.

Whilst there are debates as to the extent to which Gray could have doctored Turner’s words, there is in The Confessions of Nat Turner several parenthetical and editorial comments made by Gray that distinguish Gray’s voice from that of Turner’s. During this trial Turner publicly endorsed Gray’s work as faithfully representing his confessions. [1]

The Confessions of Nat Turner remains an important document for, as the historian Patrick H. Breen states, “Few sources provide access to the minds of slaves, let alone the mind of a man who may be the most famous American to live and die in slavery” (p. 169)[2]


Surely, a scene in which Nat Turner narrates to Thomas Gray some of the influences on his life, why he was motivated by divine voices to fulfil his dream to liberate his people would have allowed Parker to remain faithful to the historical record that he claims he aspired to? This was a huge failure of Parker. A scene in which Nat Turner is interviewed by Thomas Gray would have given us further insight into the inner mind, motivations and values of Nat Turner which would have been based on the true historical fact that Nat Turner did in fact confess to his actions and went to his executioner with absolutely no regrets whatsoever. Imprisoned, Turner tells Gray, “I am here loaded with chains, and willing to suffer the fate that awaits me.”[3]

Second, among the many flaws in the film, is that Turner did not kill his master,  Samuel Turner. Nat Turner had a number of owners and the owner that was killed was a Joseph Travis. Even in the killing of Travis, if Nate Parker had read The Confessions of Nat Turner, in the narration Nat Turner himself declared that on entering his master’s house armed with a hatchet: “accompanied by Will [a co-conspirator], I could not give a death blow, the hatchet glanced from his head, he sprang from the bed and called his wife, it was his last word. Will laid him dead, with a blow of his axe, and Mrs Travis shared the same fate, as she lay in bed.”[4] Nat Turner confessed to Thomas Gray that he killed the young teenager Margaret Whitehead “by a blow on the head, with a fence rail.” [5]

Third, whilst rape of enslaved women was intrinsic to the horrors of slavery, there is no historical evidence that Nat Turner’s wife was raped by slave patrollers as depicted in the film. More importantly, how many people who see or have seen the movie will leave the cinema believing this to be a historical fact and therefore a critical factor in Nat’s Turner radicalisation that led to insurrection? The reality is, Nat Turner was prepared to die because he was motivated by the unshakeable political and religious belief that as a God-fearing Black man he and all Black people had a right to be free.

In addition to this, how Parker depicts the rape of Cherry (Nat Turner’s wife) and that of Esther, another enslaved woman (played by Gabrielle Union) is grossly problematic. Esther is voiceless. It appears that in the film Nat Turner seeks to save the women around him and is emasculated in doing so.  In the view of Leslie Alexander, “the rape storyline is carefully constructed to redeem Black masculinity at Black women’s expense.” Or is the rape storyline calculated on the part of Parker in order to redeem himself in the lingering shadow of the 1999 allegations against him, whereby Parker can project love and empathy for the character of Cherry but failed to do so for the real-life victim who he was acquitted of raping?

The only small redeeming act on the part of one of the female characters that we see in the film is when Nat Turner’s grandmother faces the white slave patroller who is looking for Nat Turner’s father. The slave patroller stands on a floor board that allows a stolen jar to roll from under his foot and the grandmother’s quick witted action dictates she throw herself at the feet of the white man to conceal this stolen jar. Her action shows her dissembling, which many slaves cultivated to an art in order to survive life under the control of whites.  Her feigned contrition as she retrieved the jar in her long flowing skirts saves her and the young Nat from the prospect of further verbal or physical abuse from the white patroller.

Fourth, there is no historical evidence that Nat Turner convinced his master, Samuel Turner, to buy the enslaved woman Cherry, who later in the film was to become his wife. This storyline is likely to be the fanciful imagination of the film director.

Fifth, the young Black boy who becomes a turncoat and betrays Nat Turner and his small band of insurrectionists is a falsification of history. Turner who had a bounty of $500 on his head [6] (that was later increased to a thousand) [7] was eventually captured after six weeks of being a fugitive. He confesses: “I know not how long I might have led this life, if accident had not betrayed me, a dog in the neighbourhood passing by my hiding place one night while I was out, was attracted by some meat I had in my cave, and crawled in and stole it, and was coming out just as I returned.”[8] The dog barked and two slaves saw Nat Turner and fled. Turner was aware that the two slaves would betray him and therefore he was forced to find a new hideout “under the top of a fallen tree.”[9] Two weeks later, he was discovered by Mr Benjamin Phipps who was taking a walk across farmland and saw the overturned pine tree under which Turner hid.[10] Phipps tied up his prisoner who was to be taken to the Southampton County prison.

The historical reality is that the revolt failed not because Turner was betrayed but that Turner’s band of men, who amounted to no more than between 60- 80 men, were in reality not only poorly equipped (initially with axes, clubs and later rifles) but his group of men were ill-disciplined and fell into disarray, drunkenness and confusion as they moved from plantation to plantation killing all whites – men, women and children. Their aim was to get to the town of Jerusalem – a few miles away, to capture the cache of arms, but they were stopped in their tracks by the whites. [11] Turner’s men had not moved as rapidly and mobilised as effectively as they should have and therefore alarm had spread among the whites. However as the historian Herbert Aptheker points out, “…had Nat Turner been successful in capturing Jerusalem, with its arms and ammunition, he might have prolonged the conflict for many days; perhaps, with guerrilla warfare, for weeks.”[12]

Dilemmas and tensions of art and history

History is a narrative that is often told from varied and conflicting ideological visions and perspectives. Tensions arise between historians on what are the facts, sequence of events and interpretations of events within the prevailing socio-political and economic contexts in which the past occurred. There is also a long-standing tension between art (i.e. creative writing, film making, etc.) and history in terms of to what extent should filmmakers and novelists remain faithful to the historical record and/or engage in literary and creative imagination? If they do engage in unleashing their creative imaginations, should novelists and filmmakers not openly tell us they are inspired by historical acts/events and depart from the historical interpretation into their own imaginations? Or is “historical fidelity” paramount?

I appreciate the power of film to reach far wider audiences than a mere academic history book could ever wish for. Film and novels have a power to evoke understanding and a spirit of the times in a manner terse abstract historical jargon and description often fails to do.

In our society and world that forever seeks to simplify complex realities in a “dumbing down,” popular and populist films on which millions have been spent may not stimulate ordinary people to seek to find out more about Nat Turner and be inspired to read a little of the copious amounts that have written on him, nor seek to find out the truth about what really happened during the revolt and why it failed. How many audience viewers will leave the cinema and be inspired to dig further into history and read The Confessions of Nat Turner or any book on Nat Turner?

A filmmaker claiming historical fidelity in his depiction of the leader of the rebellion,”(i.e. of Nat Turner)  should be judged on whether he (or she) has lived up to this noble aspiration or not. Sadly, Nate Parker does not fulfil this aspiration.

Ultimately, Roxane Gay, the feminist writer and professor, succinctly captures the position of some who decided not to see the film. In her piece in The New York Times entitled Nate Parker and the Limits of Empathy,” she writes:

“As the movie’s publicity machine roars to life in advance of the October release, there is renewed interest in Mr. Parker and his history with sexual assault. There are renewed questions about whether we can or should separate the artist from his art. I am reminded that I cannot. I cannot separate the art and the artist, just as I cannot separate my Blackness and my continuing desire for more representation of the Black experience in film from my womanhood, my feminism, my own history of sexual violence, my humanity.”

For some of us the prism of how we view the film is predetermined by the actions and words of the filmmaker both on screen and off screen because the personal is political. There can be no separation between the two. In separating the two, we have a distorted understanding and analysis of the filmmaker, ourselves and the world.

Nat Turners of the 21st century

Nate Parker deliberately gave the film the title of D. W. Griffith’s silent film, “The Birth of a Nation”, which portrays the racist Ku Klux Klan as a heroic force. Certainly, for white liberals Nat Turner’s rebellion was part of the long tortuous and brutal birth of a new American nation in which slavery, Jim Crow, segregation were to become relics of the past. However, in the 21st century new manifestations of colour blind racism  as Dr Eduardo Bonilla-Silva cogently argues in his book entitled “Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America” (2013), have become the reality. Covert racism or “new racism” has replaced the more overt forms of the atrocities of chattel slavery and segregation. Instead of lynchings and beatings, Black people in both the UK and US are open season for police killings and institutional racism that has led to death at the hands of mental health systems, prisons and police stations.

The rebellion that Nat Turner set in motion – though short-lived and small-scale, created a deep-seated panic and fear among southern whites that remained for decades – and some would argue, that, that specific fear and white supremacist attitude remains among some whites in the US (and elsewhere) today. Nat Turner in the history of African American and Pan-African history is part of the continuum of resistance of people of African descent. His life and actions need to be known by people of African descent and all progressive individuals as a life that stood in opposition to domination and injustice.

Nat Turner was only 31 years old when he was hanged. He was therefore a young man, just like the millions of young men and women involved in the civil rights movement, the anti-colonial struggles in Africa, and the millions involved in the present day Black Lives Movement. There is a historical umbilical cord of struggle that links Nat Turner to the lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till in August 1955, as well as to the lives and conditions of people of African descent today, for we remain engaged in a struggle for economic, social and political justice whether in the US, UK or in Africa. We continue to struggle demanding justice for the Mario Woods, Trayvon Martins, Michael Browns, Sandra Blands, Stephen Lawrences, Jermaine Bakers  and numerous other Black women and men killed in a white supremacist society that sees no justice for these modern day lynchings. People of African descent continue to struggle for reparations; for recognition that our bodies and lives be respected; that our dignity and humanity be respected no less than it should be for any other human being.

Will the emergence of President-elect Donald Trump who will take office in January 2017 produce new Nat Turners in the 21st century? The great 19th century abolitionist Frederick Douglass once remarked: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”  Douglass also said: “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”

As the 21st century continues to unfold there needs to be new embodiments of Nat Turners seeking to overturn the system of capitalist, imperialist white supremacist patriarchy. And there needs to be the equivalent Sojourner Truths, Harriet Tubmans, Yaa Asantewas, Mekatilili wa Menzas and Nzingas alongside the future Nat Turners.


[1] This Land Shall Be Deluged in Blood A New History of the Nat Turner Revolt by P. H. Breen, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 175.

[2] This Land Shall Be Deluged in Blood A New History of the Nat Turner Revolt by P. H. Breen, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 169.

[3] Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion Including the 1831 Confessions by H. Aptheker, Dover Publications, 2006, p.146.

[4] Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion Including the 1831 Confessions by H. Aptheker, Dover Publications, 2006, p. 139. See also This Land Shall be Deluged in Blood p. 38

[5] Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion Including the 1831 Confessions by H. Aptheker, Dover Publications, 2006, p. 141; see also This Land Shall Be Deluged in Blood, p. 46.

[6] This Land Shall Be Deluged in Blood, p. 85.

[7] Op cit, p. 140.

[8] Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion Including the 1831 Confessions by H. Aptheker, Dover Publications, 2006, p.145-146.

[9] p cit, p. 146.

[10] Op cit, p. 146. See also This Land Shall Be Deluged, p. 142.

[11] Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion Including the 1831 Confessions by H. Aptheker, Dover Publications, 2006, p. 53.

[12] Op cit, p. 53.

Posted in Literature0 Comments

Five Years Ago: Regime Change at the IMF: Christine Lagarde and The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Regime Change at the IMF: The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

This article was first published on May 19, 2011.

Author’s Note

On December 20, 2016, A French court found IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde guilty of “negligence” in relation to a multimillion dollar Euro fraud while she was France’s finance minister in 2008. She is said to have approved “an award of €404m ($429m; £340m) transfer to businessman Bernard Tapie, [a crony of president Sarkozy] for the disputed sale of a firm.”

“Ms Lagarde, who always denied wrongdoing, was not present in court, having left Paris for Washington DC.”

The IMF board said it retained “full confidence” in her leadership. (BBC, December 20, 2016)

No questions asked: Despite her involvement in financial fraud at tax payers’ expense,  the French government has confirmed that they have full confidence in Ms. Lagarde.

Her leadership as head of the IMF has not been questioned. Christine Lagarde was reappointed in February 2016 to a second five-year term at the IMF.

Five years ago: Flashback to May-June 2011. The DSK Honey Trap Scandal was instrumental in Lagarde’s accession to the IMF. And her role in the Euro 400 million financial transfer was casually ignored.

Regime Change: Dominque Strauss Khan (DSK), managing director of the IMF was framed and Christine Lagarde was appointed to replace him.

Media focus at the time centered on the story of  the alleged victim, the hotel housemaid, rather than on who was pulling the strings behind the scenes in what visibly was a political frame-up.

There was no firm evidence against Strauss-Kahn.  This was known to prosecutors at an early stage of the investigation. Had they released it, Lagarde would not have been chosen to replace DSK.

France’s Finance Minister Christine Lagarde was confirmed as Managing Director of the IMF on June 26th. The report from the prosecutor was released to the media three days later, on  June 29.  

Lagarde was chosen to succeed Strauss Khan at the IMF, a few days prior to a New York Court ruling which completely exonerated Dominique Strauss Khan on the basis of lack of evidence.

If this informaiton had been revealed a few days earlier, Lagarde’s candidacy would no doubt have been questioned.

Regime change was implemented at the IMF, not to mention preparations for the French presidential elections.

While Strauss Khan was dismissed following the 2011 scandal (despite the ruling of the New York court case which abandoned all charges again him) the 2008 financial scam involving Christine Lagarde was known to the French government. This however did not prevent her 2011 June appointment to the IMF.

Needless to say, not only did she retain her position at the IMF despite having been involved in a financial scam, she was appointed for a second term.

The appointment of Christine Lagarde in 2011 marks a major political turning point. Since the DSK affair, Europe’s political landscape has become increasingly pro-American.

The Washington consensus prevails. The application of IMF economic medicine had already been applied in several EU countries including Greece and Portugal during DSK’s mandate.  But in the course of the last few years, it has reached new heights. Drastic austerity measures have triggered unprecedented levels of unemployment. The entire European social  landscape is in crisis.

In many regards the DSK scandal was a watershed in the evolution of EU-US relations, with European governments becoming increasingly subservient to Washington’s demands.

Regime Change at the IMF. The Obama administration had demanded DSK’s replacement by a more compliant individual.

In retrospect, the framing of Strauss Kahn and the appointment of Lagarde had an impact not only on EU economic restructuring including the crisis in Greece, but also on the State structures of the French Republic.

The “Honey Trap” is a powerful instrument. Had DSK not been framed, Francois Hollande — who largely serves US interests– would no doubt not have been elected president of the French Republic and Christine Lagarde would not have acceded to the positon of Managing Director if the IMF.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 27, 2o15, December 21, 2016

*     *     *

Regime Change at the IMF: The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, 19 May 2011

The arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has all the appearances of a frame-up ordered by powerful members of the financial establishment, in liaison with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, whose presidency has served the interests of the US at the expense of those of France and the European Union. While there is for the moment no proof of a plot, the unusual circumstances of his arrest and imprisonment require careful examination.

Immediately following Strauss Kahn’s arrest, pressures were exerted by Washington to speed up his replacement as Managing Director of the IMF preferably by a non-European, an American or a handpicked candidate from an “emerging market economy” or a developing country.

Since the founding of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1945, the World Bank has been headed by an American whereas the IMF has been under the helm of a (Western) European.

Strauss-Kahn is a member of elite groups who meet behind closed doors. He belongs to the Bildeberger. Categorized as one of the world’s most influential persons, he is an academic and politician rather than a banker. In contrast to his predecessors at the IMF, he has no direct affiliation to a banking or financial institution.

But at the same time he is the fall guy. His “gaffe” was to confront the Washington-Wall Street Consensus and push for reforms within the IMF, which challenged America’s overriding role within the organization.

The demise of Strauss-Kahn potentially serves to strengthen the hegemony of the US and its control over the IMF at the expense of what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called “Old Europe”.

Blocking Strauss-Kahn, the Presidential Candidate

In recent years, a major shift has occurred in Europe’s political landscape. Pro-American governments have been elected in both France and Germany. Social Democracy has been weakened.

Franco-American relations have been redefined, with Washington playing a significant role in grooming a new generation of European politicians.

The presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy has, in many regards, become a de facto US “client regime”, broadly supportive of US corporate interests in the EU and closely aligned with US foreign policy.

There are two overlapping and interrelated issues in the DSK frame-up hypothesis.

The first pertains to regime change at the IMF, the second to Strauss-Kahn as a candidate in France’s forthcoming presidential elections.

Both these processes are tied into the clash between competing US and European economic interests including control over the euro-currency system.

Strauss-Khan as a favorite of the Socialist Party, would have won the presidential elections leading to the demise of “Our Man in Paris” Nicolas Sarkozy. As documented by Thierry Meyssan, the CIA played a central undercover role in destabilizing the Gaullist party and supporting the election of Nicolas Sarkozy (See Operation Sarkozy: How the CIA placed one of its agents at the presidency of the French Republic, Reseau Voltaire, September 4, 2008)

A Strauss-Kahn presidency and a “Socialist” government would have been a serious setback for Washington, contributing to a major shift in Franco-American relations.

It would have contributed to weakening Washington’s role on the European political chessboard, leading to a shift in the balance of power between America and “Old Europe” (namely the Franco-German alliance).

It would have had repercussions on the internal structure of the Atlantic Alliance and the hegemonic role of the US within NATO.

The Eurozone monetary system as well as Wall Street’s resolve to exert a decisive influence on the European monetary architecture are also at stake.

The Frame-Up?

Fifty-seven percent of France’s population, according to a May 17 poll, believe that Strauss-Kahn was framed, victim of a set-up. He was detained on alleged sexual assault and rape charges based on scanty evidence. He was detained based on a complaint filed by the Sofitel hotel where he was staying, on behalf of the alleged victim, an unnamed hotel chamber-maid:

The 32-year-old maid told authorities that she entered his suite early Saturday afternoon and he attacked her, New York Police Department spokesman Paul J. Browne. She said she had been told to clean the spacious $3,000-a-night suite, which she thought was empty.

According to an account the woman provided to police, Strauss-Kahn emerged from the bathroom naked, chased her down a hallway and pulled her into a bedroom, where he began to sexually assault her. She said she fought him off, then he dragged her into the bathroom, where he forced her to perform oral sex on him and tried to remove her underwear. The woman was able to break free again and escaped the room and told hotel staff what had happened, authorities said. They called police.

Wednesday Roundup: U.S. pressures Strauss-Kahn to resign

Challenging the Washington Consensus 

What is at stake in the immediate wake of Strauss Kahn’s demise is “regime change” at the IMF.

The Obama administration has demanded his replacement by a more compliant individual. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is pushing for the replacement of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, “suggesting he can no longer perform his duties” as IMF Managing director.

“Geithner called for greater formal recognition by the IMF board that John Lipsky, the fund’s second-in-command, will continue serving as temporary managing director for an interim period. Although Strauss-Kahn has yet to resign, sources say the IMF is in touch with his legal counsel to discuss his future at the organization.”

What lies behind the frame-up scenario? What powerful interests are involved? Geithner had a close personal relationship with Strauss-Kahn.

On the floor of the US Senate (May 18), Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, called for the resignation of DSK while calling upon the IMF’s deputy managing director John Lipsky to “assume full responsibility of the IMF” as interim managing director. The process of “permanent replacement should “commence at once,” he said. John Lipsky is a well connected Wall Street banker, a former Vice Chairman at JPMorgan Investment Bank.

While the IMF is in theory an intergovernmental organization, it has historically been controlled by Wall Street and the US Treasury. The IMF’s “bitter economic medicine”, the so-called Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), imposed on countless developing countries, essentially serves the interests of creditor banks and multinational corporations.

The IMF is not the main architect of these devastating economic reforms which have served to impoverish millions of people, while creating a “favorable environment” for foreign investors in Third World  low wage economies.

The creditor banks call the shots. The IMF is a bureaucratic entity. Its role is to implement and enforce those economic policies on behalf of dominant economic interests.

Strauss Kahn’s proposed reforms while providing a “human face” to the IMF did not constitute a shift in direction. They were formulated within the realm of neoliberalism. They modified but they did not undermine the central role of IMF “economic medicine”. The socially devastating impacts of IMF “shock treatment” under Strauss-Kahn’s leadership have largely prevailed.

Dominique Strauss Kahn arrived at the helm of the IMF in November 2007, less than a year prior to September-October 2008 financial meltdown on Wall Street. The structural adjustment program (SAP) was not modified. Under DSK, IMF “shock treatment” which historically had been limited to developing countries was  imposed on Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Under the helm of DSK as Managing Director, the IMF demanded that developing countries remove food and fuel subsidies at a time of rising commodity prices on the New York and Chicago Mercantile exchanges.

The hikes in food and fuel prices, which preceded the September-October 2008 Wall Street crash, were in large part the result of market manipulation. Grain prices were boosted artificially by large scale speculative operations. Instead of taming the speculators and containing the rise in food and fuel prices, the IMF’s role was to ensure that the governments of indebted developing countries would not in any way interfere in the “free market”, by preventing these prices from going up.

These hikes in food prices, which are the result of outright manipulation (rather than scarcity) have served to impoverish people Worldwide. The surge in food prices constitutes a new phase of the process of global impoverishment.

DSK was complicit in this process of market manipulation. The removal of food and fuel subsidies in Tunisia and Egypt had been demanded by the IMF. Food and fuel prices skyrocketed, people were impoverished, paving the way towards the January 2011 social protest movement:

Fiscal prudence remains an overarching priority for the [Tunisian] authorities, who also see the need for maintaining a supportive fiscal policy in 2010 in the current international environment. Efforts in the last decade to bring down the public debt ratio significantly should not be jeopardized by a too lax fiscal policy. The authorities are committed to firmly control current expenditure, including subsidies,… (IMF Tunisia: 2010 Article IV Consultation – Staff Report; Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion; and Statement by the Executive Director for Tunisia)

“[The IMF] encouraged the [Egyptian] authorities to press further with food and fuel subsidy reforms, and welcomed their intention to improve the efficiency and targeting of food subsidy programs. [meaning the selective elimination of food subsidies].

“Consideration should be given to introducing automatic adjustment mechanisms for domestic fuel prices to minimize distortions [meaning dramatic increases in fuel prices without State interference], while strengthening cash-based social programs to protect vulnerable groups. (IMF Executive Board Concludes 2008 Article IV Consultation with the Arab Republic of Egypt Public Information Notice, PIN  No. 09/04, January 15, 2009)

Under the helm of DSK, the IMF also imposed sweeping austerity measures on Egypt in 2008, while supporting Hosni Mubarak’s ”efforts to broaden the privatization program”.(Ibid)

The Frank G. Wisner Nicolas Sarkozy Connection 

Strauss-Kahn was refused bail by Judge Melissa Jackson, an appointee and protégé of Michael Bloomberg, who in addition to his role as Mayor is a powerful figure on Wall Street.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. charged (using scanty evidence) Strauss-Kahn “with seven crimes, including attempted rape, sexual abuse, forcible touching and unlawful imprisonment”.

Who is Cyrus Vance Jr.?

He is the son of the late Cyrus Vance who served as Secretary of State (1977-1980) in the Carter administration.

But there is more than meets the eye. Nicolas Sarkozy’s step father Frank G. Wisner II, a prominent CIA official who married his step mother Christine de Ganay in 1977 served as Deputy Executive Secretary of State under the helm of Cyrus Vance Senior, father of District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior.

Is it relevant?

In this courtroom drawing, Dominique Strauss-Khan, centre, stands next to his lawyer Benjamin Brafman, in front of Criminal Court Judge Melissa Jackson during his arraignment at the Manhattan Criminal Court for the alleged attack on a maid at his penthouse suite of a hotel in New York. Photo: AP

In this courtroom drawing, Dominique Strauss-Khan, next to his lawyer

The Vance and Wisner families had close personal ties. In turn Nicolas Sarkozy had close family ties with his step father Frank Wisner (and his half brothers and sisters in the US and one member of the Wisner family was involved in Sarkozy’s election campaign).

It is also worth noting that Frank G. Wisner II was the son of one of America’s most notorious spies, the late Frank Gardiner Wisner (1909- 1965), the mastermind behind the CIA sponsored coup which toppled the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. Wisner Jr. is also trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Trust.

While these various personal ties do not prove that Strauss-Kahn was the object of a set-up, the matter of Sarkozy’s ties to the CIA via his step father, not to mention the ties of Frank G. Wisner II to the Cyrus Vance family are certainly worth investigating. Frank G, Wisner also played a key role as Obama’s special intelligence envoy to Egypt at the height of the January 2011 protest movement.

Did the CIA play a role?

Was Strauss-Kahn framed by people in his immediate political entourage including President Obama and Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner?

What was the role of Sarkozy’s Step-father:

  • Sarkozy’s Step Father Frank G Wisner II, Deputy Executive Secretary of State (1976-79)
    under Cyrus Vance Senior during the Carter administration
  • District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior, son of the late Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State in the Carter administration

File:Strauss-Kahn, Geithner (IMF 2009).jpg

DSK and Timothy Geithner

DSK and Timothy Geithner

Fair Trial?

Innocent before proven guilty? The US media has already cast its verdict. Will the court procedures be manipulated?

One would expect that Strauss-Kahn be granted a fair trial, namely the same treatment as that granted to thousands of arrests on alleged sexual aggression charges in New York City.

How many similar or comparable alleged sexual aggressions occur on a monthly basis in New York City?  What is the underlying pattern? How many of these are reported to the police?  How many are the object of police follow-up once a complaint has been filed?

What is the percent of complaints submitted to police which are the object of police arrest? How many of these arrests lead to a judicial procedure? What are the delays in court procedures?

How many of these arrests lead to release without a judicial procedure?

How many of the cases submitted to a judicial procedure are dismissed by the presiding judge?

How many of the cases which are not dismissed are refused bail outright by the presiding judge? What is the basis for refusing bail?

How many are granted bail?  What is the average amount of bail?

How many are imprisoned without bail based on scanty and incomplete evidence?

How many of those who are refused bail are sent to an infamous maximum security prison on Rikers Island on the orders of  Michael Bloomberg.

Diplomatic Immunity

Press reports state that full diplomatic immunity does not apply to officials of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, namely that the US did not ratify the protocol.

“U.N. convention on privileges and immunities for international agencies that most countries have ratified. It gives the heads of U.N. agencies broad immunity in the countries where they are based. But the U.S. government never became a party to that treaty. Employees of international agencies are covered by a U.S. statute that gives only limited immunity.”

The relevant question is how has this limited immunity provision been applied in practice?  Namely how many people with limited immunity (UN officials, officials of the Bretton Woods institutions) have been arrested and sent to a high security prison?

Has Strauss Kahn been given the same treatment as those arrested under the provisions of “limited immunity”?

Does the Strauss Kahn arrest fit the pattern? Or is Strauss Kahn being treated in a way which does not correspond to the normal (average) pattern of police and judicial procedures applied in the numerous cases of persons arrested on alleged sexual assault charges?

Without a frame-up instrumented by very powerful people acting in the background, the head of the IMF would have been treated in an entirely different way. The mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and Timothy Geithner would have come to his rescue.  The matter would have been hushed up with a view to protecting the reputation of a powerful public figure. But that did not happen.

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Order Online Here


In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition –which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction– the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order

Michel Chossudovsky

Published in 14 languages. More than 140,000 copies sold Worldwide.

In these unprecedented economic times, the world is experiencing as a whole what most of the non-Industrialized world has experienced over the past several decades. Michel Chossudovsky takes the reader through a nuanced examination of the intricacies of the global political-economic landscape and the power players within it; specifically, looking at how the World Bank and IMF have been the greatest purveyors of poverty around the world, despite their rhetorical claims to the opposite. These institutions, representing the powerful Western nations and the financial interests that dominate them, spread social apartheid around the world, exploiting both the people and the resources of the vast majority of the world’s population. As Chossudovsky examines in this updated edition, often the programs of these International Financial Instittutions go hand-in-hand with covert military and intelligence operations undertaken by powerful Western nations with an objective to destabilize, control, destroy and dominate nations and people, such as in the cases of Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

To understand what role these international organizations play today, being pushed to the front lines and given unprecedented power and scope as ever before to manage the Global Economic Crisis, one must understand from whence they came. This book provides a detailed, exploratory, readable and multi-faceted examination of these institutions and actors as agents of the ‘New World Order,’ for which they advance the ‘Globalization of Poverty.’

Posted in Middle East, USA, Europe, Literature0 Comments

Review: “Against Our Better Judgment”



The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir
Stephen J. Sniegoski  

Alison Weir’s relatively short book covers the history of Zionism in the United States from the last decades of the 19th century until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. (She is working on a second volume that will carry this history to the present.) Its brevity does not mean, however, that it is in any sense superficial, as it brings out key historical information, all well-documented, that sets the stage for the troubled world in which we now live. While histories of Zionism have usually focused on Europe, Weir shows that American adherents of this ideology have been far more important than generally has been recognized

The basic theses of this book are encapsulated in the title and subtitle. The history of how American Zionists used America to create Israel was “hidden” in two respects. First, it was “hidden” in the sense that American Zionists often worked behind the scenes. More importantly, however, that history is known but has been kept hidden from the general public, who rely on the mainstream media, and exists almost exclusively in works produced by small publishers—often of a scholarly bent—read by only a few. As Weir points out, those who have tried to bring this information to the general public have suffered both venomous verbal attacks and economic threats that quickly silence the message and often destroy the messenger. This treatment obviously serves to prevent others from doing likewise—“Pour encourager les autres.”

America’s support for Israel ran “against our better judgment” in the sense that American foreign policy experts of the era covered by this work recognized that support for Zionist goals would damage American national interest and that this support only came about because of the political power of American Zionism.

While Weir is not a professional historian, she has intensively studied the literature on this subject for years, much of it rather arcane, as well as spending considerable time traveling in the region. Having a Ph.D. in history myself, I would like to point out that the writing of history does not require any specialized talents as are needed in such fields as theoretical physics or medicine, so that intelligent, hardworking laypersons can often produce works of great value. Weir does not purport to have pored over primary sources to discover new information, which is the hallmark of the professional historian’s craft, but rather synthesizes information from existing published studies that are largely unknown to the general public. Moreover, she brings to her work knowledge of the land and the peoples which she has picked up from her travels.

For those who still might find her background insufficient for her task, it should be further added that Israel apologist Alan Dershowitz, who lacks as far as I can tell any college degree in history, manages to produce works on Israel that are picked up by major publishers who would not think of publishing anything done by most academic historians. It might be added that academic historians, who specialize in monographs, would be loath to produce a comparable account of this subject from Weir’s perspective, since it would do little for their careers and might serve as their professional death knell.

While the book’s narrative is very readable and the key points can easily be digested by the average reader, it is nonetheless well-documented. To satisfy the more academic reader, the book has a section of extended endnotes longer than the narrative. I found the endnotes section valuable not only for confirming and expanding upon the content of the narrative but also in serving as a point of departure for additional research. I often switched from my Kindle book to a Web search, coming up with names of related books and articles that I would like to peruse, should I ever have the time to venture to a research library.

The work goes over a large number of little known but very important topics to demonstrate the powerful influence of Zionism over American foreign policy. Space, naturally, precludes me from discussing all the topics in detail so I have focused on those which seem to deal most directly with the major themes of the book.

The early political influence of Zionism is illustrated by the fact that in 1887 a Jewish American was made ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, which then controlled Palestine and was thus considered by Zionists as the key country with which to deal. This set the precedent of a Jewish ambassador to this country that was continued for the next 30 years, by which time the Zionist search for outside support had turned elsewhere.

The book brings up the central importance of Louis Brandeis and his disciple Felix Frankfurter in advancing the interests of Zionism. Brandeis was a noted social and economic reformer who was a Zionist and happened to be very close to President Wilson, who would put him on the Supreme Court in 1916, the first Jew to hold such a position. Even after joining the Supreme Court, Brandeis used this access to Wilson to promote Zionist interests, sometimes acting as a go-between for Wilson and British Zionists.

Brandeis would head the international Zionist Central Office during the teens but, perhaps even more significant, he would be a leading member of a secret society, the Parushim, the Hebrew word for “Pharisees” and “separate,” which covertly advanced the interests of Zionism in the United States and Europe. The Parushim was founded in 1913 by a University of Wisconsin philosophy professor, Horace M. Kallen, who ironically is considered to be the father of cultural pluralism in the United States. Obviously this idea conflicted completely with his support for the creation of a Jewish exclusivist state, but it is a contradiction that is rather commonplace among many Jews and liberal gentiles alike.

Kallen was regarded by some as first promoting the idea for what became the Balfour Declaration, which would set the stage for the modern state of Israel. He promoted this scheme in 1915 when the U.S. was still a neutral. He told a British friend that this would serve to bring the United States into World War I. It should be pointed out that at that time, despite serious diplomatic issues regarding German submarine warfare, the great majority of the American people wanted to avoid war and Wilson would be re-elected president in November 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” Kallen’s idea for advancing the Zionist goal, however, soon gained traction.

Frustrated in their efforts to achieve a Jewish homeland in Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the American Zionists turned toward Britain to bring this about. In 1916 as World War I dragged on indecisively, Zionist leaders promised the British that in return for a Jewish homeland in Palestine—which the British could expect to gain from the Ottomans as one of the spoils of a victorious war—American Zionists would work to bring the United States into the war on behalf of Britain and its allies. Many British strategists at the time, such as Winston Churchill, believed that such an event would turn the tide for victory. Weir holds that it “appears” that the Zionists’ activity was one factor in bringing America into the war [1] and cites a number a number of reputable books and leading contemporary figures—such as then-British Prime Minister Lloyd George—that held that Zionists carried out their side of the bargain by pushing the United States into war.

The Balfour Declaration was a letter, dated November 2, 1917 (and coming out in the press one week later), from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Walter Rothschild, a British Zionist leader, officially stating that Britain would use its “best endeavours to facilitate the achievement” of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

Now even to give attention to the Balfour Declaration in a history of World War I is somewhat outré; to claim that it caused the United States to enter war is one of those ultra-taboos. Although my Ph.D. was in American history with a focus on diplomacy (and a minor in 20th Century European history), never did I come into contact with anything about the Balfour Declaration in my college studies (which, granted, did not deal with the Middle East). I only knew about it from reading what the mainstream historical profession would regard as disreputable authors.

Reference to the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist role in it was considered one of the daring things done by the iconoclastic Israeli “New Historian” Tom Segev who discussed it in his book, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate(2000). In a lecture on his book that I heard at the University of Maryland in 2002, Segev, though acknowledging that the British goal was winning over Jews to their side [2], derided the idea of any real Jewish power, attributing that mode of thinking to “anti-Semitism.” In 2010, Segev expressed this view in a review of a new book on the Balfour Declaration: “Obviously there was no ‘Jewish power’ controlling world affairs, but Weizmann [3] successfully pretended that the Jews were in fact turning the wheels of history. For once, the anti-Semitic image of the Jews proved useful — they were believed to be so maliciously dangerous that one would do best to acquire them as allies rather than as enemies.”[4]

Although Segev is a daring historian who often rejects the Zionist myths on the creation of Israel, in this case he essentially relies on a classic Zionist-constructed strawman, which involves greatly exaggerating the view that the Zionists (and Jews in general) don’t like. It is highly doubtful that the British foreign office believed that Jews were so powerful as to be “turning the wheels of history.” (If that had been the case, one would think that the British would have offered Jews much more than Palestine from the very start of the war.) Furthermore, as noted earlier, Weir does not subscribe to anything like this Zionist strawman in regard to the Balfour Declaration, or anything else, I should add.

However, what is important is not only whether the American Zionists were able to bring the United States into a war, but that they made a solemn promise to a foreign country that they would try to do so. As a matter of fact, since Zionists such as Brandeis knew much about Wilson’s thinking and undoubtedly were kept abreast on what Germany was likely to do (it being well-known that Germany was suffering from the British “starvation” blockade and that politically powerful voices there wanted to retaliate by pursuing a harsher submarine policy toward neutrals such as the U.S.), they may have realistically thought in 1916 that there was a good chance that the United States would shortly go to war whether they interceded or not, which meant it would be a wise move to make such a deal and be able to get credit for a result that was not of their own making.[5]

It is also of significance that the American Zionists promised to push the U.S. into war not because they believed that it was in their own country’s national interest—as was the case for a number of prominent Americans such as former President Theodore Roosevelt—but solely for what they considered to be in the interests of world Jewry. Ascribing “dual loyalty” to any Jews is regarded as a classic anti-Semitic canard. In this case, however, the American Zionists’ position did not even rise to the level of “dual loyalty,” being purely singular in that it evinced no apparent concern whatsoever for American interests.

Linked to the Balfour Declaration, Weir points out that “American Zionists may also have played a role in preventing an early peace with the Ottoman Empire.”[6] In 1917, the U.S. State Department had heard that the Ottomans were becoming weary of the war, and it decided to send a secret mission to explore the possibility of detaching the Ottoman Empire from its alliance with the other Central Powers. Such a separate peace would likely leave the Ottoman Empire (or Turkey as it would become shortly)[7] in control of its Asian possessions, which would mean that since Britain would not gain Palestine, no home for Jews could emerge there.

This mission was headed by former Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who, though Jewish, was not a Zionist. However, he was persuaded by Zionists such as Brandeis protégé Felix Frankfurter, who was a member of the mission’s delegation, to abandon the effort. In a meeting with Morgenthau, Chaim Weizmann, a leading British Zionist who was alerted by American Zionists as to the danger posed by Morgenthau’s mission, also played a major role in stopping the potentially-peacemaking mission, as is indicated in Weir’s endnotes.[8]

Other obstacles to the Zionists’ goal in Palestine would also arise soon after the end of the war in November 1918. Important Christian Americans who were intimately involved in the Near East and supported self-determination for the Arabs recognized that this could not take place if the Zionists were able to set up an ethnic Jewish enclave on Arab land. They went to the Paris Peace Conference which, among a number of issues stemming from World War I, would deal with the territorial settlement.

As a result of the divergent views on the future status of the territory to be given up by the Ottoman Empire, President Wilson decided to send an investigatory commission to the region, which became known as the King-Crane Commission.[9] In line with Wilson’s goal of national self-determination, the commission sought to discover how the region’s inhabitants wanted to be governed, and they overwhelmingly expressed opposition to a Jewish home in Palestine.

Weir points out that “Zionists through Brandeis dominated the situation, however, and the report was suppressed until after the Peace Accords were enacted.”[10] At the Paris Peace Conference, Weir writes, “[t]he U.S. delegation was forced to follow Zionist directives.”[11]

One minor criticism here is that the reader might incorrectly get the impression that the King-Crane Commission dealt solely with Palestine, while it actually involved all the territories severed from, or expected to be severed from, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey).[12] The issue of Palestine made up about half of the report on “Syria,” which also included present day Syria and Lebanon. The other two geographical sections of the report were “Mesopotamia” and “Non-Arabic speaking portions of the Former Ottoman Empire (Asia Minor).”[13] Thus the suppression of the commission’s report was likely due not only to opposition by Zionists, but also to other interested parties disturbed by its findings in areas other than Palestine. These parties would include the British, French and Greeks.

In regard to the report’s description of Palestine, however, Weir’s presentation was completely on the mark. The King-Crane report reflected extreme opposition to Zionism expressed by those Muslims and Christians who lived in Palestine as well as by those who lived in neighboring areas.

Weir points out that during the inter-war period, when Palestine was governed by Britain under a League of Nations mandate, which was intended to prepare the country for eventual independence, the American Zionists moved away from openly pushing for the establishment of an exclusivist Jewish state in Palestine since this ran counter to the temper of the times—which reflected American opposition to militant nationalism and dual loyalty, and respect for majority rule and national self-determination. Instead, Zionists focused on the development of Jewish institutions in Palestine, which would serve as a basis for a Jewish state. Zionist leaders, such as David Ben-Gurion, still viewed American support as key to their establishment of a Jewish state.

With World War II on the horizon, Zionists began to return directly to their goal of a Jewish state. A precursor of the current Israel lobby, the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC), began in 1939. In order to pressure the U.S. government to support a Zionist state, AZEC worked to establish more than 400 local committees under 76 state and regional branches to promote this goal. These committees distributed Zionist pamphlets, circulated petitions, and engaged in letter writing campaigns to promote the Zionist cause. AZEC also funded books, articles and academic studies for this same purpose.

By the end of World War II, Zionist efforts gave them considerable power in American politics. In order to appeal to the general American populace, they stressed the needs of the many Jewish European refugees, connecting the refugee problem to Palestine, the latter destination purportedly being the only solution to their existing homelessness. By this humanitarian argument, Zionists could thus appeal to many Americans who did not necessarily believe the Zionists’ contention that Jews had a historical right to control Palestine.

As Britain opted to turn over the troublesome issue of Palestine to the United Nations in 1947, Zionists pushed for a partitioning of Palestine between Jews and the indigenous Palestinian population. The partition plan discriminated in favor of the Zionists, since while the Jewish population comprised about 30 percent of Palestine’s population, the plan would award them with 55 percent of the land. And the Zionists’ real goal was not to be content with that amount but to also grab the remainder.

U.S. State Department officials strenuously opposed the partition plan, looking upon this approach as both contrary to America’s professed principle of national self-determination and its vital interests in the Middle East, where a vast majority of the governments and their people were vehemently opposed to Zionism. A leading State Department official in this opposition was Loy Henderson, Director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs. Zionists viciously attacked him, demanding his removal and even threatening his family. The State Department chose to move him elsewhere and in 1948 President Truman named him Ambassador to Nepal, which kept him far away from anything to do with Palestine.

Removing Henderson, however, did not make the State Department favorable toward transforming any part of Palestine into a Jewish state. Among the higher level opponents were the head of the State Department‘s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam; Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson, who later became Secretary of State; and George F. Kennan, the State Department‘s Director of Policy Planning, noted as the architect of America’s containment policy against Soviet Communism.

The State Department was not the only part of the executive branch of the United States government that opposed the Zionist goal for Palestine. The newly-created CIA reported in 1947 that the Zionists were seeking goals that would be harmful to both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”[14] The Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed partition and expressed the prescient fear that the Zionist aim was to involve the U.S. in their conflict with their Middle East enemies.

Despite this opposition from a consensus of foreign policy and national security experts within his own government, Truman opted to support the Zionist partition plan for political reasons, relying heavily on the views of his domestic political advisor, Clark Clifford, who maintained that the Jewish vote and financial backing were necessary to win the presidential election in 1948. Truman‘s Secretary of State George Marshall, noted for the famed Marshall Plan that helped to rebuild devastated Western Europe, and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal remained staunchly opposed to what they regarded as Truman’s willingness to sacrifice vital national security interests on the altar of domestic politics.

Weir points out that a number of wealthy Zionist Jews provided financial support for Truman’s presidential campaign in 1948, which may put us in mind of Zionist mega-donors of today such as Sheldon Adelson. One of these backers was Abraham Feinberg who funded Truman’s epic whistle-stop train campaign. Truman would give Feinberg credit for his victory. As quid pro quo, the Truman administration remained inert when the CIA later reported that Feinberg was involved in illegal gun-running to Zionist groups in Palestine.

I should add that while Truman has become something of an idol for recent historians, he was looked upon during his time as being driven by what would benefit his own political interest. As the redoubtable journalist H. L. Mencken quipped about Truman’s 1948 campaign: “If there had been any formidable body of cannibals in the country he would have promised them with free missionaries, fattened at the taxpayer’s expense.” In Truman’s defense, however, it should be pointed out that two of his key opponents in the 1948 presidential election, Republican Thomas Dewey and the left-wing Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace, Franklin Roosevelt’s former Vice-President, were both staunchly pro-Zionist.[15]

Weir describes a number of Zionists who maintained personal contact with Truman and likely played a role in shaping his policies. David K. Niles, Truman’s executive assistant, was regularly briefed by the head of the Washington Office of the Zionist Organization of America and was believed to be passing top-secret information to the Israeli government. Truman’s long-time friend and former business partner, Eddie Jacobson, was a staunch Zionist with close access to Truman who would describe his information to be of “decisive importance.”[16] Sam Rosenman, a political advisor to Truman, screened State Department memos to Truman.

Although the United States had announced its support for the partition of Palestine, it was apparent that the partition plan still lacked the necessary two-thirds vote to pass in the UN General Assembly. Consequently, the Zionists were able to get a delay in the vote and used that time to intimidate or bribe opponents to reverse their positions.

For example, Weir notes that Wall Street financier and perennial presidential adviser Bernard Baruch threatened war-torn France that it would be denied aid from the United States if it voted against partition. David Niles was able to get rubber baron Harvey Firestone to tell the Liberian president that he would terminate his planned expansion in his country if it did not vote in favor of partition. Haiti was promised economic aid if it would change its vote and support the measure. Costa Rica’s President Jose Figueres was said to have received a blank checkbook to get his country’s vote.

As a result of this behind the scenes skullduggery, the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, voted in favor of the adoption and implementation of the partition plan as UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Although this resolution is widely believed in the United States to have created Israel,[17] Weir correctly points out that it “was of limited (if any) legal impact” since General Assembly resolutions, as opposed to those of the Security Council, are not binding on member states. Although the resolution recommended that the UN Security Council implement the partition, it never did.[18]

The effect of the General Assembly’s resolution, however, was to increase the fighting in Palestine. While the Zionist myth would have it that the Jews in Palestine were simply a peaceful community set upon by violent Arabs intent on genocide, Weir points out that Zionist military forces had been covertly preparing for war for some time. They had amassed extensive armaments, some of it coming illicitly from the U.S., and their troop numbers exceeded those of their foes even after five Arab governments had joined the fray. The traditional Zionist portrayal of Israel’s war for independence (which, of course, prevented independence for the Palestinians) as a David versus Goliath conflict in which the Jews miraculously overcame overwhelming odds is pure fiction, but it is still believed in many quarters today and continues to generate sympathy for Israel. On May 15, 1948, Zionists announced the establishment of their new state of Israel, for which they did not establish any boundaries.

A quick aside here: somewhat ironically, in my view, Weir barely touches on the United States decision to recognize Israel. Moreover, what does exist is largely in the endnotes. Although there will be a second volume to Weir’s history, and the cut-off point for this volume has to be somewhere, still the fact that the book does make reference to events in 1948 would seem to have made it appropriate to discuss in some detail the issue of America’s quick recognition of Israel.

A number of interlocking organizations operated in the U.S. to raise money for Zionist paramilitary groups in Palestine, though this goal was kept secret. These organizations were under the direction of the leader of the Irgun Delegation, Hillel Kook, who operated under the name of Peter Bergson. During World War II, these organizations purported to be trying to alert people to the genocide of European Jews and trying to rescue those still alive. By promoting this purpose these organizations were able to attract substantial public support, including from those who would be repulsed by their funding of terrorist activities, which, Weir implies, was their real intent. The latter, she maintains, was made manifest by the organizations’ failure to actually rescue Jews from Europe.

The Irgun group engaged in numerous public activities to raise money, one of the most successful being a pageant entitled “We Will Never Die!” which, woven within the backdrop of the Nazi genocide, celebrated the Jewish contribution to Western civilization. Written by Ben Hecht, an Academy Award-winning screenwriter, the pageant included such Broadway and Hollywood celebrities of the era as Edward G. Robinson, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, and Leonard Bernstein. Forty thousand attended the extravaganza’s New York performances. It went on to play in a number of other large American cities. The group produced a number of other plays and rallies, one of which featured a young Marlon Brando, and raised $1 million.[19]

Some American Zionists, Weir observes, actually planned terrorist activities outside of Palestine in order to influence developments there. One such terrorist activity conceived by a group of American Zionists headed by an Orthodox Rabbi named Baruch Korff consisted of a plan to drop bombs along with threatening leaflets on the British foreign office in London, or anywhere in London if that were too difficult. The airplane pilot sought for this task, however, went to the Paris Police—he and Korff both being in France at the time—and Korff was arrested. Powerful people rushed to Korff’s defense and the charges were dropped. Korff thus was able return to his former activities in America as if nothing had happened. With this particular event thrown down the Orwellian “memory hole,” Korff resurfaced over two decades later as a public figure close to President Richard Nixon, influencing the latter’s Middle East policies.

The amount of money raised for Zionist groups in the United States during these years is impossible to calculate accurately, but it would be enormous. Weir writes that between 1939 and May 1948 the Jewish Agency for Israel alone raised the equivalent of $3.5 billion in today’s dollars.

David Ben-Gurion, then de facto leader of the Jewish community in Palestine, realized that the international concern for Jewish refugees could be used to advance the cause of a Jewish state by making it appear that no other safe refuges for Jews existed. Weir illustrates this deception by a discussion of the famous ship Exodus, which carried Holocaust survivors to Palestine when the British were not allowing illegal immigration there.

Weir points out that what is generally unknown to the public is that the French were willing to take in those Exodus refugees but Ben-Gurion rejected that solution, forcing those survivors to remain on board the ship for seven months. Weir quotes historian Baruch Kimmerling on the significance of the Exodus affair: “Ben-Gurion‘s strategy in the Exodus affair paid off. The fate of the refugee ship attracted considerable and sympathetic attention around the world, and served the Zionist cause well. Few observers at the time knew that many of the refugees from the Exodus had applied for immigration visas to the United States, and were hardly anxious to settle in Israel . . . . By dramatizing the fate of the survivors, in whom he had little interest except as future residents of the state he was building . . . Ben-Gurion helped to make Israel the world’s chief power broker over Jewish affairs.”[20]

Weir includes a brief reference to Leon Uris’s bestselling 1958 novel on the Exodus ship, and though it falls outside the chronological purview of this volume, I would add that the impact of the already mythologized Exodus event was greatly magnified by Uris’s book, which sold over 7 million copies and was turned into a blockbuster movie in 1960 by Otto Preminger, a leading film director of the era. The film has been identified by many commentators as having greatly enhanced support for Israel in the United States by Jews as well as gentiles and in the view of some scholars this movie has had a lasting effect on how Americans view the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Weir even acknowledges that it had initially shaped her thinking on the subject.[21]

While the pro-Zionist propaganda that inundated the American media played up the existence of Jewish refugees who allegedly sought to come to Israel, there was little popular attention paid toward the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were being driven from their homeland as a result of Zionist massacres and other forcible expulsion measures. A State Department study in March 1949 found the American public was “unaware of the Palestine refugee problem, since it has not been hammered away at by the press or radio.”[22]

To underscore the importance of what Weir presents on this subject, it should be pointed out that until fairly recently, Israel’s denial of ever having expelled the Palestinians dominated the public discourse in the U.S. It was alleged that when Arab armies were about to invade the newly-declared state of Israel, Palestinians left their homes in the new Israel at the behest of their leaders, expecting to return with the victorious Arab armies. Beginning in the 1980s, however, Israel’s so-called “New Historians,” relying on newly released Israeli documents, exploded this myth. They concluded that the major cause of Palestinian flight was Israeli military action, which included terrorist massacres and the fear of them.

Even without the discovery of this Israeli documentary evidence, or any other documentary evidence for that matter, the use of the cui bono test would strongly point to Zionist culpability for the removal of the native Palestinians. For the Zionists planned to create a state that was both democratic and Jewish. This would be impossible if a large number of non-Jewish people, who were largely hostile to Zionism, resided within the country. From this fact, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the emptying of Palestine in 1948 was not a serendipitous development from the perspective of the Zionists, but one that was intentionally brought about by them.

Weir observes that U.S. State Department experts at the time were aware of Israel’s inhumane actions and sought to take action to at least moderate Israel’s effort to achieve a permanent removal of Palestinians. The State Department threatened to withhold $49 million of unallocated funds from an Export-Import Bank loan to Israel if it did not allow at least 200,000 refugees to return to their homes. Although Truman sympathized with the Palestinians’ plight, and in early 1948 even briefly considered backtracking from the partition and supporting a UN trusteeship for the entirety of Palestine, he ultimately prevented the State Department’s move from being implemented.

Weir points out that those in the mainstream media who attempted to alert the American people to the reality of the dispossession of the Palestinian people were effectively prevented from doing so by pro-Zionists. The latter relied on hurling the career-destroying charge of “anti-Semitism” and threatening economic measures to harm any media outlet that would dare to disseminate information they deemed to be too negative toward Israel.

The individual whom the Zionists caused to fall the farthest was Dorothy Thompson. Weir deserves much credit here for pulling this once well-known figure out of the Orwellian memory hole. Thompson happens to have been one of the principal figures in my doctoral dissertation titled, ”The Intellectual Wellsprings of American World War II Interventionism, 1939-1941.”[23] And I have added a few additional points to what Weir has in her book to illustrate the high reputation Thompson had at one time.

Thompson was an early and persistent critic of Nazism. She had an interview with Hitler in 1931 before he had become German Chancellor, which was made into a book. Thompson portrayed Hitler and Nazism in a negative light and in 1934, the now Nazi government of Germany expelled her when she attempted to visit the country. From 1934 onward, the bulk of her writing dealt with the danger posed by Nazism to the Western democracies. After the start of World War II in Europe in September 1939, Thompson was a staunch interventionist who initially advocated greater American aid to the allies but by the latter part of 1941 she was advocating American entrance into the war.

In 1939, Time Magazine named Thompson the second most popular and influential woman in America behind Eleanor Roosevelt.[24] She spoke out about anti-Semitism and the plight of the Jews in Europe, and urged a relaxation of immigration restrictions so the U.S. could be a safe haven for Jews under threat in Europe. She also was a strong supporter of Zionism.

In early 1945 she took a trip to Palestine where she saw firsthand Jews oppressing Palestinians. She came to realize that the Zionists sought to create a Jewish exclusivist state, not one that would include all of its current inhabitants. Her criticism of Zionism led to charges against her of “anti-Semitism” and even pro-Nazism, as absurd as that was given her background.[25] As a result of this all-out Zionist attack, newspapers began to drop her columns. Especially harmful was her loss of an outlet in New York City—where she had received a large proportion of her income—when the New York Post dropped her column with no other major New York City daily being willing to pick it up. Her radio program and speaking engagements also disappeared. Despite these problems, Thompson would not back away from her criticism of Zionism. And she continued to do so in the dwindling number of newspapers that still took her column, which did not end until 1958.

It is significant that the black-out of Dorothy Thompson has continued after her death, and perhaps even become worse. In the effort to make the subject of American history more inclusive, recent historians have often added women who were little known in their own eras, whereas Thompson who had been an important figure remains unmentioned. It seems likely that she has remained largely unmentioned both for what she had to say about Zionism and also by the fact that she was blacklisted by pro-Zionists, the power of whom one is not allowed to publicly acknowledge. (This contrasts with those Americans who were blacklisted for being pro-Communist, who are now often praised as martyrs because of this treatment.)

To conclude the review, it should be emphasized that this concise book should be of value to a wide audience. The general reader with little background knowledge should easily pick up a number of key points that serve to dispel the many myths that loom large today in the mainstream media, while even those individuals familiar with the subject are almost guaranteed to profit from little known facts, especially in the notes section, that should augment their knowledge. And it is essential that many more Americans become aware of this knowledge if America’s position is to change regarding Israel and the Middle East in general. Such a change is essential not only to bring about some degree of justice for the Palestinians but in order to extricate the United States from the debilitating regional conflicts that its close connection with Israel has entailed. It will be interesting to see how Weir, in her forthcoming volume, deals with the problems America has faced in more recent years that ineluctably derived from the events described in this work.


[1] Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014), Kindle Edition, Kindle Location 364. Weir contends that there were a number of factors that caused the United States to enter World War I in April 1917, some of which she lists, and that “Zionism appears to have been one of those factors.”

[2] Some historians have diluted this Jewish factor, attributing motivation to British foreign policy goals in the Near East. A Jewish homeland allegedly could serve as a buffer zone that would protect the Suez Canal.

[3] Chaim Weizmann was a leading figure in the Zionist movement who served as President of the Zionist Organization and later as the first President of Israel.

[4] Tom Segev, “‘View With Favor’, Review of The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Jonathan Schneer, International New York Times, August 20, 2010, accessed December 13, 2015,

In other parts of his review, Segev’s analysis is impressive. For example he writes: “The Balfour declaration thus finds its place among a multitude of fruitless schemes and indulgent fantasies, except, of course, that in this case, surprisingly, the British by and large kept their word. For at least two decades they allowed the Zionist movement to bring hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants into Palestine, and these new arrivals set up hundreds of settlements including several towns, as well as the political, economic, military and cultural infrastructure of the future state of Israel. But if Israel’s existence originated with the British, so did the Palestinians’ tragedy.”

[5] The controversial House-Grey memorandum, developed with Britain in February 1916, stated that at an appropriate time Wilson would call for a peace conference. If the Allies accepted the offer and Germany rejected it or acted intransigently at the conference, the United States would go to war against Germany. And if Germany accepted the offer and a peace conference did take place, the settlement would not be unfavorable to the Allies. Wayne S. Cole, An Interpretive History of American Foreign Relations (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1968), 363

[6] Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Kindle Location 449.

[7] The Wikipedia entry for “Ottoman Empire,” states that the “’Ottoman Empire’ and ‘Turkey’ were often used interchangeably, with ‘Turkey’ being increasingly favored both in formal and informal situations. This dichotomy was officially ended in 1920–23, when the newly established Ankara-based Turkish government chose Turkey as the sole official name,” accessed December 13, 2015, .

[8] Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Kindle Locations 2668-2669 .

[9] The King-Crane Commission was originally created as the American Section of the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey, which was also to include British and French members, and be like a number of other fact finding missions stemming from the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. These two countries failed to participate. Ken Grossi, Maren Milligan, and Ted Waddelow, Restoring Lost Voices of Self-Determination: Background to the Commission, August 2011, Part of the King-Crane Commission Digital Collection, Oberlin College Archives, accessed December 13, 2015, .

[10] Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Kindle Locations 502-503.

[11] Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Kindle Location 505.

[12] The King-Crane Commission Report, August 28, 1919, The report includes discussions of territory intended to have been taken from Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres, which Turkey never accepted and was not implemented.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Quoted in Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Kindle Location 798.

[15] Wallace had no chance of winning the election but Truman’s backers feared that he could syphon off enough liberal votes in large Northern and Midwestern states to enable Dewey to win the election. The issue of Israel did not play a role in Strom Thurmond’s 1948 campaign in the South, which focused on states’ rights and racial issues.

[16] Quoted in Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Kindle Location 894.

King-Crane Commission Report, August 28, 1919.

[17] Jeremy R. Hammond, “The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel,” Foreign Policy Journal, October 26, 2010, accessed December 13, 2015,

[18] More than this, the UN General Assembly, after the vote, created another committee that came to quite different conclusions. Jeremy Hammond writes: “The Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question was established by the General Assembly shortly after the issuance of the UNSCOP report in order to continue to study the problem and make recommendations. A sub-committee was established in turn that was tasked with examining the legal issues pertaining to the situation in Palestine, and it released the report of its findings on November 11. It observed that the UNSCOP report had accepted a basic premise ‘that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews both possess validity’, which was ‘not supported by any cogent reasons and is demonstrably against the weight of all available evidence.’ With an end to the Mandate and with British withdrawal, ‘there is no further obstacle to the conversion of Palestine into an independent state’, which ‘would be the logical culmination of the objectives of the Mandate’ and the Covenant of the League of Nations. It found that ‘the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine.’’’ Hammond, “The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel.”

[19] Marlon Brando was very close to Jews before he became a movie star and later donated a considerable amount of money to Zionist causes. He expressed more negative views of Jews toward the end of his life. See: Allan M. Jalon, “How Marlon Brando Became Godfather to the Jews,” Forward, September 16, 2015, accessed December 13, 2015,; Danielle Berrin, “Marlon Brando and the Jews,” Jewish Journal, July 30, 2014, accessed December 13, 2015,

[20] Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Kindle Locations 1249-1256.

[21] The movie had an all-star cast (and a very popular, award winning theme song), which included: Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Peter Lawford, Sal Mineo, and Lee J. Cobb.

[22] Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, Kindle Locations 1370-1371.

[23] Stephen John Sniegoski, “The Intellectual Wellsprings of American World War II Interventionism, 1939-1941,” (PhD diss., University of Maryland-College Park, 1977).

My research on Thompson included a visit to the archival collection of her papers at the George Arents Research Library at Syracuse University in Syracuse, New York, in 1976, where I perused some material dealing with her break with American Jews, which was outside the scope of my dissertation.

[24] Thompson’s correspondence in her manuscript collection at Syracuse University illustrates her importance. The Overview of the Collection states: “Correspondents include authors (John Gunther, Wallace Irwin, Alfred M. Lilienthal, Edgar A. Mowrer, Vincent Sheehan, Johannes Urzidil), literary figures (Jean Cocteau, Rose Wilder Lane, Thomas Mann, Rebecca West), politicians and statesmen (Bernard M. Baruch, Winston Churchill, Ely Culbertson, Ralph E. Flanders, Felix Frankfurter, Charles de Gaulle, Cordell Hull, Clare Boothe Luce, Jan Masaryk, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman).” Overview of the Collection, Dorothy Thompson Papers, Syracuse University Libraries, accessed December 13, 2015,

[25] Thompson’s relationship with American Jews actually began to sour toward the end of the war before the emergence of the issue of Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians. She differed with the Jewish establishment regarding her opposition to the Anglo-American incendiary bombing of German cities, which involved the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, and also the demand for a Carthaginian peace with Germany that was reflected in the Morgenthau Plan. She viewed these actions as violating the alleged idealistic purpose of the war, whereas many Jews sought punishment of the German people because of what the Nazis had done to their co-religionists.


  • Unz Review

Posted in Literature0 Comments


Image result for halloween pictures
Dr: Teresinka Pereira
Life is spooky.
When children get their ghost
costume off
they have learned how
to get rid of the spooky
side of life.
Girls who dress themselves up
as princesses
learn how ambitions
are useless and temporary.
And we, the adults,
who observe children
acting during Halloween
could learn something
from their lesson
and philosophy of life.

Posted in Literature0 Comments

Berkeley Bans a Palestine Class


By John K. Wilson

This decision sends a clear message to the campus: controversial speech will be punished, especially if it is critical of Israel.

(Photo: Taken / Pixabay)

Suspending a course in the middle of a semester is one of the most serious actions a university can take. On Sept. 13, Dean Carla Hesse of the University of California at Berkeley did exactly that to a student-taught DeCal class about Palestine.

DeCal stands for Democratic Education at Cal, an old-fashioned tradition where undergraduate students teach 1 or 2 unit courses, pass/fail, to their peers. The instructors, called facilitators, plan their own courses, which must be approved by a faculty committee and the chair of a department.

In a statement, Paul Hadweh, the student facilitator, declared:

I complied with all policies and procedures required for creating the course. The course was vetted and fully supported by the faculty advisor, the department chair, and the Academic Senate’s Committee on Courses of Instruction (COCI).

The university suspended the course without consulting me, the faculty sponsor, the chair of the department, or the Academic Senate’s COCI, which is responsible for approving all UC Berkeley Courses. The university did not contact us to discuss concerns prior to suspending our course.

Universities should never suspend courses in the middle of a semester except under the most dire circumstances, where a course has been proven to violate university policies and cannot be fixed, or some kind of extraordinary fraud has occurred.

Nothing like that exists in this case. In fact, nothing like that has even been alleged by the administration, which relies upon bureaucratic snafus to justify suspending this course.

On Sept. 14, UC Berkeley Assistant Vice Chancellor Dan Mogulof wrote to me that “The administration was first made aware of this issue last week when students, faculty and staff noticed posters for the course and expressed concern about the syllabus and, among other things, its compliance with Regents policy.”

InsideHigherEd likewise reported:

However, the public clamor was not the tipping point for Hesse’s decision, Mogulof said. She began her inquiries into the course last week, after a colleague raised concerns about the course to the dean internally. This occurred before public criticism began.

But it was two weeks ago, on Sept. 1, that Mogulof was quoted in a Jewish newspaper responding to concerns about the course from critics.

(UPDATE: Mogulof reports that his original timeline reported in the press was inaccurate, and that the administration first heard about the course on Aug. 26 from a faculty member. But this raises still more questions about a course that began on Sept. 6. If there were legitimate academic concerns about the syllabus, why not contact the instructor about them? Why wait 19 days and then suddenly ban the course? Hesse’s whole complaint is that the failure to deposit a copy of syllabus with her office deprived her of the opportunity to examine it for problems. Now we find out that she had 11 days before the course started to examine the syllabus and she did nothing.)

The administration seems anxious to claim that their decision was made in reaction to the concerns of students, faculty, and staff on campus. But the truth is that Berkeley faced a global onslaught of organizations attacking them for allowing this course. In a letter to Chancellor Dirks on Sept. 13, 43 Jewish, civil rights and education advocacy organizations declared that the class was “intended to indoctrinate students to hate the Jewish state and take action to eliminate it:”

But interestingly, even these organizations did not call for suspending the course; they were solely focused on preventing a similar course from being approved in the future.

By this point, though, Hasse appeared to have a plan to save Berkeley from the bad publicity and put the blame on the student who proposed the course for failing to follow proper procedures. A few hours later on Sept. 13, she emailed the instructor and the faculty who approved the course, informing them that she had suspended the course. It was the first time she had contacted the student instructor.

Berkeley was quick to alert the press about the news, and to blame the student instructor.

Chancellor Dirks’ office emailed critics on Sept. 13:

It has been determined that the facilitator for the course in question did not comply with policies and procedures that govern the normal academic review and approval of proposed courses for the Decal program.

The San Francisco Chronicle on Sept. 13 reported:

The campus letter says the student teaching the course “did not comply with policies and procedures that govern the normal academic review.” A spokesman for Dirks said the student did not show his course proposal to the dean of the College of Letters and Sciences, Carla Hesse, as required.

Almost the same exact explanation was given to InsideHigherEd in its Sept. 14 story:

The university suspended the course because its proposal was never submitted to Dean Carla Hesse of the College of Letters and Sciences, said Dan Mogulof, executive director for communications and public affairs at Berkeley.

Although the dean is not required to approve the course, students must still send her a copy of the proposal. That way, she can review the course and speak to colleagues or the department chair — who is required to sign off on the course — before it is taught.

“When the dean was made aware of the course, she had serious concerns,” Mogulof said. “And she was surprised because she had not previously heard about it.”

But there was a big problem I uncovered. The DeCal website explicitly states that the Dean of Letters & Science does not need to get a copy: “Note that DeCals in the College of Letters & Science no longer need to submit a copy of their proposals to the Dean starting Fall 2014.” (UPDATE: Dean Hesse explained in an email that apparently the head of the Undergraduate Studies made this decision in 2014 without informing the other division heads in Letters & Science or the Dean of Letters & Science.)

When I contacted the Berkeley administration, Dan Mogulof got back to me with a new explanation:

The Executive Dean of Berkeley’s College of Letters and Science was never informed of any change in the review policy for Decal courses, and would not have approved of any change that would withhold information about course proposals from the Dean’s office. In addition, it has also been determined that a department chair with the authority to grant approval for courses in the fall did not review and approve this course. The existing policy of the Academic Senate’s Committee on Courses and Instruction explicitly states that the relevant department chair or the Dean must approve new courses, and that “a copy of the approved proposal form” must also be provided to the Dean. Neither of these steps were completed in this instance.

This is incorrect. What Mogulof calls a “policy” is actually a “Department Chair Checklist for Student-Facilitated 98 and 198 Courses.” It includes three sections: the first two involve verifying the substance of the course, while the “next steps” at the end are bureaucratic procedures. This checklist refers to providing copies of the “approved proposal” to various people, including the dean. This wording would indicate that the faculty, not the dean, make the decision to approve a course, which is how it should be. If the dean doesn’t have the power to approve courses, then she doesn’t have the power to suspend courses, even if she isn’t given a copy because that’s exactly what the DeCal program website says to do.

It’s notable that no Berkeley policy gives Dean Hesse the authority to suspend a course. According to Mogulof, “The course was suspended as per the Dean’s assessment of how best to handle a situation where rules and policies were not adhered to.” This is extremely alarming: the Dean asserts that if “rules and policies” are not followed, the Dean can arbitrarily suspend a class, without a hearing.

After trying to blame the suspension on the student facilitator’s failure to follow proper procedures, it is now clear that the student (and the faculty) followed the written procedures. It would be terrible to ban a class over an innocent bureaucratic error. It is far worse when there was no error at all, and the student and faculty (who are the ones responsible for informing a dean) had no way of knowing that a dean had to be informed when the official university website for the DeCal courses said precisely the contrary.

Now the administration has quickly invented a new explanation to justify why the course must be suspended. According to Mogulof: “there was an acting chair over the summer who did not have the authority to approve courses for the fall.”

Since an acting chair is normally acting as the chair, it would be very strange to say that the acting chair lacks the power of a chair to approve DeCal courses. I asked Mogulof if there is any written policy that says acting chairs cannot approve DeCal courses, and how DeCal courses would get approved in a department if no one has the authority to do it, but he hasn’t responded to those questions yet.

All of these procedural excuses cannot possibly justify suspending the Palestine class. But is there a substantive reason for objecting to the course? No.

The Regents Policy on Course Content denounces “Misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination…” The Regents Policy on Course Content is a terrible policy because a ban on “political indoctrination” is so vague and ill-defined, and can be abused to punish controversial political opinions. But it has no relevance to this controversy because political indoctrination cannot be determined solely by looking at a syllabus.

There appear to have been no complaints about the course by students enrolled in it, and no one in the administration attended the class.

Although a syllabus can reveal some indications of bias, it is almost impossible to conclude that a course is “political indoctrination” without evidence from the way that it is taught. Even a syllabus with one-sided readings can be taught without political indoctrination, if the instructor is open to encouraging dissenting viewpoints.

Nor is the course a violation of the Regents Policy against intolerance “in which dissenting viewpoints are not only tolerated but encouraged.” Actually, this policy is being violated by the Berkeley Administration in its efforts to ban this class.

The policy goes on to declare: “Freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry are paramount in a public research university and form the bedrock on which our mission of discovery is founded. The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.”

Yet the Berkeley administration is demanding changes to the content of the course already approved by faculty.

Hadweh reported that at a meeting on Sept. 13, Dean Hesse told him three things he needed to do to have her reconsider her decision and approve the course, although approval was not guaranteed even if he did them.

First, she said that he would need to “prove that it’s balanced” because she felt it was “unbalanced.” Second, he reported that she said it was “seeking to politically mobilize students” and that was not allowed. Third, he reported that he would need to justify having the class as Ethnic Studies rather than Near East Studies or Global Studies.

There is no requirement that classes at Berkeley (or anywhere else) are “balanced,” nor should there be such a requirement for such a vague goal. There is no requirement that classes at Berkeley cannot seek to politically mobilize students (although there’s no evidence this class did that). And it is bizarre to challenge the particular department approving the course, especially since that has nothing to do with the course.

According to Berkeley’s website, Hesse’s expertise is “Early Modern Europe; 16th-20th century France; European Intellectual History, 17th-20th century.” Her books are The Other Enlightenment: How French Women Became Modern and Publishing and Cultural Politics in Revolutionary Paris, 1789-1810. She appears to have no scholarly expertise at all about Israel and Palestine. So it is strange that Hesse would evaluate a syllabus and order changes without any input from the faculty involved, after suspending it without any input from the faculty involved.

The InsideHigherEd article reported:

The dean will now work with the Berkeley Academic Senate to review the course and examine whether it meets the university’s academic standards. The review process will also determine whether it complies with Berkeley’s intolerance policy, which was revised in March to condemn anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

But rather than consulting with faculty, Hesse is demanding changes to fit her personal beliefs. Yet none of these changes required reflect anything that would justify suspending the course. If Hesse wanted to encourage him to alter and improve the class, she was free to do that without suspending the class. If Hesse wanted to publicly denounce the class, she was free to do that. Instead, Hesse abused her authority to ban a class without due process and without any sound justification.

Once a course has been approved and is underway, a heavy burden must be on the administration to prove that there is something fundamentally wrong with it, so completely wrong that it must be immediately halted without further review. Berkeley has not met this high standard; in fact, it has not even attempted to try to meet this standard, and does not even allege that this standard has been violated.

It is absolutely shocking that a university would ban a course under political pressure, using the violation of bureaucratic procedures as an excuse for its censorship. It is even more shocking because there was no violation of bureaucratic procedures.

If there was a breakdown in bureaucratic procedures (and there is no evidence of it), then it is the obligation of the university to fix those procedures in the future, not to ban a course and punish a facilitator and his students who reasonably followed every written rule.

This decision sends a clear message to the campus: controversial speech will be punished, especially if it is critical of Israel.

This course suspension is absolutely indefensible, completely unacceptable, and purely motivated by politics and public relations. It is a violation of academic freedom, shared governance, UC-Berkeley’s guidelines, the Regents Policies, and the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

UPDATE (9/19/16): UC-Berkeley Dean Carla Hesse announced on September 19 that she was rescinding her suspension of the Palestine class. Hesse claimed, “The Student Facilitator, the Chair and the Executive Committee of the Department of Ethnic Studies determined that revisions of the course in light of these concerns were necessary and appropriate.” The revised syllabus for the class reveals some small changes in the description and course objectives, but no additional authors in the readings.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZI, Literature0 Comments

Welcome to Your Delusional Democracy


For some years I have used the term “delusional democracy” to describe the condition of the US .  It seemed obvious to me that the vast majority of Americans have deliberately chosen to fool themselves.  They have been brainwashed to believe what no longer is true.  Become convinced that you do not live in a true and terrific democracy, or that your democracy is the best in the world. 

I stopped believing this myth many years ago.  All the objective evidence I saw over fifty years of paying intense attention both as a citizen and someone who worked within the political system showed me that American democracy had steadily declined in quality, integrity and effectiveness.  And now in this 2016 presidential race you have powerful and painful evidence that we are saddled with a delusional democracy.  Thank Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for opening your mind and eyes to reveal this revolting truth.

Delusional democracy refers to delusional Americans.  So this year the key question for you to consider is whether you still choose to keep falsely believing that American democracy is worth being proud of.  I just cannot see how Americans can accept these two major party presidential candidates as reflecting a first rate democracy.  They are, in fact, a major embarrassment that should make every American, regardless of their political party loyalty or previous political beliefs, cringe at the ugly reality that these two presidential candidates are worthy of any respect, loyalty or votes.

How could it come to this?  Two world class liars.  Two of the most widely known untrusted and untrustable unpopular politicians ever produced here or anywhere.  Two sick narcissists in it for themselves, not the country.

The US political system produced this reality.  A two-party duopoly serving the rich and powerful, corporate contributors and many special interests, but not the ordinary, general public is what we have had for a long time.  What gave this nation awful economic inequality, destruction of good paying middle class jobs in manufacturing, and horrendous national debt also gave us these two losers.  Can you settle into voting for the lesser of two evils, when each of the two evils makes you gag?  Evil does not accurately describe these two options.  Choose the lesser of two embarrassments, of two calamities, of two democracy destroyers.

Consider this way of thinking about this ugly reality.  Once a democracy has become delusional playing the game of being responsible citizen and voting no longer makes sense.  It is more like joining a criminal conspiracy to maintain the illusion that we have a legitimate democracy.  Voting no longer is the path to have a revolution to restore American democracy.  That is exactly where we have arrived.  When most Americans have little respect and trust for Congress or just about every other institution and most believe we are on the wrong track, then how can you still cling to the belief that voting is what you can and should do?  When it comes to Trump and Hillary how can you still keep deluding yourself that you live in a legitimate democracy worth voting in?

An important 2014 academic study of a huge number of policy actions found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.  In other words, voting by citizens does not shape our nation.  We do not have an authentic democracy.  We have more of an oligarchy that is controlled by rich and powerful elites.  Voting is a distraction, something to make you feel good and responsible.  Of course, sometimes it looks like the general public gets what it wants.  Yet “they fairly often get the policies they favor … only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.”  The big conclusion: “if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America ’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”  This fits my model perfectly: we have a delusional democracy.

Here is what I think is the correct action this year.  Boycott the presidential election.  Do not vote for anyone for president.  What does this accomplish?  It would create incredible historic data on very low voter turnout for the presidential election.  It would send a clear message to both major parties, the political establishment, the media, and the whole world that Americans have recognized the truth about our delusional democracy.  This could spark true political revolution for the next presidential election.  You ask, depending on what you now believe, but how can I live with that awful Trump or that awful Hillary getting elected president?  So be it.  It is more important to create conditions for major, true political reforms than to worry about an awful person in the White House.  We need a good long game.  Worry less about how a president may harm our nation and more about the critical need to recognize and fix our delusional democracy by taking back the power that the power elites have had for a long time.

There is a wonderful graph on Wikipedia showing US presidential election turnout over history.  From about 1840 to 1900 it was varying around 75 percent to 80 percent.  Then it declined steadily until about 1920, and from then to recent times it varied from around 50 percent to 60 percent.  My main point is that you need some imagination and think about the many impacts of reducing turnout to say 30 percent.  The whole world would interpret that as the rejection by Americans of their political system.  It would be an incredible historic shock having the potential to remove the legitimacy and credibility of the current two-party duopoly.  Our corrupt, delusional democracy would have received a bullet.  Demand for truly reforming and fixing our political system would take on energy.  Remember, the historic data showed this sharp decline in turnout happening once before.  It can happen again, with your help.  Boycott this presidential election.

Fixing our democracy is far more important than your vote this year.  Yes, you may feel bad that the candidate you most hated won your state and maybe the Electoral College, or that you did not show support for a third party candidate.  But you can and should feel good that you have non-voted against the status quo, broken political system.  Feel great that you want to fix our delusional democracy.

In so many other democracies the public create massive street protests and many times this kind of action produces political and government reforms.  It has become clear that the street protest strategy has not and will not happen on a large enough scale to produce deep reforms in the US .  Nor has forming new reform-oriented organizations done the job.  It is far easier and more convenient for the vast majority of Americans to see the light and boycott this presidential election.

Vote for whatever else on your ballot is important to you.  But boycott the presidential election.  That non-vote is truly a message-vote and driving force for major political reforms.  If you continue to believe that ordinary participation in elections will fix our nation, then you have not faced history and reality.  You remain delusional.

Better to choose to make American democracy great again by standing up to a corrupt system.

Posted in USA, Literature0 Comments

What Is the Tipping Point? Everyday Authoritarianism in the US


“When you can’t translate private troubles into larger public issues, you have no way of understanding the forces of oppression in which you find yourself. One of the great successes of neoliberalism has been to eliminate all questions of the structural, the social — and how they work against people in ways that suggest that they should not be involved in collective action. It represents a form of organized powerlessness at the heart of neoliberalism.”

Cultural critic Henry Giroux explains how a new strain of authoritarianism has seized American politics and culture, injecting and celebrating violence and militarism into our media and economy, creating disposable scapegoats of the marginalized, and ultimately devaluing the cornerstones of democratic thought — reason, solidarity and equality.

Henry’s new book is America at War with Itself from City Lights Books.

Posted in USA, Literature0 Comments

Conspiracy Theory in America

By Lance deHaven-Smith 


As an opener to our “9/11 – 15 years on” we’re sharing this extract from the book Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven Smith. Regardless of where we stand on the events of 9/11 we need to be aware of the intelligence-backed media campaign that lies behind the current social context of the phrase “conspiracy theory”.

A Curious History

The term “conspiracy theory” did not exist as a phrase in everyday American conversation before 1964. The conspiracy-theory label entered the American lexicon of political speech as a catchall for criticisms of the Warren Commission’s conclusion that President Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman with no assistance from, or foreknowledge by, any element of the United States government. Since then, the term’s prevalence and range of application have exploded. In 1964, the year the Warren Commission issued its report, the New York Times published five stories in which “conspiracy theory” appeared. In recent years, the phrase has occurred in over 140 New York Times stories annually. A Google search for the phrase (in 2012) yielded more than 21 million hits—triple the numbers for such common expressions as “abuse of power” and “war crime.” On, the term is a book category that includes in excess of 1,300 titles. In addition to books on conspiracy theories of particular events, there are conspiracy-theory encyclopedias, photographic compendiums, website directories, and guides for researchers, skeptics, and debunkers.

Initially, conspiracy theories were not an object of ridicule and hostility. Today, however, the conspiracy-theory label is employed routinely to dismiss a wide range of anti-government suspicions as symptoms of impaired thinking akin to superstition or mental illness. For example, in a massive book published in 2007 on the assassination of President Kennedy, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says people who doubt the Warren Commission report are “as kooky as a three dollar bill in their beliefs and paranoia.” Similarly, in his recently published book Among the Truthers (Harper’s, 2011), Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay refers to 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “political paranoiacs” who have “lost their grip on the real world.” Making a similar point, if more colorfully, in his popular book Wingnuts, journalist John Avlon refers to conspiracy believers as “moonbats,” “Hatriots,” “wingnuts,” and the “Fright Wing.”

The same judgment is expressed in more measured terms by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule in a 2009 journal article on the “causes and cures” of conspiracy theories. Sunstein is a Harvard law professor appointed by President Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He and Vermeule claim that once a person buys into them, conspiracy theories are resistant to debunking because they are “self-sealing.” That is, because conspiracy theories attribute extraordinary powers to elites to orchestrate events, keep secrets, and avoid detection, the theories encourage their adherents to dismiss countervailing evidence as fabricated or planted.

In a book on technology and public opinion, Sunstein argues further that conspiracy-theory groups and networks are proliferating because the highly decentralized form of mass communication made possible by the Internet is altering the character of public discourse. Whereas television and radio provide platforms for debating competing viewpoints on matters of widely shared interest, the Internet tends to segment discussion into a multitude of small groups, each focusing on a separate and distinct topic. Sunstein argues that this splintering of discourse encourages extremism because it allows proponents of false or one-sided beliefs to locate others with similar views while at the same time avoiding interaction with competing perspectives. In Sunstein’s words, “The Internet produces a process of spontaneous creation of groups of like-minded types, fueling group polarization. People who would otherwise be loners, or isolated in their objections and concerns, congregate into social networks.” Sunstein acknowledges that this consequence of the Internet is unavoidable, but he says polarization can and should be mitigated by a combination of government action and voluntarily adopted norms. The objective, he says, should be to ensure that those who hold conspiracy theories “are exposed to credible counterarguments and are not living in an echo chamber of their own design”.

In their law review article, Sunstein and Vermeule expand this idea and propose covert government action reminiscent of the FBI’s efforts against the civil rights and antiwar movements in the 1960s. They consider a number of options for countering the influence of conspiracy theories, including public information campaigns, censorship, and fines for Internet service providers hosting conspiracy-theory websites. Ultimately rejecting those options as impractical because they would attract attention and reinforce anti-government suspicions, they call for a program of “cognitive infiltration” in which groups and networks popularizing conspiracy theories would be infiltrated and “disrupted.”

A Flawed and Un-American Label

As these examples illustrate, conspiracy deniers assume that what qualifies as a conspiracy theory is self-evident. In their view, the phrase “conspiracy theory” as it is conventionally understood simply names this objectively identifiable phenomenon. Conspiracy theories are easy to spot because they posit secret plots that are too wacky to be taken seriously. Indeed, the theories are deemed so far-fetched they require no reply or rejoinder; they are objects of derision, not ideas for discussion. In short, while analyzing the psychological appeal of conspiracy beliefs and bemoaning their corrosive effects on public trust, conspiracy deniers have taken the conspiracy-theory concept itself for granted.

This is remarkable, not to say shocking, because the concept is both fundamentally flawed and in direct conflict with American legal and political traditions. As a label for irrational political suspicions about secret plots by powerful people, the concept is obviously defective because political conspiracies in high office do, in fact, happen. Officials in the Nixon administration did conspire to steal the 1972 presidential election. Officials in the Reagan White House did participate in a criminal scheme to sell arms to Iran and channel profits to the Contras, a rebel army in Nicaragua. The Bush-Cheney administration did collude to mislead Congress and the public about the strength of its evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. If some conspiracy theories are true, then it is nonsensical to dismiss all unsubstantiated suspicions of elite intrigue as false by definition.

This fatal defect in the conspiracy-theory concept makes it all the more surprising that most scholars and journalists have failed to notice that their use of the term to ridicule suspicions of elite political criminality betrays the civic ethos inherited from the nation’s Founders. From the nation’s beginning, Americans were fearful of secret plots by political insiders to subvert constitutional governance. Those who now dismiss conspiracy theories as groundless paranoia have apparently forgotten that the United States was founded on a conspiracy theory. The Declaration of Independence claimed that “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations” by King George proved the king was plotting to establish “an absolute tyranny over these states.” Today, most Americans are familiar only with the Declaration’s opening paragraphs about self-evident truths and inalienable rights, but if they were to read the rest of the document, they would see that it is devoted to detailing the abuses evincing the king’s tyrannical design. Among the complaints listed are onerous taxation, fomenting slave rebellions and Indian uprisings, taxation without representation, and indifference to the colonies’ complaints. The document’s signers claimed it was this “design to reduce them under absolute despotism,” not any or all of the abuses themselves, that gave them the right and the duty “to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

The Founders considered political power a corrupting influence that makes political conspiracies against the people’s interests and liberties almost inevitable. They repeatedly and explicitly called for popular vigilance against antidemocratic schemes in high office. Educated in classical political philosophy, they understood that one of the most important questions in Western political thought is how to prevent top leaders from abusing their powers to impose arbitrary rule, which the Founders referred to, appropriately, as “tyranny.” Whereas Great Britain relied on common law to define the powers and procedures of its government, the generation that established the American republic developed a written constitution to set clear limits on public officials. Nevertheless, they understood that all constitutions are vulnerable to subversion because ultimately they are interpreted and administered by public officials themselves. The Founders would view today’s norms against conspiratorial suspicion as not only arrogant, but also dangerous and un-American.

The Founders would also be shocked that conspiracy deniers attack and ridicule individuals who voice conspiracy beliefs and yet ignore institutional purveyors of conspiratorial ideas even though the latter are the ideas that have proven truly dangerous in modern American history. Since at least the end of World War II, the citadel of theories alleging nefarious political conspiracies has been, not amateur investigators of the Kennedy assassination and other political crimes and tragedies, but the United States government. In the first three decades of the post–World War II era, U.S. officials asserted that communists were conspiring to take over the world, that the U.S. bureaucracy was riddled with Soviet spies, and that the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s were creatures of Soviet influence. More recently, they have claimed that Iraq was complicit in 9/11, failed to dispose of its biological weapons, and attempted to purchase uranium in Niger so it could construct nuclear bombs. Although these ideas were untrue, they influenced millions of Americans, fomented social panic, fueled wars, and resulted in massive loss of life and destruction of property. If conspiracy deniers are so concerned about the dangers of conspiratorial suspicions in American politics and civic culture, why have they ignored the conspiracism of U.S. politicians?

Finally, there is something very hypocritical about those who want to fix people who do not share their opinions. Sunstein and Vermeule say conspiracy believers need to have their discussions disrupted, because they are dangerous. But what could be more dangerous than thinking it is acceptable to mess with someone else’s thoughts? Sunstein and Vermeule’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. They would have government conspiring against citizens who voice suspicions about government conspiracies, which is to say they would have government do precisely what they want citizens to stop saying the government does. How do Harvard law professors become snared in such Orwellian logic? One can only assume that there must be something bedeviling about the idea of conspiracy theory.

Naming the Taboo Topic

In what follows, I shall attempt to reorient analysis of the phenomenon that has been assigned the derisive label of “conspiracy theory.” In a 2006 peer-reviewed journal article, I introduced the concept of State Crime against Democracy (SCAD) to displace the term “conspiracy theory.” I say displace rather than replace because SCAD is not another name for conspiracy theory; it is a name for the type of wrongdoing about which the conspiracy-theory label discourages us from speaking. Basically, the term “conspiracy theory” is applied pejoratively to allegations of official wrongdoing that have not been substantiated by public officials themselves.

Deployed as a pejorative putdown, the label is a verbal defense mechanism used by political elites to suppress mass suspicions that inevitably arise when shocking political crimes benefit top leaders or play into their agendas, especially when those same officials are in control of agencies responsible for preventing the events in question or for investigating them after they have occurred. It is only natural to wonder about possible chicanery when a president and vice president bent on war in the Middle East are warned of impending terrorist attacks and yet fail to alert the American public or increase the readiness of the nation’s armed forces. Why would Americans not expect answers when Arabs with poor piloting skills manage to hijack four planes, fly them across the eastern United States, somehow evade America’s multilayered system of air defense, and then crash two of the planes into the Twin Towers in New York City and one into the Pentagon in Washington, DC? By the same token, it is only natural to question the motives of the president and vice president when they drag their feet on investigating this seemingly inexplicable defense failure and then, when the investigation is finally conducted, they insist on testifying together, in secret, and not under oath. Certainly, citizen distrust can be unwarranted and overwrought, but often citizen doubts make sense. Americans are not crazy to want answers when a president is assassinated by a lone gunman with mediocre shooting skills who manages to get off several lucky shots with an old bolt-action carbine that has a misaligned scope. Why would there not be doubts when an alleged assassin is apprehended, publicly claims he is just a patsy, is interrogated for two days but no one makes a recording or even takes notes, and he is then shot to death at point-blank range while in police custody at police headquarters?

Of course, some suspicions go too far. The idea that lizard-like aliens from space are secretly infiltrating top positions in government and business is ludicrous. However, the conspiracy-theory label makes fun of conspiratorial suspicions in general. Consequently, the label discourages Americans from registering doubts about their leaders’ motives and actions regardless of the circumstances. Any suspicions that public officials conspired to cause a tragedy or allowed it to happen are dismissed without further discussion because, supposedly, public officials simply do not engage in conspiracies.

Communication scientists Ginna Husting and Martin Orr, both of whom are professors at Boise State University, have studied the use of the conspiracy-theory label as a putdown. At the beginning of a peer-reviewed 2007 article on the subject, they point out how the label works rhetorically:

If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid . . . I twist the machinery of interaction so that you, not I, are now called to account. In fact, I have done even more. By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.

Husting and Orr go on to explain that the accusation of conspiracy theory discredits any explanations offered for specific social or historical events “regardless of the quality or quantity of evidence.” The label has this discrediting, end-of-argument effect because conspiracy theories have come to be seen as mere suspicions with no basis in fact, not as reasonable inferences from circumstances and evidence about matters of great importance.

In contrast, the SCAD construct does not refer to a type of allegation or suspicion; it refers to a special type of transgression: an attack from within on the political system’s organizing principles. For these extremely grave crimes, America’s Founders used the term “high crime” and included in this category treason and “conspiracies against the people’s liberties.” SCADs, high crimes, and antidemocratic conspiracies can also be called “elite political crimes” and “elite political criminality.” The SCAD construct is intended, not to supersede traditional terminology or monopolize conceptualization of this phenomenon, but rather to add a descriptive term that captures, with some specificity, the long-recognized potential for representative democracy to be subverted by people on the inside—the very people who have been entrusted to uphold the constitutional order.

SCADs are defined as concerted actions or inaction by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty. Examples of SCADs that have been officially proven include the Watergate break-in and cover-up; the illegal arms sales and covert operations in Iran-Contra; and the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson by revealing his wife’s status as an intelligence agent.

Many other political crimes in which involvement by high officials is reasonably suspected have gone uninvestigated or have been investigated only superficially. They are included in SCAD studies even when the evidence of state complicity is contested, because excluding them would mean accepting the judgment of individuals and institutions whose rectitude and culpability are at issue. The nature of the subject matter is such that official inquiries, if they are conducted at all, are usually compromised by conflicts of interest. Hence the evidence must be evaluated independently on its merits, and decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis about which events are most likely elite political crimes. Of course, as Husting and Orr point out, engaging the evidence is precisely what the pejorative conspiracy-theory putdown is deployed rhetorically to avoid.

SCADs constitute a special type of political criminality. Unlike bribery, kickbacks, bid-rigging, and other, more mundane forms of political corruption, which tend to be isolated and to affect only pockets of government activity, SCADs have the potential to subvert political institutions and entire governments or branches of government. Committed at the highest levels of public office, they are crimes that threaten democracy itself. Clearly, such crimes and the circumstances that allow or encourage them warrant scientific study, both to better understand elite politics and to identify institutional vulnerabilities that can be corrected to make antidemocratic conspiracies less likely and less likely to succeed. Hence, one would have expected elite political crime, like white-collar crime, hate crime, and racketeering, to have been singled out for research and theorizing by social scientists long ago.

However, because powerful norms discourage Americans from questioning the integrity of their top leaders, and because anyone who raises such questions is likely to be seen as a “conspiracy theorist” who may be mentally unbalanced, the topic has been almost completely ignored by scholars. Social scientists have studied various forms of state crime, but in almost every case the potential for public officials in liberal democracies to subvert democratic institutions has been disregarded. Political science research on Watergate, Iran-Contra, and other U.S. political scandals has sidestepped questions about state criminality by studying the use of congressional investigations and independent prosecutors as political tactics in partisan competition.

Of course, a vast popular literature exists that presents a wide range of conspiracy theories of domestic assassinations and other high crimes, but the form of analysis employed, while careful and in many ways insightful, is not really scientific. Amateur investigators have uncovered important evidence overlooked by official inquiries, but, with only one or two exceptions, they have failed to investigate the general phenomenon of high criminality and instead have speculated about one suspicious incident at a time. There is a body of work on the assassination of President Kennedy, another on the events of 9/11, and still others on the 1980 October Surprise, the disputed 2000 presidential election, and the anthrax letter attacks. To be sure, we do learn a lot about each case; we learn a great deal, for example, about the assassination of President Kennedy and the assassination of Martin Luther King, but we learn next to nothing about assassinations in general, such as their typical targets, tactics, and timing, nor do we learn much about differences and similarities between assassinations and false-flag terrorism as political tactics. By the same token, since we learn little about the nature of elite political criminality in general, we gain little insight into the extent, nature, and role of elite crime and intrigue in American politics.

Perceptual Silos

The tendency to consider suspicious political events individually and in isolation rather than collectively and comparatively is not limited to the conspiracy-theory literature; it is built into the conspiracy-theory label and has become a pervasive predisposition in U.S. civic culture. For Americans, each assassination, each election breakdown, each defense failure, each war justified by “mistaken” claims is perceived as a unique event arising from its own special circumstances. While Americans in the present generation have personally witnessed many political crimes and tragedies, we see them as if through a fly’s eye, situating each event in a separate compartment of memories and context.

Even when obvious factors connect political crimes, the crimes are thought of as disparate and unrelated. For example, John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were brothers; both were rivals of Richard Nixon and were hated by Lyndon Johnson; their murders occurred less than five years apart; both were killed while campaigning for the office of president; and both appeared likely to win the upcoming presidential election. Without their murders, neither Nixon nor Johnson would probably have ever become president. Nevertheless, the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy are seen as entirely unrelated; parallels, if they are recognized at all, are dismissed as coincidences. It is seldom considered that the Kennedy assassinations might have been serial murders.

In fact, in speaking about the murders, Americans rarely use the plural, Kennedy assassinations. In the lexicon, there is the Kennedy assassination (singular), which refers to the murder of President Kennedy, and there is the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Clearly, this quirk in the Kennedy assassination(s) lexicon reflects an unconscious effort by journalists, politicians, and millions of ordinary Americans to avoid thinking about the two assassinations together, despite the fact that the victims are connected in countless ways and that they also deserve better—they deserve to be remembered as brothers who stood for the same values and who were somehow struck down by forces still beyond our grasp. This clever feat of keeping the Kennedy assassinations singular and separate might be called linguistic “compartmentalization,” for, by avoiding the plural of “assassination,” we have unconsciously split and compartmentalized in our awareness significantly related events.

For another example, consider how we compartmentalize our perceptions of the disputed 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. The election breakdowns are not widely suspected of being repeat offenses by the same network of political operatives employing the same tactics and resources, even though both elections were plagued by very similar problems, including inadequately equipped and staffed polling places in heavily Democratic areas, computer anomalies in the tabulation of county and state totals, highly partisan Republicans in charge of election administration, aggregate vote tabulations benefiting George W. Bush, and exit polls indicating that the other candidate had won rather than Bush. The two elections are seen as separate and without any forensically important parallels. No one called for statisticians to review both elections for similar problems or signs of election tampering. No one speaks of “the disputed Bush-Cheney elections,” or of “the back-to-back election disputes,” or even simply of the plural, “election breakdowns.”

A slightly different example of this phenomenon of compartmentalization is offered by contemporary perceptions of, on the one hand, the hijacked-airplane attacks on September 11, 2001, and on the other hand, the anthrax letter attacks that began a few weeks later. Today, 9/11 and the anthrax mailings are cognitively dissociated even though initially they were thought to be closely connected. It made sense to think they were connected because they shared many characteristics: they occurred closely together in time; both were acts of terrorism; both targeted private individuals as well as government officials; and both exploited essential services (commercial air travel and the postal service). In fact, for the first few months, the anthrax letter attacks were blamed on the terrorist group that was assumed to have carried out the hijacked-airplane attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Soon, however, the FBI investigation reached the conclusion that the anthrax came from a strain developed by the U.S. military at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland. This discovery should have caused investigators and the public to wonder if the events of 9/11 might likewise have been connected in some way to the U.S. military. Alarm bells should also have sounded when, shortly after the anthrax letter attacks were discovered, the FBI authorized the destruction of a rare collection of anthrax samples at Iowa State University. According to scientists, this made it much more difficult to trace the anthrax in the letters to domestic laboratories. However, rather than look for connections between the anthrax case, the 9/11 hijackings, and what appears to have been an effort to prevent the domestic origins of the anthrax from being discovered, everyone just dropped the anthrax attacks from consideration as a terrorist threat. Talk of duct tape ended. In effect, the anthrax letter attacks were quickly sealed off cognitively, and awareness of their domestic origins did not have to be reconciled with what Americans later learned about 9/11—about the warnings President Bush received in his daily briefing in August 2001; about the war games that were scheduled on 9/11, some of which included hijacked airplanes and interfered with the response to the real hijackings; about the expedited flights of Osama bin Laden’s relatives . . . The list could go on. The point is that the domestic origins of the anthrax became a side story, and yet, at the time the anthrax letters were being received and people were being infected, the anthrax attacks appeared to be an integral part of a war on America.

But once the anthrax was traced to Fort Detrick, the fear was relieved and the crime was mentally cordoned off. There were no calls for investigators to look for U.S. military personnel with multiple connections to air defense, war games, and germ warfare. There was never any effort to identify government officials who were involved in national defense policy and who owned or had recently purchased stock in pharmaceutical companies that manufactured medicines for preventing or treating anthrax infections. To the contrary, rather than look for people linking anthrax, 9/11, air defense, and biological weapons, the investigation was narrowed to lone microbiologists who were considered to be disgruntled, emotionally troubled, or opportunistic.

Causes and Consequences

It should be stressed that this way of thinking about elite political crimes—this very common tendency to view parallel crimes separately and to see them as disparate and unrelated—is exactly opposite the way crimes committed by regular people are treated. If a man marries a wealthy woman and she dies in a freak accident at home, people would be suspicious simply because she was wealthy and the accident was improbable. If this same man then marries another wealthy woman who dies in a freak accident at home, foul play would naturally be suspected, and the husband would be the leading suspect in the wives’ demise. If the husband had taken out a life insurance policy on either wife a few weeks or months prior to the accidents, it would be considered circumstantial evidence of foreknowledge. If police failed to recognize the obvious similarities in the wives’ deaths, they would be considered incompetent, negligent, or bought off.

It is routine police protocol to look for patterns in burglaries, bank robberies, car thefts, and other crimes, and to use any patterns that are discovered as clues to the perpetrators’ identity and the vulnerabilities to crime that are being exploited. This method of crime analysis is shown repeatedly in crime shows on TV. It is Criminology 101. There is no excuse for most Americans, much less criminal investigators, journalists, and other professionals, to fail to apply this method to assassinations, election fiascos, defense failures, and other suspicious events that shape national political priorities.

Why do we compartmentalize crimes involving political elites while doing just the opposite with the crimes of ordinary people? At least two factors discourage us from connecting the dots in elite political criminality. One is the term “conspiracy theory,” which is applied to crimes that have major political consequences but not to other crimes. The conspiracy-theory phrase encourages cognitive compartmentalization because the phrase is not meant to apply to interconnected crimes. In American public discourse, multiple crimes planned and committed by a single group are generally called “organized crime,” not conspiracies. The term “conspiracy” is reserved for plots surrounding one major criminal objective and for the networks that come together for that purpose. The Mafia is not a conspiracy; it is an organization. A conspiracy theory about the assassination of President Kennedy is implicitly a theory about a temporary combination of plotters, not an enduring assassination squad or lethal criminal organization. Therefore, even if we think the assassination of John Kennedy was a conspiracy, and we think the assassination of Robert Kennedy was a conspiracy, we are nevertheless unlikely to see the two as connected, because the conspiracy concept envisions them as isolated, self-contained schemes.

The second factor impeding us from drawing connections between political crimes involving political elites is that looking for connections requires being suspicious to begin with, and yet being suspicious of political elites violates norms that are embodied in the pejorative connotations of the conspiracy-theory label. As shown by our speech habits and observation tendencies about assassinations, disputed elections, and terrorist attacks, we are averse to talking about such events as connected in any way.

This aversion is learned. Americans know that voicing suspicions about political elites will make them objects of hostility and derision. The verbal slaps vary, but they are difficult to counter because they usually abuse reason. For example, in using the conspiracy-theory label as a putdown, conspiracy deniers imply that official accounts of troubling events are something altogether much more solid than conspiratorial suspicions—as if official accounts are in some sense without speculation or presuppositions. In fact, however, conspiracy deniers and debunkers are relying on an unstated theory of their own—a very questionable theory. In the post-WWII era, official investigations have attributed assassinations, election fiascos, defense failures, and other suspicious events to such unpredictable, idiosyncratic forces as lone gunmen, antiquated voting equipment, bureaucratic bumbling, innocent mistakes, and, in the case of 9/11 (to quote the 9/11 Commission, p. 339), a “failure of imagination.” In effect, official accounts of suspicious events have answered conspiracy theories with coincidence theories.

Far from being more factual and plausible than theories positing political crimes and intrigues, coincidence theories become less and less plausible as coincidences pile up, which they have been doing for decades in the U.S. It is like flipping a coin ten times and it always falls on heads. In general, as SCADs and suspected SCADs pile up, the odds of coincidence drop rapidly. The Bush-Cheney ticket winning in one or two states despite exit polls indicating they had lost could have been the result of random variations in exit poll samples. When the same thing happens in state after state; when the difference between exit polls and election returns almost always favors the same candidates, the odds of this being by chance alone are astronomically low. This does not necessarily mean the elections were stolen, but it does mean something caused the election returns to differ from how voters said they voted.

The CIA’s Conspiracy-Theory Conspiracy

If political conspiracies in high office do, in fact, happen; if it is therefore unreasonable to assume conspiracy theories are, by definition, harebrained and paranoid; if the Declaration of Independence is a conspiracy theory; if the United States was founded on a conspiracy theory that alleged King George was plotting to take away the colonists’ rights; if the conspiracy-theory label makes it difficult to see connections between political crimes that, in fact, may be connected; if, because it ridicules suspicion, the conspiracy-theory label is inconsistent with the traditional American ethos of vigilance against conspiracies in high office; if, in summary, the conspiracy-theory label blinkers perceptions, silos thinking, and is un-American and unreasonable, how did the label come to be used so widely to begin with?

Most Americans will be shocked to learn that the conspiracy-theory label was popularized as a pejorative term by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a propaganda program initiated in 1967. This program was directed at criticisms of the Warren Commission’s report. The propaganda campaign called on media corporations and journalists to criticize “conspiracy theorists” and raise questions about their motives and judgments. The CIA told its contacts that “parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” In the shadows of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this warning about communist influence was delivered simultaneously to hundreds of well-positioned members of the press in a global CIA propaganda network, infusing the conspiracy-theory label with powerfully negative associations.

Posted in Literature1 Comment

Book: ` Texe Marrs- Judaism is not a Religion

holy_serpent_cover.jpgJudaism does not believe in God, says Texe Marrs in his new book Holy Serpent of the Jews. 

You cannot pretend to be a religion without God. Neither atheism nor Satanism are religions.

Jews and goyim alike have been hoodwinked by Judaism, a satanic cult masquerading as a religion. Texe says: “The ultimate goal of World Jewry [is] global domination, meaning sex, money, and power on an unparalleled scale.”  If the world is turned upside down, they can be on top. 

(Makow comment– God is the Moral Intelligence behind creation, synonymous with spiritual ideals like love, truth, goodness, justice and beauty. The point of religion is to discern and obey His Plan. Therefore, to say there is no God, or he is unknowable is half-way to Satanism. To usurp God’s place, as Masonic Jewry is doing, is arrant Satanism.)

By Texe Marrs

“Nothing Sacred- The Truth about Judaism” (Ch.4)

(Excerpt by 

 A fascinating book by a Jew, Douglas Rushkoff entitled Nothing Sacred–The Truth About Judaism (2003) states that God is not part of Judaism. “Most Jewish thinkers have understood God more by what he is not than by whatever he is.” …

886098._UY200_.jpg“For all practical purposes, he (God) does not exist…God is just not something Jews are supposed to worry about… Jews focus on an external master whose edicts they need to obey is replaced by an emphasis on peoples’ duty to one another.” …

What we see in Rushkoff’s elemental explanation … is that, bluntly spoken, Judaism is an expression of atheism. Yes, Jews are atheists. Their god is unknowable, unnamed; He has “recessed” from human affairs. He doesn’t need worship; in fact, He “shuns” it. He has “no emotions.”

As Rushkoff states, “For all practical purposes, God does not exist…God is just not something Jews are supposed to worry about.”

What a monumental display of hubris by Jews! Rejecting a loving, personal God, the Jews say that “God” is an abstraction, something they do rather than serve and worship. Their fealty and loyalty is to each other as human beings–they believe the right word for Jews is human “gods”–and refer to their own “internally felt divinity.”

This is the New Age Lie: evolved humans are as gods, exercising right and wrong as only they see fit. It is the Crowleyian motto once again, “Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.”

quote-goyim-were-born-only-to-serve-us-without-that-they-have-no-place-in-the-world-only-to-ovadia-yosef-58-99-21 (1).jpgThe only requirement for the individual Jew is that he or she must serve “Social Justice.” He must perform and “do” a mitzvah, a good work. But good works are reserved primarily for other Jews. The Gentile deserves no good works. The Gentile, the Goyim, are like cattle, and their existence, says Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the late Chief Rabbi of Israel, is meant only to serve the Jews, their masters.

This, then, is a recipe for great evil. A narcissistic religion without a god, self-based, without faith and with works only for the limited members of one’s blood kind.

It is, moreover, a religion in which its adherents do not look to the hereafter. There are no heavenly rewards. Thus the greedy attitude of take everything you can in this life is fostered. The focus of Judaism, Rushkoff reveals, is “on human beings and life itself as the supremely sacred.”


Nor is there a God in heaven who hears ones prayers and petitions. “There’s no one around to pray to,” says Rushkoff. This creates a feeling of hopelessness, as the Jew realizes he is all alone in the here and now. Since there is no real God in heaven to pray to and turn to in time of need, the Jew has invented the many lesser deities of Kabbalah, even the Holy Serpent. Worse, Lucifer is often the object of prayer and Jews pray alternately both to a kabbalistic god (or goddess) or to Lucifer, considered a “helping angel” in Judaism.

To put it in stark terms, since there is no God to turn to, Jews pray to whatever entity that will provide solace and real help in time of need. This is a prime example of dialectical thinking, of Maimonides’ idea of “negative theology.”


Posted in Literature0 Comments

Shoah’s pages


January 2017
« Dec