Ljubov Pribytkova: DO WE NEED AN IDEOLOGICAL FIGHT?

Published on June 5, 2017by 
marks_kToday, the entire communist and workers' movement of the world is swaying and decaying. After the overthrow of the socialist system of the world, there was a strong right. Russia is no exception, there are more than a dozen parties and organizations that call themselves Communist. But more and more voices are heard, that all must unite. The representatives in the cities can still arrange themselves in a series, but afterwards it is over with their unity. And that is quite natural.

Can there be a unit?

There can be no unity in principle between people who today recognize Marxism as proletarian ideology and as a theoretical instrument of the present class struggle and those who renounce Marxism as an obsolete doctrine.
If Russia has not yet embarked on a capitalist path of development, its economy, politics and intellectual development are still on this path, and is subject to the laws which Marx had already discovered in the nineteenth century. That is why the words of Lenin, which he said in 1914, are extremely important today:
"The unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But the workers' cause needs unity among Marxists, but not the unity of the Marxists with the opponents and falsifiers of Marxism. " (VI Lenin, unity. In: works Bd.20 , p.228)

Marxism ... to the present day fights strongly!

Marxism saw in the working class the creative power of society. He proved the necessity that capitalism, with its social inequality and injustice, should be exchanged by the proletariat in a revolutionary way against a new progressive order, socialism. It was precisely for this reason that, as Lenin wrote, the ideas of Marx "have been fought most vigorously to this day." It is no wonder that this doctrine of Marx and Engels "had to fight for every step in its life." (WI Lenin: Marxism and Revisionism In: WI Lenin, Works, Dietz Verlag Berlin, 1970, vol. 15 , p.19.)
Nothing has changed to this day. Marxism is faced with a well equipped bourgeois ideology with all its theories of industrial and postindustrial society. To date, there is the theory of the "open society" of Georges Soros, who played a major role during the counter-revolutionary upheaval in the USSR and the popular Democratic countries. Soros has spent millions of dollars on aid to support Soviet, Hungarian, Polish and other European scientists with anti-Marxist views. And the US is just crying for the blissfully deceased chief ideologist Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Against opportunism and revisionism

Lenin was constantly calling for the struggle not only for bourgeois ideology, but also for the traitors, the opportunists and the revisionists, because they helped the bourgeoisie to cloud people's consciousness and keep them from fighting. And we see today how they lead the workers away from the truth, by disfiguring Marxism and disguising its revolutionary essence. With petty-bourgeois illusions and a late consul psychology, they undermine the spiritual world of the workers, which can no longer rise to the high level of a proletarian ideology.
And with emotions such as the feeling of social injustice, inequality and hatred of the rich, and protests against evil, the rulers can at most be afforded financial concessions, timely wage payments and wage increases, or an improvement in working conditions. Of course, mass protests, strikes and labor struggles bring about a mitigation of the hard exploitation.

... and so begins the class struggle?

But the economic struggle is only the beginning of the class struggle. The concessions of the rulers to the workers in individual firms therefore do not lead to a fundamental revolution of capitalism and will not "improve" it. If the working class does not decide this, it will not be able to take their fate into their own hands, even though the working class is the main creator of history.
Since the political struggle against the bourgeoisie, the struggle for power, is necessary, only the dictatorship of the proletariat can be a means of building socialism. But their success depends on the extent to which the proletariat is organized and the scientific theory has adapted itself. Because there can be no effective practice without theory.

Without Marxist theory, no success!

Just as a hundred years ago, the orthodox Communists, who have a good knowledge of dialectical and historical materialism, the political economy of socialism, and scientific communism, must bring Marxism into the working world. For the young Communists, the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin must be use books, which give them not only knowledge of the theory, but also the rich experiences of the revolutionary struggle.
In Russia, a start was made in the appropriation of Marxism by activists of the workers' movement. Professor Mikhail Popov has founded a working academy in which you can learn not only in the lecture hall of the academy, but also in the Internet. On the Internet, there have also been published textbooks which can help the young people in the appropriation of Marxism.

Why is Marxist propaganda necessary?

Today, a large proportion of young people do not know Marxism. And in the schools and gymnasia there is no mention of the heroic deeds of the proletarian leaders, the fighters for the liberation of the simple people of exploitation and oppression. The events of the Soviet past are usually misinterpreted on TV and radio, in school and university lectures. All of this makes the propaganda work more difficult. All the more so because the perestroika intelligentsia degenerates the workers more effectively than bourgeois ideologues do. It is precisely for this reason that today the struggle for the cleansing of Marxism from the perversion is a first priority. Unfortunately, not all communist figures have understood this.
A Moscow general, who a few years ago founded his own "communist" party and became the editor of his own newspaper, blamed the patience when he wrote my critical articles against a certain Sergey Kara-Murza, a Trojan horse in the communist movement Against Nikita Mikhalkov, who rejoice in the physical condition in Russia. He was by no means prepared to agree to the sharp criticism of the address of the left-radical, bourgeois revolutionaries of an Igor Gubkin. And he felt overwhelmed by my criticism of the opportunism of the Sukhanov people. He wrote out indignantly, "We must unite them all, and not only should we all be littered with" dirt. "

Learning, learning to learn again ...

But the Communists have something to learn. At the beginning of the twentieth century, when the proletariat prepared itself for the socialist revolution, Lenin criticized in many articles the liberal Marxist and Mensheviks, the legal Marxists and economists, the liquidators and the Activists. He did this so that the workers knew exactly their role, their tasks and their means in the revolutionary struggle.
Lenin was absolutely convinced of the correctness of the words of Karl Marx: "Socialism can not be realized without a revolution; it needs this political act because it requires the destruction and the destruction of the old." (K. Marx and F. Engels, M 1955, p. 1, p. 448). These words have not lost their truth to this day.

On the necessity of a revolution

The Marxist idea of ​​the necessity and inevitability of a socialist revolution is the most important watershed between communists and opportunists. The chairman of the Central Committee of the CPRF Gennady Zyuganov has long said that "the limit for revolutions is exhausted". His party advocates an evolutionary development path in society - it is sufficient to improve Russian capitalism. The CPRF has long since ceased to be Communist. Their orientation to parliamentary methods of struggle, their denial of Marxism, their bourgeois nationalism, and their friendship with the Church have repelled many of them. At the beginning of 2017, an entire district organization had left the CPRF in Irkutsk because they could not find a worthy use of their forces.

A leftist opportunist makes advertising

Tatyana Khabarova also contributed to the opportunism. During the Soviet period she was a dissident. Now she is a dissident in the communist movement. In the 1990s she founded the organization "Executive Committee of the People's Party of the USSR" and wrote for the "Bolshevik platform" of the CPSU. It united with one of the splinter groups of the CPSU. In his press body, "The Lenin Way," she wrote that today the talks about a revolution are "attractive", but "objectively, the revolution is not the means of liberation from the occupation but the national liberation war."
In the article "Occupation or Counterrevolution" (see: < http://love-cccp.ru/ ), I wrote that it is wrong to recognize the concept of bourgeois counter revolution, which took place in the USSR, Term "occupation". And their misunderstanding of capitalism in modern Russia as well. The analysis of the economic development of Russia proves that the country is today not only on the capitalist path, but also has all the characteristics of the imperialist development stage, as Lenin described it.

The simplicity of Comrade Khabarov

In the analysis of social phenomena, Tatyana Khabarov has renounced the most important principle of Marxism, the class-based approach. For them the words of Lenin are also outdated: "People have always been the simple victims of fraud and self-deception in politics, and they will always be so long as they do not learn, behind all possible moral, religious, political and social phrases, explanations . and promises to seek the interests of this or that class "(VI Lenin: three sources and three component parts of Marxism. In: VI Lenin, Collected works, Dietz Verlag Berlin, 1977, Bd.19 , p.8.)
It tells the readers that the USSR de jure is continuing, and that both the Soviet Constitution and Soviet law continue to apply. It does not cease to assert that the national wealth of the country is still "the property of its creator and legal owner", although around 90% of the land, businesses, mines and mines are already in private hands.

Is there still "Soviet patriotism"?

From their point of view, the proletariat should not be conscious of its basic class interests and its revolutionary mission, but all men should remember that they are "the Soviet people"; They should organize themselves and put an end to the multinational occupation. Here is not the Marxism, but "Soviet patriotism" the ideal basis for the liberation from the "occupation", for the rebirth of the Soviet Union.
But do the bourgeois sections of the population, the employers, managers and private entrepreneurs, traders and farmers, belong to the "Soviet people"? And how will the "Soviet people" end with the rule of multinational capital, the IMF and the World Bank? There is no answer.

Against utopian fictions!

Today there is nothing but an empty nostalgia when someone connects the terms "Soviet patriotism" and "the Soviet people" with the present. In the USSR, Soviet patriotism was a real moral quality of the Soviet people, which was based on the Soviet way of life. Even today the objective law still applies: social being determines social consciousness. In a capitalist society, where the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the two main antagonistic classes, there can be no uniform morality. And the patriotism of these two classes is different - bourgeois or proletarian.
It would not be worthwhile to write about the opportunistic, small articles of this woman if they were not circulating on the Internet, and if the newspaper Lenin's way, which had already put Lenin's Marxist position, speculating on his name, Their utopian fictions. And this is causing great damage to the young fighters in the formation of a Weltanschauung.
Irkutsk, May 28, 2017.
Source: Arbeiterweg (translation: Florian Geißler)