Theories of restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

Part 3

As the reader from the previous parts of the article could understand, neither in the international,
nor in the Russian communist movement there is a universally recognized theory of the restoration
of capitalism in the USSR. There are only various versions and hypotheses that some authors adhere
to, and “self-respecting” left parties simply cannot but have their own versions of the degeneration
of socialism. The scientific depth is leveled by the diversity of opinions, and as a result, trampling
on the spot.

We will also get to such “party theories”, and today we will introduce readers to three more Marxist
authors and their groundwork on the topic. In the previous part, the word was given to people quite
venerable in the communist movement, in the third part the theories of little-known authors are
covered, but we are interested in the result, not the regalia. Looking ahead, I would like to note that
the editorial line came up with a theory that is built on the economic basis of socialist society. This
circumstance should not only warm the soul of the real Marxists, but also become some
counterweight to the “superstructure theories of rebirth”.

The numbering of theories is through through the article, links to the originals are placed in the
notes for each part.

No. 7 Kremnev Theory

Dmitry Kremnev - author of the open electronic newspaper Forum.msk.ru

===

Almost all supporters of the left idea today recognize that one of the main reasons for the collapse
of the USSR was the degeneration of the party. The question is only about when this rebirth began
and what caused it, when and as a result of what historical circumstances, the Bolshevik party, the
political vanguard of the victorious revolution of the Russian proletariat, embarked on the path that
led to the collapse of both itself and that state, the core of which it was . [10]

If we take into account the main contradiction between the working class and the peasantry and take
into account the accompanying historical circumstances - the capitalist environment extremely
hostile to the young Republic of the Soviets, the incessant intrigues of the White Guard (from
monarchists to the Menshevik Socialist Revolutionaries), then it is easy to understand the serious
danger of the dictatorship of the proletariat . Under these conditions, in order to preserve the very
foundations of the new social structure, the Bolshevik party not only could not establish a regime of
full-fledged workers' democracy, but was also forced to significantly restrict internal party
democracy. Held on March 8-16, 1921, the 10th Congress of the RCP (B.) In the resolution "On
Party Unity" stated that party unity was "the main condition for the success of the dictatorship of
the proletariat."

The circumstances were such that the party was essentially the only institutionalized guarantor of
maintaining the gains of the revolution. The process of merging the party and the state apparatus
took place. The role and functions of the economic organizations of the working class — the trade
unions and the organization of their amateur activity in the field of culture (Proletkult) —was
significantly limited. [10]

It cannot be said that Lenin, a brilliant theoretician and strategist, did not see the danger that lay in
this situation. This is evidenced by the numerous comments of Ilyich in his recent works. [10]

So, the main contradiction in the USSR from the end of the Civil War and intervention to the end of
collectivization is the contradiction between the working class and the peasantry. Collectivization,
conducted under the leadership of the Communist Party, was an event, in the sense of changing the
class structure of society comparable to October, was a "revolution in revolution." One can argue
about the methods of collectivization, but the fact that collectivization was necessary in all respects
is indisputable. And it is impossible not to admit that the political system built in the USSR in the
twenties successfully solved this extremely important task. Peasants (the majority of the country's
population), represented by cooperative collective farmers from an economically alien class, from
potential opponents of the working class, have turned into their true allies.

As a result of collectivization, the main contradiction of Soviet society has changed. What was the
main contradiction from the end of collectivization to 1991? After the completion of
collectivization, the place of the main contradiction is occupied by a contradiction up to that point
of secondary importance - a contradiction between the social structure of Soviet society and an
element of this structure, namely the social layer of party-state functionaries. [10]

In fact, while the goal and driving force of capitalist production is to make a profit, the goal of
planned production and its driving force should be to satisfy the needs of people. If the processes of
production management and planning are the exclusive responsibility of the party-state apparatus,
and not of society itself, then economic voluntarism, leading to increased costs, imbalances,
inefficiencies, and the absence of labor incentives, becomes inevitable. If in a capitalist society the
actual inequality of people is a norm of life shamelessly covered up by formal legal equality, then in
a society of transition to socialism, inequality, social privileges of some members of society over
others are pathology (which is especially important, perceived precisely as pathology by the public
consciousness itself). The stratum of party-state functionaries, possessing certain privileges by
virtue of their social status, implicitly seeks to put themselves above society, shows a tendency to
replace the place of the ousted bourgeoisie, roughly speaking, seeks to become a "new bourgeoisie".
[10]

Of course, at different times, repression affected a different circle of people and pursued various
private goals. But, regardless of whether Stalin himself was aware of it or not, his repressive policy
objectively served the following purposes:
1) to prevent the formation of a privileged and uncontrolled proto-bourgeois social stratum of party-
state functionaries;
2) increase the efficiency and responsibility of the party-state apparatus.

Thus (and this is not a moral justification, because ethics are outside the theory), the repressions of
the Stalin period were a kind of solution to the new main contradiction of Soviet society. This form
of resolving the contradiction "from above", by the will of the leader and through repressive state
bodies. This is the reason that the repression in the Soviet Union took on such a character when it
was no more no less than the physical elimination of the repressed. If the "headquarters fire" is
carried out not through criticism and amateur action of the masses, but by means of Chekist pistols,
then it becomes no longer sufficient to remove a functionary from his posts and send him into exile,
he must be physically eliminated otherwise he: a) will not be completely disarmed and b) it will not
produce the desired effect on the masses. This is a striking contrast to the principle of resolving the
same contradiction in China during the cultural revolution. There, party-state functionaries, all
"vested with power and following the capitalist path", were put under fire from critics of the
broadest masses of working people, there was given scope for genuine initiative and the
revolutionary initiative of the masses. [10]

After Stalin's death, the nature of the main contradiction of Soviet society did not change. It is
simply that this contradiction no longer found its solution in any form. Accordingly, the sharpness
and tension of this contradiction continuously grew, acquiring an antagonistic, irreconcilable
character, destructively affecting all spheres of society.

The upper layer of the party-state apparatus donated one of its members - L.P. Beria, trying to blame
him for the "excesses" and "crimes" of the Stalin period. The party’s top leadership invented a new
ideological term - the so-called "cult of personality" (nonsense from the point of view of Marxism).
At the XX Congress, instead of giving a scientific Marxist analysis of the causes, conditions and
objective content of the policy of I.V. Stalin, it was limited to factology and moralizing
condemnation of repression. Under the ideological screen of "returning to Leninist norms of
collective leadership," the party-state apparatus secured complete uncontrolledness and
irresponsibility. The Order Party, created by Stalin, largely preserved the way of its former life.
Only its activity was now primarily aimed not at serving the interests of the working class and all
working people, but at ensuring the interests of the privileged stratum of party-state functionaries.
Along with sincere and staunch supporters of the communist idea, unprincipled people began to
infiltrate the party en masse, those whom Lenin aptly and impartially dubbed the "Komsomol".

The thesis put forward by the leader of the CPSU Khrushchev that the Soviet state ceased to be a
state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and became a "nation-wide state" played a significant role
in disorienting the Communists. In reality, the situation was the other way around - the Soviet state
ceased to be the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the state passed into the complete monopoly
possession of party-state functionaries. The anti-worker, anti-people’s essence of functionaries was
fully revealed during the bloody massacre of workers and ordinary citizens (including women and
children) during the events in Novocherkassk in 1962.

Alienated from the working people, the party-state apparatus, in whose hands economic
management was concentrated, led the national economy from one failure to another — the failure
of agriculture in recent years of the Khrushchev leadership, the stagnation of the entire economy in
recent years of the Brezhnev leadership. As a snowball in the economic and social life of Soviet
society, corruption began to grow. The gap between word and deed, between official ideology and
the facts of life, has gradually compromised the communist idea in the minds of Soviet people.
Under these conditions, the anti-communist propaganda of the imperialist milieu laid on fertile
ground. In the midst of a certain (albeit extremely insignificant) part of the intelligentsia, a
bourgeois ideological movement, the liberal dissidentism, arose and began to develop. immediately
taken under the protection and guardianship of international imperialism. At the same time, the
scattered searches of individuals and groups trying to comprehend what is happening and act from
the standpoint of the true theory of Marx and Lenin were brutally suppressed by the authorities. The
Soviet working class and workers were beheaded. Separate protests and speeches were spontaneous.

By the mid-80s, the acuteness of the main contradiction of Soviet society reached an explosive
nature. Under these conditions, a certain part of the party-state functionaries decided to drop their
masks and openly embark on the capitalist path. [10]

No. 8 Theory of Potapenkov,

Ivan Mikhailovich Potapenkov - Russian Marxist.

===

Among the many points of view on the causes of the death of Soviet society, a point of view stands
out in which the marketability of the Soviet economy is called the main reason. A positive aspect of
this point of view is that moment that the cause is still sought in the basis of Soviet society, in
material production. However, marketability is considered in generally accepted categories, without
taking into account the new features that it, on the one hand, acquired in the Soviet economy, and
on the other hand, introduced into it. [11] The

socialist economy basically assumes the destruction of private property and the establishment of a
single state, public property. This action alone gives rise to completely different relations in society.

Firstly, the state becomes the owner of social means of production and therefore it is not only a
political superstructure, it is an economic entity that is actively involved in the production process,
which was reflected in the Program of the RCP (B.), Adopted in 1919 on VIII Party Congress.

Secondly, the ultimate goal of all social production, regardless of social form, is to satisfy the needs
of individuals. The socialist economy is called upon to make this ultimate goal its immediate goal,
which generates the unity of interests of all participants in social production. The implementation of
this goal is carried out by creating a social product in social production.

Thirdly, the destruction of private property makes it possible and necessary to carry out the
systematic organization of social production. This recognizes the social nature of modern
productive forces that turn the labor process of any commodity into a social labor process, when
even for the production of even a small bun, which is worthless, the labor of millions of people in
various branches of social production is necessary; their production activities are interconnected and
interdependent, which requires a conscious, planned organization. The systematic organization of
social production significantly changes the nature of social communication between participants in
material production.

Social relations arising in the process of the planned organization of social production consist not
only and not so much in establishing a connection between enterprises, links in a single social
production, and accordingly in determining who, whom, what and in what quantity will have to
supply in the coming planning period . In the context of the systematic organization of social
production, a completely new production relationship arose, namely, the relationship between the
state, which, as an economic entity, is developing a unified state plan for social production, and
enterprises that bear all the responsibility for the implementation of production plans. This new
production relationship is related to the production of a social product,

In this case, as rightly stated, for example, in the report of the RKRP dedicated to the 100th
anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, social production becomes directly social.
That is exactly what would be in the Soviet economy, if not for one “but”. This “but” consists in
preserving the commodity form of the products of labor in the Soviet economy, and, thus, in
preserving the marketability of production.

Marketability is manifested in the fact that, firstly, the product of labor acts as a product that has
internal duality. The product “table” has a table and a non-table. As a useful thing, as use value,
capable of satisfying a human need, it is a table, but as a value it is just a certain amount of
abstracted materialized human labor, which in this case appears in a table-like form.

And secondly, social relations between participants in social production always manifest themselves
as relations of things, and therefore, people act in accordance with the laws of the movement of
things, i.e. things control people. [eleven]

The first victim of marketability in the Soviet economy is a social product, which, as a set of useful
things produced to meet the needs of both society as a whole and its individual members. But in
conditions of preserving marketability, a social product is a collection of goods.

A product has duality, it is a unity of use value and value. It is naive to deny the duality of the
Soviet product of labor, the price lists of both consumer goods and means of production eloquently
spoke about this. Both were goods. And since a social product is an aggregate of goods, insofar as
the internal duality of the goods gives the social product an internal duality; it is the unity of the
totality of use values and aggregate value.

Inherent in the product, its internal unity of opposites finds its external expression in relation to
goods and money. The first is perceived as use value, the second as value. A social product also
finds an outward expression of its duality: on the one hand, it is an aggregate product, as an
aggregate of goods, and on the other, gross output, i.e. a certain amount of monetary material in
which the aggregate value of the social product finds expression. [eleven]

Having struck a social product with metastases, marketability is taken for the goals of social
production, giving them a dual content. When developing plans, the company determines the
planned social product, which must be produced in the upcoming planning period. This planned
product is the goal that society is going to achieve by the end of the planning period. However,
under the conditions of marketability, a planned social product also exists in two forms: it is an
aggregate product and it is also gross output, expressed in a certain amount of money. The
production goal has doubled. Along with the natural goal: the production of an aggregate social
product, as the production of consumer values designed to satisfy needs, a new goal has arisen: the
production of the aggregate value of a social product,

Having struck with duality the planned social product, marketability with inevitable naturalness
strikes the planned organization of social production. Soviet planning is the regularity of social
production, fertilized by the goods, and the result was the birth of the goods plan. What is this
miracle, product plan? Briefly explained, the systematic organization itself finds its expression in
the plan, which is a form of its manifestation, but since production has retained its commodity
appearance, so far as the production of goods takes place, therefore this is not just a plan, but a
product plan. [11]

Marketability gave rise to the duality of production goals, and the product plan prioritized goals.
The state was developing production plans, and the main indicator of these plans was gross output.
The plan is the law, it must be implemented, and the directors should organize production at the
enterprises entrusted to them in such a way that the plan for the production of the total cost of the
social product is fulfilled, and for this it would be necessary to create such a mass of goods whose
total value would not be lower than the established the value of the total value expressed in gross
output. The purpose of production was the production of a social product, but not in its universal
form, as an aggregate product, as an aggregate of consumer values, but in its special monetary form,
as gross output, as aggregate value. The unity of interests in society was destroyed, the interests of
the state became different from the interests of society. To better meet the needs of society, it is
necessary to produce a public product in increasing sizes, and the government, when developing its
plans, also seeks to increase the planned social product, but society needs an aggregate product, and
the state plans gross output and sets planned targets for its production. [eleven] and the state plans
gross output and sets planned targets for its production. [eleven] and the state plans gross output and
sets planned targets for its production. [eleven]
In Soviet economic literature, and not only in it, the interests of the state always stood out as a
national interest, i.e. interest of the whole society, but enterprises, they say, violated the supply, did
not fulfill plans for the nomenclature. But in reality, this is shifting from a sore head to a healthy
one. Enterprises received the plan from the state, and the plan, as you know, the law, and therefore
directors are required to implement it. And precisely for the sake of fulfilling the plan for the
production of aggregate value, the usefulness of production was sacrificed as a means of creating
commodities. Businesses are victims of aggregate value production plans. Therefore, the separation
of enterprises is a consequence of the separation of the state, because it was it, together with the
planning bodies, that established and approved the gross tasks for enterprises and, subsequently,

The acquisition by the state of its special interest, and on this basis, its separation from society was
not realized either when it arose and was affirmed in the 20s of the last century, or when the fate of
Soviet society was doomed during the years of perestroika, and, unfortunately, is not recognized
this day. This separation of the state is a consequence of the existence of marketability in the Soviet
economy, but since isolation itself was not recognized, marketability could not be recognized as the
reason for this separation. Society needs a total product, as a set of consumer values that satisfy the
needs of people. The state plans to set targets for the production of the gross value of the social
product. And what was planned was done. The state, with the best of intentions, was developing
plans, confident which acts for the good of the people, but with good intentions the road is paved
only to hell. They wanted the best, but it turned out, as always.

Along with the fact that marketability has generated a special interest of the state, different from the
interests of society, it has generated independence of the development of plans for the production of
gross output from direct production, it has generated planning from the achieved level of
production. The basis of this planning was the so-called dynamic coefficients or growth rates known
to all. The ministries and enterprises have set planned targets, they have completed them, for the
next planning period they approve a higher task, they again cope with the plan, they again increase
the task, etc. Carrying out planning from what has been achieved, the state with the State Planning
Commission became independent of production itself, but production in this case also becomes
independent of the will and desire of people.

As a result, we got the economy of the two-faced Janus. Making plans for the bulk, we believed that
we were wide open the doors to a brighter future, but it turned out that with every five-year plan we
opened the door wider and wider, where there was a reversal hole. All the contradictions of the
Soviet economy are inherent in the commodity plan and as Soviet accumulation expanded, they
became more and more aggravated and ultimately led to a crisis in the systematic organization of
social production based on the commodity plan, which led to perestroika with the subsequent
restoration of capitalism. [11]

No. 9 Theory of Shilov

Alexander Shilov is a Russian Marxist.

===

... Only the proletariat itself can carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the party was one
of the instruments in the service of the proletariat - the workers received a communist education in
the party (as far as the Bolsheviks could train them, this is a separate and long conversation). And
the party absorbed the best, most competent representatives of the proletariat. But the party cannot
carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat — it only helps the proletariat to take power, break the
bourgeois state machine and build the proletarian state machine, which the workers will control
without the party’s mediation. Actually, the demolition of the bourgeois state machine (bureaucratic
management system) took place before March 1953 - they did not manage to completely break it
down to the end - the bourgeois coup prevented it.

As for the training of workers, things were much worse here than Lenin had planned — the teachers
themselves were not literate enough — Lenin did not have time to properly teach the Bolsheviks
Marxism. Therefore, they studied themselves - by trial and error, as blind kittens floundered,
because even many of the works of Marx and Engels, published before 1937, were published with
distortions from Kautsky and Plekhanov. In general, they had just begun to clear Marxism from
perversions, as the Great Patriotic War began, then there was a restoration of the country - Marxism
had not been restored to a sufficient degree by the time the counterrevolutionaries made a coup. In
addition, most of the most literate Communists and Komsomol members died on the fronts of the
Great Patriotic War, and the people who were illiterate were easy to get into the party, who could
easily hang noodles and who only knew how to execute orders.

As for Stalin, he remained the most competent Marxist in the party leadership - but even he still
could not recognize all the mistakes made, because he still did not understand Marxism and what
needed to be built and how to build. That is, the builders of socialism themselves did not really
know what they were building, and for a long time they were guided only by Leninist works, and
Leninist works could not be correctly understood if one did not study the works of Marx and Engels
connected with them.

... Agriculture, with the exception of a small number of state farms, was still privately owned - not
small inventory, but the collective farms themselves had to be completely made public, with all the
property of the collective farms. Stalin wrote about this in The Economic Problems of Socialism
quite intelligently. And only after the complete nationalization of every single enterprise (including
collective farms and other artels), the country could be transferred to full product exchange, at the
same time transferring all the reins of government to the proletariat - transfer of the country into the
hands of the proletariat from the party leadership Stalin and prepared since 1946, reforming the
ministries (bourgeois state apparatus) and reforming the party at the XIX Congress - the party
leadership was completely deprived of the right to participate in government.

... In 1947, Stalin removed the powers of the commander-in-chief and remained only one of the
secretaries of the Central Committee, and the General Secretary in the party was not at all from
1924 or 1926. That is, the bourgeoisie is still lying that Stalin allegedly was the leader of the party,
although there was not even such a position in the Charter of the CPSU (b) and the CPSU. [12]

The fact that the land did not formally belong to the collective farms, but was leased out to them for
life - only an empty formality - this is insignificant in Marxism (Lenin wrote about this). All
property of collective farms belonged to their owners - members of collective farms (in modern
terms - to founders). The means of production include not only tractors, but also other equipment
(and the collective farms themselves also bought cars, mowers and tractors), but also horses, but
also farms — in general, all buildings intended for production. In addition, the product produced by
collective farms belonged to collective farms — collective farms traded with the state, traded
through consumer cooperatives, traded in markets.

To be honest, this topic has been repeatedly disclosed to me not only by me, but also by Stalin - in
the "Economic Problems of Socialism". In addition, farmers had farmsteads. In addition, collective
farmers received part of their wages in natural products, some of which were either sold to the state,
either through consumer cooperation, or in markets, or in black markets (yes - black markets were
not completely eliminated because commodity exchange continued to exist - trade through money )
In addition, the collective farms hired MTS to work on them and calculated on natural products.
MTS employees, in turn, sold these products to the state, through consumer cooperation, in the
markets or used in their subsidiary farms.

Non-Marxists like to strike at economism and count on the shares of the gross product that industry
prevailed in the economy. But the main thing is being discounted - people. And the majority of the
country's population remained just the peasantry before the Khrushchev reforms (right after the
bourgeois coup). Plus, the intelligentsia, a decent part of which remained a non-working
intelligentsia. I don’t know for what reason, but when counting the population, the workers were
counted together with the employees — that is, there were even fewer workers than it seemed.

In addition, due to the complete decline in industry after the First World War, after the Intervention
and the Civil War, the proletariat could not provide the village with sufficient machinery. Because
of this, even rural workers (the pure proletariat), who were called farm laborers and mistakenly
ranked as peasants (only because they cultivated the land), the Bolsheviks were forced to organize
into collective farms for which the means of production were taken from the kulaks (relatively
small capitalists). That is, from the rural proletariat they made semi-proletarians who themselves
worked and themselves were the owners of collective farms, and they themselves traded.

That is, agriculture remained precisely petty-bourgeois in the majority - the MTS did not count at
all, since the number of MTS workers at the beginning of 1936 amounted to several thousand
people - this is against the background of tens of millions of petty-bourgeois peasants.

All this happened because of the difficult economic conditions - the Bolsheviks went into ruin and
with capitalist undeveloped agriculture (sole-proprietors prevailed) - and because of the insufficient
Marxist literacy of the builders of communism, including leaders (this is a separate conversation -
there were good reasons for this causes). [12]

The fact is that the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, established by the 19th Congress of
the CPSU (B.), Was deprived of the right to engage in political activities (interfere with
government), and the Ministers from March 1946 had less and less power because of the increase in
the number of ministries by dividing them at a rate of up to two or three ministries per month. On
March 5, 1953, the counterrevolutionaries carried out the opposite (i.e., bourgeois) reforms,
assigning the authority to the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee to be abolished by the
19th Congress of the CPSU (b) Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, reduced the number of
ministries by uniting them and appointed themselves beloved ministers. All this was done in
violation of the Charter of the CPSU, adopted by the XIX Congress of the CPSU (b) and the
Constitution of the USSR - the power was taken away from the workers by the inner-party united
counter-revolutionary opposition (Trotskyists and Kautskyites, who then fought among themselves
a couple of times, trying to seize the fullness of power from each other - first the murder of Beria by
the Kautskyites, and then the so-called the anti-party group tried to seize power by removing
Khrushchev). From that moment on, all the fullness of power really became concentrated in the
hands of a handful of bourgeois counterrevolutionaries (just a few hundred thousand for the whole
party). Nothing fell apart by itself, since the newly-arrived bourgeoisie of the CPSU quickly
strengthened the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, having amnestied on March 27, 1953, rehabilitated
and reinstated their friends of counter-revolutionaries in the party, and then, September 17, 1955,
also amnestied their friends of accomplices of fascist Germany. Immediately, From the moment of
the coup, the bourgeoisie of the CPSU began to carry out a whole series of consistent and carefully
thought-out bourgeois reforms in the leading world institutions for the restoration of capitalism in
the USSR. First of all, the bourgeoisie of the CPSU began to develop trade through money, instead
of destroying it and transferring to money-less socialist product exchange. In addition, the
bourgeoisie of the CPSU, instead of destroying it, began to develop the bourgeois bureaucratic
apparatus of government (the bourgeois state machine). In addition, the bourgeoisie of the CPSU
began to develop a bourgeois method of stimulating labor productivity, called cost accounting. In
addition, the bourgeoisie of the CPSU began to put its people in the leadership of collective farms,
roughly amending the charters of the collective farms, the legislation of the USSR and actually
taking collective farm property from the collective farmers,

So, nothing by itself fell apart and could not fall apart - the USSR for a long time (as much as 38
years) was destroyed precisely by the bourgeoisie of the CPSU together with the Western
bourgeoisie. The Cold War, and the arms race was also carried out only at the expense of the surplus
value produced by the workers, became a show for the townsfolk to imitate the hostility between
the countries of the so-called social, camps and the West.

Well, and the socialism of the proletariat did not have time to complete the bourgeois coup. If
anything, then under real "socialism everyone will rule in turn and will quickly get used to nobody
to rule" (Lenin). That is - all workers under socialism in turn control their proletarian state, control
all their officials and deputies and replace them at any time - this proletarian democracy of the
dictatorship of the proletariat IN PRACTICE, at the cost of their lives, was invented by the workers
of the Paris Commune, which was the first state in the world dictatorships of the proletariat. Marx
considered one of the main mistakes of the Paris Commune that the Central Committee
(revolutionaries, the vanguard of the proletariat) too soon transferred all power to the Communists
directly. In the USSR, for objective reasons, it is too late, at the initiative of Stalin personally, tried
to transfer power from the Central Committee to the entire proletariat in the person of the Soviets,
and the proletariat (given that about 3 million of the best communist workers and about 3.5-4
million Komsomol members died during the Second World War) was too Marxist illiterate to
prevent bourgeois coup. [thirteen]

The theory of Marxism is not just a theory, but a theory that has been plagued by the proletariat in
practice, including and in the practice of the Paris Commune, in the experience of which Marx
understood exactly what the dictatorship of the proletariat should be and wrote about this in the
Civil War in France. The only thing that Marx later changed (in the work of “18 Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte”) is that the proletariat should not adopt the finished state machine from the bourgeoisie
— the proletariat must break the bourgeois state machine (namely, its bureaucratic administrative
apparatus) and build its own, proletarian, the state machine based on proletarian democracy is the
same - all the deputies of officials (including party officials) are hired by the proletariat itself, and
the proletariat is replaced by all deputies and officials at any time.

It is written by the blood of the Paris Communards. It is written by the blood of the Soviet people.
Such is the practice on which Marxist theory is based. [13]

Conclusion

The editors understand that the scientific value of such “mechanical collecting” theories of the
restoration of capitalism in the USSR is small. However, no one has yet been engaged in such work
in our memory, and it would be interesting for the reader who sincerely wants to understand the
Soviet past to look at the results achieved by Marxist thought. I would like to ask readers to actively
participate in the discussion of all the presented theories, as well as to find and send in Besky other
“theories of rebirth” that have not yet been published in the article, possibly their own.