Everything can be solved...
but not with just any cadres

Original

Preface

In one of the “Prorivists” on November 24, 2023, a certain Y. Aleinikov, also known as Ivan Ivanov, published a remark in which he listed the tasks allegedly facing all communists today:

“Prorivist
24 Nov at 20:48
CADRES DECIDE EVERYTHING

It is amusing that the modern kulaks and market lovers who, in serious speeches, try to say that “no one will ever follow the commies again,” while running like barking dogs in all groups and posts after the communists and promising to hang the latter if they try to organize the restoration of Soviet power. Funny fools. The communists don’t give a damn about threats or this running around. Communists are not muslin young ladies who faint from threats, and calmly treat the very fact of any form of repression as an instrument of merciless class struggle. The contradictions within capitalist society between classes and between capital groups in different countries cannot be abolished by any decrees or monuments of reconciliation, since they are objective in nature. The only question is when they will ripen and explode, when conditions are favorable for this.

The tasks facing communists today:

1) Encourage contradictions between capital groups of different countries, so that they get involved in a fight with each other as deeply as possible. This helps the communists not only because of the loss of moral support for these regimes in the eyes of the population that capital controls, but also by helping to wrest part of the population from the lethargic philistine cozy world of consumption in which they have been tumbling, with varying degrees of success, for the last 20 years. Yesterday they simply laughed at the communists' warnings. Today they are threatening death with a hiss. But this public will not be able to do anything against the objective spinning flywheel of the economic crisis, of which war is just one of its manifestations.

2) Take under your ideological control the most active part of the population in all former Soviet republics, asking questions of their bourgeois authorities, and organize it tomorrow on a red basis.

Theoretically and ideologically, defeat not only the pro-Western bourgeois regimes, which are rapidly turning to fascism, but also the liberal anti-fascist intelligentsia in these countries, which have been unable to produce anything but defeats in 30 years. Crush ideologically chauvinistic groups that propagate the bourgeois concept of the “Russian world,” thus driving a wedge between peoples and calling, in essence, for unconditional solidarity around one anti-Soviet group of capital against another anti-communist group, even a more radical one.

“Russian worldists” can be situational allies for communists, but only until communists become a serious political force that can dictate their agenda without looking back at such allies.

3) But in order to do all this, it is necessary to resolve one extremely important issue - intelligent cadres and the party [https://prorivists.org/science-based_centralism_party] as the central brain headquarters. It is necessary to devote all your strength to this today, given that the time for this is becoming less and less, and the moment of the highest aggravation of contradictions between groups of capital of different countries, which is frankly already heading towards a big imperialist war, is rapidly approaching.

Y. Aleinikov”

Since I want to consider myself a communist, I decided to briefly comment on the quality of the formulations and the relevance of these “tasks”.

In order to set tasks, it is necessary that those forces that are capable of solving scientific problems, i.e. communist development of society, have not yet set themselves any tasks. In the Prorivist organizations, such tasks have long been set and are being carried out quite successfully, but so far by a very limited circle of people. Without acquiring cadres who would acquire in the left movement the unconditional authority of proven Marxists who are not inferior to Lenin and Stalin in scientific and theoretical training, there is no point in even mentioning “encouraging contradictions between capitalist countries,” i.e. displaying a “childhood disease,” rushing at a tank with a wooden saber. Without solving the problem of increasing the scientific and theoretical training of the Prorivist activists to the required level, it is absurd to set the task of “taking under your ideological control the most active part of the population in all the former Soviet republics.” Why not all over the world right away??? So, comrades, less political chatter, less calls to “devote all your strength,” less horror stories that “time is becoming less and less,” and more concern for the PERSONAL exemplary character of each Prorivist in the deepest comprehension of Marxism-Leninism, the victorious Stalinist practice, in the development of their PERSONAL talents of a propagandist, agitator, and modern theorist of Marxism. Then there will be forces that will not need to be abandoned, but which will enjoy authority among the masses, enlightened and organized by Prorivists.

But on Ivanov’s initiative, a relatively long, rather emotional debate began between the Prorivists, which revealed some differences in approaches not only to theoretical, but also organizational issues. There was a need to set out in more detail the reasons why I reacted negatively to Aleinikov’s note and made some organizational decisions.

It would seem that everyone remembers that in the scientific-theoretical form of class struggle there is no room for compromise. Nevertheless, since in the minds of some of our comrades the impulse, to quickly gain masses and establish a political party, is too strong, complacent sentiments appear. They say, if the reader reported that he supports the position of Proriv and Prorivist, then for the sake of increasing the number of “writers,” the mass of publications, the frequency of their release, you don’t have to be very scrupulous about the quality of the material, you don’t have to find fault with phrases, as long as they contain more r-r-revolutionary words. As the miners joke: “We’ll give the country coal, small and raw, but a lot.”

What should I write?
On tolerance in the party press

Are there reasons why raw materials appear on left-wing sites? They exist, and in abundance. For example, poor knowledge of Marxism, Trotskyism, the childhood disease of leftism, graphomania, simulation of activity, the race for quantity at the expense of quality...

Is it possible to find raw materials among the works of Marx and Lenin that were PUBLISHED DURING THEIR LIFETIME? The classics of Marxism-Leninism were unprecedentedly conscientious social scientists, whose research is absolutely devoid of commercial, career, posturing, or left-hysterical components. They were recognized as leaders, first of all, due to the scientific depth of their research. The struggle for the progress of all mankind was the sincere meaning of their lives. Guided by the principles formulated in their own works, Lenin and Stalin won victories over almost all of their internal party and foreign policy opponents, from 1903 to 1953.

However, in the complete collections of their works, not by the will of the classics, there are “sketches,” “notes,” “first versions,” and “drafts” NOT PUBLISHED by the classics themselves during their lifetimes, but which are of scientific interest today for those who intend to learn not only final conclusions, but also ways to overcome misconceptions, by which geniuses moved from fact to hypotheses, to truth of the first order, and from it to absolute truth.

In the left-wing press, this principle has not yet become dominant: the editorial board should not be interested in fashion, diplomas, quantitative parameters of publications, their frequency, but exclusively in the SCIENTIFIC content of the content.

The past 32 years have proven that the content of propaganda and agitation of modern parties with communist names was and is so crude in nature that it did and does not have any impact on the development of the communist movement in the country and in the world. Over the years, many works by left-wing authors have been published, including the late Kryuchkov and Buzgalin, written as if intended to not have the slightest significance for the creation of a school or for obtaining a propaganda and agitation effect among the masses.

For half a century, the communist movement has existed thanks to the relatively positive results of the practice of the PRC, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nepal, Laos, and Venezuela in the absence of recognized authorities in the field of the theory of communism on the scale of Lenin and Stalin. However, if there is no progress in the development of Marxist theory, then there is no full-fledged Marxist-Leninist party, which means there is no victorious world movement of working people. This is the objective law of social progress at the present stage of human history.

Therefore, the main task that the founders of the journal Proriv set for themselves in 2002 was the introduction into the information space of absolutely scientifically sound materials containing answers to the most important questions of social progress, the underestimation and erroneous coverage of which led to the defeat of many communist parties at the end of the twentieth century.

All members of the RCWP who initially joined the magazine recognized that the most important condition for solving this problem is the principle formulated by Marx, but poorly implemented throughout the world communist movement: intensive self-education of those who called themselves communists.

By decision of the editor-in-chief, I was assigned the function of assessing the compliance of submitted materials with the goals of the journal. It is clear that under democratic centralism the candidacy of the “evaluator” would be determined by voting. Under scientific centralism, the issue was resolved based on the results of practice. The first sponsor and organizer of the editorial board of Proriv, Yu. Martynov, appointed me as his deputy, whose responsibility was to select materials for the next issue of the magazine and edit them, since I did the same for three years at Rabochaya Pravda, the volume and circulation of which was growing from room to room with complete self-sufficiency.

Naturally, in the field of selecting materials, the first “tensions” arose with individual authors, although my refusal to publish any material in Proriv did not deprive the author of the opportunity to be published in any other publication. For example, both before and after Novak’s expulsion from the editorial board of Proriv, he published his articles in left-wing Ukrainian publications. After the timely removal of Sarabeev from the editorial board, he published a thick book in honor of Trotsky, justifying our vigilance in assessing the qualities of his personality based on indirect moral criteria. Another question is that such tactics of an “independent author” indicate his low suitability for the task of building an organization, as well as his personal, often untenable ambitions.

For some time, articles in Proriv provoked sharp attacks from the Trotskyists who had penetrated the leadership of the RCWP-RPK, especially on the issues of the THEORY of diamatics, democratic centralism, and the objective and subjective reasons for the duality of the proletariat as a revolutionary and at the same time opportunist class, when the proletarians have been dutifully producing profit for decades for the capitalists, beat each other during strikes, and kill each other on the fronts of imperialist wars.

Today, due to the insignificant state of the RCWP, the flow of criticism against Proriv from that side has dried up. Members of RUSO always stood aloof from the scientific and theoretical form of class struggle and did not create problems for us. It’s been a year since the “Balaevites” have sent us abusive letters. Today, from time to time, those whom we classify as supporters of Trotskyism of varying degrees of frenzy “itch.” Everyday anti-communists do not cause much trouble, since they sit on social networks, “pressure” everyone on the left with swear words, rally around the anti-communist cliches of Ilyin, Goebbels, Solzhenitsyn, Novodvorskaya, and do not read anything longer than two pages.

The experience of the CPSU, and later the RCWP, showed the low efficiency, the formalism of the lecture-seminar method, which only allowed students to be trained in quotations from textbooks, the content of which was approved by a vote of the editorial board. However, even today some of our supporters find it difficult to accept Proriv’s call for the mandatory implementation of our main principle: self-education is primary, literary activity is secondary. Some of them find it difficult to force themselves to work on sources as conscientiously as Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, although they declare that they want to continue the work of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.

Sometimes things got funny. One of our young supporters wrote a letter to the editor, saying that he agreed with all the principles of Proriv and wanted to ask the editor what he should...read. Apparently, the young man was under the impression that there is a difficult way and an easy, quick way to become a Marxist. Another young man passionately wanted to publish something in Proriv and...asked us to tell him the topic of the article, not realizing that neither Marx, nor Lenin, nor Stalin had ever asked anyone: “Frederick (or Joseph, or Lavrentiy), what should I write?”

The classics always did not have enough time to implement all the plans generated by a deep knowledge of social practice, theory, and, therefore, an understanding of the problems of the real course of social development. They did not have crises of “no subject matter,” as often happens with fiction writers and publicists. An accomplished Marxist differs from an “ambitious understudy” in that the former does not have enough time to live to realize all his plans, born of the discrepancy between the real market existence of illiterate billions and the theoretical models of Marxism that lead to progress, i.e. to communism, and not to the tragedies of fascism, to wars and genocide.

Victory over foreign intervention and the White Guard, the implementation of the GOELRO plan, three five-year strategic plans for the socio-political development of the country against the backdrop of the cyclical crises of world capitalism, the victory of the Soviet productive forces and production relations in the Second World War, and after the war - in chess, ballet, jet passenger aviation, and in space they proved that the teaching of Marxism-Leninism is omnipotent because it is true, but only if it is internalized by the organizers of victories as a holistic teaching, without exception.

Unfortunately, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin did not have time to formalize in literary form EVERYTHING that had already matured in their minds and led to victories. Between solving a problem for yourself and its literary presentation for everyone, there are years and “pounds of salt eaten.” Stalin, especially after 1945, tried to force Soviet academics to develop a critique of political economy, the categorical apparatus of the theory of communist relations of production. However, he soon became convinced that his academicians were diligent, scribbling, and certified, but as Marxists they were fruitless.

In the field of training scientific and theoretical cadres of the CPSU, after 1953, the disunity of representatives of the three components of Marxism, the narrowness and one-sidedness of scientific and theoretical training of cadres, and their isolation from the practice of building communism increased. There was not the slightest organization or centralization of scientific and theoretical work around the problems of building communism on the part of the CPSU Central Committee. But since the development of the productive forces of the USSR took place under the leadership of the relevant ministries in a relatively objective and planned manner, mostly extensively, the “technicians” understood and followed the instructions of the ministries, but not the plans of the party. They produced more and more machine tools, plowed more and more land, but did not understand anything about the laws of building communist production relations. This involuntary non-communism of the “physicists” and “lyricists” is explained by the fact that in the “workshop” of the CPSU theorists there was anarchy, petty bourgeois competition, and mutual responsibility between the Trotskyists and assiduous mediocrities.

The search for dissertation topics of 120-140 pages has turned into almost a personal matter for the applicant, into writing lengthy statements to ensure his beloved musty cathedral life as one of the inflated authorities of “prominent” Soviet philosophers, economists, sociologists and historians. Cathedral “luminaries” were touched if the applicant found a topic whose ease of defense was beyond doubt, and its uselessness and toothlessness were considered a sign of the highly valued “scientific modesty” of the applicant. The petty topic and the terrible distance of the CPSU theorists from the working people, from the needs of the class struggle, served as an important reason for the Brezhnev stagnation and the Andropov-Gorbachev resuscitation of capitalism in the USSR. At the end of the 80s, there were no minds in the CPSU capable of opposing A. Yakovlev and V. Novodvorskaya in their absolutely idiotic attack on the theory and practice of communism.

Thus, on the one hand, in the USSR the quantitative system of training social scientists from a formal point of view worked like a Swiss watch. The number of scientists in the first generation, who came from families of workers and peasants, grew steadily, but, on the other hand, their quality did not at all correspond to the tasks of building communism. It is somewhat reassuring that with the advent of capitalism in the Russian Federation, a network of paid universities and paid quotas in state universities (for children from rich families) was created, producing graduated mitrofanushki in increasing numbers. The training of highly qualified scientists in a market Russia has acquired the characteristics of obvious idiocy. On the Internet you can find such advertisements as, for example, from a certain Natalya Kireeva:

“You will know and be able to do more than others
• How to write a dissertation: “A dissertation project in 5 weeks” - recording of a master class
• “How a graduate student can write a scientific article” Telegram broadcast
• How to write an article in 4 hours. Personal experience
• How to find time for a dissertation
• What is needed to defend a dissertation
• 5 ways to start writing a scientific article…” etc. in the best traditions of telephone scammers, “coaches” and other ignoramuses.

I would not be surprised if there are advertisements indicating where you can generally buy a dissertation that has already been accepted by the Higher Attestation Commission, indicating the price in euros.

The cause of social progress is saved by the fact that supporters of communism already have, in the body of Marxism, the necessary scientific and theoretical basis, tested by the practice of victories and defeats. To master it, perseverance and mental conscientiousness are enough. The supporters of capitalism, nationalism and clericalism, no matter how many candidates of market sciences they produce, do not and cannot have such a base. In the long term, it is impossible to reconcile the army of guest workers with the oligarchs; it is impossible for temporary workers to recognize presidents of market countries, for example, Estonia, the USA, Georgia, Ukraine or Argentina, as fathers of the fatherland who can be seen as models. Police, tear gas, and drugs are the last things capitalism has at its disposal in the struggle to prolong its existence.

All this complexity is still not understood by modern, literally young authors, and those “young” gray-haired ones who have lived a fair number of years, but only recently came to their senses, reached for the pen, and qualitatively study, for example, “Capital,” but have not yet fully understood what the CPSU did wrong. Nevertheless, many have a speculative desire to publish at least something, somewhere, as quickly as possible.

In 2015, the Proriv magazine No. 44 published an editorial, “What should those who call themselves communists work on?” It offered a small list of problems in the theory of communism. Strictly speaking, none of our authors have yet taken up the development of them. The knowledge of most of our authors in the field of diamatics and criticism of the political economy of capitalism is such that things are going well in exposing the ulcers of capitalism, which visibly bleed every day. There was a school shooting-article; eggs went up in price-article. Things are going well with criticism of the opportunism of the CPSU and some modern parties with communist names. But even our authors have not yet raised their hands to the detailed development and propaganda of the theory of communism.

But on the “against” topic alone, without a clear presentation of our theory and “for” policy, you won’t get far. The cliche “communism is the bright future of all mankind” has no effect on modern intellectuals, no matter how gloomy the present may be for billions of actual migrant workers. For many modern certified “Shur Balaganovs,” 6,400 rubles a day, a “naked party,” and a little synthetic drug are also enough to be happy.

True, from time to time the topic still finds its author among novice left-wing publicists. In this case, they have great difficulty tolerating editor interference, especially in their style. In particular, the false centralist Sarabeev, having been caught in petty double-dealing, like any hidden Trotskyist, openly called on the Prorivists to prohibit the editor from making changes to their articles.

Friction also arises between the author and the editor in the case when the material is published in the author’s version, but the editor openly expresses his critical judgment in the comments. It has been proven by practice, unfortunately, that the best organizational principles and norms of scientific centralism cannot overnight become guiding principles for the majority of newfound supporters born in the modern blogger-obscenity freestyle, among the pique vests of numerous “talk shows.”

As a result of the formal “organization” of educational and research inactivity in the post-Soviet space, there are no theorists comparable to Lenin and Stalin in terms of the intensity of their self-education. But mental diligence is the most important sign of a leader’s personality. Another thing is that self-education is not the same as teaching. When entering quotes, facts, and dates into memory, we must not forget about the development of our methodological apparatus, without which a new fact cannot be scientifically comprehended. Practice has shown that the level of education in the field of Marxism of Lenin and Stalin turned out to be a sufficient condition for victory over the bourgeois political apparatus, over foreign intervention, the White Guard, the key to the successful construction of communism with a modest initial level of development of capitalism, but high concentration and centralization of financial capital in Russia.

The assertions that Lenin was too hasty with the revolution in Russia, and Stalin with collectivization, are complete nonsense, since until 1953 the USSR developed from victory to victory in ALL spheres of confrontation with imperialism, internal counter-revolution and Trotskyism. Bourgeois minorities grieve: “Oh, what did it cost them!?” But there is an opinion that they “got off easy.” Stalin was very easy-going. And the world and local wars of capitalism, without any statistical tricks, cost the working people many orders of magnitude more, even if we ignore the nightmare of the conquest, slavery, and the slave trade from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.

But it turned out that the illiteracy of even one “general secretary,” Khrushchev, is a sufficient condition for the beginning of the degradation of the entire CPSU, united by the statutory discipline of responsibility without a deep assimilation of Marxism.

Brezhnev’s slightly more substantive knowledge of the theory of Marxism than that of Khrushchev and Kosygin, and Suslov’s feasible control over the degree of closeness of the intelligentsia to the theory of Marxism was a sufficient condition for braking the self-supporting, market degradation of socialism, a condition for the extensive growth of the productive forces, however, without moving towards communism. During the years of “perestroika,” democrats, nationalists, and liberals, such as Talkov, Listyev, Yushenkov, Starovoitova, Nemtsov...contemptuously criticized “stagnation,” i.e. slow movement towards communism, as if they dreamed of communism being built for them, but quickly. None of them expected that after the victory over “stagnation” they would be calmed down with a shot in the back by like-minded anti-communist competitors in the already capitalist Russian Federation, where they dreamed of going.

Andropov and Gorbachev, in the role of “general secretaries,” due to their complete illiteracy in Marxism, were a sufficient condition for the revival of the most vile forms of capitalism in the USSR. A party that is unable to raise full-fledged theoreticians of Marxism in its ranks is doomed to disappear, no matter how strictly it adheres to the principles of democracy, including centralism.

The CPSU lost the authority of a sage; the USSR naturally collapsed. Just as naturally, wars are multiplying on the planet, and conversations and preparations for a third world war, with nuclear missiles, have intensified. In the light of these changes, the idiocy of those groups of intellectuals who spent their entire lives resisting the introduction of Marxism into their consciousness and dreamed of capitalism, white and fluffy, is especially understandable.

But from the point of view of science, capitalism is a period of complete exhaustion of the potential for social progress based on objective premises alone, with a minimal role of the scientific factor in the public consciousness, as was the case, for example, when slavery was replaced by feudalism and feudalism by capitalism. The productive forces of the formation following capitalism require the scientific approach in ALL spheres of life.

For more than half a century, the market democratic mess not only proves the wretchedness of the Stanford, Cambridge, and Oxford schools of social science, demonstrates not just a shortage of cadres, but brings to the political forefront one nonentity after another, in comparison with which Brezhnev was both a genius and a playboy.

In the absence of a mass scientific worldview, capitalist society is dynamically moving towards self-destruction, and only competent social scientists are a sufficient subjective factor for overcoming the military-technical and environmental forms of the impending self-destruction of humanity.

It is worth repeating that a party that is not capable of creating a “conveyor belt” for cultivating full-fledged Marxists is not capable of organizing society to build communism, i.e. scientifically based heaven on Earth. The previous manner of training Marxists in the CPSU turned out to be pseudoscientific.

Another question is that already built communism will not be in dire need of leaders, leaders, since communism is a qualitatively different level of the general culture of life, devoid of the mental one-sidedness of chess players, and of formalism in teaching and raising children. Under communism, there are no objective prerequisites for the formation and development of egoism, diplomacy without education, misanthropy, parasitic relationships and consumerist deviations in the people’s psyche.

No matter how imperialism decays, no matter how developed the MSMC (military-state monopoly capitalism) is as a complete material preparation for socialism, communism cannot be built until the subjective factor matures in the form of an inextricable galaxy of specific individuals who have mastered diamatic thinking in relation to the new stage of social life. The ideal case is when the entire leadership of the organization is already authoritative practicing scientists, theorists in the field of Marxism-Leninism as the first and only example of truly scientific social science.

Anpilov, Tyulkin, Zyuganov, Simonenko, Rokhlin, and Udaltsov proved that subjective factors at the level of expression, charisma, organizational talent, parliamentary resourcefulness, and personal sacrifice are NOT ENOUGH to gain authority among the proletarian masses of mental and physical labor, and not only to remove kleptomaniacs and alcoholics from political power, but also to build a competent management vertical capable of starting a campaign to eliminate the institution of power from the life of society, i.e. violence against a person by another person. Even under capitalism, power-free relationships of leadership and subordination take place, SOMETIMES between a doctor and a patient, when the patient trusts the doctor completely, and the doctor actually has the necessary knowledge and experience, and he does not have mercantile motives to force the patient to remove an organ or undergo courses of pseudo-cancer therapy.

Even among the common people, communism refers to a social system in which all processes proceed as scientifically predicted, scientifically planned, and scientifically organized. However, the proletarians of mental and physical labor will not join the full-fledged political struggle for communism before figures appear in one of the left parties who are not inferior to Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Kirov, Ordzhonikidze, Frunze, Krzhizhanovsky, Bonch-Bruevich, Makarenko-experts in full-fledged, actual, authentic Marxism, which has proven its competence through the practice of victories on various fronts of the struggle for communism.

A feature of the period being experienced is that impostors periodically appear and disappear on the political scene, declaring themselves first secretaries, chairmen of parties created again and again with communist names. They are, as a rule, energetic, eloquent, and some masses of those who believe in them are concentrated around them, but the matter stalls after failure in the very first parliamentary elections. The current parties with communist names do not have anything relevant in their arsenals that could be placed on a bookshelf next to the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Dimitrov, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, or Fidel Castro.

Results in politics cannot be higher than the scientific and theoretical training of the organizers.

Of course, some authors have written brochures, published one or two monographs denouncing Andropovism, Gorbachevism, Yeltsinism, globalism, Zionism, or Banderaism, but so far nothing in the area of ??articulate answers to the question “WHAT TO DO in the interests of building communism?”

From time to time, ambitious people have an itch to speed up the course of events, to publish tasks that contain an appeal to no less than the virtual world communist movement, to their nations, to the spherons, etc. There is nothing terrible in such an initiative if these “tasks” did not come from some people who declared themselves “Prorivists” and did not distract from the solution of really pressing, urgent problems.

Who would be puzzled?
"Family secrets” of "Proriv"

Not so long ago, Y. Aleinikov, a man who supposedly recognizes the principle of scientific centralism, published a note on one of the websites of the Prorivists, which opens with the words:

“It is amusing that the modern kulaks and market lovers who, in serious speeches, try to say that “no one will ever follow the commies again,” while running like barking dogs in all groups and posts after the communists and promising to hang the latter if they try to organize the restoration of Soviet power. Funny fools. The communists don’t give a damn about threats or this running around. Communists are not muslin young ladies who faint from threats, and calmly treat the very fact that any form of repression is an instrument of merciless class struggle.”

It’s bad when our supporter in the first lines of his note praised unscientific courage, i.e. neglected Lenin’s recommendations: study communism in order to not suffer from the childhood disease of leftism.

Of course, not fainting is useful, but to be calm about any form of repression... How is that? Let the “kulaks,” “funny fools” not only say that “no one will follow the commies,” not only promise to hang, blow up, shoot, but also calmly carry out the sentences paid for by the USA and the EU, as it was in modern times in relation to, for example, Anpilov, Riga riot police, Rubiks, Buzina, Zakharchenko, Mostovoy, Motorola, Givi, Dugina, Tatarsky, Prilepin, Tsarev, Kiva...? It turned out that Prilepin is more dangerous for the American bourgeoisie than Zyuganov and Simonenko.

As far as I know, in the Baltics, where the author of the note lives, “modern kulaks,” “market lovers,” “barking like dogs,” “funny fools”...have long driven some of the local “communists” to run for the presidency, others into deep underground, and some to prison. One of the reasons is the low literacy of the left in the field of Marxism in general and conspiracy in particular. True, Aleinikov himself was smart enough to publish under a second pseudonym, but he called on others to be brave instead of taking the study of the laws of conspiracy seriously, as Lenin wrote about in his work “What is to be done?”

Aleinikov believes that one can calmly treat “the FACT of any form of repression,” because “the contradictions within capitalist society between classes and between capital groups in different countries cannot be abolished by any decree or monument of reconciliation, since they are objective in nature. It’s only a matter of time until they ripen and explode when conditions are favorable for this.”

It turns out that no matter how many communists the Nazis destroy, capitalism itself will collapse “when conditions are favorable for this.”

Who will the editorial staff of Proriv recruit? Waiting people, wise men, or brave men, the patience of fatalists, the madness of the brave, or the wisdom of the mature. In life, of course, there is always a place for heroism, but our comrades need to try to repeat the feat of Marx and Lenin, and not Gavrilo Princip. It’s too early to tear your vest from your chest and shout “shoot, you bastards, you won’t shoot everyone.”

That is, some of our supporters childishly interpret Marx’s phrase “the hour of capitalist private property is striking. The expropriators are expropriated,” “forgetting” about Lenin’s proven teaching about the revolutionary situation and the subjective factor (in the form of the Bolshevik Party), about the need for skillful secrecy in the conditions of the next economic and political crisis, when not everything is obvious to everyone.

Capitalism has long been objectively ready to explode, but it does not explode all at once, but only periodically, in individual countries, because there is no single organization in the world whose cadres are theoretically capable of solving the main issues of BUILDING communism on a global scale. Poor command of diamatics does not allow leftists around the world to understand that the negation of capitalist relations of production will occur through the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and at the same time beyond the boundaries of this overthrow, i.e. through the SCIENTIFIC, PLANNED use of the material prerequisites developed by MSMC. All those “bricks” that capitalism anarchically uses to build prisons, military bases, aircraft carriers, casinos, and brothels, the “architects” of communism must learn to systematically use to build the material base for the steady growth of the happiness of ALL people.

But, having fallen into fatalism regarding the fate of capitalism, Ya. Aleinikov, who verbally recognized the principle of scientific centralism, decided, on his own behalf, to personally set a task for all communists. That’s exactly what it says: “The tasks facing communists today.”

And if Aleinikov has the right to use the word “today” figuratively, meaning both the day and the current year, then he is obliged to give the word “communist” after the defeats suffered a strictly specific, scientific content. It is one thing to state that the SVO has been carried out every day for the second year now, but another thing is to say that today the task of the communists is: “1) Encourage contradictions between capital groups of different countries, so that they get involved in a fight with each other as deeply as possible.”

It’s been a long time since I’ve encountered such depth of idealism, metaphysics, and anti-diamatics in one phrase from an alleged Proriv supporter. What communists, what authority, what means and methods does the author have at his disposal to “encourage” and not make fun of the imperialists?

Everyone is fighting with increasing frenzy: the USA with the EU, Poland with Germany, Hungarians, Slovaks with the EU, Serbs among themselves, the Russian Federation with NATO and the EU, NATO with China and the DPRK, Arabs with Israel, Africans with the West, Sunnis with the Houthis... The proposal to encourage imperialist contradictions, when another world war is practically underway, the glory of objective reality, with senile and actor presidents, with fairly stupid and sick American generals, is somewhat reminiscent of the contents of the notes of Aksentiy Ivanovich Poprishchin.

A Prorivist is obliged, before writing about the tasks of all communists in modern conditions, to study Lenin’s diamatics, which recognizes wars as inevitable, both aggressive and defensive, as long as private property exists, especially multi-billion-dollar capitalist property.

Anyone who has studied the materials of the Zimmerwaldist conferences knows that the Social Democrats, who ENCOURAGED the military budgets of their countries by voting, were most decisively condemned by Lenin, who initiated the creation of the Third International. By 1917, Lenin was convinced that the “centrists” and nationalists of the Second International, who were ready to stand on the side of their governments until complete victory, could no longer be re-educated.

One of the reasons why communists cannot encourage wars is that they are used by capitalists to get rid of surplus people in the labor market, i.e. primarily from industrial and rural proletarians. Since 1914, the Bolsheviks were deprived of any objective opportunity to influence the course of the war, and today there are no Bolsheviks at all on the territory of the former USSR. But the scientific-theoretical form of class struggle was used by Lenin extremely productively during these years. Thanks to scientific analysis, Lenin proved to the Bolsheviks the opportunistic nature of the Social Democrats, including Plekhanov and Kautsky, which made it possible after the revolution to create the Russian Communist Party, free from the traditions of social democracy in Europe.

One of the reasons for Lenin's great productivity in the period from 1917 to 1922 is that he used the years of the First World War to deepen his knowledge of the history of philosophy, especially the creative understanding of Hegel's dialectics and its significance for the development of the methodology of dialectical materialism. Thanks to intense self-education, Lenin brilliantly continued the work of Marx, criticism of the theory of political economy of capitalism, and carried it to the criticism of the theoretical studies of Hobson, Hilferding, Kautsky, to the denunciation of capitalism in the era of imperialism, which made it possible to arm the party and the proletarian masses with the works “Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism,” “On the slogan of the United States of Europe,” “State and Revolution,” and “Marxism and Rebellion,” which allowed Stalin to define Leninism as Marxism in the era of imperialism and socialist revolution. It was thanks to these works that Lenin announced his “April Theses” (“On the tasks of the proletariat in this revolution”) not into outer space from the sofa, like Aleinikov, but to a specific mass of Red Guards, Soviet deputies, and soldiers who met their leader at the Finlyandsky station, who later reported the content of these tasks is down to the workers in the shops, in the Soviets, and in the trenches.

How much will modern Russian “communists” gain if “God gives them horns” and they devote all their free time to “encouraging” the contradictions of imperialism? Will communism be built quickly if supporters of Aleinikov’s concept manage to “encourage” the fight between the imperialists before a world nuclear missile war, for example, between NATO and the Russian Federation with the involvement of the PRC and the DPRK?

As for the bulk of the Prorivists, I hope they will take a different path, since, as the experience of the USSR has shown, the overthrow of the political system of capitalism in one particular country did not automatically lead to the building of communism in it. The construction of communism in the USSR after 1953 slowed down as the scientific and theoretical potential of the CPSU decreased.

History has proven that most modern parties with communist names are stubbornly built according to the patterns of democratic centralism slipped in by the Trotskyists. Therefore, our activists decided to revive in their pure form those victorious principles that Lenin formulated in his work “What is to be done?” and to form the necessary subjective prerequisites for building the Party of Scientific Centralism.

The magazine Proriv owes its formation and years of work almost without interference precisely to imperialist contradictions. After 1991, former underground guild members plundered the country, then expropriated each other, often through contract killings or in the manner of Tsapkov. Then the oligarchs of the whole world again fought in attempts to divide the loot into new portions, and all this time they had no time for any Prorivists. As evidenced by the criminal chronicle, all the democratic and security structures had no time for us either. They created their own corruption schemes, furnished themselves with gilded and golden toilets, and closets filled with banknotes. And for some time they will not have time to study the materials of our publications, with which hundreds of thousands of normal readers who do not suffer from kleptomania, drug addiction, and gluttony are already familiar.

So what should the left do when the imperialists are fighting among themselves?

What did Lenin do when he did not yet have the necessary strength, but already had people in mind who, without a stretch, could be classified as proven Marxists: Stalin, Sergeev (Artyom), Kirov, Kalinin, and Dzerzhinsky? I. e. what are the tasks of the Breakthrough editorial board in the light of historical experience, when countries of market democracies and their peoples are intensively at war with each other? What, encourage imperialism to engage in clashes from which it has never emerged, even under the threat of social revolution, as Bliokh warned the Russian imperialists about? In this historical situation, Lenin sought to train and educate Marxists, to organize them into a party that is capable of organizing the masses in order to break the chain of imperialism at its weakest link and offer the peoples peace without annexations and indemnities, calling for the demilitarization of all countries.

What is Putin's utopianism? He has at hand such peat bogs as the “parties” “United Russia” and “People’s Front,” and on this basis he is trying to carry out the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine without “abolishing” the market economy in the world, although it is the objective source of both Nazism and militarism. Maybe the need to nationalize a private cartridge factory in Podolsk will tell him something?

Aleinikov, before setting tasks for unknown communists, should have reread, for example, Lenin’s works “Tasks of revolutionary social democracy in the European war,” “Situation and tasks of the socialist international,” “What next? (On the tasks of workers’ parties in relation to opportunism and social chauvinism).” He had to think for whom and for what purpose Lenin published the pamphlet “Karl Marx (A Brief Biographical Sketch Outlining Marxism)” in 1914, i.e. a more detailed version of the work “Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism,” and in 1915-“The Collapse of the Second International,” and in August 1915-“On the Slogan of the United States of Europe,” although in September 1914, i.e. in the first days of the world war, a group of social democrats (and Lenin was a member of it) proposed considering the slogan of the United States of Europe as a means of curbing imperialist wars between European countries. All Social Democrats seized on the idea of a United States of Europe. But Lenin decided to reconsider this slogan in a diamatic manner and came to the conclusion that the USE as a condition for maintaining peace under capitalism is not feasible.

Decades have passed. The USE was established as the EU. It acquired its own currency, which, as Lenin predicted, automatically marked the beginning of competition between the euro and the pound and dollar on the world foreign exchange market. Politicians from parasitic countries began to shout that Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic states were “Europe,” asking for handouts in euros. But the United States turned these limitrophes into its “Trojan horse,” sucking the EU’s finances and thereby exacerbating contradictions within Europe between England and France, Germany and Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and others.

I.e. Lenin did not “put into the archives” the theses already put forward before a comprehensive study, diamatically rethinking them in the context of real factors. As a result, Lenin became convinced that the only effective method of ridding humanity of wars was to carry out a revolution, initially in one single country, at a time when it would be most difficult for the imperialists to unite to strangle the communists in Russia.

Defending his idea of encouraging imperialist contradictions, Aleinikov is wishfully thinking and misleading our supporters even more: “This helps the communists not only because of the loss of moral support for these regimes in the eyes of the population that capital controls, but also by helping to wrest part of the population from the lethargic philistine cozy world of consumption in which they have been tumbling, with varying degrees of success, for the last 20 years.”

Firstly, today communists are difficult to find even under a microscope, especially in the Baltic states. Secondly, like many modern leftists, Aleinikov makes mistakes on “regimes.” Ordinary people have already repeatedly overthrown the “regimes” in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Ukraine... So, did this somehow weaken capitalism? The indigenous population, for example, of the Baltic republics, in the current state of the local “communist” movement, time after time chooses increasingly fascist individuals as leaders of their regimes. Decreasing in numbers, the Baltic inhabitants continue to “tumble” into philistinism and a vindictive desire to physically exterminate any communists. It is easy to notice the growing material and moral support for the SVO by the bulk of citizens of the Russian Federation and members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. A significant mass of wealthy Ukrainian petty bourgeois reacted to the fascistization of their country in the following way: they paid bribes to military commissars and moved to the countries that initiated the fascistization of Ukraine.

The population of Azerbaijan responded with delight to the defeat of Armenia and strengthened the “Aliyev regime.” Most Russians will behave the same way after NATO's defeat in the war in Ukraine. I.e. there is no direct connection between the growing decay of imperialism in any form and the growing authority of a party with a communist name, although, as we see, the author of the note believes that as a result of the encouragement of inter-imperialist struggle by unafraid “communists,” capitalism will automatically fail, without communists taking a real vanguard role in the working class .

It would not be an exaggeration to say that such behavior of the population is the product of many years of crude articles by undiligent “communists” against the backdrop of the most blatant fakes of the liberals, i.e. anti-communist media.

“Yesterday they simply laughed at the communists’ warnings. Today they are hissing death threats [threats of death are not a sign that the population is “breaking out of the lethargic cozy world of consumption.” In some places, in the Baltics, the active part of the population is ready to go and become janitors in the west or to die in Ukraine. - V.P.] . But this public will not be able to do anything against the objective spinning flywheel of the economic crisis, of which war is just one of its manifestations.”

And this audience doesn’t even try to “be able to.” In 2024, the world market economy will celebrate the 390th anniversary of the first economic crisis, which ushered in the era of cyclical economic and military-political crises of capitalism. For the first time, the development curve of the crises of capitalism and the exponential of scientific and theoretical consciousness intersected in October 1917 in Russia. So the “flywheel” of economic crises and accompanying wars will grind people until a party appears again, the main part of whose leadership will be more familiar with Marxism than in Lenin’s time. All modern countries with a socialist orientation, even “Swedish socialism” and social programs in market countries, are a consequence of the Leninist period in the history of mankind.

Most modern leftists have learned to read out lists of the deformities of consumerism under capitalism and utter critical cliches addressed to them, but are not yet able to convey to the consciousness of ordinary people that only under communism will consumption be scientific, guaranteed, and like Soviet polio vaccinations, the most universal, diverse, exclusively creative, and not causing any type of withdrawal symptoms, lethal consequences, or environmental disasters, as under capitalism. As for the actual picture of mass consumption in the modern West, “hungry eyes,” real hunger, looted stores, underground markets for stolen products, and freeganism, i.e. consumption from waste bins, is the norm of the consumption system under capitalism for hundreds of millions, rather billions, at any stage of development of the world market.

However, Aleinikov poses another fantastic, if not useless, task for today: “2) Take under your ideological control the most active part of the population in all former Soviet republics, asking questions of their bourgeois authorities, and organize it tomorrow on a red basis.”

First, is asking questions a form of activism? Secondly, “communists” today are not the most active part of the population in all former Soviet republics, especially in the Baltic states. Already in 1989, for a couple of hours, I had the opportunity to talk in detail with the candidate of philosophical sciences, teacher of scientific communism, the late Ulo Kaevats, co-chairman of the National Front of Estonia. During the polemics, Ulo, like Cato the Elder, from time to time stupidly repeated the phrase: “Nevertheless, the national is primary, the communist is secondary.” This is how the “communists” of the Baltic states raised the Nazis. It is enough to look at the materials of Gorbachev’s meetings with Lithuanian members of the CPSU at all levels to understand that almost the entire leadership and the entire intelligentsia of Lithuania were nationalist-minded, and some of them were Nazi-minded, already in the late 80s.

Thirdly, nationalists not only ask questions to the leaders of market countries, but also perfectly keep their elected representatives at gunpoint. In the United States alone, four presidents were shot and two were missed. Since the “shot in Sarajevo”, Operation Teutonic Sword, attacks on the lives of kings, popes, prime ministers, even in “neutral” Sweden and Israel, the hunt for Yanukovych, the promise to take Putin out of the Kremlin headfirst, discussions on the topic of assassination attempts on the lives of Zelensky and Trump, a stab in the neck of an opposition leader in South Korea-the norm of life in democratic market countries. Taking the most active killers and their clients under ideological control is not our specialty.

Given the current modest level of scientific and theoretical training of a significant part of the Proriv activists, it is the height of boyishness in the foreseeable “today” to set the task of taking active Banderaites or even victims of the current mobilization in Ukraine under ideological control, who toppled monuments to Lenin, hounded Yanukovych in order to replace him at the helm of power with a banal thief, then an outright fascist, as in Georgia, Moldova, and Armenia. Today there is no real possibility of even dialogue between parties that call themselves “communist.” Notice how easily the members of the Communist Party of Ukraine, who did not flee to the Russian Federation or Poland, dispersed to the trenches. I don’t know where those communists are hiding today, to whom Aleinikov sets the task of taking control of the active part of the population of all the former Soviet republics. It is necessary to understand nothing about the mechanism of growth of the authority of a party with communist names in order to set such illiterate tasks.

Proriv has long set before its supporters a completely understandable and challenging task: to be as authentic as possible to Marxism-Leninism and at the same time, in the most conscientious manner, without any false modesty, to build new, strong, convincing scientific and theoretical “bridges” from the logic of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin’s times into the reality of our days, taking into account the reasons for the catastrophically shameful defeat of the CPSU.

What was it worth for Ogienko, before posting Aleinikov’s materials on his website, to look at the tasks that were very successfully formulated in Prorivist several years ago. For example, here: “On the issue of self-education” and “Scientific centralism.”

Aleinikov, before setting tasks for all “communists,” should have studied, for example, Lenin’s article “Our most important task,” when the communist movement in Russia, like today, was still raw, social-democratic, circle-based, and therefore Lenin did not try to “grab the pie in the sky,” but wrote most of all about how to build a centralized party in Russia, which would be based on a SCIENTIFIC approach to all aspects of party life, the CLASS struggle, and not about control over some “most active part of the population.” Aleinikov would have gained a lot if he had studied Lenin’s article “The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement” and “The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power.”

Lenin called tasks only what could be realized by his contemporary party members in reality at the time, since it corresponded to the maturity of objective prerequisites and the subjective factor at a given specific moment in history, and therefore the tasks changed. For example, the rejection of the “Red Guard attack” on capital was dictated by the objective circumstance that the Bolshevik subjective factor (before 1930) was so raw that it was necessary to set the task of transition to the NEP.

How do a specific nuclear reactor and its drawing, created on the basis of hundreds of calculations and hundreds of experiments, relate? There is a drawing-there will be a reactor. If you take a normal platoon commander, then, having received a task, he will study it, try to understand, ask questions if he does not understand, then assess the condition of his subordinates, organize reconnaissance, at least by observation, assess the condition of the enemy, develop a solution that takes into account all the circumstances, and only after that will he give a combat order, assigning each squad commander specific tasks in directions, boundaries, time, and...a deputy in case the commander is killed first.

But Aleinikov decided to invent a “bicycle” and instead of appealing to the class of proletarians of mental and physical labor, struggling to gain authority among them, he proposed today to organize mythical ideological control over the “most active part of the population” of the former USSR by the forces of its mythical “communists.”

At one time, Lenin considered the most important task to be the union of the proletarian class with scientific theory. To solve this problem, Lenin demanded, to a certain extent, the merging of party members with the proletarian class by drawing the consciousness of the proletarians towards Marxism, which the party members themselves must study if they want to solve any problem of transforming society.

But everything would have been fine if several Proriv old-timers had not said: “Of course, the note is damp, but no errors were found. This will do.” With this development of events, naturally, the task of direct struggle for the creation of the PSC (Party of Scientific Centralism) will have to be postponed indefinitely. Sarabeev and Golobiani proved what happens when superficially read people try to establish a PSC.

As a result of the strategy and tactics developed in Proriv, the Leninist idea of ??scientific centralism is already finding interested, hard-working, and promising supporters in the republics of the near abroad (including Ukraine, the Baltic states and Central Asia) and very far abroad. As our new colleagues write, they were convinced by the wide range of issues scientifically resolved in the journal. In other words, the thinking of individuals is “taken under control” not by the appointment of procurators, but by the proof of solved and published “social science theorems.” So far, only a few have written to us who have eagerly taken up the task, and, as experience has shown, some of them can get “tired” and “burn out.”

It is also inevitable that there will be “supporters” who will try to use the growing authority of Proriv and Prorivist to indulge their ambitions and solve their problems. This is a common “trick”: in order to become popular, some scoundrels believe that it is enough to publish something in a popular publication.

How can one not recall Lenin’s instruction to the “Students of the Capri School” that the political physiognomy of an organization depends entirely on the quality of training and composition of “lecturers,” and no programs can change anything about this.

The dynamic growth of the layer of opportunists and the thinning of the layer of Bolsheviks in the Central Committee of the CPSU and party universities after 1953 proved Lenin was right, who warned already in 1918 that as the popularity and authority of the party grew, all kinds of bastards would get into it. It was not for nothing that Trotsky decided to declare himself a Bolshevik when he saw that the armed masses were already responding to the calls of the Bolsheviks. As it turned out, Stalin’s conclusion about the intensification of the class struggle as the construction of communism was delayed applies, first of all, to the ruling party itself.

Who would you like to defeat?

If any reader in Georgia, Armenia, Uzbekistan, or the Baltic states...wants to find on the Internet a text with the least thought-out “tasks of the communists” in the most melancholy form, impossible to implement in the foreseeable time, then you can safely turn to the following fragment of the note by Y. Aleinikov, who heights of calculations known only to him, he commands: “Theoretically and ideologically to defeat not only the pro-Western bourgeois regimes, which are rapidly turning to fascism, but also the liberal anti-fascist intelligentsia in these countries, which have been unable to produce anything but defeats in 30 years.”

It will be instructive if Aleinikov tells the world about the victories of the Baltic “communists” over local fascists over the past 30 years, in order to nail the liberal anti-fascist intelligentsia to the pillar of shame with his results.

Strictly speaking, Marxism-Leninism is an already accomplished, complete and unconditional scientific and theoretical victory over capitalism, the most terrible projectile ever fired at the head of the bourgeoisie. But, unfortunately, the majority of modern leftists study the theory of Marxism very lazily, especially with respect to diamatics, and the bourgeoisie does not read books at all; it makes money, pays taxes and maintains an army, including its market propagandists, policemen, detectives, and private prisons; it legalizes drugs to prevent young people from becoming Marxists.

I can understand the novice publicist Aleinikov, but it’s a pity that the older comrades in the person of R, I, and N did not find anything strange in the above phrase.

“Naturally,” the heart of any leftist will beat with joy: finally, the task has been set. We smash pro-Western regimes! Let's get to work, comrades, especially since there is no country other than the DPRK in which the pro-Western lobby is weak. It is always more interesting to smash a strong opponent. The picture is reminiscent of what would happen if the commander of the Wagner company, going out to formation in the morning, said: “Yesterday, at a bachelor party dedicated to March 8, 2024, the toastmaster finally set our company the honorable task of taking Tallinn by storm, and from there to unexpectedly turn towards Kyiv. Hooray! Go your separate ways. To everyone who was scared, recover. We'll be leaving in five minutes."

When assigning tasks to the communists, Aleinikov did not take into account that the Baltic limitrophes are a province of NATO, deprived of sovereignty, and only if NATO itself suffers defeat, then the fools, i.e. the Baltic Nazis, will come to an end.

Until the left learns to produce materials that will be accepted in the world reading environment which are no worse than “Anti-Duhring” and “The Infantile Disease of Leftism in Communism,” and does not set tasks in the manner of Aleinikov, until then we can assume that there is NO ONE qualified to accept an unconditional surrender from the hands of the world bourgeoisie and local compradors. History needs either the masses, already armed with the knowledge of Marxism, or specific individuals in whom the masses see intelligence, education, and conscience, and therefore trust the tasks set by these individuals.

During his lifetime, Lenin’s ideas and work found such a response among the working people that in the most imperial countries of the West, the “Hands Off Soviet Russia” movement arose, which often had quite tangible results. The theoretical “defeat” of small pro-Western regimes, given the fashion for the concepts of Hitler, Bandera, Soros, Friedman, Brzezinski, and Gene Sharp among politicians and ordinary people of NATO countries, will be similar to the Northern Military District of the Russian Federation for the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, which has been going on for eight years and two years more, because it actually represents an attempt to demilitarize and denazify NATO.

It is worth recalling that Stalin in 1939, relying on the maturity of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), on commissars already free from the influence of Trotskyism and generals recognizing the leading role of the party, in just four months defeated Japanese troops in the Khalkhin Gol area, not far from those places where the tsarist army shamefully failed. The defeat of the Japanese interventionists made quite a strong impression on the West. Germany immediately signed a “Non-Aggression Pact” with the USSR, Poland-on the demarcation of the border with the USSR, and the Baltic states became part of the USSR, but Germany still captured Poland, not because the “Non-Aggression Pact” was signed, but because Poland has always been owned by all and sundry. And Stalin, in retaliation for this seizure, defeated Finland in the same four months, securing Leningrad.

These local victories made it possible to somewhat improve the situation of the Red Army by June 22, 1941, which played a positive role in disrupting the blitzkrieg, but did not save the USSR from the need to fight all world fascism. The USSR won that war because, according to the laws of diamatics, Stalin prepared the party and the country for victory over the world bourgeoisie, and not over the limitrophes.

Thus, if you want to win, you must strictly observe the cornerstone position of the diamatics: the general (strategy) both dominates and “pressures” over the local (over tactics). Prorivists are obliged to optimize their efforts in the field of training scientific and theoretical cadres of such a level and scale that they will gain indisputable authority in the eyes of the world proletariat of mental and physical labor. Only in this case will the Baltic Prorivists be able to make a worthy contribution to the defeat of the local Nazis.

But Aleinikov sets the communists the task of carrying out the theoretical and ideological defeat of not only the pro-Western bourgeois fascist regimes of the Baltic states, but also the liberal anti-fascist intelligentsia. One gets the impression that they annoyed Aleinikov more than fascism itself.

My knowledge of liberal concepts and communication with living liberals force me to doubt that in nature there is an intellectual who sincerely takes a liberal position, i.e. freedom for private property relations, and at the same time fights fascism. Historical practice has shown that all well-known certified liberals are convinced anti-communists, egoists, supporters of the most unbridled capitalism, colonialism, debauchery, and consumerism and, therefore, in the fight against communism they always rely on racism, Nazism, fascism, and immorality, which is one thing, but also, Aleinikov tells us that liberal anti-fascists exist and we need to fight them today, when Baltic Nazism has not yet suffered a single defeat from any side, and there are still no forces capable of anything effective. I think that smashing virtual liberal anti-fascists is even easier than fighting windmills was for Don Quixote. Such statements can only be made if there seems to be an ally in the fight against fascism, but he must be decisively pushed aside today. Where in the Baltics do they teach “communists” such tactics?

What is a theoretical defeat and how does it differ from an ideological defeat? Or is this written for greater importance?

Suppose the pro-Western regimes of the Baltic states are theoretically and ideologically defeated by communists known only to Aleinikov. Do the police, intelligence services, army, courts, jailers, parliamentarians, ordinary fascists know that the bourgeoisie has already been theoretically defeated? Do they voraciously read Proriv magazine? And if the regime is not pro-Western, but simply capitalist, is it better than the fascist pro-Western one, so you don’t have to fight it, but first throw all your energy into finding liberal anti-fascists and fighting them?

Perhaps it would be more logical to first create an organization capable of gaining authority among the pro-Eastern working masses in pro-Western countries than to try to wash away the “Nazi dog” with theoretical and ideological soap? For example, Lenin, in 1917, correctly taking into account the real qualitative and quantitative parameters of the pro-Bolshevik masses, called on them to first crush the Kornilov rebellion, in reality, and not theoretically, and, if successful, to overthrow the bourgeois Provisional Government using this experience.

However, fighting liberal anti-fascists is not enough for Aleinikov. He calls in these specific historical conditions, when even the Baltic Social Democrats, not to mention the Bolsheviks, are not seen or heard, to “crush ideologically chauvinistic groups that propagate the bourgeois concept of the “Russian world,” thus driving a wedge between peoples and calling, in essence, for unconditionally unity around one anti-Soviet group of capital against another anti-communist group, even a more radical one.”

Is the wedge that the “Russian Worldists” are driving in the Baltics worse than the wedges that the Nazis and nationalists of all nations were driving in the territory of the former USSR in 1989? The Baltic Nazis will be delighted when Aleinikov defeats the local international of the Russian Worldists. Having studied the tasks formulated by Aleinikov, I do not see anything surprising in the fact that some of the Russian-speaking inhabitants of the Baltic states are trying to unite for survival along linguistic lines, and not around such projectors as Aleinikov. Another part of the Russian-speaking Balts, as in Ukraine, is trying to survive by trying to curry favor with the local Nazis, but Aleinikov doesn’t say a word about them. Being in captivity of his fantasies, not properly mastering the theory of Marxism-Leninism, and not having earned the authority of an intelligent communist among the Russian-speaking Balts, Aleinikov proposes to defeat them.

Judging by the letters to the journal Proriv, some of our current supporters went through nationalism, but were convinced by the publications of the Prorivists and, with a fighting mood, began studying the works of Marx, Lenin, and even Hegel. Who is stopping Aleinikov from writing a masterpiece, victoriously profound on the national issue, so that the “Russian Worldists” flock to the author asking him to set tasks for them too? After all, someone managed to captivate them with the idea of the “Russian world.” Nobody holds back Aleinikov except his own insufficient scientific and theoretical Marxist-Leninist training.

““Russian worldists” can be situational allies for communists, but only until the communists become a serious political force that can dictate their agenda without looking back at such allies.”

Aleinikov, having set the task of encouraging contradictions between imperialists, does not realize that it is much more practical today to encourage contradictions between liberal anti-fascists (if they exist in nature), Russian World activists, and outright Baltic Nazis.

Internationalism is not anti-nationalism. Federalism, especially socialist, the brotherhood of all peoples is opposed to the imperial aspirations of slavery, feudalism and capitalism. The theory and practice of capitalism, like all eras of private property, connects the solution to its social problems with the destruction of “superfluous” people. Marxism opens people's eyes to the wealth that different nations can bring into the life of all people on the planet and make it comfortable, meaningful, loving, scientifically meaningful, happy for EVERYONE.

The Lenin-Stalin and Brezhnev periods of the history of the USSR proved the fundamental possibility for hundreds of nations, nationalities, and all language groups to live on 1/6 of the earth's land without borders, without national paramilitary formations, in peace, in harmony, in work, and in battle.

As soon as private property was allowed in the USSR, due to the mental degradation of the top leadership of the CPSU, not only did the territory of the USSR become barbed with anti-tank gouges and covered with rows of barbed wire, minefields, and deafened by the howl of air defense sirens, but other countries of the world began to fence themselves off from each other with walls and ditches, compared with which the Maginot Line, Mannerheim, and the Great Wall of China are architectural pampering.

And now a surprise for everyone who has already prepared themselves to complete the first two tasks:

“3) But in order to do all this, it is necessary to solve one extremely important issue - intelligent cadres and the party as the central brain headquarters [i.e. the task director himself admits that he does not yet have intelligent cadres at his disposal, especially in the Baltic states, and there is no communist party, especially with the Bolshevik degree of maturity, which means “the mission is impossible.” - V.P.]. “It is necessary to devote all your strength to this today, given that time for this is becoming less and less, and the moment of the highest aggravation of contradictions between groups of capital of different countries, which is frankly already heading towards a big imperialist war, is rapidly approaching.”

When setting up his first task (to encourage inter-imperialist contradictions), Aleinikov himself did not yet suspect that by the time he reached the third point, the real contradictions of imperialism would have gone so far that there would be very little time left for training intelligent cadres and creating a party, and the moment of greatest aggravation contradictions encouraged by Aleinikov will rapidly approach.

This is called “a child playing in the brain headquarters.” There are no forces yet, but all the missing forces must be thrown into their creation in order to quickly produce intelligent cadres, and from them to quickly mold a party as a central brain headquarters and elect someone to the post of Marx. Aleinikov also does not understand that, according to the objective laws of the development of public consciousness, the WHOLE PARTY cannot be a “brain headquarters.” The party, if built on Leninist principles, can be the vanguard of the working class, and the brains of the party can only be the Central Organ, but without Trotskyists and such “task-setters” as Aleinikov.

Many parties with communist names create their Central Committees from just anyone right at their founding congresses by voting, attributing to them the functions of “brain headquarters.” That is why over the past 30 years, in practice, these “headquarters” have only demonstrated their brainlessness. Today there are several parties with communist names, with a Central Committee, but which do not publish anything that the proletarians of mental and physical labor would evaluate as their publication, authoritative and scientific, like Iskra.

Aleinikov offered modern “communists” an absolutely impossible task, knowing this in advance, and only at the end of his note did he inform his readers about this. It turns out that in order to fulfill the first two tasks, we need smart cadres and the party as a brain headquarters. But there may also be intelligent cadres in the Nazi parties, which, for example, developed the blitzkrieg for Poland, for France, and for the USSR. This plan only did not work in the USSR, since the intelligent Nazis were opposed by Marxists from the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.

And if Aleinikov had been a smart Marxist, he would have known: “...Whoever takes on specific issues without first solving general ones will inevitably at every step unconsciously “stumble” into these general issues. And to stumble blindly into them in every particular case means dooming your policy to the worst vacillations and unprincipledness.”

The creation of a brain headquarters, a central organization, and through it the party - this is the most general strategic task of Proriv for “today”, which without solving, it is absurd to proclaim any particular tasks into space, especially in such insignificant territories as the Baltic states.

I don’t see anything unexpected in the fact that Aleinikov recently decided to join the ranks of the Prorivists. The solution is smart. But he is still very weak in diamatics, and it is a pity that some of the old-timers of Proriv are not yet very concerned about the problem of training and educating new cadres, and react complacently to such publications if they contain r-r-revolutionary words.

Íàïèñàòü
àâòîðó ïèñüìî

Åù¸ ñòàòüè
ýòîãî àâòîðà

Åù¸ ñòàòüè
íà ýòó òåìó

Ïîäåëèòüñÿ â ñîöñåòÿõ