Is it possible for Russia to return to communism?

[RomanRussian]

What do you think about it, ladies and gentlemen?
As for me that I think that this returning is possible. Quite.
Because the psychology of the most of Russian people during these 12 years (1991--2003) didn't change and many Russian people have a nostalgie about communist period (1917--1991).

[The_bolshevik]

Dear comrade,

I agree with you, it is possible. But on question how, it is not possible to give a short answer.

First of all we must be clear on issue of class nature of USSR. Common error is to understand USSR as socialist country. USSR was not socialist, communist or state under workers´ management. A lot of people are confused, mainly because they don´t know genuine marxist theory.

For more info about the issue on class nature of USSR read Trotsky´s short book "Revolution betrayed" which is clearly the only real Marxist explanation of the class nature of USSR. You can find it here:
http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/t...-rev/index.htm

Trotsky analyses how soviet state degenerated. How workers´ control of means of production was gradually but surely transformed to bureaucratic control of a bureaucratic caste. Mainly because of objective reasons. Control from below to above was changed by control from above to below.

Also important book is Ted Grant´s "From revolution to counter-revolution in Russia." which can be found here: http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/

Ok, now to question how. It is clear that change can´t be achieved through parliament, since main contradiction would remain, private property of means of production.

We must also bear in mind that Russia communist party is very degenerated (controlled by old Stalinist bureaucrats), Zyuganov officially proclaimed, that so called´middle way´ is needed, which is clearly utopian (lenin called this parlamentary cretenism). Officially they are Marxist-Leninists, but in practice they are not.

We can learn from Polish elections very well. Polish communist party (which is also controlled by old Stalinists) was elected and did nothing concrete, nothing a true communist party would do. This is another problem, communist parties in ex SU are mainly controlled and led by Stalinist careerists.

The way to fight is to build a genuine vanguard of working class, based on genuine marxist and Bolshevik theory, which can lead workers to power, as Bolshevik party did.

In Russia there is more or less a genuine marxist organization Rabochaya Demokratya, check http://www.1917.com

more data about future socialist revolution can also be found here:

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/wp2002part1.html
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/wp2002part2.html
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/wp2002part3.html
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/wp2002part4.html

comradely,

[KGB-CCCP]

Greetings The_bolshevik I just want to ask you one question, are you for Stalin or against him. Personally I think that Lenin's ideas don't really work; there are too many stupid people who want the same as the smart. I believe that wages should be equal, but special benefits shouldn't be, and neither should work hours. That way everyone has an equal chance of achieving success no matter how rich or poor you are.
On the similar topic, the public is too changeable. It changes it's opinions constantly and makes stupid rash decisions, so you cannot trust a huge amount of people to do any job well.

Andrei

[The_bolshevik]

KGB-CCCP,

I have just answered on this issue in the topic "Marxism".

I must say that SanRusDiego is right on this issue. You don´t know much of marxist theory I presume. But noone is born with the knowledge of it, so I hope my arguments will only stimulate you in the study.

KGB-CCCP, Stalinism has nothing in common with socialism, not even to mention communism. It is the exact opposite of Marxist teachings. Again, read my reply in thread "marxism".


"Caesarism, or its bourgeois form, Bonapartism, enters the scene in those moments of history when the sharp struggle of two camps raises the state power, so to speak, above the nation, and guarantees it, in appearance, a complete independence of classes in reality, only the freedom necessary for a defense of the privileged. The Stalin regime, rising above a politically atomized society, resting upon a police and officers' corps, and allowing of no control whatever, is obviously a variation of Bonapartism—a Bonapartism of a new type not before seen in history.

Caesarism arose upon the basis of a slave society shaken by inward strife. Bonapartism is one of the political weapons of the capitalist regime in its critical period. Stalinism is a variety of the same system, but upon the basis of a workers' state torn by the antagonism between an organized and armed Soviet aristocracy and the unarmed toiling masses.

As history testifies, Bonapartism gets along admirably with a universal, and even a secret, ballot. The democratic ritual of Bonapartism is the plebiscite. From time to time, the question is presented to the citizens: for or against the leader? And the voter feels the barrel of a revolver between his shoulders. Since the time of Napoleon III, who now seems a provincial dilettante, this technique has received an extraordinary development. The new Soviet constitution which establishes Bonapartism on a plebiscite basis is the veritable crown of the system.

In the last analysis, Soviet Bonapartism owes its birth to the belatedness of the world revolution. But in the capitalist countries the same cause gave rise to fascism. We thus arrive at the conclusion, unexpected at first glance, but in reality inevitable, that the crushing of Soviet democracy by an all-powerful bureaucracy and the extermination of bourgeois democracy by fascism were produced by one and the same cause: the dilatoriness of the world proletariat in solving the problems set for it by history. Stalinism and fascism, in spite of a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity. A victorious revolutionary movement in Europe would immediately shake not only fascism, but Soviet Bonapartism. In turning its back to the international revolution, the Stalinist bureaucracy was, from its own point of view, right. It was merely obeying the voice of self-preservation."

Trotsky makes a marvelous hypotheses:

"In order better to understand the character of the present Soviet Union, let us make two different hypotheses about its future. Let us assume first that the Soviet bureaucracy is overthrown by a revolutionary party having all the attributes of the old Bolshevism, enriched moreover by the world experience of the recent period. Such a party would begin with the restoration of democracy in the trade unions and the Soviets. It would be able to, and would have to, restore freedom of Soviet parties. Together with the masses, and at their head, it would carry out a ruthless purgation of the state apparatus. It would abolish ranks and decorations, all kinds of privileges, and would limit inequality in the payment of labor to the life necessities of the economy and the state apparatus. It would give the youth free opportunity to think independently, learn, criticize and grow. It would introduce profound changes in the distribution of the national income in correspondence with the interests and will of the worker and peasant masses. But so far as concerns property relations, the new power would not have to resort to revolutionary measures. It would retain and further develop the experiment of planned economy. After the political revolution—that is, the deposing of the bureaucracy—the proletariat would have to introduce in the economy a series of very important reforms, but not another social revolution.

If—to adopt a second hypothesis—a bourgeois party were to overthrow the ruling Soviet caste, it would find no small number of ready servants among the present bureaucrats, administrators, technicians, directors, party secretaries and privileged upper circles in general. A purgation of the state apparatus would, of course, be necessary in this case too. But a bourgeois restoration would probably have to clean out fewer people than a revolutionary party. The chief task of the new power would be to restore private property in the means of production. First of all, it would be necessary to create conditions for the development of strong farmers from the weak collective farms, and for converting the strong collectives into producers' cooperatives of the bourgeois type into agricultural stock companies. In the sphere of industry, denationalization would begin with the light industries and those producing food. The planning principle would be converted for the transitional period into a series of compromises between state power and individual "corporations"—potential proprietors, that is, among the Soviet captains of industry, the emigre former proprietors and foreign capitalists. Notwithstanding that the Soviet bureaucracy has gone far toward preparing a bourgeois restoration, the new regime would have to introduce in the matter of forms of property and methods of industry not a reform, but a social revolution.

Let us assume to take a third variant—that neither a revolutionary nor a counterrevolutionary party seizes power. The bureaucracy continues at the head of the state. Even under these conditions social relations will not jell. We cannot count upon the bureaucracy's peacefully and voluntarily renouncing itself in behalf of socialist equality. If at the present time, notwithstanding the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has considered it possible to introduce ranks and decorations, it must inevitably in future stages seek supports for itself in property relations. One may argue that the big bureaucrat cares little what are the prevailing forms of property, provided only they guarantee him the necessary income. This argument ignores not only the instability of the bureaucrat's own rights, but also the question of his descendants. The new cult of the family has not fallen out of the clouds. Privileges have only half their worth, if they cannot be transmitted to one's children. But the right of testament is inseparable from the right of property. It is not enough to be the director of a trust; it is necessary to be a stockholder. The victory of the bureaucracy in this decisive sphere would mean its conversion into a new possessing class. On the other hand, the victory of the proletariat over the bureaucracy would insure a revival of the socialist revolution. The third variant consequently brings us back to the two first, with which, in the interests of clarity and simplicity, we set out."

And bear in mind that this was written 50 years before USSR collapsed. This indeed is a Marxist analysis and it only shows what can be achieved using Marxist method of reasoning.