Technology of creeping bourgeois counter-revolution 1985–1993. Chaos in a planned socialist economy
Article continuation Technology of creeping bourgeois counter-revolution 1985–1993. and how to counteract it.
However, the chaos created served not only to discredit the socialist economy. At the same time, it was a justification for radical market reforms and a cover for the enrichment of individual citizens. Radical reforms promoting the transition to a market economy were also well described by S. Kara-Murza (Kara-Murza S.G. Soviet civilization. Book two. From the Great Victory to the present day. M.: Publishing house EKSMO-Press, 2002. 768 p. .).
This was done in several stages. At the first stage, from January 1, 1987, the state monopoly on foreign trade was abolished. 20 ministries and about 70 large enterprises received the right to foreign trade. This move allowed us to kill two birds with one stone.
Firstly, this is an additional blow to the planned economy.
Secondly, these enterprises and ministries immediately became subjects of the global free market. By and large, there was no free market within the country, and its revival would require great effort on the part of counter-revolutionaries and a lot of time. However, as a result of the abandonment of the state monopoly on foreign trade, our largest enterprises suddenly found themselves in capitalist conditions.
We can say that capitalism poured into the country through the wide open gates. This step caused enormous damage to the country. However, from the point of view of the restoration of capitalism, this was a brilliant step. It allowed almost instantly the entire economy of such a huge country as the USSR to set sail on the free market.
In the 20s of the last century, even before the first five-year plans, the issue of the state monopoly of foreign trade was widely discussed in the USSR (for example, L. B. Krasin, Planned Economy and the Monopoly of Foreign Trade. M: Publishing House "Planned Economy", 1925. 40 pp.; Aikhenvald A. Soviet economy. Economics and economic policy of the USSR. M: State Publishing House, 1927. 372 pp.). Here is what A. Aikhenvald says about this (Aikhenvald A. Soviet economy. Economics and economic policy of the USSR. M: State Publishing House, 1927. 372 pp., p. 204):
“The main difficulty of the task was to be closely connected with the world market, not to fall into submission to capitalist forces.
On the one hand, it is necessary to take full advantage of the advanced technology of capitalist countries; it is necessary to adopt this technique and transfer it inside the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, we must prevent capitalist relations from leaking to us from abroad along with the advanced technology of capitalist countries; We must ensure that the connection with capitalism passes along a socialist channel, so that our “capitalist” machines act as levers for socialist construction.”
On the one hand, it is necessary to take full advantage of the advanced technology of capitalist countries; it is necessary to adopt this technique and transfer it inside the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, we must prevent capitalist relations from leaking to us from abroad along with the advanced technology of capitalist countries; We must ensure that the connection with capitalism passes along a socialist channel, so that our “capitalist” machines act as levers for socialist construction.”
It was the state monopoly on foreign trade that acted as an instrument that guaranteed that trade relations with capitalist countries would be transformed into a force acting in the interests of socialist construction and all Soviet citizens.
Thus, by abandoning the state monopoly on foreign trade, the government of M. S. Gorbachev deliberately imported capitalist relations into the Soviet Union.
The work of A. Aikhenvald (Aikhenvald A. Soviet economy. Economics and economic policy of the USSR. M: State Publishing House, 1927. 372 pp.) also sets out the position of L. D. Trotsky, who called for abandoning the state monopoly on foreign trade:
“The essence of the opposition’s argument was that our economic development will inevitably increase our dependence on the world market, that we must accept this increased dependence, because this increased dependence will be tantamount to accelerating the rate of growth of the Soviet economy. Our “orientation” should not be on independence, but on pace, the opposition leaders solemnly proclaimed. And from this they derived the proposition that it is impossible to build socialism surrounded by modern capitalism: the Soviet economy will grow more and more closely into the capitalist world economy, will depend on it, will experience periods of rise and stagnation in accordance with fluctuations in world market conditions, etc. etc., etc.”
It was the path proposed at one time by L. D. Trotsky and rejected by the Bolsheviks that was used by the government of M. S. Gorbachev as part of a plan for the restoration of capitalism in our country under constant mantras about a return to the Leninist path.
The next important law adopted by the government of M. S. Gorbachev was the law “On Cooperatives” (USSR Law of May 26.05.88, 8998 No. XNUMX-XI On Cooperation in the USSR // Consultant Plus. Access date: 10.05.2022/1988/XNUMX), adopted in XNUMX. According to this law, cooperatives could independently decide with whom to enter into agreements and with whom not to enter into agreements, and could independently enter into agreements for export-import operations.
Because of this, as stated earlier, they could work as an economic mechanism for importing “capitalist relations” into the country. In his work “On Cooperation” V.I. Lenin (Lenin V.I. Complete Works. T. 45. M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1970. 730 pp.) writes:
“The system of civilized cooperators with public ownership of the means of production, with the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie - this is the system of socialism.”
But a little later in the same work he will say:
“There is no doubt that cooperation in the context of a capitalist state is a collective capitalist institution.”
Due to the fact that, according to the Law “On Cooperatives” of 1988, cooperatives themselves decided with whom to enter into contracts and could carry out export-import operations themselves, they could potentially become a collective capitalist institution, since they could work directly in the capitalist market.
This is how S. Kara-Murza describes the work of this law in our country in the late 1980s (Kara-Murza S.G. Soviet civilization. Book two. From the Great Victory to the present day. M.: Publishing house EKSMO-Press, 2002. 768 p.):
“At state enterprises and local Soviets, a network of cooperatives and joint ventures quickly emerged, engaged in the export of goods abroad, which sharply reduced supplies to the domestic market. Many goods during speculation yielded revenues of up to $50 per 1 ruble of costs and were bought from enterprises “on the vine.” Some products (aluminum utensils) were turned into easily transportable scrap and sold as material.
According to experts, in 1990, 1/3 of consumer goods were exported. Here is an example: in the winter of 1991, the Turkish government approached Prime Minister V.S. Pavlov with a request to organize a network of service stations for Soviet color televisions throughout Turkey, of which there were already more than a million. According to official data, not a single television was sold from the USSR to Turkey.”
According to experts, in 1990, 1/3 of consumer goods were exported. Here is an example: in the winter of 1991, the Turkish government approached Prime Minister V.S. Pavlov with a request to organize a network of service stations for Soviet color televisions throughout Turkey, of which there were already more than a million. According to official data, not a single television was sold from the USSR to Turkey.”
The Law “On Cooperatives” solved several problems of the restoration of capitalism.
Firstly, this is an additional blow to the planned economy.
Secondly, it created future participants in the capitalist market.
And thirdly, it was here that many future billionaires appeared, for example, R. A. Abramovich, V. F. Vekselberg, B. A. Berezovsky and others.
The economic reforms did not end there, but what has been said is already enough to assert that there was a systematic transition to a capitalist economy.
Thus, in a very short time, chaos was introduced into the planned economy, the country's economy was thrown into the world market economy, and future sharks of capitalist business began to be educated. From an economic point of view, if not all the conditions for the restoration of capitalism were created, then quite comfortable circumstances were created.
However, for the restoration of capitalism to be complete and irreversible, it is necessary to transfer political power to the newly emerging capitalist class. It is at this stage that political games begin with the goal of removing ordinary members of the CPSU and the working class from power.
In 1988, a new election law “On the elections of people’s deputies of the USSR” was adopted and a reform of the political system is taking place (Kara-Murza S.G. Soviet civilization. Book two. From the Great Victory to the present day. M.: Publishing house EKSMO-Press , 2002. 768 p.), a new highest legislative body was established, the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. When they talk about this reform and this election law, they usually pay attention to the following points.
Firstly, it provided a clear advantage for members of the CPSU. It is obvious that the renegade communists did not want to lose power at such a critical moment for themselves.
Secondly, the number of workers and collective farmers among the deputies of this congress was about 23,7%, which is approximately two times lower than in the previous elections. There was not a single worker or collective farmer in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
Thirdly, according to the new election law, public organizations and meetings of voters at their place of residence received the right to nominate deputies (Law about the elections of people's deputies of the USSR in 1988 // Agitclub. (Date of access: 04.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX)).
This is normal practice for socialist China (Law PRC “On elections to the National People's Congress and local people's assemblies at various levels” // Legislation of China. (Date of access: 04.01.2022/1980/XNUMX)), but in the USSR at the end of the XNUMXs, this circumstance was primarily taken advantage of by anti-socialist forces.
Thanks to this, they were able to get into the Supreme Council, including dissidents. This is not usually emphasized, but it is important. Anti-socialist forces imposed their agenda on the Supreme Council and did not allow the planned socialist economy to be put in order, effectively paralyzing the work of the Supreme Council with discussion of issues not related to the economy. This was how the task of bringing anti-socialist forces to power at the initial stage was solved, as well as political cover for the ongoing restoration of the capitalist economy.
The next point of the plan for the restoration of capitalism was implemented in 1990. It was necessary to abolish the “leading role of the CPSU.” As S. Kara-Murza writes (Kara-Murza S.G. Soviet civilization. Book two. From the Great Victory to the present day. M.: Publishing House EKSMO-Press, 2002. 768 pp.), to include the question of the abolition of 6 Articles of the Constitution of the USSR were missing several votes from the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the agenda of the Second Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. On December 12, 1989, a group of anti-Soviet deputies called for a general political strike in support of demands for the abolition of Article 6.
But the majority at the congress also refused to include this issue on the agenda. Despite this, on January 22, 1990, at a meeting of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, M. S. Gorbachev raised the question of abolishing Article 6 of the USSR Constitution. The voice of M.S. Gorbachev himself was decisive when voting in the Politburo (Vorotnikov V.I. And it was like this... From the diary of a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2020. 591 p.). Here the renegade communists were unable to hide behind the anti-Soviet part of the Congress of People's Deputies; they had to show their true colors.
Simultaneously with the 6th article of the USSR constitution, a number of articles of the second chapter of the constitution were rewritten without any discussion or noise (Constitution (Basic Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Adopted at the extraordinary seventh session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the ninth convocation on October 7, 1977. // Historical Faculty of Moscow State University. (Date of access: 04.01.2022/10/11)). These are articles 12, 13, 10, 11, relating to personal and national property. Articles 12, 13, 5, XNUMX were rewritten without public discussion, despite the presence of Article XNUMX in the USSR Constitution:
“The most important issues of public life are submitted for public discussion, and are also put to a popular vote (referendum)”
. This decision received legal formalization at the plenary session of the 3rd Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR on March 14, 1990.
Thus, the country abandoned the construction of socialism, the construction of a just society. Many deputies were unable to overcome the psychological barrier that had developed since the times of the USSR and oppose the decision proposed by the leadership of the CPSU.
Despite the fact that the CPSU was led by renegade communists, the bulk of ordinary communists were for the socialist choice. Therefore, the renegades were faced with the task of destroying an organization hostile to them, the need for which had already disappeared for them at that time. Therefore, it was necessary to move on to the next point of the plan - the destruction of the CPSU. However, after all the reforms, the direct destruction of the CPSU was fraught with a social explosion.
Therefore, it was necessary to find a good reason to destroy it. If there is no reason, then one must be created. For this purpose, the State Emergency Committee was organized. Why do I think that the State Emergency Committee is a provocation? Because they did not take any active actions, did not make any statements, and then just as suddenly, without any reason, the State Emergency Committee ended its existence.
But now the renegade leaders have a reason to ban the Communist Party. The CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR were banned out of court, and the CPSU was also deprived of all property out of court (Kara-Murza S.G. Soviet civilization. Book two. From the Great Victory to the present day. M.: Publishing house EKSMO-Press, 2002 768 pp.). Thus, the point of the plan to ban the Communist Party was fulfilled.
The next point in the plan is to allow owners to exploit people. This point of the plan was fulfilled by B. N. Yeltsin in 1993 (Constitution of the Russian Federation // Wikipedia. (Date of access: 04.01.2022/1993/XNUMX)), after he was shot by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation in October XNUMX.
B. N. Yeltsin’s side clearly indicates the cause of the conflict - the refusal of the Supreme Council to accept the constitution of B. N. Yeltsin, arguing that the old constitution, after many amendments by M. S. Gorbachev, contains contradictions. However, in that constitution, despite all the anti-Soviet amendments, in particular, Article 14 was preserved (Constitution USSR as amended on December 26, 1990 // Website of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. (Date of access: 04.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX)), which reads:
“The source of the growth of social wealth, the well-being of the people and every Soviet person is the labor of Soviet people, free from exploitation...”
In the constitution of B. N. Yeltsin (Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. Initial edition (valid from December 25.12.1993, 13.01.1996 to January XNUMX, XNUMX) // Constitution Russian Federation. All editions. (Date of access: 04.01.2022/8/XNUMX)) there were no such articles anymore. But other articles appeared there. In particular, Article XNUMX:
"1. The Russian Federation guarantees the unity of the economic space, the free movement of goods, services and financial resources, support for competition, and freedom of economic activity.
2. In the Russian Federation, private, state, municipal and other forms of property are equally recognized and protected.”
2. In the Russian Federation, private, state, municipal and other forms of property are equally recognized and protected.”
These articles claim that we will have our own “owners of factories, newspapers, ships,” i.e., bourgeoisie/capitalists who will make up a very small proportion of the entire population. Further article 37:
"1. Labor is free. Everyone has the right to freely use their ability to work, choose their type of activity and profession.”
This article states that all other citizens who do not own private property have every right to choose which private property owner they can work for.
Thus a labor market was created, thereby laying the foundation for capitalist exploitation.
According to supporters of B. N. Yeltsin, after the amendments by M. S. Gorbachev, there were contradictions in the Soviet constitution. The Constitution of B. N. Yeltsin eliminated these contradictions. Exploitation was declared the legal right of those who had private property. There are no more contradictions.
At the same time, the institution of people's deputies was destroyed. Deputies who lived among the people. And a professional bourgeois parliament with separation of powers was introduced. Thus, deputies who were previously part of the people have now become highly paid mercenaries serving the interests of the capitalists. Now capitalism has been restored. The renegades' plan is almost complete. Political power was transferred into the hands of new capitalists.
The last task in order, but not the least important for the renegades, is the privatization of state socialist property. The history of privatization is well described by S. Kara-Murza (Kara-Murza S.G. Soviet civilization. Book two. From the Great Victory to the present day. M.: Publishing House EKSMO-Press, 2002. 768 pp.), and it continues still.
Almost every year, lists of enterprises for privatization are approved (Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2019 No. 3260-R On approval of the program for the privatization of federal property and the main directions of privatization of federal property for 2020–2022 // GUARANTOR – Legislation of the Russian Federation, analytics, comments, practice. (Date of access: 04.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX)). Privatization has two very important consequences.
Firstly, it leads to the division of equal people into oligarchs and everyone else.
Secondly, it was for the sake of privatization that the USSR was divided into fifteen independent republics.
As S. Kara-Murza writes (Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 31, 2019 No. 3260-r On approval of the program for the privatization of federal property and the main directions of privatization of federal property for 2020–2022 // GUARANTOR – Legislation of the Russian Federation, analytics, comments, practice. (Date of access: 04.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX)):
“Public property was the economic basis and condition of the Union (the qualities of the union, Soviet and socialist were mutually determined). Privatization of industry was impossible without dividing the Union, and vice versa, dividing the common property was immediately bound to create interethnic contradictions.”
In other words, all the republics of the USSR were closely connected within the framework of a single planned economy (Kossov V.V. Inter-industry balance. M: “Economy”, 1966. 224 pp.; Nekrasov N.N. Economy of the USSR - an interconnected national economic complex. M.: Publishing house "Znanie", 1973. 64 p.), and this economic connection united them into a single whole stronger than any legal laws.
However, during the restoration of capitalism by the renegade communists, this economic connection was destroyed. On the other hand, the renegade communists wanted to get rid of competitors for the privatization of the most lucrative enterprises of the socialist economy. Which predetermined their division of the USSR into fifteen independent republics.
Thus, the plan for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR was successfully implemented. In some cases, events did not go well for the organizers. For example, during the abolition of Article 6 of the USSR Constitution, when the Congress of People's Deputies refused to raise the question of its abolition, and M. S. Gorbachev himself had to do this. But ultimately, the congress approved the option proposed by M. S. Gorbachev.
Or in the event of the adoption of the new constitution of B. N. Yeltsin, which the Supreme Council refused to accept.
It was necessary to organize an armed uprising, after which a new constitution allowing the exploitation of man by man was adopted.
This suggests that the renegades’ plans were multivariate, that is, they provided different options for achieving their goal. And also that they had reliable support in the law enforcement agencies.
Продолжение следует ...
Information