Dear MIM:
[Translated by pirao5]
Respected Maoist International Movement!
I write you as a Bolshevik named Gachikus from the city of Sterlitamak, Bashkirya, Russia. I write on behalf of the Russian Party of Bolsheviks [hereafter abbreviated "BP"--ed.]. After becoming acquainted with your web page, I have decided to express my opinion on this matter.
1)I saw in your program essential divergence/disagreement with Marxism-Leninism and ideas of Mao. If Mao expressed more hotly the sympathy for the revolutionary movement of the workers of super-powers (see his article "Peoples, that takes into the hands weapon, take into the hands the fate of their country", 1970), then you without grounds declare all workers of super-powers labor aristocracy, which does not correspond to the truth. Indeed imperialists bribe due to the robbery of colonies only a narrow layer of workers -- working in the strategic, large, and most important enterprises, which more easily can be organized in view of their high concentration. With this, imperialists destroy unity of the working class; they disorganize it, which gives to the imperialists the possibility to intensely exploit the proletariat of their own country as well.
You also are not right by saying that the working class of super-powers will be not subject, but object of proletarian dictatorship in revolution. The revolutionary character of the proletariat of super-powers is obvious: recall the powerful first-of-May demonstrations in Germany, Great Britain, anti-imperialist rallies in Austria, skirmishes workers have with the police in South Korea, even in the USA what strength of the appearance into 1999. Recall the strike movement in the USA, in Italy, in Germany and so forth. Denying the revolutionary character of the proletariat of super-powers, you move away from international proletarian solidarity, you flow water to the mill of imperialists, this is exactly what imperialists are hoping for: the broken unity of the actions of the proletariat of super-powers and oppressed peoples of colonies in the fight with capital.
[International Minister replies: None of these struggles BP points to as proof of the class structure of entire countries approach that of May 1968 in France, and still the petty-bourgeois nature of that struggle is evident or it could not have ended with so little to show for it. It did not reflect a thorough awakening of a proletariat, a class with nothing to lose but its chains, the most determined class of recent history.
On the subject of the labor aristocracy, the above is a case of getting bogged down in dogmatism. The assessment by a classic thinker that the labor aristocracy is only a minority layer at one point in history, does not mean that the labor aristocracy is a minority layer for all of history in all countries, and in fact, Marx, Engels and Lenin all said the labor aristocracy is growing. People who think that the labor aristocracy is fixed for all time have abandoned the labor theory of value and would do better to think about classes in general. In general, people claiming to be "Marxist-Leninist" and attacking MIM do not have a good grasp of two things--the distinction between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat on the one hand and the national question on the other hand. MIM has shown repeatedly in its literature how it is possible to stay true to the labor theory of value and calculate the extent of the petty-bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries. The critics of MIM feel no need to approach this question in any scientific detail, because they have bought into populist, bourgeois democratic and dogmatic prejudices. That is not to mention that their aim is social-imperialism--socialism in words while leaving super-profits untouched in deeds.
It is also very odd to say that BP counts Korea, Austria etc. as super-powers. We would doubt that Lenin would even call them "Great nations" engendering extra suspicions of their larger chauvinist tendencies. We believe that BP has twisted international realities to fit a comfortable line for inside Russia.]
BP continues:
2) Speaking about the super-powers, why do you only mention the USA, hushing up about Russia, about China, which now also entered the stage of imperialism, about Korea and so forth. I think it is not necessary to prove, that China now became imperialist state: imperialism-- this supremacy of banks and export of capital, and Chinese commodity-industry bank occupies 6th place among the world's largest banks, China exports capital into 120 countries of world: this is fact. Mentioning only the USA as the super-power and hushing up about Russia, about China, you flow water to the mill of imperialist competitors of USA, i.e., to the mill of Russian imperialism, Chinese imperialism and so forth.
[Internationalist Minister replies for MIM: With regard to Russia and China, in the past we held that Soviet social-imperialism was one of the world's two great enemies. Today there is only one main enemy of the world's people--Yankee imperialism. With regard to Russian imperialism, of course, that is now a question for the Russian Maoist Party. Of course, the Soviet Union was social-imperialist. MIM has never failed to condemn Russian imperialism and in the past the RMP has written to MIM on this question as well. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mayday.html]
BP continues:
3) You call the female gender of superpowers doubly aristocracy; although the women under imperialism and under capitalism generally, are the oppressed gender. For example, average wages of women in the super-powers is only 60% of the average wage of men. Intensifying contradictions between the genders, you, in addition cleave the unity of fight with capital. In more detail our views read below, the "Manifesto of the Russian Party of Bolsheviks."
With Bolshevik regards,
Gachikus
[International Minister replies: MIM's platform includes comparable worth pay in the imperialist countries. However, gender oppression is not mainly about pay issues, which are part of distribution relations in the mode of production. MIM has always carefully said that gender oppression is not the principal contradiction anywhere at this time and has not been this past century. To say that MIM calls biological females of imperialism a double aristocracy and then say we cleave the unity of the fight with capital is a contradiction. MIM is simply more precise in its discussion of gender than others, thanks to the extreme damage that arose from the pseudo-feminist movement in the U$A of the late 1960s and early 1970s.]
BP continues:
The ruling bourgeois regime in Russia, as recently as 5-10 years ago shouting against democracy and frightening people with bloody Bolshevik dictatorship, today itself resorted to dictatorship. "Democratically elected" President Putin, who came to power not without the aid of capital of Berezovski and other oligarchs, has now proclaimed "dictatorship of law." But what is "dictatorship of law" under the conditions of dominance of large capital, under the conditions, when the Duma (law passing organ), and even the attorney general obtains dachas and apartments in Moscow from the hands of private corporations (everything is very "legal," not to worry!), when judges obtain the wage of 28000r. in the month (isn't this bribery from the ruling class?), under the conditions, "when capital buys itself power." (According to the expression of the same Berezovski, who arranged through his lackey SMI grand pre-election advertisements for Putin and his group Edinstvo (Unity).) This is nothing but a dictatorship of capital, i.e., fascist dictatorship, which eliminates eventually even those already curtailed bourgeois "liberties" it guaranteed yesterday. Repressive organs (first of all, FSB) control now the state. For the proletariat, "dictatorship of law" has turned out as bloody terror: the state obtains an outstanding possibility to throw behind bars whoever it wants; moreover, the state does so not for allegedly political views, but for criminal offense, thanks to a great number and variety of articles in the criminal code: (give us a man, we will find the article to put him behind the bars). Examples -- Komsomol member Andrey Sokolov, sentenced for 5.5 years for blowing up the Nicolai II monument; secretary of Tula VKPB, who disappeared, etc.
[International Minister replies for MIM: We have certainly seen many pictures in the West of statues coming down. When is destroying a public statue made into a crime?]
BP continues:
In foreign politics, fascism promotes aggression to other countries, the predatory imperialist war for the possession of colonies -- Chechnya, Kosovo, Central Asia, suppression of national liberation movements.
What does fascism in Russia mean to us?
First, it means that the working class is still too weak to show any resistance to going back to the times of the medieval Inquisition: the proletariat does not yet have its strong organization --the party. Second, it means that the bourgeoisie is already too weak to rule through peaceful, civilized, "democratic" methods. The bourgeois police-bureaucratic apparatus no longer has the support of the people, and it is forced to retain its regime through the bayonet, suspecting all and each dissatisfied of terrorism. It would be too naive to think that the Putin regime could retain its supremacy, if Putin did not have powerful support from opportunism -- bourgeois policy in the working class movement, which damps, which lulls any dissatisfaction. In the epoch of imperialist wars, opportunism takes the form of social-chauvinism--the justification for its, domestic imperialism by patriotic phrases, by demagogy about defending fatherland. The clear example of opportunism is Zyuganov's KPRF. Calling themselves communists, the KPRF at the same time foreswore the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, revolution and international proletarian solidarity. Instead of the contradiction between labor and capital as the principal contradiction of capitalism, Zuyganov advances the contradiction between human and nature. Instead of the fight with the regime/conditions of the bourgeois military/militarism--unity of army, internal primary structures and people. Generally, for the class struggle with the bourgeoisie they substituted a nationalistic fight with Jews, "Chechen terrorists", "damned Americans, who occupied great Russia." From Leninism, Zyuganov took only what is profitable for him: the intensification of the state authority (although Lenin repeatedly emphasized that the bourgeois state machinery must be broken completely, not strengthened; he meant intensification of state authority after the victory of October, when the state was proletarian), and that the Western imperialists -- worst enemies of Russia (although Lenin taught to fight first domestic imperialism, but not to distract attention with the crimes of foreigners). The most progressive class according to Zyuganov is skilled workers (i.e.labor aristocracy, the working bourgeoisie), scientists, professors (although education is a privilege of the bourgeoisie) and other representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, middle class. However, what exactly is so progressive about this petty-bourgeoise, if it is bribed by its more- less supportable existence, fears revolutionary violence, relies on the policeman dictatorship of law -- Zyuganov does not explain.
[International Minister replies for MIM: The struggle against Amerikans is legitimate and should not be mentioned in the same breath as Jews and Chechens. Any inspiration to fight for socialism to bring down U.$. imperialism should not be undercut.
As for military tactics, it should be remembered that there were Soviets composed of soldiers; hence, a slogan of unity with soldiers is not inherently wrong. The context determines the correct approach. Of course, merely strengthening the state is not a goal of communists in the ex-Soviet Union.]
BP continues: On the oppressed class -- the proletariat -- Russian communist number one stutters not a word. The KPRF declared the main direction of it's activity work in the parliament, thus rejecting work with the masses, trading interests of the proletariat for parliamentarian privileges, using the Duma not as means for the propagation of communist ideas, but as a source of privileges. "If the KPRF didn't exist, it should have been created," acknowledges one of the leaders of the bourgeois bloc Otecestvo.(Fatherland). The capitalists understand that the KPRF is necessary for them for removing the masses from the fight, for the prevention of a revolutionary explosion.
Recently the KPRF returned to the slogan "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" on its newspaper Pravda (Truth), and even prints the name of this newspaper in red color. But hardly can these cheap tricks deceive conscious workers. Considerably more dangerous is covered opportunism. For example, the leader of "Working Russia" Anpilov does not reject dictatorship of the proletariat, but this does not prevent him from speaking in favor of the strengthening of the bourgeois army (instead of it's deconstruction.) He did not reject, also, internationalism, but this does not stop him from writing insulting anecdotes about the Jews. In 1999, on the eve of Duma elections, the party's organ "Molnia" ("Lightning") published a comparative table, into which was shown the position of parties on different questions. Anpilov's party, naturally, differs significantly (and positively) in this table from their competitors in the Duma, including Zyuganov's.
But what points did they compare?
An example is the "principal question" regarding Stalin's regime. Anpilov was the only one who respected Stalin, commended his regime. Therefore, he is the true Bolshevik to be voted for.
It seems too easy--praise Stalin and win public support.
Really principal questions, such as war in Chechnya for plunder of Chechen oil, were circumvented. No wonder, otherwise, it would be clear that there is not much difference between Anpilov and Zhirinovky and the rest, who justify expansionist politics of Russian imperialism by nice phrases about "defending the homeland."
In Rostov-Na-Dony, in a rally in front of the court building, Anpilov's party voted for exoneration of colonel Budanov -- a fascist who strangled an innocent Chechen woman.
[pirao5 comments: Some reports say this womyn strangled was a sniper.]
A few words about the Russian Communist Workers' Party (RKRP).
Instead of dictatorship of the proletariat as a civil war with dictatorship of the bourgeois military, they suggest "unity of working and military groups," which "prevent unleashing civil war" (see RKRP program, 1996, page 11) This party also shows a servile attitute to the petty bourgeoisie, declaring the intellegentsia and peasantry it's allies.
Let's talk about the history of the Russian Revolution.
In 1905 both the intellegentsia and peasantry were revolutionary forces, because the revolution was bourgeois-democratic. In February 1917, the intellegentsia, given democratic freedom, was totally satisfied, and stopped being a progressive force; in October 1917 it already played a counterrevolutionary role.
In October 1917, when socialist revolution in the city joined bourgeois-democratic revolution in the country, the peasantry that was fighting for division of landlords' property, for private peasant's property, was progressive. Peasants became satisfied after they received land; many of those peasants who fought in civil war for revolution, opposed collectivization later in the '30ies. Thus, the peasantry as a class is done with it's progressive role. The time of peasant insurrections [Emelian Pugachev, Stepan Rasin--pirao5] is gone forever. The modern peasantry is nothing more than a resource for the bourgeoisie, where it finds new candidates for oppressive structures, such as the MVD [something like KGB--pirao5].
The revolutionary force in the modern Russian countryside is only the landless peasantry -- the proletariat of the countryside. Of course, some parts of intellegentsia and peasantry are going to join revolution, but in general, they cannot be considered allies, because of their privileged status (education for the intellegentsia, land for the peasantry) they will always vacillate between the proletariat and bourgeoisie.
The RKRP apparently didn't take into consideration the experience of the Russian revolution. It rejected international proletarian solidarity. Secretary of RKCM (youth organization affiliated with RKRP) Bilevski wrote: "Developed countries - North America, Western Europe, Japan - are now converted into 'total capitalist,' using superprofits to bribe workers in their own countries. It can be said, that these countries already built 'national socialism,' and cannot be counted on to advance the cause of proletarian revolution."
[International Minister replies for MIM: Bilevski is correct and should not be criticized for this.]
BP continues:
First of all, while talking about developed countries, RKRP forgets about Russia, thus justifying Russian imperialism. Second, imperialists use superprofits to bribe a very small layer of working people in their own countries -- workers in the largest enterprises, labor aristocracy. The vast majority of workers often live in even more miserable conditions than people in the Third World, but it's more difficult for them to organize: they are disintegrated, not concentrated in large plants. [International Minister replies for MIM: This latter point is true in Russia, but if we count Russia as imperialism, and not merely semi-imperialism, it is still a minority portion of imperialism. Western imperialism including Japan is as Bilevski said.] American scientist - Marxist Michael Parenti wrote: "In 1985 a special medical commission on the problem of famine in the U.S. discovered that at least 20 million Americans constantly experience starvation. Famine is a national epidemic in the U.S. -- that was a conclusion."
[International Minister replies for MIM: This malnourishment is concentrated in the oppressed nations of imperialism, not the oppressor nation so-called workers. See our publications for more extensive statistics and breakdowns.]
BP continues:
And, finally, it's not true that First World countries cannot be counted on to advance the cause of proletarian revolution. There is evidence about revolutionary movements in the U.S., Canada, Germany, Italy, England and other developed countries. (Example - strikes)
[International Minister replies for MIM: The revolutionary movements of the imperialist countries have been concentrated in the oppressed nations within the imperialist countries, the lumpen-proletariat and the students. Without Blacks, Latinos, indigenous people, Asians (including Turks in Germany) there would be very little revolutionary movement to talk about within imperialist country borders.]
BP continues:
The RKRP tries to separate Russian workers from American workers by saying that while Russians make $50 a month, Americans make $2000. They forget to mention that prices in USA are also 50 times higher than in Russia.
[International Minister replies for MIM: This is a common apologist falsehood for the labor aristocracy of the imperialist countries. It is disproved by elementary price index statistics cited in MIM publications and simple comparisons of goods and services available for the same money in two countries.]
BP continues:
Our critique of opportunism would be incomplete, if we didn't mention Soviet Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Nina Andreeva--VKPB (AUCPB in English))
The VKPB didn't reject dictatorship of the proletariat. However, VKPB never mentions armed proletariat, disarmament of police and army, disbandment of the court system, which is the very core of the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat.
The difference between VKPB and KPRF is that KPRF rejected dictatorship of the proletariat openly, but VKPB -- in clandestine manner.
"We support real "double-authority" as a real way of returning power to workers, peasants and intellegentsia without civil war" -- Materials of 2nd Congress VKPB, 1996. VKPB rejected ideas of civil war and armed struggle, even though Lenin said that "those to forget civil wars or reject them are guilty of extreme opportunism and rejection of socialist revolution." In 1996 this opportunism wasn't so obvious, but now when there is already civil war in Caucaus against fascist regime, VKPB complains about "Chechen terrorists."
How these "Bolsheviks" are going to establish dictatorship of proletariat without armed struggle is not clear. Real Bolsheviks must be happy that a revolutionary situation is present, and they must use this revolutionary situation rather than complaining about it.
[pirao5 comments: However, the BP also says in this same article that it is time to use parliament since it is not a revolutionary situation right now.]
[May 2009, MIM(Prisons) note: We received notice from the (claimed) author of this article stating that this portion of the translation was incorrect. The author says they did not state that there was a revolutionary situation in Russia, but rather they wrote that Marxists should be glad for the opportunities created for Chechen Islamists. MIM(Prisons) does not have a Russian translator or know the history of the correspondence here, but we add this note in the hopes of not misrepresenting others work. The author claiming responsibility for this document can be found at http://rospbol.okis.ru]
BP continues:
The VKPB blames restoration of capitalism on personalities: socialism died with Stalin. VKPB explains counterrevolution by absence of a person who could take leadership. Thus, VKPB underestimates the role of the masses in history, and gets drowned in bourgeois theory about "heroes and the crowd." Lenin wrote about the danger of possible split in the party, because the party is based in two classes -- the proletariat and peasantry. In 1917 the peasantry supported the proletariat; however, after land was handed to farmers, the peasantry split itself into two camps. Rich peasants turned against the proletariat during the collectivization process. Of course, this split affected the party as well.
Counterrevolution and restoration of capitalism in Russia is also Stalin's fault. If Lenin believed that the most important principle in politics is integrity, Stalin didn't exclude deception as a means of achieving political goal. For the sake of victory in the Great Patriotic war, Stalin disbanded the Comintern, used ideas of great Russian chauvinism, used the idea of god, so popular among Russians (cult of personality -- "For homeland! For Stalin!" - one of the most popular slogans during the war). Thus, Stalin, conformed too much to the petty bourgeoisie/ peasantry, who won the party after his death. This vacillating group of people rejected dictatorship of the proletariat, saying that classes do not exist anymore, and declared party (class organization) "party of whole nation." The state, class system of repression, was declared all-national instead of a reflection of the class structure. The opportunist top of the party eventually became the party's bureaucracy and played a fatal role in the process of counterrevolution. The VKPB didn't analyze class balance in the process of restoration of capitalism.
[International Minister replies for MIM: Disbanding the Comintern was a good idea and only Trotskyists and crypto-Trotskyists harp on it as if conditions were the same in all countries at all times and therefore training revolutionaries were a simple matter of taking instructions from a single center of global communist authority--through no coincidence dominated by Europeans at the time Trotsky wrote about it. Stalin's policies during World War II cannot be blamed for the end of the Comintern. Mao too thought it was a good idea to disband the Comintern and never sought to restore it after Stalin's death.]
BP continues:
In the colonial question VKPB is more revolutionary, but only in theory. It said in "Materials of Congress": "After fastening it's positions within a country, the Russian financial oligarchy got engaged in winning positions abroad. Treaties with Kazakhstan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan and other ex-Soviet republics, ensure creation of financial-industrial groups based on the largest Russian banks. The national bourgeoisie doesn't mind, because it sees in these groups certain guarantee of it's own existence. If this tendency continues, a half century later after the international colonial system collapses, it may be revived again in Russian colonies."
Then VKPB admitted all these facts. However, today, when the national liberation movement is a hot issue of the day, when Central Asian countries struggle against Russian imperialism for creation of a single Islamic state on it's territory, VKPB says that "Real Bolsheviks don't support militant clergy," concentrating on the religious form of the movement, and forgetting it's anti-imperialist core.
"Not true bolshevik" Lenin admired Islamic revolution in Iran, he wrote: "Political protest under religious cover is likely to be found amoung all nations, in a certain stage of their development."
"Not true bolshevik" Stalin wrote: "The revolutionary character of a national liberation movement is not indicated only by presence of proletariat or revolutionary or democratic party. The struggle of the Afgan emir for independence of Afganistan is objectively revolutionary struggle, despite the emir's monarchism."
Moreover, the "religiousness" of national liberation movements was always exaggerated by reactionaries, which is very beneficial for both Islamic and Christian modern Inquisition leaders.
It's interesting, that while talking about the national-colonial question, VKPB totally disregarded Chechnya, probably, considering it still part of Russia. However, in other part of "Materials of Congress" is was said: "Chechen citizens have to vote in a referendum if they want to be part of Russia, have autonomy within Russian borders, or to be totally independent."
Apparenty, if a referendum is conducted by the Russian FSB, 100% will be for unity with Russia. However, Chechens have already voted for independence by the fact of their armed struggle. In 1996 VKPB admitted that Chechnya has a right to be independent. Today, VKPB says that "Chechen terrorists with financial support of the USA try to destroy the integrity of Russian borders."
All history of Chechnya as a Russian colony is a history of a war for independence. Just remember Chechen wars in the 19th century lead by sheik Shamil (Tolstoy wrote about Shamil after participating himself--pirao5) Thus, we believe that including Chechnya (as well as Trans Caucasus, Central Asia) in the Soviet Union was a violation of rights of nations for self-determination. Lenin was right when he said that the very idea of the creation of the Soviet Union was ahead of its time. This is the result of hasty Stalin's policy that he created when he wished to involve Trans Caucasian and Asian nations into socialism as soon as possible. But, as Lenin said, it's impossible to force one into heaven by beating.
Time proved Lenin right, when during WWII Chechnya fought against the Red Army. Another proof is disastrous collapse of the Soviet Union with massacres in Tbilisi, Riga, etc.
Today the main slogan of VKPB is restoration of the USSR. However, this is not going to be the USSR: it will be Russian Empire. Even with the formal right to create independent states it will always be possible to denigrate the national liberation movement by saying that it's not a people's movement, but financed by America.
[International Minister responds: MIM agrees with this. With regard to the Chechen question, MIM defers to the Russian Maoist Party. Proletarians should only die for progressive causes, including communist-led national liberation struggles and civil wars to overthrow bourgeois and semi-feudal rule. Proletarians should not kill each other to benefit their "own" national bourgeoisie. If proletarians find themselves in a situation where they are being sacrificed by bourgeois rulers with ties to arms-dealers, drug-dealers and the rest of capital, then they should focus on overthrowing their own bourgeoisie and uniting with the international proletariat.]
BP continues:
Lenin said that it's possible to talk about creation of a Soviet Union (i.e. import of socialism) only when we are absolutely sure of socialism in our own country. Those who talk about restoration of the Soviet Union without having yet Soviet power in Russia itself, are not only being stupid, but criminal, because such a notion justified the colonial politics of Russian imperialism.
[International Minister replies for MIM: MIM agrees with this last paragraph too.]
BP continues:
In regards to Yugoslavia and Kosovo issues, Nina Andreeva also expressed herself as social-chauvinist. She accused American imperialists of bombing Yugoslavia, and said nothing about Putin's military which does the same thing under the cover of "defending of Slavic brothers."
The Kosovo issue was created in the 40ies, when Tito, supported by American capital and labeled by international communist movement as fascist, annexed these territories, rich with coal deposits and other mineral resources, even though they were populated by Albanians. This policy was supported by Khruschev and Brezhnev.
Refusal to admit the progressivness of Kosovo and Macedonian Albanians means supporting fascists, such as Tito and Putin and Khruschev-Brezhnev opportunists.
[International Minister replies for MIM: Perhaps this is getting to be too pro-Amerikkkan, because the Bolshevik Party writer is not explicitly condemning U.$. bombing of Kosovo. It's not surprising that those who see no petty-bourgeois majority in Amerika also see bombing Kosovo as progressive. One leads to the other. If the Bolshevik Party wants to take Amerikkkan aid to overthrow the Russian bourgeoisie, just as Lenin had a hand from the German Kaiser, that is fine, but there is no need to alter geo-political or class stances.
On the other hand, MIM has to admit, based on reading Enver Hoxha, Comintern documents and Tito, that the situation in ex-Yugoslavia does give some grounds to ethnic Albanians fighting for greater Albania. The fight during World War II to liberate Yugoslavia occurred in a very limiting context created by Hitler. Hitler at first appeared to offer "Greater Albania" while focussing on the Serbs, so there was a question of Albanian determination to fight the Nazis. Hoxha never got a chance to mobilize Albanians as Albanians against the Nazis.
Hence, we see nothing sacred about Yugoslavia's World War II borders. However, we are still not in favor of proletarians killing proletarians for a bourgeois republic. If we assume that Germany is less likely to become socialist than the ex-Soviet Union, then it remains true that ex-Yugoslavia will have some reason for retaining an Albanian national minority within its borders, instead of the borders of a greater Albania which would lean toward Germany. Obviously that notion is much more speculative than it was during World War II when actual Nazi Germany faced the actual USSR in war; therefore, today, when all republics are bourgeois, we can not say it is a just war for Albanians to fight simply for a greater Albania. It can only be justified in proletarian eyes if the Albanians choose a communist-led national liberation struggle, which by its very nature will also enjoy the support of proletarian Serbs, Greeks, Macedonians etc.
See also, http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mayday.html]
BP continues:
The VKPB pays a lot of attention to a "very principal question" of return of the Soviet anthem and flag as Russian state insignia, and doesn't understand that emphasizing these issues only diverts the proletariat's attention.
The VKPB accuses American imperialism of exploiting Russia, but doesn't say anything about Russian imperialism that does the same thing to Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Asia. Moreover, VKPB regrets that shrewd American capitalists exploit other countries, but our own stupid capitalists only exploit our own nation.
VKPB newspapers write a lot about discrimination against Russians in Ukraine, Baltic, Kazakhstan, but hushs up facts about terror against Trans-Caucausians and Asians in Russia. VKPB criticized Putin not because he started a criminal war in Chechnya, but because he cannot finish it victoriously.
The VKPB names Zionism as a most aggressive force of imperialism, diverting attention from Russian nationalism. Zionism could be "most aggressive force of imperialism" for Israeli Bolsheviks; when Russians say so, it sounds more like anti-semitism. Moreover, VKPB believes that anti-semitism was caused by Zionism, which justifies Russian nationalists who have anti-semitic feelings.
The VKPB rejects the idea of work in parliament, saying that the communist party in bourgeois parliament becomes bourgeois, and French and Italian parties are expamples of such transformation. [Start bold faced here.] However, Lenin said, that during a period of reaction, when the situation is far from revolutionary, Bolsheviks must use even most reactionary parlaments as a means of propaganda of communist views. [End their bold-face.] Boycott of parliamentarian activity is justified only during periods of revolutionary upheaval, which is not happening now.
Nina Andreeva called her party "most scientific, most theoretically correct, with the most precise analytical approach, vanguard, much ahead of the time." Stalin was so right when he said that an arrogant party stops being revolutionary force.
This is exactly what happened to VKPB. This party got too engrossed in resolutions, sanctifying (instead of studying) of Stalin, nostalgia for Stalin epoch (instead of critical analysis) and became just another religious sect.
Opportunism of official communist parties compelled us, Russian Bolsheviks, to create our own party.
Our main principles:
1) Dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. total arming of the oppressed proletariat, civil war against fascist dictatorship, disarmament of army and police, disbandment of courts, parlament, etc., taking over banks, plants, factories; salary of government bureaucrats shouldn't be higher than average salary of worker; workers' control of profits of enterprises.
2) Military intervention of Russia in Chechnya, Balkans and Central Asia is imperialist war; we, as true internationalists, are for defeat of Russian imperialism in these wars, for converting imperialist war into civil war against the Russian government.
3) Solidarity with the working class in the First World - USA, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc.
Our main allies: International of oppressed peoples of Afganistan, Central Asia, Chechnya, Kosovo. We admire these national liberation movements. Of course, there there is a bourgeois-democratic, rather than socialist revolutionary process, but it corresponds to the level of development of these countries. On the other side, Russian imprerialism slows down their development, strengthening fascist dictatorship by exploiting colonies. We, Russian proletarians, can defeat our mutual enemy -- Russian fascism -- only in union with oppressed and insurgent colonies.
--Bolshevik Party writer July, 2001
Contact MIM by writing mim3@mim.org