Thursday, 24 November 2011


The Proletarian of all countries, unite!
ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY of BOLSHEVIKSCentral –°ommittee_______________________________________________________________________

198516. Leningrad, Petrodvorets-6, box 50 "22"novembre 2011
telephone / fax(812) 427-24-69E-mail: ck@vkpb.ruhttp: // www.vkpb.ruE-mail:
To the President of the III Anti-Imperialist Conference of the International Anti-Imperialist and Coordinating Committee of People's Solidarity,
General-Secretary of the IAPSCC Comrade Manik Mukherjee
Co-organizer of the International III Anti-Imperialist Conference
President of the Socialist Party of Bangladesh
Participants of the International Forum

Dhaka, Bangladesh 27-29 November 2011.


The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (AUCPB) greets all participants and organizers of this very important forum. We sincerely wish the Conference success and taking crucial decisions.
The forum is being held during the acute tense international situation caused by the U.S., Israel and European countries - participants of the aggressive NATO bloc. The political and military thuggery adopted in U.S. foreign policy, violating all norms of international agreements and the UN Charter, today is most brutally cracking down on leaders of independent states carrying out their own policy, despite the cry from the U.S.. The armed bandit extermination of the flourishing state of Libya by massive bloody bombing by NATO Air Force of civilian quarters of cities and the Libyan capital, the sadistic destruction of its leader Muammar Gaddafi on the orders of the United States causes pain, resentment, anger and hatred towards the usurpers, who imagine themselves as democrats and advocates of human rights. People have to realize that these are not the last victims of the mad maniacs - crusaders of the twentieth and early twenty-first century. It is imperative that the military and political gangsterism drunk with permissiveness USA be stopped at all costs!
Our organization we call an organization of the anti-imperialist struggle, our main aim must be, above all, to carry on a truly anti-imperialist struggle against the crazed monster, against the United States, which imagines itself as the ruler of the world that has become unipolar by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and which the USA had a direct hand in. The frank recognition of the period in 1992 by U.S. President Bush senior, confirms the U.S. involvement in the collapse of the Soviet Union: "We spent $ 4 trillion dollars to win the Cold War and in comparison with the sum of $ 24 million dollars which the U.S. intends to spend now – this is certainly small change. The democrats in the Kremlin are able to guarantee our security much more reliably than did nuclear missiles (and 166 times cheaper!) (newspaper “Izvestiya”, ru 11.04.1992).
Today, the empire of evil is in a state of protracted crisis and pre-default, all the while delaying its onset artificially by printing unlimited paper dollars, not secured by gold reserves. The imaginary power of the United States now relies on the fact that many countries are known to hold their foreign reserves in U.S. dollars, and with the crash of the dollar, will lose their money. That is what forces the rescuing of the dollar as the world currency, thereby prolonging the U.S. madness. But this is temporary. Soon everything will change. The Euro is not going away from the scene. China expresses its desire to make the yuan the currency of the world.
Today, U.S. power rests not on the U.S. economy, giving strong slippage, but to a large extent on U.S. military power. The U.S. has enveloped the whole world with a dense web of military bases, of which today there are more than 1,000 (including being directly in conflict zones), they have powerful naval fleets in every ocean, a global air network, military satellites in space, as well as nuclear missiles on high alert, targeting of potential adversaries and their military installations.
The PENTAGON is one of the largest landowners in the world. Its military bases occupy 12.726.668 hectares with a staff strength of about 2 million troops and civilian support personnel amounting to 2.303.280 people. Over the past 10 years, the U.S. has expanded its military network around the world. The Pentagon has recently opened six new bases in Colombia. In Australia in the near future will be posted a further 2500 infantrymen. Lately, the U.S. has created a network of secret military bases in different parts of the world deploying unmanned MQ-9 Reaper in them. These are shock-reconnaissance UAV-s capable of carrying guided bombs, remain in the air 24 hours and climb to an altitude of 13 km. These UAVs will be deployed in secret U.S. bases in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, Ethiopia and the Seychelles. Aircraft of this type are already in use in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Oceania. Now, a plan in being implemented to create floating military bases, mobile, well equipped with modern military equipment and nuclear weapons, but with a smaller contingent of troops.
The United States, whose population is 4.54 per cent of the world's population, are investing in wars and preparations for war, more than all other countries combined.
President Obama has asked for military spending in 2012, including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, amounting to 729 billion dollars (comparable to all the expenses of the Second World War). Compared with 2001, the regular budget for the Ministry of Defense in 2012 has almost doubled.
Obama Administration Statements and actions it has taken recently, indicate that U.S. military activity in the world will continue to grow. According to reports and available documents, the future of America is in war, and even more ambitious than ever.
Obama vigorously continues the wars started by the Bush administration, and enhances the unparalleled military might of the U.S.. Of the four-year defense policy review (the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), it follows that the U.S. is preparing for a new world war, taking advantage of nuclear weapons. ( J.A.S.USA 26.05.2010). The United States feels its main adversaries to be China and Russia (although they are not called this out loud.) The U.S. has surrounded China, Russia with anti-missile bases, which will be able to block any retaliation by them in the event of a U.S. attack on these countries. Against Russia, the U.S. has long developed a combined system of precision-guided weapons and creating today a layered missile defence system.
Americans in the event of a global conflict are planning to destroy Russia's nuclear potential with a "preventive" pre-emptive strike from areas where the U.S. is based. The remaining missiles when launched on American soil the Pentagon will plan to catch using the new "laser" missile defence group, intercepting them via space. A few days ago the U.S. had already made statements that they will not give Russia any legally binding guarantees about the U.S. missile defence system being directed against Russia, that is, they say directly, against whom they have directed their defence systems. If Americans realise their missile defence system, they will actually have the monopoly over nuclear weapons, and then a new Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inevitable.
According to military expert of China, Cai Xu "China is inside a dense anti-missile ring, which begins in Japan and extends through the South China Sea to India and ends in Afghanistan. It is absolutely clear that China and Russia heads the U.S. list of "potentially hostile states."
Minister of Defence of the last two administrations - Bush and Obama says: "Success in future wars will depend on success in the wars we are in now." The minister did not specify what "future" wars he had in mind. The report further states that the U.S. victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is only a "first step towards achieving strategic goals."
The Obama administration states the "need for a powerful force capable of protecting U.S. interests in the face of numerous threats, including those originating from two simultaneously hostile states," [+]. "Plus" – this scheme involves large-scale "anti-terrorist" operations like the one now taking place in Afghanistan. Other implicit objectives are "Al Qaeda" and "failed" states like Somalia and fully defensible countries, unwilling to submit to America such as Syria, Iran, DPRK (North Korea), and soon perhaps Venezuela.
Syria. The situation in Syria is being aggravated dramatically: the opposition has already created a "Liberation Army", there is an active arming of thed opposition from neighbouring countries (Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon). The "Arab" Arab League (League of Arab States, which set the tone for oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf are faithful allies of the U.S.) apply pressure on Syria, making an ultimatum, recalling ambassadors, imposing sanctions, etc., after the Arab League is Turkey. They failed to push through a resolution by the UN Security Council, now filed a new resolution (the same trio - France, England, Germany) in the General Assembly, etc. ., France insisted on the introduction of a "no-fly zone" as in Libya. The same Libyan scenario is being worked through, and the UN Security Council disagreement («VETO» Russia and China), et will not stop the United States, just as it was with Iraq.
Venezuela is also already in the queue. Chavez has repeatedly warned that in Venezuela a military coup in connection with the presidential elections next autumn is being planned.
Frequent, demonstrative, in fact, the maneuvers "unknown" large submarines in the territorial waters of Venezuela (the last - in November this year) confirmed forecasts for the presence of a comprehensive plan to overthrow the Bolivarian government. The region has almost completed the deployment of air and naval bases in the "privatization" of the armed forces of allies - Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, has made a number of islands in the Caribbean Sea to land aircraft carriers, with which (according to Pentagon intelligence development) is planned to put missile-bomb strikes on the territory of Venezuela in the "Hour X-Men."
The U.S. military is preparing a course in Spanish. "It is quite possible - say politicians - that these men, dressed in the shape of the Bolivarian army would be used for sabotage." Plan "Hour X-Men" includes:
tightening campaign against "the Chavez regime," which allegedly violates "human rights and democratic freedom" spread through the media "predictions" about the threat of regional conflict (the fault of Venezuela) in order to justify military intervention in U.S. domestic affairs. Then getting to the projected parts of Venezuela and Special Forces intelligence to enhance the combat power of counter-revolutionary groups, establishing a reliable connection with the "coalition forces", which will skolochena modeled on the one that operated in Libya. With the help of a "fifth column" will be destroyed most loyal commanders to Chavez. Particular attention will be paid to carrying out acts of sabotage against air defense systems to create favorable conditions for airstrikes.
The Brazilian military, of course, disregarded the fact of activation of the Fourth Fleet US and U.S. strategic nuclear submarines in the Atlantic. The Pentagon is concerned not only the "neutralization" of Venezuela and other "populist" states, but also "care" for rich hydrocarbon deposits off the coast of Rio de Janeiro and in the shelf state of Esp√≠rito Santo. «Petrobras» estimates potential oil reserves in Brazil at 35 billion barrels!
President Chavez has no illusions with regard to the aggressive nature of U.S. imperialism, and therefore from the outset of his presidency, fought for the creation of a regional security system. Now in the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), a council on the defensive.
Iran. Muammar Gaddafi has just been just killed, and the IAEA, a body established under the UN, which should be in the service of peace in the world, presents a report that puts the world on the brink of war with nuclear weapons against Iran, a war that the American empire, together with the UK and Israel, has long and carefully planned for.
Israel, which has never recognized its status as a nuclear country (nuclear weapons, were given by the U.S.), currently has 200 to 500 nuclear units. Scientists warn that an explosion of 100 units of strategic nuclear weapons would be enough to put an end to life on the planet. All living things suffer as a result of the ensuing death followed by a nuclear winter. Note also that Israel is at the center of the region, where there is concentrated a huge portion of energy - oil, gas) ... In this region of the Middle East, Israel has nuclear weapons, acts as a tool of imperialism (primarily American), and colonialism. It should be remembered that Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor at Osirak (Iraq) in 1981, a Syrian reactor in Dir al-Zara in 2007. The world was not informed of this, although the UN and the IAEA knew about these events. Both the destruction of reactors was carried out with the support of U.S. and NATO. Recently, "AP" - the most informed agency of the U.S. - reported: "The supreme Iranian leader warned the U.S. and Israel that if his arch-enemies carry out a military attack on Iran, Iran's response will be devastating ..." The publisher of the American magazine «EIR» believes that an attack on Iran start a World War III. One of the U.S. Undersecretaries of State said: "Israel and the United States will take part in joint manoeuvres - the most important ones" and "in the most transcendent one" in the history of the Allies. In the exercises will take part American and Israeli troops (over 5,000) and a test carried out to test Israeli defence from ballistic missiles. On 11/13/2011, U.S. ambassador to the UN told the television channel "BBC," that a military invasion of Iran ... is a realistic option for action ... The American administration is coming to the conclusion that it is necessary to put an end to the current regime in Iran in order to prevent the creation of nuclear weapons in this country... I'm a convinced supporter of the idea that a change of regime in this country is our sole choice... "
The DPRK has practically been in a long time state of undeclared war with the U.S., which is constantly organizing on the border of the DPRK military exercises - "exercises" with the presence of nuclear weapons, "exercises" with the armed forces of South Korea and often Japan. Only the presence of nuclear weapons by the DPRK is saving the country from its barbaric destruction by the U.S..
As we can see, the U.S. going crazy by doing what it wants and leading the world perilously close to the beginning of World War III, which can not be but nuclear. There will be no winners in the coming world war!
Why has this happened? HOW is it that human development has brought itself to the end of its own existence? We have to admit that now we have entered a stage of profound systemic crisis of civilization, which is manifested in all spheres of human activity - the deepest crisis of the world economy, accompanied by a global political crisis with the destruction of all aspects of the existing world order and the social fabric of life (the UN, at least, is no longer able to perform its functions), an ecological crisis as a result of anthropogenic activities of civilization. All this is interfaced with the crisis of the human beings, a spiritual crisis, a crisis of consciousness, the loss by man of each and every orientation.
Imperialism is looking for a way out through the organization of war. "War is inevitable under capitalism, especially in its imperialist stage." (V.I.Lenin,The Compete Works.v.26, p.165. ru) According to Stalin - imperialism carries the contradictions of capitalism to the extreme (which we are witnessing today), from which revolution begins. A socialist revolution. "Without socialism there is no salvation of mankind from war, famine, and the death of millions of people" (V.I.Lenin, The Complete Works.vol.31, p.130. ru). "To eliminate the inevitability of war, imperialism needs to be destroyed" (J.V. Stalin, Works, vol.16, p.179. Under editorial of R.

The course of world history of the early twenty-first century, the anti-imperialist processes in Latin America, the systemic crisis of imperialism, the imperialist world now sweeping the community, indicate that we are on the verge of great social change and we must be prepared to correctly understand and correctly to realize the. The development of modern history shows that the twenty-first century to be the century of socialist revolutions, a century for the victory of socialism in most countries.
The duty of every Communist, every honest man is to take an active part in the anti-imperialist and anti-globalization struggle, as it is - a kind of struggle for SOCIALISM, because it links in with the single struggle for SOCIALISM.
Today to remove the oppressive situation is possible only through a return to a multipolar world, as it was when the Soviet Union existed. But the opposing block should really confront the United States and therefore must be anti-imperialist, such as the ALBA block (Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador).

WE, the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, appeal to all delegates of the III Anti-Imperialist International Conference to:
Demand from their governments:
Removal from the territory of their country of U.S. military bases as sources of increased danger of independence;
Refusal to support U.S. policy, because everywhere its goes, it is to the detriment of the country, its people and all humanity.
We call on the ordinary citizens of the USA - to stop the madness of their authorities!
After all, nothing will be left unanswered. And retaliation on the part of the downtrodden in the world can be expected at any moment. But in these acts of retaliation will suffer ordinary people, people of America guilty of nothing.
U.S. Citizens! Get up in the ranks of our common struggle against American imperialism bandit!
Join our ranks of our common struggle against American bandit imperialism!
Take part in anti-imperialist demonstrations! The authorities are afraid of only one thing – the organized people on the streets and squares.

Imperialism is now obsolete and historically will be compelled to give way to a more progressive and humane system - SOCIALISM.
We believe in it and fight for it!

N.A. Andreeva
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the AUCPB

Thursday, 14 July 2011


Modern China in the political arena most of all, presents itself as a kind of "thing in itself”, talk of which, risks uncertainties. However, the occupying by the Middle Kingdom of second place in the world in GDP terms, indicates the success of the country's economy, which is impossible to ignore. The appearance of an excellent booklet by A.A. Mayevsky, entitled "Modern China"
is fully justified. At the same time, there are no grounds to say that part of his book, describing the economics of China, fully clarifies the situation.
First of all, an analysis of the political life of China can not build on the economic patterns of Western analysts of the world market for one reason: this material in itself is a basis for inflating the "financial bubble" and clarity in the analysis is not added. At the same time, we must not forget that the political component of Chinese life should not be taken out of the overall picture of the former Third World countries which are now the developing world. And in this developing world, the Celestial Empire has become the recognized leader. In addition, current speculation by present day "communists" that pop up from time to time in bourgeois parliaments about the success of China, on the one hand, is justified, but on the other hand, is a traditional expression of "parliamentary cretinism" by "leftist" MPs masking the imperialist essence of exploitation. And this should be discussed in more detail when this business touches upon the essence of anarcho-syndicalism.
But when analyzing the current state of China, one can not ignore the phenomenon of the selling of labour power for maintaining the services of imperialism. Accordingly, the alliance between the Chinese bourgeoisie, which has become the leading force of society, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is cautious . As such, the alliance seeks the establishment of National Socialism. And all this on a the background of the fact that the role of Fuehrers in the modern world of imperialism have already been allocated, since those willing to perform the functions of the world of violence have taken shape in the face of American and Zionist capital, ready at the first opportunity to launch their military machine of repression into action.
Therefore, examining China is possible only through the prism of the modern national liberation struggle, marked by Lenin as "concessions on capitalist foundations means war." That is, it makes sense to analyze it only through similar stages of Soviet Russia’s exit of from the clutches of concessions, since the modern developing world is also seeking to break free from imperialist stranglehold. And here you can see many similarities between the 1920-s in the young Soviet republic and the current years in the developing world. In essence, we must consider how the patriotic section of the bourgeoisie was able to help in the electrification of the entire country "when the productive forces of the working class of Russia were very weak. Now what is required is an assessment of the ability (or patriotism) of that section of bourgeoisie of the Middle Kingdom, with which it can fit into the “electrification of the whole of China", when the productive forces of the country are not yet able to assume the leadership role.
We can not ignore the fact that the wave of revolutionary unrest in the Muslim world is expressed, above all, by the interests of small capital, crushed by imperialism and by their own dictators. At the same time, the military vehicles of U.S. and NATO have dramatically stirred into action, and like a magnet, have gravitated towards the oil-bearing regions of north Africa and the Middle East in order to impose their order in those areas. Therefore, the wave of national liberation struggle in the Islamic world, which expresses the interests of the economic base of electrification in need of accessible energy resources, the U.S. and NATO unleash a policy of imposing unaffordable prices for "black gold". That is, if in fact this struggle tends to demand lower prices for gasoline and natural gas, which in the long term applies to the whole energy sector, this demand finds confirmation in low electricity tariffs. Moreso, this access applies to the entire energy transmission of a developing country, and ensures stability at the enterprises owned and run the national bourgeoisie. And then these revolutionary waves for affordable energy at the grassroots level, imperialism seeks to translate into an economic crisis, which can be created only due to additional printing of dollars in the U.S.. At this stage, the revolutionary forces are forced to either apply a policy of nationalization of enterprises, pointing them towards prices of their own existing "black gold", or the national economy without its own energy, has to go for a merger with foreign capital and, consequently, suffer a cataclysmic rise in inflation, caused by the work of the dollar printing press. The problems of such revolutions lie always in their duration, i.e. the ability to retain "the electrification of the entire country" to ensure national interests for as long as possible. The faster imperialism penetrates into the management of such economies of developing countries, the faster the flywheel begins to spiral up inflation, which raises a new wave of revolutions. And the same scenario is repeated, the foundations of which Marx outlined way back in the XIX century. But if, as in China, its own base of electrification has been created, able to withstand inflation imposed by imperialism, then the country can put forward its plans to increase GDP and development.
The difference of economic approaches towards the understanding of development, is that in place of monetary parity of gold, there arrived a new gold parity - the consumption of "black gold" (oil) in production. It is for this "black gold" that the modern-day class struggle is being carried out. However, in these conditions, imperialism unleashes its accountants and demands payments in dollars, rather than in the cost of energy. In this case, the leading U.S. economists impose their own pricing policies on all the rest of us. As a result of such pricing policies, imperialism itself establishes wages and living standards in all countries. Those countries which do not agree with this, fall under economic sanctions or embargos, balancing on the brink of military intervention by the U.S. and NATO.
China's political system can not be regarded as just a growing imperialist power. It should be judged as a power that has to to reckon with the established orders of imperialism on the world stage. In this case, the desire of CCP to create its own economic base is quite clearly demonstrated, which is based entirely on state energy, corresponding to policy of the yuan and its own agriculture. This gives grounds to see a significant part of the “electrification of the whole of China” in industrial potential. But the trouble is for the Chinese people and its leadership, is that the main source of energy for such electrification is coal. For the country itself has only reserves of coal on which long-term economic policy can be built. But this energy source is very time consuming and can not actively increase productivity. The buying of oil and gas on the world market is expensive and puts energy under constant price fluctuations. Fluctuations in prices do not allow electrification to become stable in developing countries. Therefore, in China one will see a doubling of the economy: on the one hand, "the electrification of the whole country”, and on the other, a game on the world market under the laws of imperialism. Actually, on the global market, one can only exist under the laws of imperialism, since by acting according to humane laws in front of "jaws" of the market, we resign ourselves to being eaten up.
The presentation by the CCP of some moral requirements for such an economic policy is all quite meaningless. Since the responsibility for the situation in China is carried by Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev and their surrounding "loyal Leninists." That Khrushchev, Brezhnev partocracy pushed the Chinese communists away from Soviet oil and later from gas at stable prices. And what was the reason? The reason was Stalin. If the Chinese comrades rejected Stalin, they would get their oil and gas. Otherwise, oil and gas would go to the Eastern European allies who had turned their backs on Stalin. And as it turned out, these allies had simultaneously rejected the electrification of their own countries. For example the closest associate of the USSR, Poland, stated a couple of years ago that it was not worried by the European debates about gas, because 95% of their own energy needs are met by using their own coal, and that says a lot. Where then, did the Soviet oil and gas flow to, if all these "Druzhba" pipelines and other "pipes" were built for the electrification of its closest allies? It turns out that the energy went further and into West only to return to Eastern Europe as payment in dollars for rejecting electrification.
With regard to the contradictions of China's economy, they are derived from the impact of the initial economic leap, as the revolutionary success of the country during the transition to socialism was compensated by the industrial breakthrough reached with the assistance of the Soviet Union and Stalin personally. On this leap, China gained its electrification, which was literally in its infancy. After the betrayal by "the loyal Leninists" of the Soviet Union, all subsequent economic breakthroughs initiated by the CCP did not give the desired results, because its own economic base of electrification remained at the 1950-s level. Not having any significant oil and gas reserves, China's next economic breakthrough could be realized only on the reforms of Deng Xiaoping's "socialism with Chinese characteristics." The basis of these "characteristics" was simply the hiring out the Chinese labour force for recruitment by imperialism. At the same time, the capacity of Chinese coal-fired power stations (something similar to early Soviet electrification – GOELPO) began to increase. And under this consumption of coal at their own power station plants, their own currency base - the yuan took shape. Their own reformed agriculture fell under the yuan. Everything else was handed over under the custody of the dollar. What might have been the alternative to such a policy? The alternative could only have been the complete surrender of China to the mercy of imperialism. Surrender of the Latin American type, with a dictator of a Somoza or Pinochet type.
Then the logical question arises: what happened to those countries which have placed themselves at the mercy of imperialism?
The answer is contained in the examples of countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both these states are leading exporters of oil and the leading apologists for Islam. And while these countries were compling with all demands of the U.S., the dollar was dictating all the conditions. But in 1979, Iran had the Islamic revolution which overthrew the pro-U.S. shah and established an Islamic regime, with national interests aimed at the realisation of energy reserves. At that time, Saudi Arabia, located in the Arabian Desert and known for its Mecca, as a place of worship of the prophet Muhammad, is doing everything to rescue the dollar, by increasing oil exports. This sparsely populated country, which uses a mainly foreign labour force and specialists in oil, though rescuing the struggling dollar, after Iran left the watchful eye of the U.S., it has been unable to provide reliable support for the dollar. There is a growing crisis. The opportunists brought the economy of the USSR to its knees before imperialism, and the energy resources from post-Soviet territory have rushed to rescue and support the dollar. And there still is not enough to prop up the dollar. In Iran, the Islamic revolution creates its own domestic energy, accelerating the construction of its own nuclear power plant in Bushehr. Oil prices are increasing. We are entering the world economic crisis of capitalism. But this crisis does not hurt countries such as China, India, Brazil, Argentina, etc. These countries are developing, they have found their own bases of electrification or reliable allies in the supply of energy. And the more large underdeveloped countries have their own bases of electrification, the less they need the mediation of the dollar and even may well do a substantial part of procurement with friendly countries without the dollar. Venezuela, Iran and other countries are such countries that are only just creating their own bases of electrification.
This example is similar to the occurrence in Soviet Russia in the electrification of the entire country, starting with the occurrence of concessions offered by the West. Then, Lenin warned of their size: "Concessions are not terrible if we give the concessionaires a few factories, keeping most of them for us, that’s nothing terrible. Of course, utterly ridiculous it would be if the Soviet government handed out a big part of what belongs to it to concession: then that would not be a concession, but a return to capitalism." (MSS, t.32, pp. 275). And since the bulk of the industrial potential of countries such as China, India, Brazil and others, present their own resources handed over together with the workforce as a concession to imperialism, then there can be no talk about an independent economic policy of the developing world. They follow a policy of economic requirements of capitalism. However, the output of China in second place in the world in GDP, suggests a planning policy by the governing structures of the CPC, which can be carried out only on the basis of their own electrification. Therefore there is respect in the CPC for Stalin's role in history, revealed not only in the respect of traditions, but also expressed as a direct continuation of the cause of Stalin in the economy. Hence it is not random attacks by the U.S. against the policy of the Yuan, which has stood on guard over electrification of the whole of China. Suffice to say that those developing countries that have a relative base of electrification, do not fall under the bastion of imperialist bellicose statements. Therefore, at this stage of development of China, all will depend on what benefits the proletariat will receive from the development of electrification and whether it can form itself into an independent working class?
Oddly enough, but here the question arises. And what is more important in the struggle against imperialism: to build socialism or build ones own base of electrification?
The answer is quite simple. Without its own base of electrification, not one socialism will be able to stand the test of time. Because you can only build communism, the road to which lies via the economic base of electrification. For communism is a rejection of the monetary system, in the place of which the consumption of "black gold" grow for the manufacture of tools of labour and commodities for consumption. From which the economic base serves as a record keeper of electrification in the national economy, regardless of whether professionals working in it want this or not. In this, the base of electrification passes the reins of power in the accounting system to the working class, as the closest to the cost accounting of energy invested in manufacturing turnover. And it is the working class, as Lenin said, "each parish, each workshop” is able to calculate the costs of "black gold" for their small turnover. And if the working class is going to badly calculate the consumption of "black gold", as happened in the USSR, then they will pass through another re-education in the practices of capitalism, so that afterwards, they will be be able to calculate correctly. Therefore, the development of the historical process moves not so much according to what state we have built, whether a socialist or capitalist state, but moves according to whether the monetary system retreats for calculation in energy consumption. Socialism, of course, is well able to help the development of the base of electrification. But the example of successful development in China, India, Brazil and other developing countries, which have learned to consider the costs for energy, during the world economic crisis of capitalism, allowed them not to feel this crisis, at that same time as the leading imperialist countries are mired up to their eyes in an economic bog.
And the problem of the world market crops up again, which very cleverly distributes the results of the global division of labour, allowing the imperialist powers to lead a comfortable life, and leaving the developing world, mostly in poverty. Accordingly, Lenin's conclusion comes to mind regarding this problem: "Using a currency such as gold, you should not forget that there is no free market, that the entire market or almost entire market is occupied by syndicates, cartels and trusts that manage their imperialist profits, and items of supply are given the workers only for their own businesses and not for others, because the old capitalism - in the sense of the free-market – is no longer with us. "(t.32. s.283-284). Therefore, the proletarian leader proposed the economic base of electrification, as opposed to the global market of imperialism. Since in practice, Leninist electrification, due to prices on energy resources, made it possible to monitor turnover of agricultural production, moving away from the arbitrariness of the world market of imperialism, opposing its own monetary unit, which also participates in the turnover on a par with the expended energy.
To understand how and why opposition was growing between the world market and local turnover, one should more carefully consider the question: why was the colonial policy of imperialism replaced by the policy of concessions, and now currency wars are raging?

Currency wars as a continuation of the colonial policy of imperialism.

The Great French Revolution did not have time to properly consolidate the capitalist system in Paris, before her longing to seize the territories of others, already captured mostly by the British. Greed for colonial policy ruined many of the French and exposed the policy of England, which was won by the bourgeoisie closely within the British Isles, and she quietly plundered all the overseas colonies. The First World War further exposed the imperialist desire of syndicates and cartels to the division of the world and the new seizure of foreign territories. At the same time, maintaining colonial armies was expensive. And carrying on wars for colonies ended in failure for some of the leading imperialist powers. Also, the imperialists began to apply the policy of concessions when a weak state donated a portion of their resources to concession (ie, rebate) to some imperialist conglomerate. And this international conglomerate, using the in-country legislation, continued its colonial policies already within the officially sanctioned legal framework. This eliminates the expense of the imperialists to maintain their armies, but the host country pays a tax. Accordingly, the appetites of the leading monopolies in such plunder of the weaker nations will only increase. Here is the stage of the policy of concessions that Lenin saw that instead of the national liberation struggle of the colonies there is a "war of concessions with capitalist foundations”.
Looking ahead, we can say that the emergence of fascist regimes in the camp of imperialism and in the dependent states, was dictated by the same laws of economics in colonial politics. Fascism with its pathological cruelty tried to realize itself on the fear of weak opponents and to ensure power and the needed resources. Only the motives of national liberation from economic bondage has always prevailed. Therefore, colonialism, and its derivative in the form of fascism as an instrument of imperialist policy, had to go depart everywhere from the political arena.
However, in the early twentieth century, the young Soviet republic became the political arena for the "war concessions with capitalist foundations”. And Leninist electrification became the tool in the fight against the aggressive pressure of the global steel market. It was the economic basis of electrification in Soviet Russia that immediately led to two trends in the communist movement. The first was the "Left" deviation and identified with the name of Leon Trotsky, calling only for the military development of the revolution. The second trend, was the “Right” deviation, its leader Bukharin, called for a truce with bourgeois reformism and was directly drawn towards capitalism. And very soon the similarity of these two party deviations was discovered, or afterwards as the delegates of Stalinist Party congresses themselves joked: "If you go "left"- you will arrive on the right." But what united them was what Lenin called anarcho-syndicalism, "the true Makhnovshchina”. For anarcho-syndicalism combined the economic interests of the Trotskyists and Bukharinites. Gradually, anarcho-syndicalism became the leading policy of imperialism and a tool for self-collapse of electrification in less developed countries. Why did this happen?
Bourgeois governments of Western countries, including Russia in the present, tend to convince both its own population and the population of states dependent on them, that they live in the era of greatest prosperity, "democracy" and are required to span all economic thought of liberalism. Meanwhile, Western "democracy" means in translation, the power of the people, and the under-developed world was able to actually recognize the power of the "money bag", with all that ideological scope of liberalism in fact expressed in corrupt collaborationism.
Modern imperialists long ago ought to have erected a monument to Nestor Makhno as the ideologist and organizer of Western policy. At the base of the monument should be placed the Tsarist prisoners, realising the need to place the felon Makhno with political prisoners. Political literacy for the criminal world has given its results and the at one time leader of anarcho-syndicalism has learned a special result in economic education: it’s not important for whom to fight for, whether it be for the whites or reds, it is important that following the battle, sacks of money can be "grabbed up-via privatization". Strictly, the whole ideology of anarchy is placed on the bag with the money, "as the mother of order." Therefore, in 1921, it was no accident that Lenin happened to see in anarcho-syndicalism a force that was stronger than any throughout the military intervention, along with its own White Guards, who tried to win the civil war. And this force was distributed in the party ranks on the right and "left", uniting all in the attractive force of the money bag. For the Trotskyists, not to mention the Bukharinites quietly redeemed their "r-revolutionary' fervor for a quiet life in a large abundance, being provided by significant financial costs out of the pocket of the devastated Soviet republic. Of course, this ability of anarcho-syndicalists to pump money out of the socialist state, could not be missed by imperialism. And imperialism itself adopted this skill by the followers of Makhno: for the profits, "fight" for the whites or reds. All political principles of the followers of Makhno were sent to the dump, leaving on the horizon, only one dream in the form of an eternal craving for a bag of money. Although, of course, over time, the rough shape the money bag gave way to respectable suitcases or briefcases and sometimes, as appropriate, accompanied by even the use of a box of money fresh from under the copying machine. But in the end, the desire to grab just any offshore zone frantically stirred liberal thought. The "mother of order" does not like to waste time on trifles.
The two-faced policy of the West and the absence of any principles in politics have so bankrupted social thought of the leading capitalist countries that since the second half of the twentieth century in the place of politics, religion has increasingly made a return, more recently, squeezing "democratic" society further out in its remoteness from the state. And the most bizarre result of the return of religion into the political limelight has been the advancement of "revolutionary Islam" on guard over "electrification of the entire country." Imperialism, of course, has achieved much in its own rot and decay, having being able to engage in this "fascinating" lesson many "leftist" trends, now sunk into oblivion under the weight of Eurocommunism and opportunism. However, a considerable part of the world is taking over the objective laws of social development, spontaneously expressing what Lenin established in scientific and revolutionary theory. Objectively, for many developing countries, the economic base of electrification is becoming "closer to the body", and not thanks to the “good” intentions of liberal thought.
Under Stalin, the Soviet economic potential for the first time opened the door, which by the way Lenin's electrification paved the way for the destruction of money. With it, profits from turnover in large part were transfered into lower prices, thereby declaring the intention of the monetary system to tend to zero and pass control over the costs to the economic base of the country's energy consumption. Of course, such control over energy resources could be carred out en masse only by the working class, led by the advanced revolutionary vanguard. Therefore, the main opponent of imperialism was precisely the Leninist-Stalinist Party of the Soviet Union which carried on a clear class policy. And Khrushchev, regardless of whether he wanted it or not, was a direct protege of imperialism, carried out the rescue of the monetary system of capitalism.
However, the global market of imperialism will die at such a speed as the policy of success in increasing the profits from leading monopolies. And they have one problem: their lack of control over the circulation of goods. In fact in the world market, stringent regulation of goods and a system of prohibitions, and even direct blockade of some states are established to ensure their prices for raw materials by leading imperialist conglomerates. From this there is the an overabundance of food at one pole and starvation of millions on the other. And the deaths of millions of people means nothing, compared to the ability to control the world by establishing their own prices and the possibility of distributing goods. The dollar here serves as a screen behind which the policy of divide and conquer is pursued. But if things take a nasty turn, then the dollar can be charged as the culprit, so that throwing it at another deal, even more profit can be gained.
The modern world is not just the current West, the oracles of which fill television space across the world and carry to the masses under the ideas of liberalism, the economic policies of the casino. For its the casino owners who always seem to win. Otherwise, the casino would not have taken in the second half of the twentieth century a leading position in the capitalist economy. But 5 / 6 of the modern world still draws attention to the principles of conduct, morality, which is inherited from previous generations. And this world seeks to articulate its interests not through the world market, but through its own turnover, controlled by the economic base of electrification. Of course, this electrification is expressed spontaneously. But the practice of conducting their own monetary units experiencing the oppression of pressure of leading currencies of imperialism assumes this. This is for the underdeveloped countries the only way out, providing an ever-visible position of their own independent existence, remaining with policies on the basis of planning their own electrification, beyond which there is no salvation. That is why modern China will be forced to tighten the policy of "electrification of the entire country”, reaching the second position in the world. And that means leadership on the economic basis of electrification, which must be maintained.
How does imperialism carry out modern neo-colonialist policies?
Modern neo-colonialist policies of imperialism are carried out on two fronts. On the one hand, currency revolutions are being carried out against weak countries, that are implemented by modern rentiers of the world market by sales of mainly dollars, with increased rate of some monetary units in the underdeveloped world. Owners of an undeveloped currency need dollars, because they will have to buy energy at the same world market, so they buy them. But then, when the local currency of a developing country falls sharply, investors in the world market quickly buy up commodities at a reduced price, which will then be sold at an inflated dollar price at home. Outwardly, these speculations are almost invisible, as they are sometimes carried out in fractions of percent in currency fluctuations, but the sums injected into circulation should always exceed one million dollars. Otherwise, those fractions of a percent, the difference in exchange rates, under which the vast amount of currency is thrown in from some of the leading capitalist countries, will not bring a tangible profit in the currency wars. Such a policy of carrying on currency wars prevents local currencies stabilizing, so that weak states can not establish their own accounting of energy consumption and consequently, can not establish their own economic base of electrification.
On the other hand, the grabbing up of fixed assets of enterprises in underdeveloped countries takes place at the expense of the money supply of leading imperialist conglomerates. Here the game is played at the level of balancing profits and outgoing costs of enterprises accounted for on the world market. And it is here that, on their own sweat, there toil the billionaires. The main fight is for energy, energy branches, metals (“blue chips”). The aircraft and defence industry are closed subjects for the world market, and with them everything is decided "under the carpet." Enterprises of the “second plan” that are unrelated to the "blue chips" are accounted for on the world market only due to their increased prices that could affect the balance of power in economic battles. Everything else is left to the mercy of the rentier, who manages to earn good money in the currency wars. In the space of energy resources are developed the major economic wars, turning into real military action. For the sale of energy resources, especially the most essential, oil, is carried out in dollars, allowing the leading imperialist country –the United States – to consider themselves the pantry of "black gold" that allows banking transactions on the global market. Any underdeveloped country, before you buy the same oil, is forced to first buy dollars through the sale of their goods, which, of course, speculators will buy at the lower exchange rate of the underdeveloped country. In the U.S. those dollars are just printed and exchanged for goods to those who would seek to buy oil. Other leading capitalist countries support the U.S. in the work of the printing press to produce dollars, as they are interested in the functioning of one currency for the purchase of energy resources. And the U.S. will share profits with them by increasing appreciation of the euro by 30 - 35% against the dollar. And countries such as Russia's own rate of the rouble against the dollar, they can lower the rate by thirty times. As a result, energy-rich Russia will be forced to sell petrol to its own population at five times the price than in other oil rich developing countries, to pay the permanent penalty for its own capitalism to Uncle Sam. And Uncle Sam with its own bell tower of the world market will provide credit only to those "blue chips" in Russia, who support the stability of the dollar policy. And exactly the same policies of the world market are carried on in respect of other weak states. However, on an economic basis saturated by the dollar, in the leading capitalist countries, nothing but crises will grow.
In both cases, the economic policy of the dollar pursues a single goal: to achieve instability in the local monetary system in a developing country and force its economy to seek assistance from the imperialist monopoly leading the business. Since a leading monopolist is interested in the economy of an dependent country existing in this condition for as long as possible, in which there is a serf at the service of his master, then in the charge of such "human rights" is both NATO and the forces of reactionary feudalism.
Therefore, to ensure some semblance of development on the fake dollar note and, thus, prolong the agony of modern imperialism, in the second half of the twentieth century, the unscrupulous policy of "human rights" was built. Because behind "human rights", the rights of the dollar always grow, the possibility which is problematic and is carried out on the verge of balancing between "left" and right-wing political sentiments. In this sense, a justifiable measure on part of the U.S., is the forming in the Muslim world of the ultra-Islamic organization al-Qaeda aiming at running ahead of the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is reminiscent of ultra-Trotskyism in Russia, trying, by forcing the waves of world revolution, to solve the problem of world domination of Zionism. Only these days, the current followers of bin Laden are trying to accommodate Islamic national revolutions against the U.S. policy in favour of Saudi Arabia policy fully standing on guard in the economic interests of the United States and Israel. Because only the preservation by the imperialists of a feudal relic, like Saudi Arabia, performing the role of "mother of order" in the Islamic world and which is simultaneously the leading country for the sale of oil, allows the U.S. to maintain its position of a benefactor of Islam and implement the dictatorial policies of the global market. Policies swollen by ambiguous predictions for the future and burst financial bubbles in the present.
Nevertheless, all dictatorial regimes come and go, but Lenin's electrification remains. And no matter how the oracles of capitalism distort Lenin's electrification, it always remains the sole life-giving source of the economy, from which the poor countries are able to quench their thirst and begin development. All underdeveloped countries, with rare exceptions, aim towards gaining and increasing their own turnover, and from turnover, rid themselves from the dictatorship of imperialism. And in this way, they will create the electrification of their own countries and move away from the dictatorship of the dollar and tyranny of the global market.
And although the podium model of imperialism demonstrates to the whole community the imperturbable manner of setting up on the table of the "global casino" of "blue chips", it cannot not hide from public opinion the rotting smell of parasitic paper dollars behind the chips. And since beyond the gaming table of the "global casino", parades and public demonstrations with different sexual orientations try to express a clear vision of the future better than the others, then their capacity to bear fruit wipes out the ability of capitalism itself to live and build. Yes, the modern gravedigger of capitalism lies in the Asian expanse and is looking quite ripe for this mission, with convincing support for its own principles of conduct and traditions of understanding.

Energy disaster in Japan: Causes and Consequences.

While the negative effects of a cold and snowy winter in Russia alternated every possible cut-offs, threatening to transform into a chain reaction for disabling the country’s main life support systems, there were no signs of storms in other regions of the world. As other regions of the world are not so cold and have much less snow fall, then causes of large-scale disasters occur much less. But a strong earthquake overtook Japan, accompanied in such cases, by the associated tsunami. And thus, until more recently, the second largest economy in the world, rolled into a ditch. In the centre of the disaster and destroyed, was Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant. The nature of the accident at the plant largely repeats the events of the American nuclear power plant disaster at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which took place in 1979. The difference is that at Three Mile Island, the misfortune befell on one reactor, but at the Fukushima-1, such fate hit four of six reactors. Also, in Japan after the earthquake, a few other nuclear reactors entered a state of emergency.
In the press, reports were leaked that the IAEA back in 2008 warned the government of Japan of the unstable state of Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant, and of an impending earthquake with devastating consequences. But the loudest of all to declare to themselves environmentalists are those following the U.S. authorities step by step, having for a long time cemented over every nuclear power plant construction. And at this stage of development of nuclear energy, a disappointing fact should be recognized: the service life of reactors used in the Fukushima-1, were so exhausted that they should have not only been cemented over in just Japan, but also in other regions of the world, including Russia.
Why is there a need to shut down and cover over these reactors? The reason is that nuclear reactors, as well as all sorts of generating capacities in conventional power, are designed for a lifespan of 25 years. Anyway, in the Soviet Union in such reactors a payback period of 12 years was established, which corresponded to the price of electricity and heat, and the period of operating the generating resources at 25 years. Further use in the work of such power is dangerous, because the growing fatigue properties and the metal losing its strength. In any case, more frequent accidents on heating pipelines and power outages demonstrate such wear and tear. The reactors at Fukushima-1, as evidenced by press reports, operated for about 40 years. That is, the equipment was worn to the limit. And when the tremors tested the Fukushima strength, this strength was insufficient. The Fukushima nuclear reactors began to collapse like a house of cards.
In these circumstances, the bourgeois media imposed on world public opinion an analysis of the type "who said what to whom." The Bolshevik opinion in this situation can only be one: lack of planning. Namely the lack of plans to replace their exhausted reactor resources, both in Japan and around the world, places humanity on the brink of disaster. For the resource of stability has been used up along with also a significant number of conventional thermal generators, which can fall apart and turn off the life support system of the population. And it would be absurd to choose a way of dying either from nuclear radiation or from the cold due to the shutdown of traditional thermal power stations, since both types of power generating equipment are is in a very worn out state. The only difference is that the people of warm climates do not face death from cold, so they justifiably express their emotions against a surge in nuclear power plants.
In analyzing the situation at the Japanese nuclear power plants, one also has to turn to history. This must be done to understand why all these powerful nuclear and thermal power plants were built during the first three decades after World War II. After that, there has been slump, then stagnation. The last two decades, energy has evolved mostly in the underdeveloped world, where there has been capital fed into, while the cost to the leading companies in the development of thermal and electrical energy of the leading capitalist countries, in dollar terms, has grown with incredible speed. As a result, the industrial race between socialism and capitalism started after World War II, forced the planning of the development of generating capacities. And although to capitalism it was distasteful to have to plan to develop its own industry, the imperialists had no other way of competing with the Stalinist model of economy in the USSR. This is one reason why the figure of Stalin became for the hosts of the leading conglomerates the most hated person, since he had forced them to engage in not extracting the highest profit, but forced them to plan development and that it was necessary to make investments in the economy that, were not, from a practical business point of view, justified. And also, the proletariat of developed capitalist countries at that time had considerably more respect for the Soviet working class, seeking in their own struggle, large wage increases and better working conditions. The situation changed with the coming to power in the USSR of the open anarcho-syndicalists, first, Khrushchev, then Brezhnev. As soon as the planning system in the Soviet Union collapsed and in place of the economic base of electrification, the monetary criteria for profit arrived (Kosygin reforms in 1965), this opened the prospects of managing the world economy through the dollar, which after 1945 became the main currency of the world market of capitalism for energy trade. The possibility of the U.S. to control via the dollar "black gold", allowed, in conditions of anarcho-syndicalism in the Soviet Union, to seize political domination in the world. Moreover, anarcho-syndicalism was a very useful political tool for maintaining the foundations of capitalism itself that imperialism had taken into service. In the 1970’s, the U.S. had already no need for advanced technologies in nuclear power, as nuclear power itself was no longer necessary. (On this subject, read the article "The impending economic collapse - a natural result of the capitalization of the economy of the USSR" on the website of the AUCPB (FB- Russian website Therefore, the U.S. began to mothball the construction of nuclear power plants both in the USA and abroad. Japan also finished up with their own obsolete nuclear power plants built by the U.S. during the cooling of competition between the two systems (capitalism-socialism) and has not engaged in their modernization. After the 1970’s, the building of nuclear power plants has declined sharply, and after Chernobyl, it has ceased, except for the underdeveloped world. What could the Japanese do under the circumstances of the earthquake of 2011? Simply shut down all the reactors, which had operated for over 25 years? But capitalism can not afford to stop the expensive equipment, which brings in huge profits. Who will finance the losses? It turns out that these nuclear plants were doomed to work until extraordinary circumstances forced them to shut down.
On the background of the disaster in Japan politicians in Germany sharply jumped into action, where the situation with deterioration of nuclear reactors is similar. Obviously, fear is forcing the Germans to shut down all their reactors which have been operating for over thirty years.
A most tense situation with nuclear energy has developed in France. There, more than 75% of all energy is produced from nuclear power. Those Frenchmen are proud of. But it is very unlikely that there exists a planning system and or expanded reproduction of nuclear power plants. The bourgeois model of economy needs profit and not reliability of energy equipment. Therefore, in the near future we should expect to see a sharp increase in interest from the media towards the French network of nuclear power, and we can gather some information regarding the reproduction of nuclear reactors in one of the leading capitalist countries.
As for Russia, here all traditional power generation is in another “GOELRO-2” plan of Chubais. On paper, the planning is finished, but in practice, there is no money for construction. A similar plan for the commissioning of new plants was announced in Russia several years ago, but with the financing – everything as usual with Chubais in GOELRO-2 (no money for it). Therefore, for new Russian nuclear reactors, there are projects under construction in the developing world, but the construction projects in Chubais’s own home country, Russia, have been as usual, either mothballed or gone into stagnation.
We may have got the impression that the tragedy in Japan would encourage the construction of modern nuclear power plants and it would quickly get underway. But there are no grounds for this forecast to come to life. Firstly, the U.S. has long ceased all nuclear plant construction and will be unable to reach the same level of development of new reactors for at least the next decade. In addition, the U.S. already does not have the personnel that are capable of at least the previous level of technology to build new nuclear power plants. Secondly, Russia's potential for nuclear plant reproduction is too outdated, there is no growth in capacity, and the only thing enhanced, is the safety factor in case of emergency. However, these reactors of the 1970’s are not able to break onto projected construction sites. Thirdly, France, saturated by nuclear plants, after Fukushima-1, is unlikely to make up for its own outages and rejuvenate the stagnant nuclear power industry. The most realistic forecast of what the next decade has to offer, in one way or another, is whether or not nuclear power plants should be build in the first place, and if built, what kind of plants should be built and to what standards ... There are always more questions in these situations than there are answers. But during this decade, the remaining nuclear power plants work the resources in forty years, since the folding up of nuclear power plant construction began after the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. In any case, nuclear reactors with three decades of life will not be shutdown in the meantime, and it would be impossible, because their shutdown would bring about an energy catastrophe. It turns out that on the political wave of anarcho-syndicalism, Europeans and North Americans turned out hostages to the global market.
And now we come to the central question: WHAT does planning in the field of energy sector actually mean?
Planning in the energy sector means, in essence, life or death, because without planning, the energy sector can not exist. Without energy, the developed world cannot live.
Therefore, it is worth turning to the experience of the Soviet Union during the period of industrialization in order to understand how to implement this planning, not for money, but for energy transmitters. And because the experience of planning starts from Lenin's plan for electrification (GOELPO), it is necessary to look at all the thermal power stations generated by this plan. What do we then see? We will see a number of second and even third phases of construction of power plants. You can also see that each subsequent phase of construction in the energy sector far exceeded the volume of previously generated power. That is, every power plant built was projectedly and practically paid off in 12 years, then earning its own expanded reproduction and beginning to build itself up and grow. In this case, further construction was calculated so that after 25 years of work of the original power capacity input, a new power capacity could be introduced, much more superior to its predecessors. This required an increase in the rate of productivity in the energy sector and rejuvenation of production itself. Nuclear energy began to develop on these principles. And while these rules of planning electrification were adhered to, the growth of the country’s industrial component was impressive, which was accompanied by an increase in the living standards for the vast majority of the population. The turnover of energy resources in the economic base of electrification was the guarantee of success, which dropped the cost of fuel for the production per unit of output of industry and agriculture.
Maybe there are still people who believe that Khrushchev began criticizing "Stalin's personality cult," to pursue a good cause ... In fact, Khrushchev fought for the monetary policy of the U.S. dollar, thereby undermining the Leninist policy of electrification and put into practice by Stalin. However, we must recognize that the scope of Khrushchev, like that of Brezhnev who succeeded him, did not extend beyond the ideology of Makhno. For that, of course, the then-members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CC CPSU) took responsibility. Therefore the desire of the anarcho-syndicalists for a simple sack of money was more important than the desire to continue the policy of moving away from money, begun by Lenin by moving towards communism through the economic base of electrification. This brings to mind the false attempt to leap into communism by 1980 –Khrushchev-style. Waving his fists, and almost falling off the podium, Khrushchev announced his wording, "communism - this is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country, plus chemicalization of the national economy" ... Does anyone know what this Makhnovite meant, when he intended to build communism on the basis of "chemicalization of the national economy”? Obviously, it was that bomb that blew up Leninist electrification and behind the smokescreen of the explosion made it possible to start moving to that bag, with money ...
But now, after the disaster in Japan, there is every reason to say "chemicalization of the national economy" in the entire capitalist world. The imperialists with the help of the "Khrushchevites” sowed the wind in the Soviet Union, but are now reaping the storm at home. They should not have spat into the well of the Leninist electrification. Since from of this well, now the world will have to satisfy its economic thirst. And presumably to warm up to Uncle Sam, we may soon have to burn bundles of dollars, since the day of ending of trading energy in dollars is not far off.

As a conclusion.
The contemporary developing world has therefore ceased to be simply the Third World, since it has embarked on a policy of economic base of electrification and begun to truly develop. But imperialism continues to celebrate the success of the collapse of the economic policies of the Soviet Union. In this, the "wise" uncles of the dollar policy never think that the collapse of Leninist electrification in the camp of socialism, they have destroyed their own base of electrification and doomed themselves to a recession. As a result, the developing world is forced spontaneously to save itself from imperialist tyranny, to develop its own bases of electrification.
Of course, Western politicians more typically pull down everything that is created in the underdeveloped world, without feeling remorse, going to direct aggression by the collapse of weak electrification. Key strikes are inflicted on socialist economies, DPRK and Cuba. They are heading towards oil-rich Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and others. It is no accident that big money, noted in the press, is being thrown by the imperialists into the wave of "colour" Arab revolutions. What is the West is seeking through the "colour revolutions" in the Arab world? The West seeks to expand the number of allies of Saudi Arabia in the Arab world and thus change the balance of power in this oil-rich region in its favour. Attempts by the same forces to place Islamic republics of the Caucasus in Russia under the control of Saudi Arabia is no accident. Attempts by the Wahhabis of Saudi sheikhs to place under the control of Al Qaeda the entire Islamic world, through well-organized terrorism, is no accident. Accordingly, the pious "democratic" liberalism of the West with great artistry uses the theatre of Batko Makhno "to fight terrorism and tyranny."
What role does this theatre of the West play in the struggle for "human rights"? This theatre clears the field for dollar rights, leading the rights of Arabs and Muslims under the rule of feudal monarchs, such as Saudi Arabia. Although in such a situation, the artistic image of the Western politician "indignant and deeply concerned" by the signs of tyranny in Saudi Arabia, there is no other way out for the West! For the other option is Leninist electrification. And what in this situation will the Western politician choose for "human rights" in the Islamic world? The Western politician, they say, having clenched his will into a fist, with great reservations and with a mass of various amendments to a resolution, will point out the feudal version of the Saudi monarch to adopt. And it would be absurd if that same Western politician agreed on the need to revive the economy of the West, dying in crisis, by using the experience in planning of electrification under Stalin. The majority of these politicians had spent almost their entire lives working towards the collapse of the Stalin model of economic base.
The accident at Three Mile Island, at Chernobyl and at the Fukushima-1 has put at stake not just the question as to whether or not nuclear power will survive in general. They have put at stake the question of the future of all humanity. This applies, above all, to the elimination of the economic base of the best means of increasing labour productivity through the use of peaceful nuclear energy. By renouncing nuclear reactors, humankind abandons the most advanced generation capacity, which conventional generating power simply can not make up for. In addition, after the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear power was not only not saved, but it was deliberately destroyed. And carried to an extreme degree of wear, it could not express itself any differently than in the disaster at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan.
What once again do our sugar daddies offer us as an alternative to nuclear power plants?
We have traditionally been offered renewable energy sources instead of nuclear power. Thus recently, somewhere a year and a half ago, a construction project of a power plant run on solar energy in the African desert has already been proposed, which will then going transfer energy to Europe. When the costs were calculated, the tears flowed. The project was elementary quackery. Now allusions are made toward the use of wind energy. Although this is not new, it is quite a development of power equipment. Only these "windmills" are also very expensive, and produce very little energy. They won’t feed large industry. Therefore, they put "windmills" in remote places where conventional power lines are expensive and the small generating capacity involved can be covered at the expense of the wind turbine. In addition, discussions about renewable energy sources are not carried out by professional energy experts alone, but also by people from the cash registers, accustomed to lending money at high interest. For them, the main thing "crowed" about is also, if they do not borrow money at high interest, don’t even let them get off the ground.
And what can imperialism present us with as an alternative to nuclear power? With what are these uncles with dollars going to save us from further falls in production? In this respect, oddly enough, but other than the alternative of the "deeply respected" monarchy of Saudi Arabia, sitting on the oil "pipeline", for these owners of dollars, there is no alternative. In the same direction, the modern "colour" revolutions in the Arab world are being carried out. And in this respect, the Russian government mimics them, focusing on the economic effect of the oil "pipeline". But then another question arises: how is the morality of the wahhabiing feudal sheikh better than the morality of Hitler's fascism?
Under these conditions, for modern China becomes a matter of honour to respond to this challenge. Only China, now in second place is able to undertake development projects of nuclear reactors and start to work on construction of nuclear power. This is needed most of all by the Chinese economy, which can no long operate on its own existing coal-fired energy resources. And the solution to the issue of developing nuclear power will become a bid for leadership in the world. In addition, scientific thought on the post-Soviet territory, in terms of nuclear power stations, is dragging out a miserable existence and is ready to earn a bit extra. And since the Chinese Communist Party has not abandoned the ideology of Stalin, they need to implement Stalin's economic base of electrification, with the expectation of predictable results for improved productivity.
Either planning and the economic base of the electrification will destroy the monetary system and cross over to calculating the costs for energy, or the monetary system will destroy humanity itself. There is no other option.

Vladimir Ryabov
Member of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks

Further reading on the Chinese economy:

"Modern China" by A.A. Mayevsky member of the CC AUCPB

Tuesday, 22 March 2011



BY A.A. MAEYEVSKY, Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (CC AUCPB), Editor of the newspaper “Raboche-Krestyanskaya Pravda” (Workers' and Peasants' Truth)

Inside the communist movement, noisy debates and discussions continue on issues concerning the development of modern day China.
Many of the parties that call themselves communist, in particular the Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU), and other parliamentary type parties like it (parties, communist by name and opportunistic, conformist in deeds, well fitted in to the service of the current ruling bourgeois regimes in the former Soviet Union), consider the path of development proposed by Deng Xiaoping and approved by the Plenum of the CPC Central Committee in December 1978, as an exemplary role model and proof of how you can successfully combine the principles of planned socialism with a market economy.
Referring to the example of the Chinese Communist Party, the opportunists want to cover up their betrayal of the cause of the working class, and their rejection of the revolutionary struggle for the victory of Labour over Capital.

To preview or purchase the booklet, simply click on link below "About the AUCPB"

Friday, 31 December 2010


"The political activities of the Social Democrats is to promote the development and organization of the working class movement in Russia, transforming it from the present state of isolated, deprived of guiding ideas attempts of protest, “revolts” and strikes, into an organized struggle of the ENTIRE Russian working CLASS against the bourgeois regime and aiming towards the expropriation of the expropriators, towards the destruction of those social orders, based on the oppression of the workers. The common belief of Marxists in the fact that the Russian worker is the only natural representative of all the toiling and exploited people of Russia serves as the basis of this activity". (CCW, Volume 1, p.310 Russian).
"The worker already cannot but see that he is oppressed by capital, and that the fight has to be with the class of the bourgeoisie. And this struggle aimed at achieving immediate economic needs, at improving his material conditions - inevitably requires from the workers organizations to becomes not a war against individuals but against a class, the class itself which is not in separate factories, but everywhere and wherever it oppresses and crushes the worker. That is why the factory worker is none other than a good representative of all the exploited population, and in order for him to exercise representation in an organized, sustained struggle, demands ... explaining to him his position, the explaining the politico-economic structure of the system that oppresses him , identifying the necessity and inevitability of class antagonism in this system "(ibid., s.310-311).
"Social Democrats pay all their attention and all their activities on the class of workers. When the advanced representatives have mastered the ideas of scientific socialism, the idea of the historical role of the Russian worker, when these ideas become widespread among the workers, solid organizations are created, transforming the present sporadic economic war into conscious class struggle - then the Russian WORKER, rising up at the head of all the democratic elements, will overthrow absolutism and lead the RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT (alongside to the proletariat of ALL COUNTRIES) along a straight road of open political struggle to the VICTORIOUS COMMUNIST REVOLUTION "(ibid., pp. 311-312).
"We all agree that our task lies in the organization of the proletarian class struggle. But what is class struggle? When the workers of a separate factory, of a separate craft enter into a struggle with their owner or with their owners, is that a class struggle? No, this is only the weak beginnings of it. The workers' struggle is class struggle only when all the best representatives of the working class throughout the country are aware of themselves as a single working class and begin their fight not against the individual owners, but against the entire capitalist class and against the government supporting this class. Only when the individual worker is aware of himself as a member of the working class when, in his daily, petty fight with individual employers and individual officials, he sees the fight against the entire bourgeoisie and against the entire government, only then this struggle becomes a class struggle ... The task of Social Democracy consists in the fact that by the organization of workers, propaganda and agitation among them, is to turn their sponaneous struggle against the oppressors into a struggle of the entire class, into a struggle of a particular political party for certain political and the socialist ideals "(CCW, Volume 4, s.187-188 Russian).
"In all European countries, socialism and the labour movement existed initially separate from each other. The workers were fighting against the capitalists, organized strikes and unions, but the socialists stood apart from the workers' movement, and created doctrines critising contemporary capitalism, the bourgeois order of society and demanding a replacement of that system by another higher socialist system. The separation of the labour movement from socialism caused the weakness and immaturity of both of them ... The labour movement remained petty, fragmented, did not acquire political significance, and was not covered by advanced science of its time. Therefore, in all European countries, we see a more and more manifest desire to merge socialism and the labor movement into a coherent social democratic movement. Workers’ class struggle is transformed in such a merger into a conscious struggle of the proletariat for its emancipation from exploitation on part of the propertied classes, and produces the highest form of socialist labor movement: an independent workers' social-democratic party. The direction of socialism towards merging with the labour movement is the main merit of Marx and Engels: they created a revolutionary theory that explained the need for the merger and set the task of socialists to organize the class struggle of the proletariat "(CWW, Volume 4, pp. 244-245 ).
"Emerging from the very nature of capitalist society, strikes mean the beginning of the working class struggle against this system of society ... When workers alone deal with their bosses, they are real slaves, always working off a piece of bread for a stranger, always remaining humble and dumb stooges. But when workers together declare their demands and refuse to bow to the boss who has a fat wallet, then the workers are no longer slaves, they become people, they begin to demand that their work was not just to enrich a handful of parasites, but to give the worker opportunity to live in a humane way. Slaves start to make demands to become masters - to work and live not how the landlords and capitalists want them to live, but how the workers themselves want to live. Therefore strikes always cause such horror to capitalists as the strike begin to shake their rule. "Your strong hand can stop the wheels if you want” – says one song of the German workers about the working class. And indeed: the factories, landowners' farms, machinery, railways, etc., etc., are all like the wheels of one huge mechanism - the mechanism that produces various products, processes, and delivers where it should. This whole mechanism is moved by the worker who tills the land, mines, makes goods in factories, builds houses, workshops, and railways. When the workers refuse to work, this whole mechanism is threatened with stoppage. Every strike reminds the capitalists that the real masters are not they, but the workers who louder and louder claim their rights "(CWW, Volume 4, s.292-393).
"The strike teaches the workers to understand what the power of the owners is and what the power of workers is, teaches the worker to think not of only his own boss and not only his closest comrades, but of all the bosses, the whole class of capitalists and the whole class of workers. When the factory owner, with his millions living off the labour of several generations of workers, does not agree to a modest increase to the workers’ pay, or even tries to further reduce pay and, if the workers resist and thousands of hungry families are thrown onto the streets - then the workers can see clearly that the entire capitalist class is the enemy of the entire class of workers, and that the workers can only rely on themselves and their unification. It often happens that the manufacturer tries in every way to cheat the workers and makes himself out to be their benefactor, to hide his exploitation of the workers with some empty sop and false promises. Every strike is always with one stroke destroys all this deception by showing workers that their "benefactor" is a wolf in sheep's clothing "(ibid, s.294-295).
"The socialists call the strike a "school of war”, a school, in which workers learn to wage war against their enemies, for the liberation of all people and all workers from the tyranny of bureaucrats and capitalist oppression.
... From separate strikes, workers may and have to cross over and really cross over in all countries to the fight of the entire working class for the liberation of all workers. When all class-conscious workers becomes socialists, i.e., aiming towards such liberation, when they unite throughout the country to spread socialism among the workers, to teach the workers all means of struggle against their enemies, when they form a socialist workers party that fights for the liberation of all the people from the oppression of the government and the liberation of all workers from the yoke of capital - only then the working class is completely adjacent to the great movement of workers of all countries, which unites all the workers and raises the red flag with the words: "Workers of all countries, unite!" (ibid. same, s.296-398).
"This by itself implies a task that Russian Social-Democracy is called upon to implement: to introduce socialist ideas and political consciousness in the masses of the proletariat and to organize a revolutionary party, that is inextricably linked with the spontaneous labour movement ... Without such an organization of the proletariat can not rise up to the conscious class struggle, without such an organization, the working-class movement is doomed to impotence, and with just insurances, circles and societies of mutual aid, the working class will never be able to perform the great historic task lying ahead of it: to liberate themselves and the whole Russian nation from its political and economic slavery" (CWW, Volume 4, s.374-375).
"The workers' strikes in Russia during the preparation of the revolution and during the revolution, were the most common means of struggle of the proletariat, of the advanced class, which alone is the end, the revolutionary class in modern society. Economic and political strikes that alternate with each other, intertwined into one indivisible whole, united by the working masses against the capitalist class and the autocratic government, brought unrest to the whole of society, raised up the peasantry... No power on earth will stop the masses when they rise up. Now they have begun to rise up. This rise may go fast – or maybe go slowly and intermittently, but in any case it is heading towards revolution. The Russian proletariat was ahead of everyone in 1905. Remembering this glorious past, it must now exert all efforts to restore, strenghten and develop their organization, their party, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Our party is going through difficult times now, but it is invincible, invincible as the proletariat "(CWW, v.20, p.73-75).

From the Editor. At the dawn of the socialist movement in Russia, the Communists were called the Social Democrats and the working-class party called - the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). However, when social democracy discredited itself with its collaboration with the bourgeoisie in the First World War, the revolutionary Social Democrats, headed by Lenin, in order to dissociate themselves from the social-chauvinists, began calling themselves communists. Today it is namely the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (AUCPB) that inherits the Bolshevik principles of the RSDLP - RSDLP (b) - RCP (b) - VKP (b) – the Leninist policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, consistently defending the class interests of the working class and all working people.

Wednesday, 15 December 2010


In recent years the process of convergence of Bolshevism with the labour movement has begun to unfold. This is due to both the systematic and consistent work of the AUCPB (All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks) in the labour movement and activities of the VSR (All-Ukrainian Workers’ Union), the organization, the closest to the masses of working people, to labouring, worker collectives.
We have previously mentioned in the pages of our newspaper that the activists of the VSR (which is, for the most part, members of the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU)) have begun to be expelled in scores out of the KPU for criticizing the opportunist line of the KPU, its leadership and its support for small and medium businesses, and flirting with religion and the Orthodox Church, for its actual rejection of revolutionary forms and methods of struggle, the rejection of the preparation of the working class in Ukraine for a socialist revolution aimed at overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and the restoration of Soviet power (the dictatorship of the proletariat). The leader of the VSR, editor of "Working Class" Comrade A.V. Bondarchuk has also been expelled from the KPU.
Of course, we Bolsheviks are wholly in support with the VSR, which, as well as our Party, stated the need to break with opportunism in the communist and workers' movement and work in the working class and toiling masses of Ukraine on the preparation and implementation of a socialist revolution. Our support we have previously mentioned in the pages of the Workers 'and Peasants' Truth ", in July at a meeting of the Ukraine Buro of the Central Committee of the AUCPB adopted a statement on the support of the editorial board of the newspaper of VSR “Working Class" ( "RKP” № 8 (149)), published articles in support of Comrade Bondarchuk and other leaders of the labour movement. For its part, the editors of the “Working Class" have also carried out reprints of our articles from the AUCPB newspaper in Ukraine "Raboche-Krestyanskaya Pravda", while in number 44 (483) my article "The Communist Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat" was published, written specifically for this newspaper.
But during the presidential election campaign, in the Ukraine Buro of the AUCPB Central Committee and the Soviet of VSR began to appear different approaches to tactics in these elections.
We, developing tactics, said that all candidates for the highest office in the state are the representatives of the bourgeoisie, and that whoever was the victor, the power will still remain in the hands of major oligarchic capital. Moreover, all 18 years of so-called independence indicates that the power of the bourgeoisie in Ukraine has strengthened, that the bourgeoisie is now the true master of the situation in the country. Hence our conclusion: we Bolsheviks have nothing to do in these elections. The main task we have seen and see now, is to explain to the working people of working in Ukraine the futility of the election campaign, to expose the parliamentary illusions and raise the working people to lead the working class in the struggle to overthrow the power of capital.
The VSR though, decided to support Yanukovych in these elections. When for this decision, we subjected comrade Bondarchuk to friendly criticism, he is in his article "You are my friend, but the truth – is dearer " ( "WC” № 3 (490), January 2010), began to teach us Marxism-Leninism and the ability to apply the methodology in making tactical decisions.
Here is what he wrote: "So ... secretary of the CC AUCPB of Ukraine Anatoly Mayevsky, analyzing the current pre-election situation, turns his attention not on the search for an approach of Communist agitators to our real present workers with their current level of consciousness, but immediately leaned towards advice - for who or against to vote (see article by A. Mayevsky “Mopping up the territory" in newspaper Raboche-Krestyanskya Pravda (Workers 'and Peasants' Truth”) № 1, 2010). …..with this approach, the whole election "tactic" is to correctly mark ballots: in 2004, the AUCPB decided to put a tick in front of the name of Yanukovych, then in 2010 - in the box "against all".” And further, Comrade Bondarchuk says that 99% of the workers of the industrial Eastern Ukraine are today for Yanukovich, so let A. Mayevsky try "today to go to the workers of Donbas or Kharkov with his tactic "to vote against all candidates".” But if you act in accordance with the Resolution of the VSR prepared on the recommendations of Lenin, then everything will turn out: the workers of Donbass and Kharkiv will listen to me, and I (further quoting Lenin) "I can explain in popular fashion not only why Soviets are better than Parliament ..." (PSS, v.41, p.73).”
"That's why we must support voting for Yanukovych" - teaches us comrade Bondarchuk.
And there is a lot of what the leader of the VSR is trying to teach us. It turns out that "we have no tradition of in-depth study of scientific communism and the adoption of practical solutions based on precisely the methodology of Marxism. Instead, a passion for slogans, cabinet closed doorishnesss and an inexplicable attraction to the same elections.
"For us the Communists, it's time to finally understand a few simple things. Without a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist theory there can be no question of socialism - this is firstly. But theory alone is not enough: we must still connect it with the living labour movement – this is secondly" – this bit is all true so far. But then this gem: "Thus, almost everything is ready: the theory has been developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and, the labour movement is conditioned by capitalist production. We still have one thing left to do – and that is to combine the first with the second, Marxist theory with the workers' movement ", - concludes comrade. A. Bondarchuk.
And he ends his critical article with the slogans: "Support V. Yanukovich! Long live the revolutionary working class!”
A brilliant connection of Yanukovych - the authorized representative of major oligarchic capital, the main enemy of the working class, with the revolutionary working class. This is something new in Marxist-Leninist theory, worthy of such a "profound theoretician" and "expert" of Marxism-Leninism as comrade Bondarchuk.
I am compelled to respond to the criticism from the respected leader of the VSR.
About cabinet closed doorishness. This is a completely false allegation. The ruling bourgeois regime is in a constant struggle with the Bolsheviks, persecutes and even destroys our activists. In 1996, member of the Central Committee of the AUCPB, Hero of the Soviet Union, Comrade S.P. Subbotin (Cherkasy) was killed on his way back home from his dacha. In October 1997, Party organiser of the CC AUCPB in Kharkov region Comrade A.L. Bondarenko, a man closely associated with the labour movement of Kharkov, who had great authority in the Working (Trudovaya) Kharkov, and in the communist and leftist movement of the city and region was killed in a deliberately set-up car crash. And after this, the security services began vigorously to break up the Kharkov Party organization, by the infiltration into them of provocateurs. Of course, we found them them, and expelled from the party, but they did a lot of dirty deeds, but were unsuccessful in destroying the organization. On May 1, 2005 a gangster style attack was carried out on member of the Central Committee of the AUCPB Comrade V.G. Koshevogo (Donetsk), one of the leaders of the Donetsk city organization of the Union of the workers. Comrade Toshevoy then spent nearly two months with the most severe concussion, lost his health, his activity decreased sharply, and in December 2008 he died prematurely. The same bandit attacks on our activists with their destruction take place in Russia. Special services are not averse to any kind of provocation, attacks on the Bolsheviks from behind the corner, trying to compromise, etc. etc. Straight away I say that we, Bolsheviks, can not intimidated by anyone. And in the place of our fallen comrades others will certainly come and others have come. No sooner had our newspaper "Workers 'and Peasants' Truth" (January 1997) had time to see the light, when the editor immediately began to face prosecution "for anti-state activities and calls on the people" with attempts by the authorities to close the newspaper. For about three years the court case continued, but the editors managed to defend its right to carry the word of truth to the working people and win the case. Some time later, the editor had spend two years suing the Pension Fund of Ukraine (Mukachevskij department) having attempted to strangle the newspaper financially. And we won these court cases. The newspaper continues to go now for the 14-th year, and continues to spread the Bolshevik word to the masses of working people. This is with regard to "cabinet closed doorishness”.

About the “inexplicable pull to those same elections”.
Comrade Bondarchuk suggests elections. The AUCPB has never had a pull towards elections.
"AUCPB - as noted in our party program - its main task specifies: the conquest of the working class political power, establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of private ownership of means of production, elimination of exploitation of man by man, the restoration of a socialist society, the revival of the USSR, the development of socialism and the construction of communism." There, in the Program of the AUCPB it says: "To establish the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only through a socialist revolution, as the bourgeoisie one will never peacefully give up power. And one more position of our Party Program I would like to give: "The main activity of the AUCPB in the communist movement – is its Bolshevization, meaning the return of the communist movement to the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism with the demands of the modern era. Bolshevisation - is first of all, a policy of the revolutionary change in the current bourgeois socio-economic system. Bolshevisation - is the relentless and uncompromising struggle against opportunism and revisionism. Without the ideological defeat of the bourgeois parties operating in the ranks of the working class, pushing backward sections of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie and destroying the unity of the working class - victory of the proletarian revolution will be impossible. "With reformists and Mensheviks in their ranks, it is impossible to victor in the proletarian revolution and impossible to defend it" (V.I. Lenin)".
Where did you, dear comrade Bondarchuk, see here "a pull towards to parliamentarism?” And Ukraine Buro of the CC AUCPB in its practical political activities and making tactical decisions is constantly guided by our party program. Even at the II Congress of the AUCPB (February 1996), General Secretary of the AUCPB comrade Nina Alexandrovna Andreeva in her report stressed: "Is the parliamentary way of transition to socialism possible today? In our opinion, practically impossible. Today, after the temporary defeat of the world socialism, the imperialist bourgeoisie makes it clear that it will not give power to working people without a severe and intense struggle. According to mafia Chief "voucherizor" Chubais, a return to socialism can only be achieved through a civil war. At the slightest threat to their rule in Russia and to international imperialism, they will not stop short of the armed suppression of the will of the people, or the organization of foreign military intervention. In the era of the modern stage of imperialism, parliament is practically deprived of the opportunity not only for the socialist reform of society, but in general, the ability to radically influence the policy of state-monopoly capital. Parliaments, Senates, City Councils and Dumas are today, a screen for the financial oligarchy and safety valves for the timely letting off of steam of popular discontent ... In the parliaments and senates of many western countries, the Communist opposition is well blended into a legitimate niche of imperialist regimes. Its leaders are aging and dying in parliamentary seats. Those who have gone, are replaced with new leader-Communists, who also find it convenient and a privilege to be members of Parliament or the Senate. Communist parties often become appendages of their parliamentary factions that have become hotbeds of opportunism and compromise. Euro-communism grew out of parliamentary departments. The crisis of the idea of a parliamentary road of transition to socialism means that for the working class and its allies, parliamentary games by the rules of modern imperialism are completely hopeless ... It is not parliamentary reforms, but revolution which is the only real way of transition to socialism."
Here, comrade Bondarchuk, is the attitude of our party to parliamentarism and the parliamentary struggle. "It is not parliamentary reforms, but revolution which is the only real way of transition to socialism." In this direction our party does its work. You yourself, as until recently a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, several times elected to Parliament and was a member of the communist faction. And all your activists of the VSR were deeply involved in numerous campaigns. Thus, you until very recently were infected with the “pull towards elections”.
Another thing. The fact that I am immediately inclined to advise - for whom or against whom to vote" (Comrade Bondarchuk refers to my article "Purging the territory " "RKP” № 1, 2010). And that our Bolshevik voting "tactics" are "reduced to the proper filling out of ballot papers: in 2004, the AUCPB decided to place a tick next to Yanukovych, and in 2010 - in the box "against all candidates". It would be interesting for me to know where in the article "Purging the territory" comrade Bondarchuk saw the advice "to put a tick against all candidates"? One should also be able to know how to read so as to attribute to his opponent what he did not say. In the article "Purging the territory" there is no word about how to vote. All my article "Purging the territory" is devoted to one subject. Namely. For nearly 19 years on the territory of, "liberated" and "free" Ukraine it has been ruled by capitalism. Over these 19 years, Ukraine's population of 52 million people has decreased to 39 (approximately a 6.5 million people population decline, and about the same amount go abroad in search of work and opportunities to earn a piece of bread, i.e., a decrease of at least 13 million people).. All the clans of the bourgeoisie - and Yushchenko and Tymoshenko, and Yanukovich, and others, are caring only about one thing, about maximizing profits and surplus profits thanks to ruthless exploitation and plunder of the working people. And all of their presidential election battle boils down to one thing – to take the highest office in the State to ensure that, having in their hands the levers of power, much of the profits fall into the pockets and bank accounts of the group of capital, whose representative has become president. And the main task facing the Bolsheviks, in the face of all the political forces that are not in words but in deeds, fighting for the abolition of bourgeois power, is to "raise the working class to fight for their rights, for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and firmly discredit the remnants of electoral illusions." That is the difference, comrade Bondarchuk,: to strongly debunk the remnants of electoral illusions, and not "vote against all." Comrade Bondarchuk simply misinformed readers of newspaper “Working Class" of the position of the AUCPB in this presidential election campaign. Revolutionaries-Communists, the leaders of the labour movement may not agree with each other in some things, including in matters of tactics. But they, in arguing, should truthfully express the position of their opponent, and not distort it. The controversy between comrades in the struggle must be conducted honestly, dear comrade Bondarchuk.
Likewise, comrade Bondarchuk distorts our position on the 2004 elections. At that time a representative of the neo-fascist Banderite group of capital, Yushchenko was eager to get into power. Behind him stood American, western capital. At the meeting of the Ukraine Buro of the Central Committee of the AUCPB, held in August 2004, we discussed the situation and concluded that the main task of the moment was to Stop fascism (that was the name of my report at the meeting of the Ukraine Buro CC AUCPB) in the face of Yushchenko surging to power. Keenly aware that the chances of reaching the second round were held only by Yanukovych and Yushchenko, we called on the voters of Ukraine in the second round vote to against Yushchenko. This meant that we were forced to vote for Yanukovich - the representative of a major oligarchic bourgeoisie and the exploiters and oppressors of the working people. But there is no other way to stop the fascist presidential candidate at present"- stated in the Decree of the Ukraine Buro of the CC AUCPB (see "RKP” № 9 (90), 2004; here I want to note that the printing of that issue of the newspaper was delayed by almost 3 weeks since the printers, where our newspapers are published, were simply afraid to release it, so the newspaper had been produced in another printing plant, and immediately censored, the editors spending two weeks trying to find a way to publish the newspaper) . No, because at that time there was no revolutionary situation, or other opportunities, we had no other option but to vote in the second round against the President, to stop this puppet of U.S. imperialism and the heir to Bandera and the Nazis,. At the same time, we explained to the workers that "the working class, the working people of Ukraine through presidential-parliamentary election campaigns would not come to power" and that "whoever wins the presidential election, ... the power will still remain in the hands of capital in the hands of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie", and we urged the working class, working people up to fight for the overthrow of the power of capital. That is our position in that period. In reaching this decision, we also realized that, behind Yanukovych are powerful financial-industrial groups of the Eastern regions of Ukraine closely connected with Russia's capital, that in the case of Yanukovych coming to power, perhaps will be a strengthening on a bourgeois basis naturally, the Ukrainian-Russian relations (political, economic, financial, etc.) that will allow to strengthen the economic potential of both Ukraine and the entire CES (Common Economic Expanse), which at that time was beginning to take shape in the 4-republics: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. And this, in turn, will lead to the restoration and strengthening of relations between workers of the four Soviet republics, and would facilitate them to lead a joint struggle to overthrow the power of capital. Unfortunately, the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, after the Symonenko did not come out in the second round of presidential elections, spoke about not supporting any of the candidates in the second, and then the third round, as both are members of competing clans of the bourgeoisie. I recall that then, esteemed Comrade Bondarchuk was a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine. The result of this shortsighted position was that 1.4 million votes cast for Simonenko in the first round, were dispersed, and yet, at the correct position taken by then, most of these voters could have voted against President Yushchenko. The unfolded after the second round, of the so-called "Orange Revolution", carried out by hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, brought to power Yushchenko. This pseudo-revolution clearly demonstrated that Yushchenko was necessary to U.S. imperialism as the puppet as president of Ukraine, was needed in order to wrest Ukraine from Russia, to oppose the two fraternal peoples against each other and turn Ukraine into a vassal state, completely dependent on the U.S. and the West and a possible military base, a springboard for US-NATO forces in the struggle of U.S. imperialism for global domination, with the subsequent enslavement of Russia and the seizure of untold natural resources and raw materials, primarily oil and gas. Coming to power, Yushchenko immediately liquidated the participation of Ukraine in the CES, and began to actively pursue the glorification of Bandera, the OUN-UPA, exercised a decisive turn back of Ukraine against Russia and a turn towards the U.S.. That is, with regard to where and when "to place the bird" in the elections, in the words of Comrade Bondarchuk.
But over the past five years of orange-rule in Ukraine, the situation in the country has changed.
Immediately after Yushchenko came to power, the competing among themselves for the election clans of the bourgeoisie, began to build bridges and establish contacts. The result was the signing in September 2005 of the "Declaration of Unity and cooperation for the future of Ukraine", signed by both Yushchenko and Yanukovych's Party of Regions. Yanukovych did not fulfilled his promises of Russian as a second language state, did not actively oppose the process of bringing Ukraine closer to NATO. For many months during 2008-2009, the negotiations were held between representatives of the Party of Regions (Yanukovych) and the BYT (Tymoshenko) to establish a joint coalition in parliament. But such a coalition, ultimately failed. Obviously, they were not able to share the portfolios of power and spheres of influence. So in these five years there began the process of rapprochement between competing clans of the bourgeoisie. And one of them - Yanukovych or Tymoshenko is now more pro-Moscow politician? It is difficult to say. At least, the gas contracts signed by Tymoshenko's government at the beginning of last year, set the price of gas for Ukraine is approaching to $ 400 per thousand m3, at a time when Prime Minister was Viktor Yanukovych (still under Kuchma) the price for a thousand m3 of gas was 49 USD. Putin and Medvedev are also known as the political representatives of big business in Russia, primarily of the oil and gas oligarchs. It is clearly, what price is more favorable to the oil and gas tycoons in Russia and those of the Ukrainian top politicians, in this regard, who they are more than satisfied with. Both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko sought support from the West, the EU and the United States and Russia. And forcing them to do so, first of all, are the the major capitalist groups that stand behind them. According to KIA (Committee of Voters of Ukraine), in the first round of elections both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko spent approximately $ 200 million on the election campaign (exactly half of the total cost of all presidential candidates). Both are supported by the richest people of Ukraine, the billionaires and multimillionaires, who seized the metallurgical, machine building, chemical and petrochemical plants and refineries, mines, mining and dressing enterprises, privatized the whole food and light industry, etc., etc. having formed their own banks and on the basis of the connection of industrial and financial capital, formed financial-industrial groups (FIGs). In particular, Yanukovych's support came from: Akhmetov (3.7 billion dollars according to the version of the magazine "Focus" at the beginning of 2009), A. and S. Klyuev (356.8 million dollars), V. Khmelnitsky (246.8 million) and other oligarchs. Tymoshenko, in turn had the support of I. Kolomoysky (2.3 billion), V. Haiduk (704.3 million), S. Taruta (673.8 million), etc.
It is therefore quite an untrue statement by the VSR Resolution by the Soviet "About the tasks of the VSR in connection with presidential elections in 2010" ( "RC» № 43 (482), November 2009) that Yanukovych would "dig in his heels - to create favorable conditions for domestic enterprises, ... create the material conditions for the existence of the working class - the main revolutionary force in capitalist society ... will raise the gravedigger of capitalism - what he does not "support" in this important matter for the Revolution! ". To this I wish to note one thing. Both factions of capital, and challenges for Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko will act in the same way: in the period of recovery, they will increase production, increase the size of the working class, in a recession (depression) - expel "unnecessary" people onto the street. Capitalism, dear members of the VSR, is raising its gravedigger - the proletariat, objectively, regardless of colour shades, political and ideological preferences. In this regard, both Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko are identical.
Nor is the allegation by Bondarchuk that 99% of the workers of the industrial east of Ukraine are today for Yanukovych. In order to more or less reliably know the mood of the workers, it is necessary that the newspaper published daily circulation of at least 0.5 million - one million copies. Then will be established a stable relationship with labour collectives, which will allow editors to monitor the mood of the working class. And since this figure is taken by comrade. Bondarchuk from the ceiling, to artificially justify the wrong, in our view, position of the VSR, especially in the first round of elections. There can not be 99% of workers supporting Yanukovych, supporting all these Akhmetovs Kolomoiskys, Tarutas, Zvyagilskys and similar bourgeoisie, which during the years of the “orange revolution” robbed the workers and seized for a pittance into their own hands the factories and mines, and hundreds of thousands, millions of people who are thrown out onto the streets, make unemployed, homeless, leaving their families and without a livelihood. (Currently, these bourgeoisie, as a result of intense competition, have dispersed to different political camps, but in the 1990-s, during the formative years of their financial and industrial empires, they robbed the workers all along, of course, each into their own pocket). As a result of this lawlessness, many Donbass mining towns have turned into ghost towns and villages and die out, because the mines, or even the only one mine, which provided residents work and livelihood are all closed. And comrade Bondarchuk believes that these miners and hundreds of thousands, and millions of unemployed people support their robbers? The respected leader of VSR is too disrespectful in relation to our working class.
But suppose that comrade Bondarchuk is right and the vast majority of workers of the eastern regions of Ukraine actually support Yanukovich, because of their backwardness and oppression. Surely this implies that in this case the party of the working class, labour leaders, communists, revolutionaries, i.e. Bolsheviks, should tail behind the workers and preserve their backward attitudes and views. No, of course not. This behaviour by a party is called tailism and it is not unique to a revolutionary party of the proletariat as "the highest form of class organization of the proletarians" (VI Lenin, Left-Wing "Communism”, an infantile disorder” MSS, v.41, p.33), but an opportunist party, trailing in the wake of the backward attitudes of the masses. In the same “Infantile Disorder ... " referred to by Comrade Bondarchuk, but he did not even bother to read, let alone to ponder over its contents, the essence of Lenin's conclusions, recommendations and advice, says: "The whole task of the communists is to be able to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not isolate themselves from them with invented and childish "leftist" slogans "(ibid., p. 38). But comrade Bondarchuk, to justify his position of support for Yanukovych and win the support of the masses, said that Yanukovych is "our son of a bitch". The slogan is beautiful, which catches the eye, but it is not a Marxist one. "This is a son of a bitch, but it's our son of a bitch" - according to the American authors, memoirists, a review of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza (senior) of the 32 th U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. (Collegiate Dictionary winged words and expressions ", author-compilor Vadim Serov). So the expression "our son of a bitch" bears no relation to Marxism. This expression comrade Bondarchuk, is trying to win the favor of the proletariat of Eastern Ukraine, indulging his backward classes and the mood and weaving into their tail. But V.I. Lenin from the very beginning of his revolutionary activities pointed out that "social democracy everywhere and always has been and cannot but be the representative of the conscious worker and not the non-conscious workers, that nothing could be more dangerous and criminal than demagogic flirting with the unconcious workers" (PSS, 4, P.315). And then he continues: "The task of social democracy is to develop the political consciousness of the masses, and not drag in the tail of the disfranchised masses" (ibid, P.315-316).
In our case this means the following. If a certain part of the workers, and working people of the eastern regions of Ukraine are for Yanukovich, due to their backward and downtrodden by poverty and hopelessness of life, then we Bolsheviks have to explain to them that Yanukovych is OUR CLASS ENEMY, the same as Timoshenko, (and in western and central regions of Ukraine where some definite, disoriented and deceived workers supported Timoshenko, we must explain to them that Timoshenko is OUR CLASS ENEMY, the same as Yanukovych), that with elections we can not change anything, because whoever comes to power, in any case, the power will remain with the bourgeoisie, or clan of Yanukovych or Tymoshenko's clan, that the working class has only one way to secure for themselves, their children and grandchildren a decent life and that it is to rise up to the struggle for the overthrow of bourgeois power and restore the power of the proletariat. Of course, we have told the workers that we are not talking about a revolution overnight, but that the fight must begin in the most elementary basic demands: ending wage arrears, payments of salaries, the provision of increase of salaries, pensions, stipends and other payments at a level no lower than the living wage; lower prices and tariffs for the most needed products, transportation and housing and communal services, etc., etc. And in the course of this struggle is to be forged the unity of the working class, class solidarity. And when the struggle spreads throughout the country when the fight is switched to workers in all occupations, as well as working intellectuals and peasants, this struggle will have to acquire a universal character, from the economic struggle it will grow into a political one. From here it would not be long before the general political strike, and then the socialist revolution would not be far off.
Namely based on this analysis, we Bolsheviks approached the campaign, saying that elections are a mechanism for strengthening the power of capital (this, incidentally, is shown by the entire short history of “independent” Ukraine), and that inside the parliament, workers have already long gone for good (this was in Lenin's time, during the Tsarist period, determined, though a disproportionately small part of the workers could get into the tsarist Duma on workers curiae, but now, when Parliament is elected from party lists, these lists of workers and working people are absent with none to be found in parliament, besides the Com. Party of Ukraine, several members of the working people of Ukraine attached obviously to no-go places) that the Ukrainian president could be a very rich person (ie, bourgeois) or a politician, serving the interests of a clan of the bourgeoisie, since workers need 2,5 million UAH only to ensure the nomination of a candidate (not to mention the need for tens of millions of dollars to conduct the election campaign) simply can not be found. Hence, we concluded that workers have nothing to do in these elections (by the way, 1/3 of voters in the first round did not take part, knowing that the presidential candidates absolutely do not care about the fate of working people and that someone who is elected president, the next day after his victory will forget and completely abandon his or her campaign pledges), and the Bolsheviks should use this campaign to expose the illusions of the election, to introduce revolutionary proletarian class consciousness into the ranks of the working people.
And yet another argument of the VSR and comrade Bondarchuk is in the need to support Yanukovych in the elections, to support him like a "rope supports a hanged man", referring to the "Left-wing communism – an infantile disorder”, by V.I. Lenin (PSS, 41, p.73). And Comrade Bondarchuk, proudly declares that the resolution of the VSR is based "strictly on the Leninist methodology outlined in "Infantile disorder”... ", and that" these tips by Lenin are almost 100% suited to our current situation! ".
Dear Comrade Bondarchuk thinks that if he pulled out of context a quotation of Lenin's work, not thinking about its content and not bothering to read all this work of Lenin, or even go beyond page 73, then such thoughtless citation is called "Leninist methodology "? A few pages earlier, Lenin shows that the Hendersons and Snowdens are petty-bourgeois leaders, analogs of the Russian Mensheviks (p. 70, 71). In general the whole ninth chapter of the “Infantile disorder... " is devoted to "Left-wing" communism in Britain, the alignment of political forces in this country by the beginning of 1920 (" Infantile disorder... " was written in April-May 1920). Lenin showed that representatives of big capital in Britain of that period were Lloyd George and Churchill (as we, in Ukraine today, such representatives of big business, the winners of the first round of elections were Mr. Yanukovich and Yulia Timoshenko). But Henderson and Snowden were the representatives of bourgeois parties (Henderson was one of the leaders of the Labour Party and the trade union movement; Snowden was a representative of the Independent Labour Party, the leader of its right wing). Lenin also said that in Britain of that period there were several small Communist groups and organizations, and he urged them to unite their efforts to unite and act together against the common enemy - the bourgeoisie. Representatives of these groups called for the advancement to socialism and the victory of the proletariat in a straightforward way, without compromise, flexibility and maneuvering. Lenin, however, refutes this straight-line tactics of the "Left" and says that once a significant part of the British working class follow their British Mensheviks, behind the Hendersons and Snowdens, then the Communists in order to win the masses over to their side, should support the electing of the British Mensheviks to help them come to power, to support "Henderson with their ballot just as the rope supports the hanged man". Why is such "help" to the Mensheviks from the Communists needed? The Communists, Lenin shows, should help the representative of the British Menshevism to come to power to ensure that the majority of the working class on its own experience could be convinced of the correctness of the British Communists, "i.e. in the utter uselessness of the Hendersons and Snowdens, in their petty and treacherous nature, and the inevitability of their bankruptcy." This in turn, will hasten the moment, "when on the soil of frustration by the Hendersons, the majority of workers can be a serious chance of success and quickly overthrow the Government of the Hendersons" (p.71). That's who should have been supported at that time in England when there was no revolutionary situation, by the British Communists, and supported from a single view that British workers would have seen the betrayal of the Mensheviks, their subservience to the bourgeoisie and, on receipt of such practical experience, which turned be from the Mensheviks and would go to the British Communists. An analogue of the Mensheviks, an analog of Henderson in Ukraine (not absolute but relative, of course) is P. Simonenko (Leader of the Communist party of Ukraine). Based on the guidance of Lenin, then it would be the time to vote for Symonenko, with the same aim, of course. This, by the way, is what we Bolsheviks proposed to workers in Ukraine elections in 1999, when into the second round came Kuchma and Simonenko (this was the highest achievement Simonenko and the CPU, and then the CPU rating because of its conciliatory position began to steadily decline). And we to the working people openly stated that no matter who at that time may come to power, the power will still remain with the bourgeoisie, as Kuchma, a representative of big business, and Simonenko - representative of the petty bourgeoisie, which, by their very nature, is politically, rather, serves, a particular clan of big capital. But given the fact that a large part of the masses of working people saw in Simonenko a true communist, and not a compromiser and petty-bourgeois figure, we then proposed to workers to vote for Symonenko, that they in the future, if Symonenko came to power and became president of Ukraine would be able to see for themselves on their experiences, his petty-bourgeois nature, his loyal service to the bourgeoisie, and not the working class, working people. (Incidentally, this version of arrival to power took place in Moldova, where the PCRM (Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova) leader Vladimir Voronin was president of Moldova for 8 years and completely in the eyes of workers exposed himself, as bourgeois, and not communist in character, and demonstrated in practice the petty bourgeois nature of the PCRM). Simonenko was afraid to fight for the presidency, and between the first and second round of elections, the CPU practically turned its back on its own propaganda activities, that is, without a struggle gave the post to President Kuchma (just as Zyuganov, leader of the CPRF- Communist Party of the Rusina Federation did in 1996 when, in fact he won the second round of elections, but handed back power to Yeltsin). Now to vote for Symonenko makes no sense at all, because the CPU's popularity among the masses each year invariably falls and it was clear that Simonenko under no circumstances would make the second round, as was shown in the first round, where Simonenko took 6 th place.
Lenin, however, did not propose voting for representatives of big capital, since British workers were aware that they were their exploiters and oppressors. Comrade Bondarchuk has absolutely given no thought about what Lenin wrote, has perverted Lenin's advice and called it a "Leninist methodology.
This, my dear comrade Bondarchuk, is not Leninist methodology, but a perversion of Marxism-Leninism as a result of your superficial approach, your unwillingness to read this outstanding work of Lenin and understand its content. Leninist methodology, which is based on the dialectical materialist method, involves a comprehensive, concrete-historical class approach to the evaluation of phenomena, events in one country or another, accurate accounting of the placement of all classes, groups, strata, political parties operating in the country, consideration of the effect of external forces (i.e., an account of the international situation), to arrive at the correct tactics of Communists in a particular situation, at a particular historical period, and in a particular country. That is what, in particular, Lenin said in the same “Infantile disorder... ": the task is “to be able to lay the general and fundamental principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to explore, find, guess "(p.74). Or even one sentence of Lenin: "One must have ones own head on their shoulders, so in each case one is able to work it out" (p.52).
Your own thoughtless citation led to the development of improper tactics in the first round of the elections. But this would not have been so terrible, if you had a tenacity worthy of a better use, in not defending your own incorrect tactics, pointing at the same time to the very superficial nature of your approach to Lenin's ideological and theoretical heritage. With this "knowledge" and "understanding" of Marxism-Leninism you simply cannot lead the workers' movement in Ukraine in a Bolshevik, revolutionary way, and will always be stray in broad daylight.
However in the same work, Lenin said, that in the second round and in the second ballot the Bolsheviks never rejected “support to the bourgeoisie against the tsarist regime" (p.56). Why, I hope this is understandable, because Capitalism is a higher stage of socio-economic development than feudalism, the political expression of which was the tsarist government.
Before us, the Bolsheviks, the question arose, for whom to vote in the second round, or, as in the first round, not to participate in the elections. Of course, while we could not follow the above example of Lenin, since Yanukovych and Tymoshenko are both representatives of large financial-oligarchic capital, but from its different groups and different political hues. But on the eve of the first round of elections in the media reported that 8 of the national-democratic parties, such as the Ruh and others like them "democrats", i.e., neo-banderovites, decided to support Tymoshenko. The very same Tymoshenko made in response to the unambiguous political gesture by appointing to a higher pension to the son of Roman Shukhevych - Hitler's servant and executioner, commander of the UPA - Yuri Shukhevych. That is, the Nationalist neo-banderovites decided to change their leader, and, instead of the completely bankrupt Yushchenko, made a bid for Tymoshenko, thereby seeking to extend their political existence. Of course, this can not happen. So we decided in the second round to vote against Tymoshenko, and hence we were forced to support Yanukovych, a representative of big business, because we do not currently have others ways to stop the march of nationalism in Ukraine. Being forced to vote for Yanukovich, while continuing to publicly expose the exploitative nature of bourgeois anti-national group of big business, whose interests he is politically – that was our tactics in the second round. To expose the bourgeoisie, to explain to the working class, working people of Ukraine the falsity of the promises of the representatives from both factions battling for power, to help the working people and dispel any illusions, calling on the workers to rise up to fight for their rights, as the only way to secure a decent life - these are tasks that we decided on in these presidential elections and not to turn away from them, pleading not with flashy and completely devoid of content phrases like "our son of a bitch", but carrying out consistent daily work of the Bolsheviks on propaganda and agitation among the masses of working people .
Especially revealing is the statement by A. Bondarchuk that "almost everything is ready: the theory is already developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, well, and the labour movement conditioned by capitalist production. We still have one thing - to combine with the latter, the Marxist theory with the workers' movement.
How easily and simply. Bondarchuk had forgotten while Lenin instructed that "Our theory is not a dogma but a guide to action - Marx and Engels said ..." (the same "Infantile disorder...", p. 55). If Lenin and the Bolsheviks proceeded from the fact that Marx and Engels had it all developed, there would never have been the Great October Revolution. Marx and Engels in their time, in the second half of the 19 st. argued that the socialist revolution will occur more or less simultaneously in all or in the main capitalist countries. Lenin, however, investigating the development of capitalism in its imperialist stage, the highest, showed that due to the uneven development, socialist revolution will occur in several or even one country, which by then will form the objective conditions of revolution and will be a proletarian revolutionary party type, as a subjective factor in this revolution. (See "The Slogan of the United States of Europe" and "militant program of the proletarian revolution"). The Mensheviks, led by Plekhanov, an outstanding Marxist, but with an approach to Marxism that was not dialectical but metaphysical (in particular, in this issue), subjected Lenin for this conclusion to the most severe criticism. But the course of historical events confirmed the correctness of Lenin, who approached Marxism not dogmatically, and even less, not so simplistic as A. Bondarchuk. The Great October Socialist Revolution under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party led by Lenin, led to the victory of the proletarian masses of Russia, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat from the wreckage of the destroyed during the revolution bourgeois state.
Moreover, his assertion that the theory has been developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, A. Bondarchuk did not mention Stalin. And that means that he does not consider Stalin an outstanding theoretician of Marxism-Leninism, which is also fundamentally wrong. Such work by comrade Stalin as "Marxism and the National Question," “Dialectical and Historical Materialism", "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" and others, as well as "A Brief History of the CPSU (b)” entered the treasury of Marxism -Leninism, and to discard the theoretical contribution Stalin in the further development of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, which means wilfully or unwillfully descending to the petty bourgeois pro-Khrushchev camp (i.e. Trotskyist) point of view.

What caused these errors of A. Bondarchuk?
Of course, not only his superficial knowledge of Marxism-Leninism and the lack of a dialectical approach to analyzing the current situation in Ukraine, which is replaced by mindless and uncritical citations.
The point lies elsewhere. Until recently, Comrade Bondarchuk, as a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, was under the ideological control of the party. He was expelled from its ranks (in which, incidentally, is no tragedy, and we already wrote about this and fully supported the thrust of VSR activity in the working class), Comrade. Bondarchuk was free, in ideological and organizational aspects. The VSR Soviet was supported not only by us Bolsheviks, but also by a number of other leftist parties and organizations. Bondarchuk’s head went dizzy. Here on the pages of "Working Class" appeared "well-wishers, who began to push Bondarchuk and the VSR Soviet towards creating a "party of the working class”. Hence, aplomb, and the ambitions of Alexander Bondarchuk. I note that in the former Soviet Union now operate some 50 communist and leftist parties and organizations (this was said by Nina Andreeva, whilst reading a report at the 4 th Congress of the AUCPB in April 2005). Naturally, such a fragmentation of the communist movement plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie. And if comrade. Bondarchuk will create another party of the working class, it will only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie in Ukraine, because it once again splits the communist movement in the Ukraine, complicates (but does not stop it) the merging of Bolshevism with the workers and protest movement.
We want to remind A. Bondarchuk of the fate of Moiseenko, the talented leader of the left-wing of the Communist Party. He was also pushed by the security services, just playing on his ambitions to create a renewed Communist Party – the Communist Party of Workers and Peasants (CPRS). Where is the CPRS and its leader Vladimir Moiseenko? – They went into political oblivion. The same fate awaits the "party of the working class” which they are pushing comrade Bondarchuk into to creating. Pushed, we just have to say, by the Secret Service of Ukraine, to prevent the merging of Bolshevism with the workers and protest movement. Of course, nothing can stop this process, because it is objective. But simply additional obstacles occur on this path.
Our task, our obligation is to work together, join the protest movement of the working class, working people of Ukraine with Bolshevism, to build class consciousness in the ranks of the fighters, armed with the working class understanding of its historical mission, the gravedigger of capitalism and the builder of a classless communist society.

A. MAYEVSKY, secretary of the AUCPB

PS: The article was written towards the second round of presidential elections in Ukraine