Friday, August 19, 2005

Truth about Stalin

These days I am trying to study Stalin. I want to form an opinion towards Stalin and therefore I am collecting data to understand the principles of Stalin in the appropriate manner.

I am sure about few things though. Western sources can not be trusted with Stalin. There are gross-interpretations in the western books that say that Stalin was nothing but brutal muderer. They even try to associate him with Hitler.

Here is an article by the Communist Party of Peru about Stalin. I will comment on the following article and Stalin later. Have a good reading.

Stalin: A Firm Proletarian Revolutionary

The irrational hatred of Stalin comes from journalists at the service of the imperialist press owned by big monopolies (General Electric, Westinghouse, Walt Disney, Hollywood, Wall Street, Murdoch, Moon, etc.), from reactionary academics, flag-waving historians, from the followers of Krushchev and Gorbachov, the father and disciple of modern revisionism. Without a shred of evidence, these followers of Goebbels and McCarthy allege that Comrade Stalin has murdered 20 million people. It is part of the anticommunist vaccine injected on the American masses, especially the youth, who for so long, have been brainwashed with lies and deception to the point that anticommunism has become a crucial component of the Yankee folklore. However, lately it is not working any longer. People want to know the truth about this great man in world history, the man who fought alongside Lenin, to create the first socialist country, led the dictatorship of the proletariat and built socialism, crushing in the way a myriad of imperialist agresions, schemes, and sabotage of capitalist roaders and infiltrators inside the Communist Party. And why do the modern revisionists such us Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and their disciple Gorbachov, hate Stalin so much? Because that was an excuse to restore capitalism in the former USSR. For revolutionaries, those events have vital importance today since the trumpeted "defeat of socialism" is connected with the way in which socialism develops, and how the proletarian dictatorship is defended. The collapse of the USSR means the failure of revisionism, not the failure of socialism. It is revisionism which has continued its sinister road of capitalist restoration, sinking into the mire of its final bankrupcy. This began with the revisionists in the USSR since 1956, down to the infamous Gorbachov, and in China with Teng Xiaoping since 1976 and recently with the mediocre Jian Zemin.

The Communist Party of Peru, in assessing Comrade Stalin's life, upholds Mao's qualitative and quantitative evaluation on this great leader of the International Communist Movement. It states that Comrade Stalin should be given 70 percent for achievement. His mistakes were mostly theoretical in nature and Stalin himself has criticized them later in his life. Mao pointed out "that Stalin had made certain mistakes. Some were errors made in the course of the struggle; some could have been avoided and some were scarcely avoidable at a time when the dictatorship of the proletariat had no precedent to go by." Mao also noted that "Stalin at times had departed from dialectical materialism and was sometimes divorced from the masses. Generally, the work led by Stalin of suppressing the counterrevolution, of many counter-revolutionaries deserving punishment, were just and correct." The struggle against the bourgeois restoration in the USSR was complex and difficult that only a prolongued cultural revolution would have catch Khrushchev and his gang who were infiltrated in the Party and played a crucial role in the restoration of capitalism in Russia and the split of the International Communist Movement.

Stalin's merits and mistakes are matters of historical, objective reality. A comparison of the two showed that his merits outweighed his faults. He was primarily correct and his faults were secondary.

Stalin failed to admit that classes and class struggle exist in a society undergoing a historical period of proletarian dictatorship, and underestimated the energy of resistance of the bourgeoise that was able to restore capitalism. He believed that the explotitng classes were liquidated and all remaining reactionaries were only hidden people with bourgeois thoughts and morals, and thus failed to see they were right there under his nose, hiding as sneakes in the Communist Party. As Mao said, Stalin also made mistakes on his assessment of the Chinesse revolution, but when practice showed he was wrong, he was able to criticize himself as genuine Marxists do. Have the revisionists Khruschev, Brezhnev, Gorbachov and the like ever criticized themselves after their bloody crimes on the people of the Soviet Union and the world? Never. This is because they attacked Stalin as a pretext to restore capitalism, and thus conscienciously serving imperialism and counterrevolution.

Chairman Gonzalo said in his interview that Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist, and should be defended by all revolutionaries. Stalin began his revolutionary work as a teenager, and was a member of the Party until the last minute of his life. At the time of the proletarian revolution of February 1917, Stalin was in prison. He was freed, and returned to Moscow immediately to assume his post as the editor of Pravda. Under Lenin instructions, he was also charged to lead the drafting of the first national policy of the Soviet Union after Lenin launched the ideological struggle against the representatives of the bourgeosie within the Bolshevik party, including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, Bukharin among others.

This covered both the economic and political issue concerning the socialist construction. During this time, Lenin developed the outline of construction, and clearly saw the danger that the defeated bourgeoise remained stronger than the proletariat, and will always try to stage a come- back. Lenin died in 1924, too early to solve these problems in practice. Stalin took up that work, and carried out in his lifetime the principal programme points elaborated by Lenin. Thus, Stalin had the task of building socialism in the Soviet Union. The concrete task of developing its economy while facing a hostile capitalist encirclement was enormous. Stalin tackled this task with firmmess and creativity. Because of his deep theoretical understanding of Marxism and his practical abilities Stalin very soon became the acknowledged leader of the Soviet working class and the masses. They recognized that he was carrying out, concretely, the programme laid out by Lenin for the socialism construction. This included the industrialization of the Soviet Union and the collectivization of agriculture.

What was the aim of socialism? It was to build a society free from exploitation of the masses of the people by capital, to build a new society free from poverty, war and oppression. To create a new life for the oppressed masses beginning with the socialist country, and spreading throughout the world. This indeed was Stalin's guiding out look. It contrasted totally with the outlook of world imperialism, which had a long-standing hatred of socialist ideology and the socialist aims of the great founders of socialism Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Imperialism sought to destroy socialism but the socialist state defended itself vigorously, despite the armies of fourteen imperialist countries trying to crush the newborn Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union. They failed because the Soviet masses rallied to the red banner of the proletariat.

Trotsky had been a long-standing opponent of Leninism, both theoretically and practically. Only just before the revolution, did he apply to join the Bolsheviks with a small group of his followers. In actual fact, Stalin had a far wider following than Trotsky within the Communist Party because he was a known Bolshevik from his earliest days and had a umblemished record. In a series of trenchant theoretical articles, Stalin defeated Trotsky ideologically in the period 1925-27 and became the undisputed leader of the Soviet people. He mobilized them under the leadership of the working class to carry out the vast task of industrializing. This was an immense undertaking. It meant building a new economic basis of large-scale industry in which the lack of training of the masses in technology, had to be overcome by organization of education and training classes. This was all taken into account by Stalin, and in 1929 the first five-year plan for the reconstruction and socialization of the Soviet Union was undertaken.

The bourgeois experts in the West laughed at this plan; as if anybody could plan an economy! Certainly capitalism couldn't, its history was one of stop-go development punctuated regularly by economic crises. No wonder they couldn't see any point in trying to plan. But their economy was based on private ownership of the means of production which carried within it, the seeds of capitalist economic crisis. In contrast, the socialist system being built in the Soviet Union was based upon social ownership of the means of production by the working class in the leadership of the masses. That was a decisive difference which made a five-year plan a possibility. It was, for its time, an amazing achievement to be able to develop a planned economy, in the face of a blockade and threats of armed intervention.

The first five-year plan was an enormous success. It began the transformation of the old Russia into a new modern Russia and the reawakening of the Soviet lands. It was no easy task but it was accomplished with tremendous enthusiasm by the masses of the Soviet people. This was an amazing achievement . The imperialist bloc of nations which sought to destroy the Soviet Union and thereby also destroy the socialist movement in their own countries, were responsible through their attacks and blockades by the navies of Britain, France and the United States, for a major famine which killed over five million people. Has anyone ever heard of this in the United States? There is never any mention of this happening. The only things that happened were the killings by Stalin. Of course all of these are authenticated, as one must understand. Authenticated by those who claim the massive killings to be correct. How do they know? Believe it or not, all of these experts, so-called, must have carried out their own body counts. In a moment, we shall consider this question in relation to the collectivization of agriculture, which was the next major step in the transformation of the Soviet Union. Was this industrialization an achievement? Of course, it was a major achievement - but not for the imperialists, but for the masses of the world. They began to rally the flag of Soviet socialism, frightening the life out of the imperialist ruling classes in the West. From the point of view of ordinary people, this was a social order that they could identify with and support, unlike that of capitalism and imperialism.

Such was the enthusiasm of the people for building socialism, and the first five-year plan was completed in four years. But the task remained of bringing agriculture up to the level of a modern industrial state when it consisted of small-scale peasant agriculture handed down from Tsarist times. The main opponents of any change in this situation were the rural capitalists, those of the rural bourgeoisie, who employed wage labor in the countryside and exploited the poor peasants - namely, the kulaks. The kulak through small peasant farming could not solve the food problem in the Soviet Union, and the opinion gradually grew that it was necessary to transform agriculture in the direction pointed out by Lenin, of large-scale collectivized agriculture. Thus, the task begun under Stalin. Of course, the kulaks were violent in their opposition because they could see riches disappearing along the exploitation of labor in the countryside. They carried out uprisings against Soviet power. But the masses, always the masses of poor peasants crushed the kulaks. In a matter of about three years, collectivization was firmly established and collective farms began outperforming the small scale peasant agriculture they were replacing.

All the anti-communists in the West, and there were many, shed cocodrile tears proclaiming that millions of Soviet citizens were being slaughtered and starved to death by Stalin. Was there any truth in this allegation? Of course not. Not even according to bourgeois Western authors such as the British Fabian writers Sydney and Beatrice Webb. They had visited the Soviet Union previously and they visited during the period of collectivization. They interviewed all sorts of people from Soviet officials to foreign correspondents of which there were many. According to their reports in their large two-volume survey of the Soviet Union called Soviet Communism, the great majority of foreign correspondents agreed there was no great starvation. On the contrary, the kulaks themselves were housed and given jobs once they had been moved from the place where they had committed their counterrevolutionary activities. As for the massive number of deaths, according to the Webbs, it was all pure invention. Nobody had any evidence. But that didn't stop the monopoly-owned imperialist newspapers of the capitalist world from making totally unfounded assertions about the millions being killed by starvation and by bullets, all attributed to Stalin.

One of the things they claimed, and was also claimed subsequently by the bandit Khrushchev and his clique in Russia, was that the population had substantially dropped during the collectivization period. This was well known as a fact in the Soviet Union, but it had a totally different explanation from that given by Khruschev and the imperialist world. The great demands for labor during the programme of industrialization, saw masses of peasants move to the cities to take up work in industry. According to historian Andrew Rothsten, the number of workers in industry had been doubled from over eleven million in 1928 to nearly 23 million in 1932.This corresponded roughly with the claims of the professional anti-communists as a drop in population. But where is the truth? The truth is that there was a vast expansion of Soviet industry in those years, and a necessity for a great increase in the availability of labor for industry, which was provided by the movement of peasants from the countryside to the cities. In addition, it was notable that the seven hour day was in general operation, unemployment had completely disappeared, and real wages had gone up by 50 per cent. Compulsory education, introduced after a long period of preparation in August, 1930, had doubled the numbers in elementary schools and trippled those in secondary schools. During the period of the plan, which was a decisive step in the cultural revolution, as Stalin called it. In accounting for the hatred of the imperialists for the Soviet Union, it must be borne in mind that the years of the five-year plans, and a great building up of the Soviet Union in industry, agriculture, education and culture were also years of acute economic crisis in the capitalist world. While most Western economists sneered at the five-year plans there were some more sober heads amongst them. One of these was the British bourgeois magazine The Round Table. In 1932 it wrote:

"The development achieved under the Five-Year Plan is astounding. The tractor plants of Kharkov and Stalingrad, the Amo automobile factory in Moscow, the Ford plant at Nizhni-Nogorod, the Dnieprostroi hydroelectric project, the mammoth steel plants at Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk in Siberia, the network of machine shops and chemical plants in the Urals - which bid fair to become Russia's Ruhr -these and other industrial achievements all over the country show that, whatever the shortcomings and difficulties, Russian industry, like a well-watered plant keeps on gaining colour, size and strength ... She has laid the foundation for future development . . . and has strengthened prodigiously her fighting capacity. "

The capitalists and imperialists saw the dangers of revolution arising on the one hand from the starvation of masses of people in their own countries, and on the other, from the example of the Soviet Union which was developing its economy and standard of living in leaps and bounds.

It must be noted that in the early thirties the rise of Hitlerism threatened a new war against the Soviet Union, and indeed a European-wide war. This situation hardly passed unnoticed in the USSR. One of the consequences was that people under suspicion of having connection with the Nazis and the Gestapo were arrested and placed on trial. This included a number of people who had been very prominent previously, Trotskyists and Zinoviovites. One of them Sokolnikov, a former ambassador to Great Britain, said 'we considered that fascism was the most organized form of capitalism, that it would triumph and seize Europe and stifle us. It was better, therefore, to come to terms with it'. These terms would have meant the destruction of the Soviet Union and the establishment of a Trotskyist government after a German victory. United States ambassador Davies reported to Secretary Howell on February 17, 1937 that nearly all the foreign diplomats in Moscow who had attended the trial were convinced with him that the defendants were guilty. It was possible that the repression in this period was wider than it should have been. But to put the matter in perspective, it must be remembered that all through the post-Hitler period, the Nazis had made use of a fifth column of supporters inside countries that they were preparing to attack. This is what happened in Spain, and it also happened later in Norway and in various other countries. The fifth column was recognized as a major weapon of Nazism. The Soviet Union was certainly aware of this and undoubtedly the trials were a part of the Soviet state's aim at prevention of a fifth column movement of sabotage within the Soviet Union.

With the threat of fascism hanging over Europe, the Soviet Union conducted a diplomatic offensive and aimed at establishing, if possible, a collective security agreement to restrain Nazi Germany from any military adventurism. Negotiations took place over an extended period of time between the Soviet Union, France and Britain, with the Soviet Union taking the lead in this move. What happened? They were met with continued obstruction by the diplomats of France and Britain. In fact it reached such a stage that in order to satisfy public opinion the British sent a military mission to Moscow for discussions. The only trouble with that it was headed by a sixth-rate civil servant named Strang who had absolutely no authority to conclude an agreement of any kind. The Soviet Union recognized from these stalling tactics that Britain and France did not have the slightest intention of holding up Germany. On the contrary, they were carrying out the old policy of supporting Germany in its drang nach osten, and its push to the East, which they had sought to encourage as the cornerstone of their foreign policy, toward the Soviet Union.

All this was well known to Stalin and the Soviet leadership. At the same time there was a not an inconsiderable part of the ruling cliques of both Britain and France who were not adverse to joining with Germany in a war against the Soviet Union. The net result of these tricky maneuvers was to find its expression in Chamberlain's so called appeasement policy. This was to allow Germany to acquire what territory it wanted eastward provided it didn't move west. This culminated in the Munich Pact just before the war.

The Soviet Union turned its attention to its own defense in the light of Hitler's expansionist policies. At the same time, Hitler engaged in a diplomatic move to avoid a war on two fronts. This was to try for a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Such a pact was indeed signed in August 1939. Immediately, a vast outcry took place in the West claiming that Russia had signed an alliance with Germany. It had done nothing of the sort. What it had done was to sign a non-aggression pact at Hitler's representations - not the Soviet's (similar to those he had already had with China, Poland and other countries on its borders,) which simply consisted of an undertaking, not to invade other countries, and not to support other invaders of the other pact partners. The non-aggression pact was totally misrepresented as a direct blow against Britain and France and a betrayal - though why it should be so considered in view of their duplicity is hard to see - of Western efforts to contain Hitler. There were no such efforts. It became evident that the Chamberlain appeasement policy was a total failure. At the time of the Munich Pact, Chamberlain carried his umbrella off the aircraft returning him from a visit to Hitler declaring 'peace in our time' .He should have said 'war is coming'. Instead of Germany turning East as plotted by Western imperialism, it turned West. The sword turned into the imperialists' hands. In 1935, Stalin had already made the Soviet foreign policy perfectly clear in a speech made to a party congress. He said: 'Our foreign policy is clear. It is a policy of preserving peace and strengthening commercial relations of all countries. The USSR does not think of threatening anybody let alone attacking anybody. We stand for peace and champion the cause of peace. But we are not afraid of threats, and we are prepared to answer the instigators of war, blow for blow. Those who want peace and seek business relations with us will always have our support. But those who try to attack our country will receive a crushing repulse ...' The enormous labor of the Soviet people in the first five-year plan were clearly transforming the face of Russia. It was a necessary strengthening of the economic underpinnings of Soviet society and a preparation for its defense. At that time in 1931, Stalin spoke to a meeting of industrial managers in Russia saying: 'Those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia was the continual beatings she suffered for falling behind, for her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol Khans. She was beaten by the Turkish Beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her - for her backwardness: for military backwardness, for cultural backwardness, for political backwardness, for industrial backwardness, for agricultural backwardness . . .

'We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us.' He was a true prophet. Ten years later the Soviet Union was invaded by German imperialism in the character of Nazi, Hitler dictatorship.

On June 22nd, 1941, the Red Army was attacked on a front of 1,900 miles by 170 picked divisions, which not only had enormous bases of munitions and other supplies, but also had battle experience and victorious campaigns against many other European armies. Moreover, the armies of Finland, Hungary, Rumania and Italy were under German command at the Soviet front. The slave labor and industrial resources of 250 million inhabitants of occupied Europe were still at the disposal of the invader. Whether detailed knowledge of German invasion plans would have made much difference is hard to say. The fact was that Stalin tried to avoid giving Germany a pretext for denouncing the Pact and attacking. However, the preparations made for defense did bear fruit. While the Germans made big advances initially, they came to a halt at the environs of Moscow and Leningrad, two of Hitler's principal targets. The masses rallied to Stalin's call for all-out defense of their territory. The Wehrmacht was rolled back. Of course, as became clear later, millions who were under the rule of the Nazis were murdered - an estimated 20 million. In all probability, these are part of the 50 million supposedly killed by Stalin. They were, as it happened, killed by Nazis.

In the 1930s a Western campaign was begun about forced labor in labor camps. Molotov rebutted all the fantastic claims in a speech in 1931. Sure, he said, we used forced labor to rehabilitate criminals, giving them training and material support. But he punctured the stories of 'slave millions' with precise figures. He noted: 'In all the camps (housing a total of over 60,000) the working day has been set at 8 hours for the convicts. While receiving ample rations, and also monthly wages from 20 to 30 roubles in cash, the amount of work required from the convicts did not exceed that of the free laborer' .There was a good deal more of such openness. But no-one would believe it today, in the light of the so-called 'gulags' of Solzhenitsyn - a long-time anti-communist, who wanted Nazi Germany to win the war. No doubt life was harder for the prisoners during the war - but don't forget that it was harder for everyone during that time.

As the war progressed, German armies had to go on the defensive, and were defeated in Stalingrad, where they were encircled and forced to surrender. Stalingrad has since been regarded by all military experts on both sides as the turning point of World War II. But who knows about that achievement today? That sort of news is suppressed. Still if you add up the 27 million dead and add on to that another 20 million supposedly killed in the collectivization of agriculture one can perhaps see where the figure of 50 million killed by Stalin came from. Of course, it matters not to professional anti-communists that 27 million of those lost their lives in repulsing, and eventually conquering Nazi Germany.

Not so long ago the fiftieth anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany was celebrated. The British claimed that they had won the war. The Americans claimed that they had won the war. Those claims were very far from the facts. By far the great bulk of the German army was destroyed by the Soviet forces. Churchill himself declared that 'The Red Army tore the guts out of the Wehrmacht' .However, it seems that the British and French imperialists would have preferred Russia to have been beaten by Germany, in order to crush socialism. It didn't happen. It became clear well before the end of the war that whether or not there was a second front, the Russians were quite capable of defeating the German forces on their own. Understanding this, the other allies decided that they had better create a second front, so that they could claim a share in the victory.

As for the attitude of the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union, had they been so opposed to Stalin and to the leadership of the communists never would have supported as they did to the defense of the major cities in Russia. As it was, the great mass of the working people of Leningrad fortified their suburbs and areas under German bombardment, withstood the siege of Leningrad lasting for three years and despite the loss of a million out of their 3 million population, never dreamt of giving in. A similar tale could be told of Moscow, although it did not suffer the same sort of siege.

Eventually, the other allies of the Soviet Union opened a second front in June 1944, but after making initial advances they got bogged down against some armored columns under Von Rundstedt. They began to be thrown back in disorder. At that time Churchill cabled Stalin asking for an early resumption of Soviet advances on the Eastern front, to relieve the pressure on British and American forces. Stalin cabled back immediately informing him that this would be ordered and done. Churchill referred in a cable to Stalin that this was a 'thrilling message', and indeed the Soviet advance resumed, and saved the British and Yankee armies from utter rout.

1945 saw the conclusion of the Potsdam agreement between the big three, Britain, the US and the USSR. This was to determine the control of Germany, and indeed of most of Europe after the war's end. In the interim period, Roosevelt had died and Truman then Vice-President, became President. What was his attitude? In an interview with the New York Times immediately after the German surprise invasion of the Soviet Union, he had declared that the United States now ought to help 'whatever side seemed to be losing. If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and in that way, let them kill as many as possible'. Such was the hatred of imperialism for the Land of Socialism.

The Potsdam conference saw the reversal of Roosevelt's policy of reasonable friendship with the USSR to a policy of outright hostility bolstered by the sole possession by the US of the newly-developed atomic bomb. This gave them confidence that they were too powerful now for the Soviet Union to oppose. Stalin made no attempt at a militaristic reply. On the other hand in response to US threats of 'preventive war,' he answered 'the Soviet people have strong nerves'. A great deal of tension ensued over Germany and over Eastern Europe where people had risen against the pro-fascist regimes they labored under, and established a system of people's democratic rule - not socialism.

Under Stalin's leadership, the Soviet Union began the enormous task of rebuilding the destruction by the Nazis of their great industrial base in the west, which had been occupied by the Wehrmacht . By 1931 this enormous task of reconstruction had been more or less completed. It was at that time that Stalin died. Soon after, Khrushchev and his bourgeois gang surfaced to the open light and maneuvered their way into power and began a violent attack on Stalin and the socialist order. At the time of the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev delivered a "secret report" [in quotes because it was given to the imperialist powers in advance] in which he slandered comrade Stalin and totally negated any achievements of the socialist construction under Stalin. This was wonderful grist to the mill of imperialist propaganda - in fact, they could not have asked for anything better. It became evident to Mao Tse-tung and the leadership of the Communist Party of China that Russia had entered a period which would lead to the restoration of capitalism, and in fact, Mao Tse-tung said as much soon after the Twentieth Congress. This Congress totally denied all the major policies of Leninism, which Lenin and Stalin had endeavoredt. What was Mao's view? In the 1960s a great ideological struggle broke out between the Marxist-Leninist party of China and the revisionist leadership of the Soviet party and state headed by Khrushchev. Mao accused Khrushchev - rightly - of attempting to destroy Stalin and socialism at one blow. He recognized that Stalin had made errors, and he pointed out what these errors were, but he also gave an accurate judgement on Stalin. In the pamphlet On the Question of Stalin Mao wrote of Stalin's achievements in completing the industrialization of the Soviet Union and collectivization of agriculture. He also said: 'Stalin led the CPSU, the Soviet people and the Soviet army in an arduous and bitter struggle to the great victory of the antifascist war.'

Mao said that Stalin made an indelible contribution to the international communist movement in a number of theoretical writings which are immortal Marxist-Leninist works . . . 'Stalin stood in the forefront of the tide of history guiding the struggle, and was an irreconcilable enemy of the imperialists and all reactionaries'.

Today, revisionist all over the world, especially Yankee revisionists, have been shifted off their old basis of beliefs and have virtually accepted the gigantic tissue of lies woven about Stalin by world imperialism. It seems that they do not stop to think of what the alternative to imperialism is. When the revisionists allege that socialism is not able to replace imperialism, that is support for the idea of imperialism and exploitation, hunger, poverty, war, being eternal. There is nothing Marxist, Leninist and Maoist about such ideas, not in the slightest. But yet that is the objective position of many weak supporters and callous revisionists today. To understand what went wrong in the Soviet Union and why capitalism was restored there one needs to study Mao and Chairman Gonzalo of the PCP who analyzed the situation thoroughly. History has proven the truthfulness of Mao thesis that a new bourgeoisie, under new forms and methods, were developing even under the dictatorship of the proletariat and it was necessary to undergo several cultural revolutions to maintain the socialist course. The new bourgeoisie consisted of highly-paid bureaucrats, managers of state enterprises, professional people divorced from the masses, and a labor aristocracy based on excessive incentive payments. This privileged stratum constituted the social basis of Khrushchev and his revisionist clique, who were protected and were able to disguise themselves with the party card. Today they have emerged in Russia as capitalist fungus who will again be swept away, by the Soviet masses.

Today, revolution is the main political tendency in the world, and the struggles against imperialism are being carried out in different degrees all over the world. The People's War in Peru, led by the Communist Party of Peru and its undeated ideology Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Thought, is leading the World Proletarian Revolution, as a great example to follow by the oppressed people in the world. The loss of China and the Soviet Union is temporary, and at the end, socialism will triumph because it is the only system that can replace the moribund and canning imperialism, which will not die by itself, but by developing revolution in the form of the People's War, in every country in the world. As Chairman Gonzalo teaches: "all of us will enter communism or no one will."

Prensa Proletaria Internacional.

No comments: