Book Review: Be Vigilant on Possible Danger in Peacetime 居安思危 - CCP 中國共產黨 on Collapse of USSR

Updated: Jul 18

The 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (7.23, 1921-7.23, 2021)


祝賀中國共產黨建黨一百周年(於1921 年 7 月 23 日上海法租界, 由陳獨秀, 李大釗,毛澤東, 周恩來, 等人創辦以及港區國安法實施一周年 (6.30, 2021)

FILE PHOTO:  A Special Design Image for the Review of Be Vigilant on Possible Danger in Peace Time. ©Envato / Herb Ritts
FILE PHOTO: A Special Design Image for the Review of Be Vigilant on Possible Danger in Peacetime. ©Envato / Herb Ritts

Author: Shenming, Li and Zhihua, Chen

Chinese: 居安思危:苏共亡党二十年的思考 / 居安思危:蘇共亡黨二十年的思考

English: Be Vigilant on Possible Danger in Peace Time - 20 Years' Reflections on Soviet Communist Party's Decline [sic]

ISBN: 9787509720028

Publisher: Social Sciences Academic Press (CHINA) (Mainland China, March 1, 2011)


Videos:

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1CV411673U/


The direct cause of the collapse of USSR was kleptocracy. It was technically terminated by kleptocrats from the inside of the communist party in December 1991. Kleptocrats in the communist party camouflaged the process of stealing public properties as a ''reform'' or ''collapse'' in order to legitimise their theft. Furthermore, kleptocracy is broadly witnessed in neoliberal privatisation and colour revolutions in both right wing nationalist countries and targeted left wing countries. For instance, privatisation of British Telecom and British Gas in the 1980s (Also see the looting of the state treasury for personal enrichment in South Africa). Thus, kleptocracy itself has nothing to do with Marxism. In fact, it is the opposite of it.

中國共產黨(世界最大執政黨:該黨黨員總數目前為9514.8萬人)對蘇聯瓦解的原因精確地下結論了。那就是如今所謂竊盜統治。簡言之,蘇共內部的竊盜統治份子在政治技術層面終結了蘇共及蘇聯(1991年12月)。甚至,黨內盜賊勢力將他們與外部勢力攜手並肩盜竊公有財產,化公為私的過程包裝成‘改革’或‘解體’的,其實是如此被合法化了的一場打劫。此外,竊盜統治的問題廣泛地在新自由主義的私有化或顏色革命進行的右派和左派政權的國家內目擊的 (如1980年代的英國電信集團和British Gas plc之私有化),因此‘化公為私’跟馬克思主義純然都是兩碼事,甚至實際上正相反的。

In 2011, Chinese Communist Party (a.k.a. 中國共產黨 / Communist Party of China / CCP / CPC ; 1921-) officially concluded that the collapse of Soviet Union was due to internal causes of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (a.k.a. 蘇聯共產黨 / the Soviet Communist Party / CPSU ; 1883 or 1903 or 1912 - 1991). In other words, the Soviet Union was deliberately terminated by kleptocrats. (Chapter 1)


各種不同的研究觀點都在試圖向世人解釋‘蘇聯解體’的原因: ‘經濟沒有搞好說’, ‘斯大林主義模式僵化說’, ‘民族矛盾決定說’,‘軍備競賽拖垮說’,‘戈氏叛徒葬送說’,‘外部因素決定說’等等。我們看見不同的人得出不同甚至完全相反的結論。但其中最根本的原因是什麼呢?
毛澤東同志告訴我們:任何過程如果有多數矛盾存在的話,其中必定有一種是主要的,起著領導的,決定性的作用
鄧小平同志在其1992年那個著名的南方談話中明確指出:要出問題,還是出在共產黨內部
1991年12月,江澤明同志指出:蘇聯東歐的變化,並不是科學社會主義的失敗,而是放棄社會主義道路的結果
2000年12月,胡錦濤同志也指出:蘇聯解體原因是多方面的,其中很重要的一條,就是從赫魯曉夫丟掉斯大林這把刀子,到戈爾巴喬夫公開背叛馬克思列寧主義。(1)

Chinese communist leaders already knew the answer perfectly as cited above. It's too obvious to see who actually prohibited the communist party and ordered to disintegrate the party in 1991. They were Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. Their deliberate actions themselves were main and direct causes of the collapse. Listed 'factors' are to distract people's attentions from their actions and responsibilities.


CCP's point of view is highly technical and consciously practical. In fact, they recognised correctness of Leon Trotsky's prediction on the possibility of restoration of capitalism under bureaucratic dictatorship yet they also pointed out that Stalin's practical objection to market economy (e.g. Stalin completely eliminated unemployment in Soviet Union in 1932; he simply did not restore capitalism even though he had the absolute power to do it) indicated Stalin and so called ''Stalinists'' were not two-faced-capitalist reactionaries as ''Trotskyists'' wrongly depicted. Therefore, it's not Stalin or Stalinists who ended the Soviet Union. In reality, the terminators of USSR were neither Stalinists nor Trotskyists. This dialectic view is critically different from the traditional leftists.

Simultaneously, this book embodies CCP's political stance itself. For instance, the fatal sectarian division between Stalin and Trotsky has no longer been their dogmatic limitation on holistic learning of the 20th century socialist experiments at least since 2011. It's quite helpful for CCP and Marxists of today in order to avoid the same mistakes committed by their leading figures of the political faith.


Sectarianism divides activists in practice. And then it causes individualist conflicts for seeking hegemony in the field / market. Instead, holistically learning pros and cons of all leading figures of socialism is more valuable and constructive for them. CCP already chose the latter correctly.


Although both ''communist'' and anti-communist'' ideologues listed many ''causes'' of the collapse of the Soviet Union, those were surrounding factors, atmosphere or aftermath of actions of kleptocrats. For instance, economic malfunctions, separatist movements, imperialist regime change attempts, and military competitions etc.. However they just only listed them randomly, and no one could logically explain the cause and the effect in context.


Simply, some big data perfectly denies any economic reason while Soviet Union was still the world's number 2 advanced economic power in January 1990 ($2.66 trillion nominal GDP) even during the social chaos caused by the 'reform' (1986-1991). (2)

For military aspects, the Red Army had been the world's number 1 largest active army since 1945 to 1991 with annual military budget 200 billion USD or above. Average number of active personnel was stably 5 million people. Furthermore, there were still 92,345,764 people available for military service in 1991. In other words, there was no indication of the military reason or its disintegration. The Soviet Union were not militarily defeated by any one in 1991. This also supports the CCP's analysis on the collapse.


Kleptocrats actively collapsed the Soviet Union. 

從一定的意義上講,蘇共所取得的所有成就都是正確理論指導的結果;蘇共之所以亡黨,是從赫魯曉夫領導集團到戈爾巴喬夫領導集團,逐漸脫離乃至最終背叛馬克思主義的結果。(3)

CCP sees the start of the formation of kleptocrats as the Nikita Khrushchev regime era, and they gradually had infiltrated the communist party until the Mikhail Gorbachev regime and finally hijacked it.


Again, kleptocrats were neither genuine Stalinists nor Marxists no faith in socialism because they only saw it as a method for careerism from the beginning. (Chapter 2)

意識形態工作的各級領導權必須掌握在忠誠的馬克思主義者的手中。(4)

Chapter 3 concludes that sincere Marxists must be in charge of ideological jobs to lead the upper structure of the society.


Political monopoly is justifiable only if it genuinely serves the class interests of the working class people in practice and significantly improves their livelihoods.

Of course, it's still questionable as there are almost no honest Marxists in any country today. What is the meaning of the honest Marxist? It inevitably involves a controversy on the definition yet it can be theoretically explained by the original Marxist principles which not fully practiced in China even in 2021.


Chapter 4 is the answer to the main question of the chapter 3 that class nature of the community party is fundamentally the working class neither capitalist ruling class nor all people under class society. As people know, it is quite difficult to distinguish the class nature of the ruling communist party of today under neoliberalism with Chinese Characteristics (Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau). There is no such MARXIST to justify capitalist exploitation on workers. It is an ethical crisis.


共產黨還是資產黨?所謂共產黨或共產主義聯盟的存在意義是只限於階級社會的。它是勞動者階級在社會轉型的過渡期打贏階級鬥爭的階級工具。換言之,它本身就是在資本主義之下執政之後,較順利過渡到更高階段社會時的勞動者階級的政治組織/平台。只要真的沒有了階級社會,就沒有意義存在,是因為階級矛盾和階級鬥爭也隨著不再存在。
誠然,在階級社會及其資產階級壟斷政治之下,政治否認階級矛盾和階級鬥爭就等於反共,反勞動者階級的思維。
在階級社會及其資產階級壟斷政治之下,共產黨首要的任務就是打破資產階級的政治壟斷。階級社會裡只有資產階級的政治壟斷或是勞動者階級的政治壟斷,此兩者並不兩立(一國兩制被認為是這種?)。理所當然地,共產黨是爭取後者(勞動者階級的政治壟斷)的。
本書當中最重要的,重中之重的一點是共產黨的階級性質的問題。階級性質意味著共產黨的本義,初心,宗旨,本質,靈魂,精神,底線,黨風,總路線,立場,方針,組織原則和旗幟。在資本主義世界,其階級性質必定就是勞動者階級,而非統治階級或所謂‘超階級’觀點的,抽象的全民。階級性質的問題伴隨著任何政黨對階級社會及其階級鬥爭事實的態度和看法。換言之,階級性質就是在本質上的各種社會勢力的指標。
階級分析是指明不同社會勢力及其各種言論/活動的階級性質。
不像某國修正主義者們所提倡,譬如共產主義的資本家(紅色資本家?共產主義的反共者?反共的共產主義者?這就是目前打著紅旗反紅旗的反動勢力),與此正相反,共產黨的階級性質絕非理論或教不教條的問題,而是它的本質問題,決不可動搖的存在意義的問題。誠然,中國境內不少反動勢力進一步將共產黨的勞動者階級性質及其本質概念偷換為‘毛澤東時代’的復古主義來攻擊。在實踐上,不代表也不捍衛勞動者階級的階級利益,甚至於政治否認階級社會及其階級矛盾(如貧富差距)的現實,而一昧服務資本家階級的共產黨絕不算是個共產黨。那實際上是個資產黨
所謂共產黨,本義正是勞動者階級的政治先鋒隊,它在政治領域的勞動者階級本身的優秀代表,其原意也就是一種勞動者階級團結的最高方式,而絕非游離勞動者階級而高高在上的‘階級代理人’或指特定的‘代理機關’ (如同勞動貴族,官僚階層等,其他屬於資產階級的所謂‘精英’份子)。更不是官僚資本,即在以公有制,集體所有制,公有股等偽裝之下逐步有化國有財產的手段。
In short, the class nature of the communist party is not a matter of dogmatism / theories as revisionists told in China but it is essentially a matter of raison d'etre of being a communist party.
The class nature of communist parties must be the class interest of the working class people. Meanwhile, the original concept of a communist party was the highest form of unionisation of workers. In other words, it's politically the most advanced form of labor organisation(s) not something fundamentally alienated from labor unions and labor movements.
The primary mission of a communist party is to end capitalist monopoly of politics under capitalism according to the original concept of Marxism.

In chapter 5, CCP accepted Leon Trotsky's theory on bureaucracy. Bureaucrats themselves are not classes but they are just layers of both capitalists and workers in reality. The distinction between the class and the layer is still persuasive that the definition of any class is based on the ownership of methods of production of commodities in terms of capitalist economy.


按照馬克思主義的定義,階級及階層,主要是指經濟領域而不是政治領域的概念。任何社會階級及階層在任何時候都是生產關係和交換關係的產物,也就是自己時代的經濟關係的產物。階級及階層一旦形成,對一定時代的生產關係和交換關係則必然產生反作用。
任何統治階級及其階層一旦形成,則必然企圖進一步建立最大限度有利於自己甚至企圖‘終結’和固化一定的生產關係和交換關係[如復甦資本主義經濟 ]。從一定意義上講,蘇共的特權階層是蘇共亡黨和蘇聯解體的物質力量,甚至可以說是蘇共亡黨和蘇聯解體的原動力。(5)

CCP thinks that the privileged upper layer of the communist party was the driving force on the termination of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and USSR. This is the answer to the main question of this book.


Chapter 6 is mainly about how to accurately organise a communist party and govern the establishment in terms of HR and administrative inspection to maintain the party line. For this, Democratic centralism is not a problem if a communist party can manage everything effectively within the country.


Ultimately, so called organisational principle or the party line is also a matter of its class nature in practice.

蘇聯部長會議原主席尼古拉·伊萬諾維奇·雷日科夫(Nikolai Ryzhkov; 1929-)在總結蘇共亡黨,蘇聯解體的原因時,曾十分痛心地說:是黨的領導者們,正是他們背叛了黨,出賣了國家和人民。(6)

In chapter 7, CCP mentioned the individual function in history however those kleptocrats simultaneously had power to control the methods of production of commodities under planned economy thus it was and still is a matter of historical materialist analysis. They were not exceptions to historical materialism. Moreover, transformation of kleptocrats into oligarchs during westernisation and privatisation process is a proof of accuracy of historical materialism.


Like Muammar Gaddafi's socialist Libya (1969-2011), Soviet Union (1922-1991) was unnaturally destroyed and ransacked by both internal and external forces.

The conclusion of this book is chapter 8. It indicates that CCP's theoretical ability is higher than any other socialist / communist party in the world that a few sentences can summarise the core thought and the entire book of 522 pages see below:


當然,內因是事物變化發展的根據,外因是事物變化發展的條件,外因通過內因而起作用。
美國國務卿貝克(James Addison Baker III; 1930-)在談到蘇共亡黨,蘇聯解體時曾說:我們不是這場‘革命’的領袖,但也不是旁觀者。
這一定程度上較為生動,深刻地說明了蘇共亡黨,蘇聯解體的內外原因的辯證關係[運動]。(7)

According to materialist dialectics, ''external causes become operative through internal causes'' which means that people must realise dialectics of both the internal cause and external cause on this issue. The kleptocrats got ostensible and insensible support from external forces like US imperialists to create the necessary atmosphere (social chaos) in order to stage their political and economic plot in the name of ''reform'', ''openness'', ''humanism'', ''democracy'' and ''peaceful-coexistence'' etc..


In addition to the discussion on the advantages of this book, there are also disadvantages of this book below:


a. CCP writers here think dialectics of practice and theory (a.k.a. materialist dialectics) is limited in actions of the government not individuals. It is a sheer 'revision' to Mao's On Practice (1937).
b. The main focus of CCP writers is on foreign governments, bureaucrats, politicians, political parties, scholars, NGOs (1986-) and media throughout this book. Thus they regularly ignore political functions of chambers of commerce and oligarchs. This kind of analytical tendency was practically obsolete and broadly observed on the major Hong Kong political turmoil during 2019 to 2020.
c. Although CCP writers precisely analysed the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Communist Party and USSR, many critical points are also applicable on Reform and Opening-up (the post Mao era; 1979 - present). In short, this book is a mirror of CCP itself.
d. All communist regimes of the 20th century did not give any power to the working class in practice. In other words, dictatorship of bureaucrats was and still is a time bomb for any ruling communist / socialist parties themselves. Therefore, the working class-control of the state is necessary to prevent kleptocracy.
e. CCP ''politically'' separates both 'market economy' and capitalist economy. On the contrary, so called market economy is capitalist economy. Capitalist economy is fundamentally market economy. Today's mainland China is undeniably a (state) capitalist society.

Questions


Who were kleptocrats of the communist party? 誰以瓦解蘇聯來偷竊了國家財產?


蘇聯解體後,蘇聯統一經濟空間,國民經濟和科學的破壞,產生了近千萬的失業大軍,且1998年的失業人口超過2500萬;比較幸運的20%的居民身上,集中了一半以上的國民收入,而收入的主要部分,則為200到300個家族據為己有,他們獲取了國家財富的絕大部分,同時獲取了國家的權力。(8)
據俄羅斯科學院的一項權威調查表示:俄羅斯新社會精英來自前蘇聯的官僚最高領導層佔75%,政黨領袖佔57.2%,議會領導佔60.2%,政府部門佔74.3%,地方領導佔82.3%。(9)
[所謂改革的真相] 更有甚者,當權者乘私有化改革之際損公肥私化公為私大肆鯨吞公有財產,使得蘇聯幾代人艱苦奮鬥積累的成果,轉瞬間化為少數人口的口袋裡的財富。蘇聯解體後俄羅斯商界精英60%以上來自前蘇聯的官僚。在1992至1993年的100家俄羅斯私人企業的所有者中,原先的黨政精英,企業家,銀行家及其家族佔了62%。曾擔任俄羅斯總理的維. 斯. 切爾諾梅爾金,在20世紀80年代當過蘇聯天然氣工業部部長,1992年天然氣公司私有化 [‘讓一部分人先富起來’?] 切爾諾梅爾金腰身一變成了天然氣股份公司最有實力的控股人,他控制著全世界40%以上的天然氣資源,是世界上最富有的幾個人之一。前蘇聯共青團中央書記霍多爾科夫斯基利用自己的職位創辦了一家大銀行,把原屬人民的財富變成了他個人的財產。(10)

According to Ryzhkov, the kleptocrats were about 20% of the residents of Russia (200 to 300 families) in the ruling class in 1998 while more than 25 million Russian workers unemployed.


Besides this, about 75% of new ruling classes of Russia are originally Soviet communist bureaucrats; at least 62 % of capitalists of new Russian society are also ex-Soviet communist officials. Moreover, Russian oligarchs like Viktor Chernomyrdin (1938-2010) and Mikhail Khodorkovsky (1963-) are the best examples of this phenomenon.


Was there any sharp economic decline in GNI in USSR during Cold War before the 'reform'? 在冷戰時期,所謂‘改革’前,蘇聯的國民收入有無特別明顯的不景氣?


在1950年至1984年間,蘇聯國民收入,工業總產值分別增長9.9倍和14倍,保加利亞為14倍和29倍,匈牙利為5.1倍和9.2倍,民主德國為7.6倍和11倍,波蘭為5.9倍和14倍,羅馬尼亞為17倍和38倍,捷克斯洛伐克為5.3倍和9.4倍。[採蘇聯經濟模式的國家]
而在1950年至1982年間,美國國民收入,工業總產值分別增長1.8倍和2.1倍,英國為1倍和0.9倍,法國為2.9倍和2.9倍,聯邦德國為3.4倍和3.9倍,義大利為3.1倍和5.3倍。(11)

GNI and Gross value of industrial output data during the Cold War era before the 'reform' clearly indicate that there was no 'inevitable tendency of the collapse of the Soviet economic model' as the development rates of Soviet model economies were higher than the most of leading western capitalist countries. For instance, USSR had developed national income 9.9 times and Gross value of industrial output 14 times larger than 1950.


It also clearly indicates that there were global disinformation ops against the Soviet economy and its model during that era. From the point of view of Russian workers, there could be no objective and scientific reason to terminate the Soviet economic model because it was only suicidal for themselves. This is why workers should be highly conscious about their own class interest and should not confuse their own class interest with the ruling class interest on any political issue.

Who knew the real cause of the collapse of USSR correctly? 誰確實曾經知道蘇聯瓦解的真相?


1991年11月18日英國前首相撒切爾在美國休斯頓對於出訪美國休斯頓的一批蘇聯煉油和石化專家的公開演講。此時的撒切爾剛卸任一年多,她曾在大學學過化學專業。撒切爾說:
蘇聯是一個對西方世界構成嚴重威脅的國家。我講的不是軍事威脅。從本質上講,軍事上的威脅並不存在。我們這些國家裝備精良,包括核武器。我指的是經濟上的威脅。借助計畫政策,加上獨特的精神上和物質上的刺激手段相結合,蘇聯的經濟指標很高其國民生產總值增長率過去比我們高出一倍。如果再考慮到蘇聯豐厚的自然資源,如果加以合理地運營,那麼蘇聯完全有可能將我們擠出世界市場。因此,我們一直採取行動,旨在削弱蘇聯經濟製造其內部問題。主要的手段是將其拖進軍備競賽。我們的政策的另一重要方面是利用蘇聯憲法的漏洞。蘇聯憲法在形式上允許任何一個加盟共和國(只需憑著共和國最高蘇維埃的簡單多數)只要有意即可脫離蘇聯。[...]
遺憾的是,無論我們如何努力,蘇聯的政治形勢長期保持十分穩定。我們由此陷入了困境。不過,很快得到情報,說蘇聯領袖逝世後,給我們幫助的人可能繼任,借助他我們能夠實現我們的想法。[...]
這個人就是米.戈爾巴喬夫。我們的智囊們對此人評價是:不夠謹慎,容易被誘導,極其愛好虛榮。他與蘇聯政界大多數精英關係良好,因此,通過我們的幫助,他能夠掌握大權
[...] 智囊團多數人的意見是反對葉利欽的提名,考慮到他的過去的經歷和個性特點。不過,多次接觸和約定,後來還是決定推出葉利欽。在1991年8月19日事件期間,我們也給予了葉利欽以極大的支持。這樣一來,事實上現在蘇聯已經解體了,不過在法律上蘇聯還存在。我負責任地告訴諸位,不出一個月的時間你們就會聽到法律上蘇聯解體的消息。(12)
No text survives in the Thatcher MSS, probably because MT spoke off the cuff or from notes. No tape has yet been traced. The API seems to have none. The speech was open to the public and there is a report of it in the Houston Chronicle of 19 Nov 1991, which records remarks on the Gulf War. No other topic is addressed in the report. Lurid conspiracy theories have circulated about this speech for a decade or more, suggesting that MT revealed Western plots to undermine the Soviet Union. No evidence has ever been produced for this claim. (13)

This book cited words of Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) from Speech to the American Petroleum Institute in Houston, Texas, USA, on November 18, 1991. However there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the conspiracy theory which originated in Communist Party of the Russian Federation (1993-) due to total lack of the record. Apparently, it is more like communist propaganda to frame western leaders and ex-Russian leaders (in fact both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were not paid agents of western imperialists). Conversely, CCP made the slightly different conclusion on this.


External forces were and are only supportive roles compare to internal forces. And the economic competition (class war between different political camps) is still the core of the Cold War narrative.

What should have done to prevent the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991? 當年應該如何阻止蘇聯解體?


克留奇科夫後來在一次談話中說,當時我們對戈爾巴喬夫抱有幻想,希望他能夠改邪歸正。亞納耶夫也說,我們的錯誤在於,一方面想挽救國家,阻止簽訂新聯盟條約,同時又要保住總統。當然,事件組織者本身行動不堅決和內部不一致也是一個原因。俄羅斯學者,前‘持不同意見者’ 亞歷山大·季諾維耶夫在其近著中指出,‘叛亂份子’不是三歲小兒,他們 [當局] 應該明白他們在幹什麼。假使他們的意圖是真正認真的,他們應該做的第一件事是逮捕所有‘民主派’的積極份子 – 首先是葉利欽。 他們 [當局] 應該明白,國內是在進行著一場摧毀整個蘇聯的戰爭應該以符合這一現實的方式來行動; 但是他們害怕這樣做,他們甚至不敢承認這一無情的真相。(14)

The ex-oppositionist Alexander Zinoviev (1922-2006) was technically correct that the only way to stop the disastrous plot could be mass arrests of all leading opposition figures like CPC did on the Hong Kong opposition on January 6 and 7, 2021. See Hong Kong Intelligence Report #39 The Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement Ended.


What is revisionism? 什麼是修正主義?


[在鄧小平推出改革開放的正好一百年前] 在世界社會主義史上,最早提出‘全民黨’思想的是伯恩斯坦。他在1879年與卡. 奧. 施拉姆一起(即所謂蘇黎世三人團),寫了一篇文章,主張把德國社會民主黨從‘片面的工人黨’改造成為‘一切富有仁愛精神的人’‘全面的黨’。為了批評‘蘇黎世三人團’的錯誤觀點,馬克思,恩格斯專門發了一封通告信。他們建議,不贊成黨的無產階級性質的人,應當退出黨至少也應當放棄他們的顯要職位。不這樣,那就是黨自己出賣自己。(15)

In Social Democratic Party of Germany's the Manifesto of the Zurich Trio, Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932), Hirschman and Schramm suggested the workers' party to abandon its political orientation. Then Marx and Engels themselves strongly opposed it in 1879 because the class nature of the party was critically essential and uncompromisable. This was and still is the first example of so called revisionism. Read the “Circular Letter”.


READ MORE:

Marx’s Critique of German Social Democracy:From the International to the Political Struggles of the 1870s


In short, revisionism is fundamentally denial of the class nature of a labor party or socialist party or communist party. Moreover, it is perfectly harmonious with the theory of ''all-people's party'', opportunism and kleptocracy. Undoubtedly, it's far worse than Stalinism in terms of socialism.

How Yeltsin and Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union? 葉利欽和戈爾巴喬夫如何終結蘇聯的?


葉利欽在他的《 總統筆記》[Ch.ver., 1995, p.19] 中坦率地說出了他與戈爾巴喬夫的關係:戈爾巴喬夫並沒有把我推倒荒無人烟的偏僻角落裡,也沒有把我發配到遙遠的異域他鄉,就像他的幾位前任所做的那樣。相反地,他似乎是很高尚地寬恕我,憐憫我。我曾來沒有把同他的鬥爭作為自己的目標。不但如此,在諸多方面,我是跟著他亦步亦趨,拆掉共產主義的大廈的一磚一瓦。(16)

Boris Yeltsin admitted his political coordination with Gorbachev to gradually dismantle the communist regime in The View from the Kremlin: The President's Journal, 1991-93 (HarperCollins, January 1, 1994; ISBN:978-0002555449). It means that both Yeltsin and Gorbachev consciously destroyed the Soviet establishment one by one. This is apparently the main cause of the collapse.


Gorbachev was and still is a communist or anti-communist? 戈爾巴喬夫究竟是個共產主義者還是反共分子?


有材料說,戈爾巴喬夫1999年在土耳其安卡拉某大學 [後來確認了那是American University] 的一次講話中說:我生活的目的就是消滅對人民實行無法忍受的獨裁政治的共產主義。我的妻子在這方面堅定了我的信心,她有這種觀點比我還早。我只有身居最高層職位,才能為此有最大的作為。因此,我妻子要我不屑地努力上爬。當我親自認識了西方,我的決定就成了不可更改的了。我必須清除蘇共和蘇聯的整個領導我必須清除所有社會主義的領導。我的理想是走社會民主黨的道路。他還說:當葉利欽瓦解了蘇聯,我離開克里姆林宮時,上百的記者們以為我會哭泣。我沒有哭,因為我生活的主要目的已經達到。(17)
My ambition was to liquidate communism, the dictatorship over all the people. Supporting me and urging me on in this mission was my wife, who was of this opinion long before I was. I knew that I could only do this if I was the leading functionary. In this my wife urged me to climb to the top post. While I actually became acquainted with the West, my mind was made up forever. I decided that I must destroy the whole apparatus of the CPSU and the USSR. Also, I must do this in all of the other socialist countries. My ideal is the path of social democracy. Only this system shall benefit all the people. This quest I decided I must fulfil.
I found friends that had the same thoughts as I in Yakovlev and Shevernadze, they all deserve to be thanked for the break-up of the USSR and the defeat of Communism.
World without communism is going to be much better. After year 2000 the world will be much better, because it shall develop and prosper. But there are countries which shall try to struggle against this. China for one. I was in Peking during the time of the protests on Tiananmen Square, where I really thought that Communism in China is going to crash. I sternly demanded of the Chinese leadership that I want to speak to the protesters, but they did not allow me to do so. If Communism would fall in China, all the world would be better off, and on the road to peace.
I wanted to save the USSR, but only under social democracy rule. This I could not do. Yeltsin wanted power, he did not know anything about democracy or what I intended to do. We wanted the democratic USSR to have rights and freedom.
Then Yeltsin broke up the USSR and at that time I was not in the Kremlin, all the newspaper reporters asked me whether I shall cry? I did not cry, because I really managed to destroy Communism in the USSR, and also in all other European Socialist countries. I did not cry, because I knew that I fulfilled my main aim, that was the defeat of communism in Europe. But you must also know, that communism must be defeated in Asia also, to make the transition quicker to democracy and freedom in the whole world.
The liquidation of the USSR is not beneficial to the USA, since they have now no mighty democratic country (the former USSR) which I wanted to call the Union of Independent Sovereign Republics. I could not accomplish all of this. All the small countries now are thanking the USA for the help. I wanted the USA and the former USSR to be partners without the scourge of Communism, these could have been the ruling countries of the world. The road towards democracy will be a long one, but it is coming very quickly. The whole world must now defeat the last remnants of communism!
This is from an interview by newspapers with Gorbachev in Ankara, Turkey where he was a guest at a seminar at the American University. It was published in the 'Dialog' newspaper in the Czech Republic. Courtesy: 'Northstar Compass', Toronto, February, 2000. (18)

This Gorbachev's stance was later confirmed by The Guardian below:


Asked to name the things he most regretted, he replied without hesitation: "The fact that I went on too long in trying to reform the Communist party." He should have resigned in April 1991, he said, and formed a democratic party of reform since the Communists were putting the brakes on all the necessary changes.
This judgement will be of particular interest to historians since it is Gorbachev's first public admission that he should have left the Communist party several months before the coup of August 1991. In the memoirs he published in 1995 he did not go so far.
[...] As the hour-long interview neared its end, I asked the former Soviet president about change in China, the world's largest Communist state. Gorbachev takes the long view of history but is sure reform there is inevitable. Any suggestion that he should have followed China by starting with economic rather than political reform is wrong, he says.
"In the Soviet Union nothing would have happened if we had done that. The people were cut out, totally isolated from decision-making. Our country was at a different stage of development from China and for us to solve problems we had to involve people."
"Do you think the Chinese will be able to avoid the same hard choices at some point in time? There will be a moment when they will have to decide on political change and they are already nearing that point."(19)

As cited above, both interviews do not contradict with what Gorbachev had done to USSR during 1986 to 1991. His tone was perfectly matched in the important interviews. Again, the main and direct causes of collapse of USSR were actions taken by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. In their views, there were their own hostility and strong determination to terminate USSR.


How US officials and politicians analysed the disintegration process of the Soviet Union? 美國官方和政治家如何分析了蘇聯解體的過程?


美國駐蘇聯最後一位大使馬特洛克曾敏銳地看到:階級鬥爭理論是列寧主義者的國家結構演進觀及同西方發生冷戰所依據的概念,我注意到了逐漸修正或廢除這一理論的種種跡象(指戈爾巴喬夫時期。 –引者註 )他還不乏遠見地指出:如果蘇聯領導人真的願意拋棄這個觀點( 指階級鬥爭理論。–引者註 ),那麼他們是否繼續稱他們的指導思想為‘馬克思主義’也無關緊要了。(20)

CCP writers here made a mistake that Jack F. Matlock Jr. (1929-) was not the last US ambassador to Soviet Union. That was Robert S. Strauss (1918-2014).


Anyway, the US ambassador to USSR had more profound knowledge about Marxism than 'Marxists' on this. The core of Marxism is the theory of class war. If removing the class war theory, so called ''Marxism'' is nothing, total emptiness.
Meanwhile, he meant that Cold War was mainly an international class war between US and USSR. How about today's new Cold War between China and US? In fact, CCP abandoned the theory of class war already. Therefore, so called 'New Cold War' is fake narrative. Indeed, the aim of US is to defend its global hegemony from the rising superpower China's state capitalism which is outperforming US capitalism.

The main difference between USSR and PRC is that China is still in a long process of privatisation (1979-present) under CCP's leadership without Marxist policies. Privatisation of state-owned enterprises is suicidal for the socialist regime because it means that the government loses its economic base for executing policies and providing public service. Thus completion of privatisation of the public sector will be the collapse of the CCP regime. In other words, this is why US is sanctioning CCP's public sector to accelerate the process. In addition, China's productivityist dogma is capitalism not Marxism because of its abstraction of the class nature and socialist features of product relations. A sheer contrast to the Soviet economy which had been the world number 2 economic power during 1937 to January 1990 with its socialist product relations. 

蘇共和中共的主要差異在於改革開放以後的中共雖放棄了階級鬥爭,但在不再採取任何馬克思主義政策的中共之領導下仍處於漫長的私有化的過程。此外,所謂新冷戰是虛假的敘事,是因為目前的中美之爭比較像美日經貿戰,重點在於美帝慾維持其全球霸權,而重點並不在於階級鬥爭。譬如,習近平也小心翼翼地連隻字都不提階級以及階級鬥爭。記得目前中共早就在1970年代放棄了階級鬥爭,也終止了對各國共產黨的政治支援。這是決定性的差別。

此外,共產黨政權瓦解的時候必然會是當幾乎所有的國營企業(共產黨政府的政策執行的經濟基礎)及其公共事業(如原該屬公共事業的各種保險,水源,能源等等)私有化的時候。換言之,私有化最終必然會導致共產黨政權的自殺。到時,中國一定會有寡頭壟斷資本主宰國家政治的局面。這也就是為什麼美國一再專門制裁中共的國營企業來加速私有化的過程,即瓦解中共的過程。

再加上,中共在本書進一步指出:蘇共只注重生產關係,然而中共注重生產力。如此,蘇聯僵持了生產關係的社會主義特色,而中國則以生產力發展為一切。實際上,此兩者都是片面的解讀。對前者而言,仍然不可否認的是基於社會主義生產關係的蘇聯經濟模式從1937年直至中情局做統計的19901月為止都處於世界第二大經濟體;而對後者而言,從改革開放以來無論多大發展其生產力,都是基於資本主義生產關係。 因此,生產力的抽象主義是抽掉階級性質以及社會主義特色的修正主義。

READ MORE:

國企私有化會怎麼樣?

中共把中國私有化

Soviet Union: Facts and Fictions (Part 1: The Economy)


具有諷刺意味的是,美國政治家布熱津斯基在1989年就點明了戈爾巴喬夫改革的實質。他說:戈爾巴喬夫在改革過程中逐漸走上了修正主義的道路......他不僅要改變蘇聯的經濟結構,還要修改蘇聯的思想基礎,甚至要在一定程度上改變蘇聯的政治程序。他還指出:在克里姆林宮出現一位修正主義的總書記所造成的影響是巨大的,它的特別嚴重的危險在於瓦解世界共產主義共同的馬克思列寧主義理論有朝一日,蘇共要喪失對社會的壟斷控制,蘇維埃聯盟隨時可能解體。(21)

It's Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928-2017) who most accurately predicted the disintegration of USSR. Abandonment of the theory of class war is the clear sign of the revisionist 'reform' that sooner or later risks the existence of the socialist regime in general. Brzezinski was the one who perfectly understood what was going on in the Soviet Union under Gorbachev.


What is a conclusion of CCP on this topic? 中共得出了什麼樣的結論?


1975年7月4日,他對中央讀書班第四期學員發表講話,提出毛澤東最近的三條重要指示,即「要學習理論,反修防修」,「要安定團結」,「要把國民經濟搞上去」。在毛澤東的這三項指示中,鄧小平又特別強調經濟建設的重要性。他說:「國內也有許多事情要做,特別是要把國民經濟搞上去。」這樣,鄧小平實際上逐漸地否定了「以階級鬥爭為綱」的指導思想。[其實1975年新中國在毛澤東的領導之下終於完成了從農業社會轉為工業化社會的革命歷程]
強調全黨的工作應該以經濟建設為重點,淡化以至否定「以階級鬥爭為綱」的指導思想,這是鄧小平對「文化大革命」的「左」傾錯誤進行撥亂反正[此語廣泛地被本港所謂‘建制派’=兩面派用以間接地偷偷侮辱大革命家毛澤東] 的第一步。這第一步的工作,為他全面扭轉「文化大革命」的混亂局面創造了條件。(摘自《黨史博覽》)(22)

The 'reformists' of China after Mao clearly did not know abandonment of class war is theoretical surrender of the dictatorship of proletariat because you do not fight class war for proletariat, why the dictatorship of proletariat is logically necessary?

Although CCP already officially abandoned the theory of class war in the 1970s, the CCP writers of this book (2011) faithfully suggested below:


......特別是在社會主義制度和資本主義制度共存的局面下,在警惕不能重犯階級鬥爭擴大化錯誤的同時,也必須牢記在社會的一定範圍內仍然存在著階級和階級鬥爭,因而仍然不能放棄無產階級專政。應當清醒地看到資本主義雖然出現了一些新變化,但它的基本矛盾和本質沒有也不可能改變,它對社會主義國家推行和平演變和西化,分化戰略也不會改變。因此,必須防止新自由主義,民主社會主義,歷史虛無主義,階級鬥爭熄滅論等錯誤理論和思潮對黨的侵蝕和影響。(23)