Castilian translation of David Romportl
The Brezhnev years : ‘ Stalinism ‘ or revisionism ? by Ludo Martens
When Gorbachev surprised everyone in 1985 with a radically new discourse about the 17 years of Brezhnevism , throwing brave proposals in the field of disarmament , after withdrawing its troops from some adventurous missions in the third world, reopened an old debate . Is there still a hope that the Soviet Union back to the revolutionary socialist principles ? Is it necessary to review the analysis developed in the late 60s by the Chinese Communist Party and the Party of Labor of Albania? Had completed the restoration of capitalism in the USSR Khrushchev after the coup in 1956 ? Could one say that the regime that existed then in the USSR was state capitalism to social- practice a foreign policy ?
Today , in August 1990 , Gorbachev surprise us again by the speed and energy with which resets the free market and private enterprise , with implementing privatization plans and integration into the world capitalist system.
These unexpected statements require us to return to the analysis of the Brezhnev period , between 1966 and 1982.
Different opinions circulating among those who claim Marxism -Leninism.
Some consider the Brezhnev came to power in 1965 marked the beginning of a critical revisionism of Khrushchev. They finished the furious attacks against Stalin and the historical experience of the 20s and 30s. There was some recognition of the merits of Stalin and defended the line . The USSR regained some essential principles of Leninism Khrushchev abandoned .
Others think that this more orthodox hedging discourse served to ensure the process of ideological and political impoverishment that was developed at the head of the party and state . This discourse , seemingly Marxist- Leninist , did not correspond to a truly revolutionary practice , but rather to a hegemonic and adventurous behavior.
Others believe that the return to a more orthodox discourse was the expression of a compromise between different classes and political persuasions. The social layer of bureaucrats resigned open attacks on Stalin to avoid violent popular reactions. He understood that he needed to slow down , in daily practice , be dismantled socialist mechanisms and structures, it was not until later that could attack the ideological foundations of the system. The Marxist-Leninist forces continued their activities under Brezhnev, but they were not decisive for the guidance of the party.
Was it inevitable the radical change brought Gorbachev after the period of Brezhnev ? Gorbachev ? Expression was a qualitative leap in a long process of degeneration ? After the failure of Brezhnevism , could it be a revolutionary and Marxist -Leninist shift in the leadership of the CPSU ?
For granted, a complete answer to all these questions would require a study of the economic and social development of the USSR , an analysis of the distinction between social classes, a fairly complete information about the different existing trends within the CPSU and between their cadres , weight analysis of the military and its political and ideological trends.
In this study, we examine whether the four congresses of the CPSU held under Brezhnev can offer answers to some of these questions. It is true that the reports presented to Brezhnev party congress did not reflect one aspect of Soviet reality . But they are still an important aspect of it, because we offer the analysis was the address on the national and international situation and the political and ideological orientation imposed by the party, his vision of the future and the tasks indicated the party and the people.
The XXIII Congress : with Brezhnev, Khrushchev has a loyal successor
Khrushchev and Brezhnev
It came to advance the thesis that Brezhnev came to power marked a break with the revisionist policy of Khrushchev , Brezhnev Stalin rehabilitated and reintroduced the concept of proletarian dictatorship. However, in the XXIII Congress in 1966 , Brezhnev stated at the beginning : ” In all these years ( 1961-1966) , the CPSU , inspired by the line emanating from the XX and XXII Congress party , firmly guided the people Soviet in the way of building communism “( p.5 ) . In their reports, is not the slightest criticism of the novel ideas that characterized Khrushchev revisionism ( 1).
The attack on the socialist China
During the period covered by this report , there was an event of historical importance within the international communist movement : the rupture between the CPSU and the Chinese Communist Party. During the Great Controversy that was in 1963-64 , China defended the revolutionary principles of Leninism , while some key issues the Soviet Union turned to social democracy. In its report , the child does Brezhnev balance of this ideological struggle. Spend just a few lines to China, to read as follows : ” Deviations from the Marxist- Leninist , whether right or ‘left’ , become particularly dangerous when confused with manifestations of nationalism , great-power chauvinism and hegemonism “(p. 30). We see from the beginning Brezhnev leads the ideological struggle to hit club : Party accuses the Chinese left opportunism , but from the Khrushchev revisionist positions , because China refused to take the new thesis of the XX and XXII Congress the CPSU , is described as ‘ nationalist’ . The Soviet Union developed its own practices instead of great-power chauvinism and hegemonism (those other, very real ) on China, whose policy of aid and support to the worldwide revolutionary era, during the 60s , truly revolutionary . This policy had nothing to do with the search for a ‘ global hegemony’ , a charge which was first launched against China by the imperialist forces . What you write in 1965 the former Nazi Siegfried Müller, co-opted by the American Military Academy in 1950 and then serving NATO for six years, and mercenary in Congo- Kinshasa in 1964 , is quite significant , ” if there is a danger that threatens the Christian West , it can only come from the old imperial city of Beijing ( … ) Beijing is already starting to get their hands on Africa. 750 million Chinese are careful in your country. They move slowly , but surely, toward the United States. They have settled in Indonesia, Burma and Hong Kong (sic ) and in many other places ” ( 2).
The irresistible advance of communism …
Brezhnev makes an analysis of the situation of the international communist movement therewith rude subjectivism Khrushchevite euphoria that characterized and whose primary function was to ensure the reality . “The international communist movement has reaffirmed its positions , the most influential political force of our time” (p.25). ” In recent years , the world socialist system has been strengthened appreciably. ( … )
In the neighboring countries , the socialist regime is reinforced regularly ” ( p. 9, 11). “Yes , the socialist state , forever strong and prosperous ,there ! That state is our Soviet homeland, the USSR. His power in the economic , military plane , as in other planes, is unwavering “(p. 174).
The overwhelming sense of power emanating from the USSR , is what inspires this optimistic estimate of the international communist movement . But talk of “consolidation” of the movement, when the break with the Chinese and Albanian parties , when the political confrontation with socialist China and 800 million people occurs when deep divergences appear with matches Vietnam, Korea , Romania and Cuba , is nothing more than a hoax . Bourgeois analysts knew better than anyone see the possibility of a strategic weakening of the international communist movement because of the split between the CPSU and the CPC . The concept of ‘ unshakable power’ of the USSR is on the same basis of Soviet hegemony exercised over the communist movement , which appears in this report and relejado the XXIII Congress. “The basic constants of communist construction are common to all countries” ( p. 11). But the USSR is licensed to determine what those constants are and , therefore, to excommunicate those who do not blindly follow Soviet guidelines , such as the Chinese Communist Party and the Party of Labor of Albania in the 60s.
The sclerotic Marxism as false consciousness
With Brezhnev comes to power , Marxism -Leninism becomes , science revolution, ideology, false consciousness that hides the private interests of a privileged layer of workers divorced . Reports presented to Lenin party congresses were models of concrete analysis , materialistic, the socio- economic realities in flux, models fighting spirit and combat. Reports of Stalin, is Marxism-Leninism as the science of the practice of the class struggle , the analysis aims to boost the global revolution and class struggle in the Soviet Union, in them we find the discussion Review the political confrontation within the party . These basic features should not be obscured by some weaknesses and some political and ideological errors of Stalin , who had not the genius of Lenin. With Brezhnev , Marxism -Leninism ideology becomes , in a set of theses , ideas, and concepts whose function is obscure alive and changing realities , and legitimize the particular interests of the social layer in power. Brezhnev reports are just mystifying the image and likeness of the discourses of social democracy in the West , which speak of socialism, egalitarian ideals of humanism and anti- monopoly capitalism to better ensure class antagonisms and carry wording the masses to the collaboration with the prevailing system in better condition. Brezhnev ‘s report to Congress XXIII , one can search in vain for a deep and materialist analysis of political positions and economic interests of different social layers and classes existing in the Soviet Union , or an analysis of the major social phenomena Soviet society. General type are repeated : “the theory should always open the way to practice ‘ ( p.160 ) and” all ideological work must be closely linked to life , to practice’ ( p. 163), but is prevented implement these excellent precepts. And when Brezhnev occasionally dares to “develop” theory , completely separates theory from practice. ” The Communist Party ” Brezhnev says, ” has become even more strong and monolithic ” (p. 6). One year after Khrushchev’s fall , what kind of ‘ monolithic ‘ talk fit ? Without any analysis of the economic, political, cultural and religious differences between the 131 nationalities and ethnic groups that were in the USSR , Brezhnev declared peremptorily : ” The peoples of the USSR have gone into a process of ever-accelerating approach , its unity and cohesion are to the point of becoming indestructible ‘( p. 165). We see Brezhnev stays true to some of the main theses of Khrushchev , according to which class struggle ceased to exist in the USSR , except in marginal forms of crime and parasitism. This leads to Brezhnev to find some social phenomena , not devote a thorough and comprehensive analysis without leading therefore to a consistent practice of class struggle. “Unfortunately ,” he says , ” even people who are dedicated to the art of denigrating our scheme , the art of slander is our heroic people . Although, admittedly , can be counted on the fingers of the hand “( p.127 ) . We see here how the ideological trend analysis led Solzhenitsyn , the ideologue of anti-Stalinism tsarist nurtured by Khrushchev , the spokesman of the old reactionary currents and new pro -imperialist trends are born in society is limited . ” Some young people have a mentality of parasites , demanding much of the state, but forgetting his duty towards society. Bourgeois ideologists are committed by these men , slightly tanned , receptive to bad ideological influences , for use in their own interest. Fortunately, they are very rare in our country “(p. 151). The politicization of youth necessarily derived from the concept of state of the whole people and the declaration of the cessation of class struggle under socialism. Marxism -Leninism can only rely on youth as a theory of social struggle alive. A sclerotic Marxism-Leninism , ideological , can not be implemented in the spirit of youth. And from Lenin , we know that there is no gap in ideology. Where the socialist ideology , queen, under multiple forms , bourgeois ideology implant. economism
Brezhnev ‘s main thesis is that there is no serious threat to socialism in the USSR , or perhaps , small problems that can occur in marginal sectors of society . But within the “party of the whole people,” Leninism and scientific socialism will develop forever and therefore there can be no danger that can come from inside the game. It is a complete demobilization of the Communists to defend the dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle within the party and society . Hence derives a rude economism in the conception of the party and the union. Economism , the tendency to only consider the direct problems that occur in the production and work in the factory or office, is the kind of bourgeois ideology that workers spontaneously imposes . Economism prevents the consciousness of workers rises toward understanding the interests of different classes and strata and the fight and the opposition between them; candle economism main issue of class dictatorship , which is expressed in State action . Economism demobilize the party in the defense of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is the fundamental thesis developed economist Brezhnev about party building : “In the new conditions, the party organizations are even more responsible for the work done in collective production , the economic development of cities and republics . Must be true organizers of the realization of the (five year ) plans set by the game “(p. 102). Then Brezhnev defines the tasks of the trade unions : “In the current conditions , the activity of the trade unions , while schools of communism, takes on new meaning . The extension of privileges and economic autonomy of enterprises , and the systematic use of economic stimulants considerably increase the responsibility of trade unions regarding the fulfillment of the state plan , the technical development of production, the proliferation of inventors and efficiency experts “(p. 142). However, during the period of socialist construction in the field of economic construction remains the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road , the autonomy of enterprises , as well as stimulating materials can develop capitalist elements in the main land in the ownership of the means of production, the division of property , social relations and political consciousness. These problems have been consciously discarded to allow the bourgeois elements of the party and the state to consolidate their positions with confidence .
Economic problems and danger of restoration
Speaking of economy , Brezhnev responds to the bourgeois press when talking about crisis in the Soviet economy and predicts the abandonment of socialism. ” These statements are perfectly ridiculous . Social ownership of the means of production remains an immutable principle for us . We not only maintain , but perfected the economic development planning . Now, the strengthening of centralized planned management of the national economy combines the extension of the initiative and independence of enterprises. Socialist society has fundamental principle for compensation based on the quantity and quality of labor input , thus implying the action of economic stimulants, material interest ‘ ( p. 75-76 ) . These Khrushchevites theses are well reinforced by Brezhnev in 1966 , and will remain so until his death in 1982. However, the Chinese Communist Party made a number observations deserve reflection . But with directed against ” leftist opportunism ” of anti-Chinese campaign Mao Zedong , the CPC all observations were rejected with contempt. The break between the CPSU and the CPC led the weakening of political struggle based on Marxism -Leninism and severely impoverished the debate within the CPSU . In 1964 , the CCP wrote: ” Khrushchev revisionists adopted a series of policy measures that have significantly accelerated the development of capitalist forces , and exacerbated by the Soviet Union back in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie , the struggle between track socialist and the capitalist road . ( … ) The factories , which have fallen to degenerate elements remain nominally socialist enterprises , but in reality have become capitalist enterprises , instruments of his fortune. Relationships with workers have mutated into exploitative relationships . (…) And his accomplices in the organs of the state, in cahoots with them , take part in all kinds of exploitation and embezzlement , give and accept bribes , and participate in the spoils . Are not they too bourgeois elements in every sense of the word? “( 3). Although probably kick some hasty conclusions , these observations correctly locate a fundamental problem that only served to worsen during the reign of Brezhnev.
It is interesting to note that already in 1966 Brezhnev mentioned some weaknesses of the economic system , which will be referred to in all subsequent congresses, is achieved without remedy , but rather the opposite . ” In recent years we have begun to be felt certain negative phenomena , such as reducing the rate of growth of output and labor productivity , lower efficiency in the use of production and investment funds ‘ ( page 71. ) . ” The growth rate of the main agricultural products has been significantly lower than it was in the previous five years” ( p. 89). “The party has set as one of its most urgent goals of substantially improving the quality of production” ( p. 83). “Companies that manufacture consumer goods have not fully into account the tastes and demands of consumers. Many items are of an inferior quality “(p. 111).
The underestimation of imperialism and praise of the reformist path
Brezhnev does a materialist and dialectical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of imperialism , or the positive and negative phenomena in socialist countries , nor does the evolution of the struggle between socialism and imperialism in different terrains . Again, merely produce ideology of socialism is constantly advancing victoriously , imperialism is sinking ever deeper into crisis. ” The capitalist system knows about a general crisis .” “The growing aggressiveness of imperialism reflects growing difficulties and contradictions in the world capitalist system moves today. ( … ) Imperialism is powerless before the march of history “(p. 17-18 and 7-8 ) .
This vision of imperialism “impotent before the march of history ” derives a reformist position on the transition from capitalism to socialism. Brezhnev Khrushchev thesis collects on the peaceful transit through parliament , ” relying on hard mass struggles .” In France , where the Communist Party is dyed increasingly revisionism , Brezhnev notes the ” political maturity of the masses.” Makes the same claim about Italy and the U.S. . “The formation of a broad antitrust front is observed . This process favors the union of the masses and the extent of their struggle toward the ultimate goal : the revolutionary recasting of society , socialism. Capitalism is on the eve of difficult days. It is becoming increasingly clear that avocado is disappearing. But capitalist ever voluntarily relinquish their domination. The working masses and the working class can only achieve victory through hard battles of class ” ( p. 22-23). This is the typical language of traitors to Marxism , beginning with the Social Democrats in the years 1918 to 1921 , then wandered on ” hard battles ” and ” revolutionary recasting of society” to better combat the popular uprising , the destruction of the apparatus repressive bourgeois state and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
And what is more serious, this alleged “inability ” of imperialism serves to justify the reform path in third world countries and to reject the route of the national – democratic revolution , then consistently defended by the CCP , which kept apart by their ” left opportunism .” Citing the United Arab Republic (Egypt – Syria) , Algeria , Mali , Guinea , Congo -Brazzaville and Burma , where ” were carried serious social transformations ” Brezhnev said : ” The masses are convinced that the best way is the non- capitalist development. The people can not get away from the exploitation , misery and hunger rather than taking this route. ( … ) We have established close and friendly relations with the young states that are oriented toward socialism “(p. 4). These revisionist views deny the need for a class analysis of the various forces in power in the newly independent countries also deny the class analysis of the ancient colonial state apparatus , which often remains intact, and refuse to make a materialist analysis of the control imperialism on the various economic levers of these countries.
The XXIV Congress : Brezhnev delves into the revision of Leninism
In his report to the XXIV Congress , Brezhnev subscribe again issued revisionist line XX Congress. ( 4)
On two occasions , Brezhnev stressed that the “dogmatism” of Stalin’s time has been replaced by the “creative spirit,” and that the ” Stalinization ” of Khrushchev was necessary and correct . “The party has shown the futility of dogmatic conceptions ignored the great changes in recent years in the life of our society. The liquidation of the consequences of the cult of personality and the subjectivist errors have been profoundly beneficial impact on the overall political atmosphere “(p. 183). After denouncing the extremist trend right , represented by Solzhenitsyn , Brezhnev is forced to attack that certain fundamental conceptions of the Stalinist period are welcome . ” Another trend is the extreme attempt to exculpate phenomena occurred in the past , the party has undergone review based on firm principles , is the attempt to maintain notions and opinions against the new item and the game creator has contributed to over recent years’ ( p. 157).
Climbing against socialist China
Brezhnev redoubled their attacks on China and against all parties and organizations benefiting from a revolutionary interpretation of Marxism -Leninism. Particular political ” The Chinese leaders ‘ Brezhnev says , ” have adopted regarding key issues of international life and the international communist movement , an ideological platform and incompatible with Leninism . They have demanded that we give up the line of the XX Congress of the CPSU and the program “(p. 17). As in the XXIII Congress , we learn nothing new about the substantive issues discussed between the CPSU and the CPC . China would have ” demanded ” that the CPSU quit your line . Actually, it was the Soviets who demanded that all communist parties of the world adhere to the line of the XX Congress of the CPSU . They openly called for the overthrow of party leaders who disagreed with Khrushchev. In many games , the CPSU leadership organized putsches to wean the leaders who welcomed the ” Stalinism ” and replace them adept at Khrushchev ‘s revisionist line . Using his hegemonic position , the Soviet leaders decreed that the “particular platform” developed by the CCP was ” incompatible ” with Leninism (as Khrushchevite version). So , does the political ism Brezhnev to the CPSU the decisive criterion of internationalism : those who do not follow the CPSU are guilty of nationalist deviation, if not anti-Soviet . But the reality is that during the Great Debate , Chinese complied with the essential thesis of Lenin and his revolutionary spirit , while Khrushchev presented as ” developments creators of Leninism” to old social democratic thesis. Many revolutionary organizations born in the 60s felt closer to the ideas advocated by China and Albania revisionism. All were accused of making secession , ignoring the political reality of each country . Thus, the insignificant Lava revisionist group of brothers in the Philippines received the title of Marxist- Leninist , while the new Communist Party of the Philippines , one of the most serious and dynamic communist organizations in Asia , is secluded by secessionist . In Italy , Brezhnev hits the ‘ small group Il Manifesto “in the bag ” renegades ” ( p.36 ) .
Between 1966 and 1971 , Brezhnev became the political struggle in order to eliminate Marxist- Leninist line defended by the CCP, the political and military confrontation with the Chinese state . ” The Chinese leaders ‘ Brezhnev says,” have unleashed a violent propaganda campaign against our party and our country have made territorial claims on the USSR and have even led to armed incidents in the Soviet border in 1969 “( p.7 ) . Those who have studied this issue objectively know the legal right side was China and that in this case Brezhnev underwent aggressive and hegemonic policy. What was it? The delimitation of the border between China and the USSR along the 2200 kilometers that runs along the Ussuri River between the two countries. An unequal treaty imposed by the czars , establishes that border on the Chinese riverbank. Zhores Medvedev , anything suspected of sympathizing with China, writes: ” The attitude of China was logical to the extent that he intended the October Revolution had annulled the treaties signed by the tsarist government ” ( 5). China accepts the status quo , and therefore the Chinese annexation of territories by the Tsar , but requires the Ussuri River on the border is drawn according to international customs. ” Both countries need the river for boating, fishing and other activities ,” writes Medvedev. ” Normally, when a boundary crosses a river, the demarcation line passes through the middle of the river or half of the navigation channel .” Shortly after Brezhnev ‘s death in November 1982 , a new law on the Soviet border stipulated in Article 3 that ” the border passes through the middle of the navigation channel on navigable rivers ” ( 5). But in 1969 , Brezhnev was about to cause an all out war with China. “It Brezhnev who gave the order to fire artillery at will against Chinese troops, which killed thousands of Chinese soldiers and deep resentment in China against the Soviet Union” ( 6).
The birth of the hegemonic tendency
This confrontation with China is a symptom of the passing of the Soviet Union towards a policy of hegemony with respect to the socialist countries and the anti – imperialist countries in the third world .
This hegemonic attitude comes from a policy that focuses on military power as the primary means to influence the course of events in the world. “During the period considered ,” Brezhnev said , “the problems of the army have continued to be at the center of our attention .” “Strengthening the Soviet state also implies strengthening its armed forces , maximize defense capabilities of our country ” (p. 144-145 ) . With internationalism as a hedge , the Soviet Union military force in propelling the different parts of the world where opportunities to implement and strengthen the Soviet presence arise. The ” pride of the country ” degenerate into chauvinism powerful . ” Considerable work has been done to educate the Soviets in pride for his country , his people and his great achievements , in respect for the glorious pages of the past of their country ” (p. 149). ‘Great achievements’ of Tsarism are collected and crimes of aggression , expansion and annexation deleted. The defense of the Tsarist treatise on the Ussuri River border thinking is characteristic of Brezhnev. We believe that this display of chauvinism is what also explains why the CPSU leadership interrupted at this time the criticism of Stalin. This is not a refutation of the thesis Khrushchevites and a return to revolutionary conceptions defended under Stalin : Brezhnev does not collect more than last aspect of grandeur and victories that reinforce chauvinistic patriotism and conquistador . The criticism of Stalin did not fit with a focused towards the glorious past of parental education.
In the minds of the Soviet leaders , which a country chooses the socialist road is becoming synonymous alliance with the Soviet Union , acceptance of its military umbrella and consistency with his interpretation of socialism.
Brezhnev emphasizes “economic integration of the socialist states ‘ ( p. , which implies in fact a subordination of the economies of individual socialist countries to the Soviet Union. Extending its military umbrella over the other socialist countries , Brezhnev declared: ” The socialist countries are the greatest bulwark against the forces trying to attack and weaken the socialist camp ” (p. 21-22). Apparently , the Soviet Union and expressed their loyalty to proletarian internationalism . But when you look more closely , we find that , far from strengthening the socialist community , their interference and control over other countries weaken the foundations of socialism in other countries and makes its cohesion rest on the strength of the Soviet Union. The theory of ” the best wall : the fraternal unity,” that is, the protection of the Soviet Union , is fundamentally false . The best wall can not be other than the mobilization of workers , developing their awareness, independent effort to defend the popular regime. On this basis , a country may , in exceptional circumstances and for a limited time , get help from friends socialist countries . The Korean People’s Democratic Republic and always maintained its political and economic independence. He assaulted by the U.S. Army in 1950 , accepted the Chinese and Soviet military aid , but that does not depart from its basic policy of relying primarily on its own strength. Experience has shown that socialism in Korea is more firmly established among the masses that in the countries of Eastern Europe, who accepted the permanent military and economic control of the USSR.
The same tendency toward hegemony and control is reflected in Brezhnev ‘s conception of the fight in the third world . “The world socialist system ,” he says , “represents the decisive force in the struggle against imperialism ” (p. . By saying that the Soviet Union is the ” decisive force ” in the struggle against imperialism , Brezhnev tends to place countries and anti -imperialist peoples under their “protection.” Rejects the starting point of any revolutionary vision of the world is the people who make history , the working masses of the third world are the architects of their own liberation , anti- imperialist consciousness , organizational capacity and combat power of the peoples of the third World are the main factor in the struggle against imperialism .
The rapprochement between classes and nationalities …
The key point of Khrushchevite betrayal was the denial of the class struggle under socialism and the subsequent liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Brezhnev took the absurd to the extreme. A simple observation materialistic Soviet society indicated that class differences were accentuated as the years passed and the economic , political and cultural contradictions between the republics became acute . The ” creative developments of theory ‘ of Brezhnev speaking were merely idealistic speculations completely away from reality , ideological images of the ruling layer served to legitimize the new division of society into antagonistic classes .
Here’s what it says on the Brezhnev supposedly classless society exists in the USSR : ” The rapprochement between all classes and social groups , strengthening their social unit is produced in our country on the basis of Marxist -Leninist ideology ‘ ( p. 129). “Our Soviet intelligentsia sees its vocation is to devote his energy and creative energy to the work of building a communist society ” (p. 132). But at that time , much of the intelligentsia who ” devoted to communism ‘ was completely depoliticized , developed for itself a technocratic ideology , and was attracted by the economic and social system of the West. This Brezhnev classless society , differences between nationalities are deleted … Brezhnev speaks of ” an impressive demonstration of the monolithic unity of all peoples of our country ” (p. 134). This takes you to make one of his greatest theoretical findings : the creation of the “Soviet people” concept in which both classes and nationalities are dissolved . “We have seen in our country formed a new historical community, the Soviet people . The new harmonious relations between classes and social groups, nations and nationalities , friendship and cooperation , born of working together ( … ) In our country , people are united by community of its Marxist -Leninist ideology ‘ ( pg. 136 ) .
Moralizing for ‘marginal’
This fiction of the “unity of the Soviet people united by Marxism- Leninism” is contradicted by a number of facts and phenomena that can not be ignored . How do you resolve this contradiction Brezhnev ? Reducing the contradictions and social antagonisms marginal phenomena are due to personal attitudes and moral degeneration individual level. In other words, too visible denies that certain negative phenomena are related to the differentiation of classes that derives from the increasingly divergent economic and social positions occupied by men and material production within the state apparatus ; denies that to be bourgeois and reactionary political currents that develop both between layers as leaders within the masses.
“We must recognize that there are still heartless officials , bureaucrats , rude characters ,” notes Brezhnev. His remedy for this is reduced to a banal desire. ” An atmosphere of kindness , respect man should reign in each of our offices ” (p. 139). Announces ” a constant and relentless struggle against survivals of the past , ( … ) [ against ] parasitism , greed , extortion , slander, spirit chicanero , drunkenness, etc. . ” (P. 150).
Idealistic analysis of imperialism , reformism support
Brezhnev analysis of countries dominated by global capitalism is also completely devoid of materialistic foundations . From 1917 to 1956, world socialism had a significant boost from the incessant revolutionary struggles of the peoples who were properly directed , in the main, by the communist parties . Imperialism had to retreat during this period, before the implementation of the international revolutionary movement of peoples. This trend, which was developed through hard fighting , Brezhnev makes a landmark law automatically imposes : socialism is reinforced continuously and imperialism tends inevitably to an end.
“The general crisis of capitalism continues to deepen ” (p. 24). This idealistic and unilateral analysis of the realities of imperialism , a reformist strategy to ” overthrow ” capitalism in the metropolis and to expel imperialism is still dependent countries .
” The battles being waged by the working class right now announces new class confrontations , which might lead to fundamental social transformations , the establishment of the power of the working class in alliance with other strata of workers” ( p. 29). The establishment of socialism through social transformation is the main idea of social democracy and the bourgeois parties ‘ socializing ‘. In the 60s , some bourgeois and petty third world parties employed a Marxist and socialist language to mystify a population exasperated by decades of colonial barbarism win support in the socialist camp , and strengthen its position in negotiations with international capitalism . Dismissing all class analysis and making contempt of all Leninist strategy , Brezhnev declared that these forces have taken the path of genuine socialism .
After greeting the ‘ offensive forces of national and social liberation against imperialism ” Brezhnev said :” In Asia and Africa , several countries have already undertaken the path of non- capitalist development , ie have chosen to build with perspective of socialist society . ” He mentions , among others, Egypt, Burma , Algeria , Guinea , Sudan , Somalia , Tanzania , Syria, Congo- Brazzaville. ” The governments of Peru and Bolivia fighting against American domination of monopolies” ( p. 33). In full binge after the parliamentary victory of the Chilean Left , Brezhnev reformist strategy seems to have passed the test. “In Chile, the victory against national unity has been a major event ” (p. 32).
Brezhnev ‘ analyzes ‘ Poland and Czechoslovakia
However, a minimum observation of the realities within the “socialist community” under Soviet influence belies the political bluff Brezhnev . His ‘ classless society ‘ can still be exciting in the USSR, where the true communists since 1917 have shaped the political physiognomy of the masses, and where some traditions, such as the power of the Red Army and police forces there , which impose a certain unity to society.
But in societies of Eastern Europe class contradictions explode and develop a hard mass movements bourgeois . Brezhnev is unable to understand the breadth and depth of these phenomena , and therefore is unable to find appropriate remedies. The presence or intervention of the Red Army keeps the right to succeed in these countries, but the degeneration can in no way be stopped by a banal generalities Brezhnev blinded to reality.
Poland went through a crisis in 1968 ( with 200 000 people, mostly liberal intellectuals expelled from the party ) and major strikes in 1971. Brezhnev analyzes the situation : ” We note with great satisfaction how the difficulties that had arisen in Poland were overcome . The Polish United Workers Party is taking action to strengthen its ties with the working class, to reaffirm the positions of socialism in the country “(p. 15).
But it was the current social democratic Dubcek , the Czechoslovak party head , who launched the most dangerous to challenge socialist foundations of the country and for the hegemonic pretensions of the USSR. The Red Army had to intervene in August 1968 . “The Czechoslovak events have reminded , once again , that in countries that have initiated the building of socialism , anti-socialist forces managed to stay inside can , under certain conditions, intensify their activity and get direct counter-revolutionary acts in the hope of obtain external support for imperialism , which is always ready to make common cause with these forces. We have seen the danger of revisionism right , under the pretext of improving socialism strives to pave the way to bourgeois ideology manifests . ( … ) It is important to constantly reinforce the leading role of the party in socialist society , face as Marxist-Leninists and creative spirit of socialist development problems that have come to maturity ” ( p. 20).
In fact, the foundations of right revisionism had already been made by Khrushchev denounced the revolutionary experience of the party under Stalin , renounces the dictatorship of the proletariat , the cessation of the theory of class struggle under socialism concept of ” party whole people . ” Khrushchev was the first to have paved the way for bourgeois ideology , under the pretext of improving socialism. Brezhnev now trying to keep the Soviet revisionism , but also wants to prohibit other people to do all the consequences of this reality revisionism . But you can not effectively criticize the ultra – revisionist starting from a revisionist position. In this context, “to strengthen the leading role of the party” means : reinforcing the direction of a loyal to the revisionist view that prevails in Moscow party, and not let centers counter ultra – revisionist develop, ie pro -Western social democrats.
An international communist movement crumbling
In another key field , which is the development of the international communist movement ‘s claims to world hegemony Brezhnev also proved to be a bluff .
Brezhnev said that the International Conference of Communist and Workers Parties held in 1969 , ” did much to deepen some points of Marxist -Leninist theory applied to the contemporary situation ” (p. 34). Then teacher discusses his idea: ” In general, the cohesion of the international communist movement continues to grow ” (p. 35). The reality is that , based on the revisionist Khrushchev platform , a large number of communist parties were bound for forced toward reconciliation with the local bourgeoisie and to the collaboration with the great monopolistic bourgeoisie marches . This approach with the country itself bourgeoisie meant in fact destroying the unity of the international communist movement.
Completely disjointed around the issues of revolution, the communist parties attempted , under the leadership of Brezhnev, maintain support from the Soviet Union unity and struggle for disarmament . But as the betrayal of revolutionary Marxism affected all areas, here too the unit was purely formal . In fact , despite their demagoguery on the unit can not hide Brezhnev four axles popping the international communist movement : the defense of the revolutionary experience of Lenin and Stalin ( “revisionism left ‘), the Social Democracy of Dubcek type or Togliatti (” right revisionism “) , opposition to the Soviet model as having reference to the dictates and interference in the affairs of other parties ( ‘nationalism’ ) and unconditional loyalty to the USSR ( “Marxism -Leninism authentic ‘ ) . Brezhnev reads: “The struggle against the revisionists right and left and against nationalism remains in full force . It is precisely the nationalist tendencies , particularly those that adopt anti-Sovietism as form, by betting the bourgeois ideologists “(p. 35).
Despite this recognition ( something low ) trend toward the explosion,Brezhnev maintained the fiction that the “struggle of principles” that holds the CPSU against all revisionisms that do not match your interests, guides the whole movement international communist and ensures your unit ! “The CPSU uncompromising struggle for the purity of Marxist -Leninist theory of the party had a great international resonance , helping to guide the right path by the communists and millions of workers” ( p. 182).
The International Conference 1969 , Brezhnev glorified by the “growth of the communist movement cohesion ” will be the last call to get the Soviets …
The XXV Congress : the heyday of hegemony
In the XXV Congress , Brezhnev reaches the height of his “greatness” ( 7). It is the Congress which , having reached the delirium , revisionism becomes comedy. It is Congress that displays a program for the first time on behalf of Soviet hegemony in the five continents.
” Tout va très bien , madame la marquise ” [1 ]
Brezhnev goes even further Khrushchev in his blindness to the social and political realities of the Soviet Union and its ideological discourse is not based on concrete analysis . Despite criticism of 1965 subjectivism and voluntarism Khrushchev promised surpass the United States in the 70s and achieve communism before 1980 , ten years later , Brezhnev is lost in the same placid complacency. The Soviet Union is a classless society without contradictions between nationalities, the state of the entire people transformed into communist society through a continuous and unlimited progress . “In our country,” Brezhnev said , “a developed socialist society that is progressively transformed into communist society is built. Our state is the state of the whole people . It has become our nation a new historical community – the Soviet people – resting on the indestructible alliance of the working class, the peasantry , the intelligentsia, the friendship among all nations and nationalities of the country ” ( p. 110). “It is a society with an economy in crisis and without perpetual growth. It is a society with a firm confidence in its future and to which the unlimited prospects for continued progress ” ( p. 118 ) are opened .
Brezhnev draws the same surreal picture to the other socialist countries , Poland , Czechoslovakia, etc. . , Who know a ” relentless growth ” and a ” continuing political consolidation” ( p. 9). “The socialist community has now become the most dynamic economic force in the world ” (p. 13).
In his irresistible and continuous forward motion, developed socialism exerts an increasingly decisive influence on the fate of the entire world. ” The world is changing literally before our eyes , and in the best direction . (…) We can perhaps feel a deep satisfaction with the force of our ideas, the effectiveness of our policy? “(P. 5).
It is the speech of a new bourgeois layer , having completely separate from the working masses , he also separated – unlike the big bourgeoisie of the imperialist world – political and ideological realities of the country and international realities.
The East: model for hegemony
This ideological vision of an irresistible and triumphant socialism in the Soviet Union , was born in the other socialist countries , under the leadership of the USSR , the concept of global hegemony , the most original contribution to political science Brezhnev . Brezhnev ‘s firm conviction that much of the current world will soon dominate Soviet-style socialism , thanks to the help and general policy direction provided by the Soviet Union.
The concept of hegemony Brezhnev rooted in the very real Soviet hegemony exercised over the socialist countries of Eastern Europe . You can not speak of a true revolutionary unity of the socialist community , since it remains the basis for this: the effective leadership of the Communist Party among the masses, obtained through the class struggle against the old exploiting layers, interference and ideological influences of imperialism , bureaucracy, technocracy , revisionism and corruption within the institutions, and through the political mobilization of the working masses for economic construction . The gentrified layers socialist countries have already lost this direct political leadership of most of the people influence comes essentially retaining the administrative framework and comes from a political class struggle . Obedience of these gentrified layers – that by rejecting a return to methods of political mobilization of the masses, methods branded ” Stalinist ” , have no chance of survival just – is presented as a higher form of socialist integration. Brezhnev declared: ” We appear increasingly common elements in politics , economy and social life of the socialist states . This process of gradual rapprochement of the socialist countries today the force of law “(p. 9).
It should be noted that at least 3 of the 12 countries included in the Brezhnev ‘socialist community’ subtracted integration advocated by Brezhnev . Yugoslavia and Romania buy their relative freedom sold to multinationals and Western banks. Korea maintains its independence through a policy of mass mobilization . So , Brezhnev stressed the need for ” fighting withdrawal into oneself and against national isolation ” (p. 9).
The main axis of the progress of humanity …
As good revisionist , Brezhnev was always opposed to the strategy of popular insurrection in the imperialist countries and the third world ; always ruled in favor of the reform strategy , the strategy of the leadership of the bourgeoisie “enlightened” , allied to revisionists formations. Its global revolution is essentially the extension of Soviet hegemonism the rest of the planet, following the model of Eastern Europe. To Brezhnev , socialism will not be born of the sum of the national revolutionary experiences ; Brezhnev deny that the revolutionary parties must be anchored in the specific situation in your country, you should mobilize the masses and crush the forces of imperialism and reaction Local . Hostile to any genuine popular revolution , Brezhnev conceived of socialism that progress will be made by means of the attraction exerted on the Soviet model hundreds of millions of men . He rejects the idea that the masses armed form the only bulwark against imperialism and reaction, but unfolds before the peoples of the Soviet army ‘s actions to guarantee your freedom.
Introducing the activity of the Soviet bloc as ” principal axis of human progress ” Brezhnev denies the basic truth that only autonomous revolutionary action of those who suffer the yoke of imperialism socialism can bring in your part of the world . The construction of socialism , the struggle for socialist revolution and the struggle for national – democratic revolution are the three pillars of social and political progress. These three areas are critical and independent, although there are also interdependence between them. Absolutise arbitrarily one of the axes, the construction of socialism and its influence on the world , ignoring the revolutionary struggle of the workers and oppressed nations, is one of the practical features of Khrushchevite revisionism.
Note that since Khrushchev develop their thesis , presented the construction of socialism in the USSR , and the influence they exert their line of peaceful coexistence on the struggles of the people as a decisive factor in the evolution of humanity. During the Great Debate, the Chinese Communist Party denounced the thesis advanced by the Soviets that “the principle of peaceful coexistence now determines the general line of the foreign policy of the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist parties .” “When the Soviet people enjoy the benefits of communism , hundreds of millions of men on earth we will saywe are in favor of communism ! And at this time , until the capitalists shall pass to the Communist Party “( . The revisionists Khrushchevites said the CCP , ” want to subordinate the revolution of national liberation to his general line of peaceful coexistence and national interests of their own country ” ( 9). ” The socialist countries and the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations sustain and support each other. The national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America , and the revolutionary movement in the capitalist countries are a powerful support to the socialist countries. The socialist countries should not adopt (with respect to) a purely formal attitude, national egoism or great power chauvinism . ( … ) The superiority of the socialist system and the gains of the socialist countries in building exemplify and provide a motivation for the oppressed peoples and nations. But this example can not in any case replace the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations. The oppressed peoples and nations can only obtain his release through his own revolutionary struggle. However, some unilaterally exaggerate the role of peaceful competition between socialist and imperialist countries and try to replace the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations by peaceful competition . According to them , imperialism will collapse by itself during this peaceful competition , and the oppressed peoples and nations would not only quietly wait for that day “( 10).
This controversy of 1963 is very revealing. We find that in 1976 , Brezhnev has departed , in substance , the point of view of Khrushchev. But ” develops ” revisionism creatively, in the context of the correlation of forces in 1976.
Here the point of view of Brezhnev : “The development of the socialist countries , the growth of its power and its beneficial influence exerted by international politics, is the main axis of the progress of humanity today. The force of attraction of socialism has grown even more , thanks to the crisis that has erupted in the capitalist countries “(p. 37-38 ) . “Socialism since exerts an immense influence on the ideas of hundreds of millions of men worldwide . ( … ) It serves as a stronghold for the people fighting for their freedom and independence “(p. 15).
For Khrushchev , the future of socialism depends on the Soviet example offers the people, thanks to its policy of peaceful coexistence and economic competition with capitalism ( competition that will win , of course ) . Brezhnev maintained this view , but adds that the economic and military strength of the Soviet Union to exert influence in the farthest corners of the planet and facilitate the transition to socialism.
This line of Soviet hegemony , presented as an application of proletarian internationalism , is oriented primarily toward the peoples of the third world, the weak link of the imperialist world system. Here is his presentation by Brezhnev : ” The Soviet Union does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and peoples. ( … ) In the developing countries , as well as elsewhere , we are next to the forces of progress , democracy and national independence “(p. 18).
” The tragedy in Chile has not invalidated in any way the conclusion of the Communists about the possibility for revolution , to follow various pathways , including peaceful means , if the necessary conditions are met. But he recalled the compelling way that the revolution must know how to defend . It requires vigilance against fascism and the attempts of foreign reaction and advocates strengthening international solidarity “(p. 41).
Fighting the true Marxist-Leninists in the third world , Brezhnev support reformers (Chile ) and a coup and adventurers (Ethiopia, Afghanistan) he presents interchangeably as artisans of the socialist revolution . As the Soviet Union is ” on their side ” and his army ” is the bastion that guarantees their freedom,” Brezhnev intervene in several countries to keep in power the reformist forces and pro -Soviet coup . As have no real popular revolutions directed , these forces must increasingly rely on the Soviet Union and its own armed forces to suppress the reactionary big bourgeoisie and imperialist agents who have preserved the main economic , political and ideological arsenal because there was a revolution in the country.
Where does the hegemonic power ?
How can we understand the emergence of a hegemonic power in the USSR between 1965 and 1975 ?
During this period , various revolutionary forces in the third world actually inflicting severe blows to imperialist domination. The process of decolonization progressed vigorously over the years 60 and 70. U.S. imperialism conceded serious military defeats in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and received blows in Chile and Ethiopia. The old European colonialism was shattered by the fighting in Angola and Mozambique.
Having abandoned the Marxist -Leninist view of the class struggle in the dependent countries , Brezhnev believed he could capitalize on these struggles to extend Soviet influence and presence .
Capitalism met serious problems and major economic and political crisis. Mass movements of workers and students took place. Having abandoned the Marxist -Leninist thesis on the nature of imperialism and the bourgeois state and the bourgeois character of the reform movements , Brezhnev believed that socialism was the order of the day in the capitalist world , and political influence, weight military and economic aid from the USSR facilitate this transition .
In the Soviet Union were still running a lot of mechanisms socialists , communists remained motivated and mobilized workers in production. The dismantling of structures and not socialist values became more slowly . The Soviet Union experienced a period of relative economic stability and steady development .
By exploiting some of the superiority of the socialist economic system , Brezhnev made tremendous efforts in the military field , giving the USSR parity with the American superpower .
Born the process of degeneration of a communist party , the new Soviet bourgeoisie had no way of materialist analysis . And what’s worse, had the arrogance of the new rich classes .
Brezhnev made an idealist analysis of all phenomena just listed , and based on this analysis built their dreams of hegemony and ‘socialist’ empire under Soviet leadership .
In fact , the Soviet hegemonism moved from the beginning on quicksand . Adventurous reformist forces , putschists and the betting in the third world and the capitalist countries could not assure solid victories , nor did it ensured the loyalty of the eventual winners. The political and ideological situation rotted to view the socialist bloc under Soviet control eyes. The loss of adhesion of the mass to the objectives of the CPSU also presaged a difficult future. The Soviet Union was a superpower , but also a colossus with feet of clay. You could adopt an aggressive and adventurist policy in some particular regions. But the thesis of which was the ” most dangerous superpower ” with a ” social fascist Hitler regime type ‘ was always an idealist claim that a materialist observation of all the factors involved could not support in any way.
detente
The pursuit of detente with the capitalist world , defended by Brezhnev, was the continuation of the line of peaceful coexistence Khrushchev announced as ” the general line of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union.” It was based on four errors : a serious underestimation of the possibilities of imperialism renouncing class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary for the defense of the socialist system weapons, the negation of the socialist revolution in the capitalist countries, and denial of the national-democratic revolution in the dependent countries.
Brezhnev repeated that imperialism continues to weaken . “We have seen how the rivalry between the imperialist countries was exacerbated .” “The political and ideological crisis of bourgeois society has worsened ” (p. 38-39 ) .
To Brezhnev , the principal basis of peaceful coexistence is the Soviet military. “The passage of the cold war to detente was linked primarily to the change in the correlation of forces in the world arena ” (p. 22). In denying the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR , was obsessed with the military confrontation between the two social systems and could not see the strategic importance that this policy entailed line followed by the imperialist world political infiltration and subversion , supporting the revisionist tendencies within the Communist parties in power.
So , Brezhnev believes the signing of 1970 between the USSR and the FRG as a strategic victory implies by imperialism ‘ resignation to question existing borders in Europe ” ( p. 24). In West Germany , there is only ” right-wing forces that are anchored in revanchist positions ” (p. 26). Brezhnev sees only the spirit of open , primitive, militaristic rematch, and fails to see the danger of sneaky, smart , Social revanchism . The German SPD otherwise never denied that his policy of detente was intended to create the conditions for German reunification .
Similarly, Brezhnev greets economic ties , scientific and technical and cultural exchanges with the West, and concludes: ” This, comrades , is the materialization of detente ” (p. 30). He does not understand that imperialism systematically employs economic and cultural ties , scientists, technicians to influence and infiltrate the media leaders of the socialist countries.
The growing degeneration of the party
In fact, the progressive political and ideological degeneration of the Communist Party has consequences for the whole situation in the USSR. But as the main inspiration for this degeneration , Brezhnev is unable to detect this phenomenon and understand its strategic reach . Keep proclaiming the ” monolithic unity of the ranks of the Party, support and unanimous entire general party line ” (p. 89). Repeat content empty phrases and crush congress after congress. “The scholastic theories do nothing to hinder our progress ” (p. 99). ” The initiation of the masses in Marxism – Leninism is an important feature of the evolution of social consciousness in contemporary stage .” But what this unscholastic Marxism-Leninism ? ” The main objective of our entire network of Party schools is to make a thorough study of the decisions of the XXV Congress of the Party ” (p. 101).
As in the XXIV Congress , the undeniable phenomena linked to the emergence of antagonistic social classes in the USSR are addressed in a language that no reactionary moralizing Christian political recuse in the West. Brezhnev admonishes the ” people who know our policy and our principles , but not always respected in practice .” Report ‘ divorce between words and deeds . ” ” We run the risk of re- own mentality of bourgeois Philistines small demonstrations” ( p. 106).
Brezhnev criticized that ” greed, ambition to possess , crime , bureaucracy and indifference to man are traits contrary to the very nature of our society ” (p. 106). These words were spoken by tens of bourgeois politicians . A bourgeois social relations are restored in the USSR tactics and ideological analysis characteristic of all capitalist societies correspond .
Technocrats , on which a ” Marxism- Leninism” fossilized no longer has any influence , they were seduced by the “scientific” political views , “neutral” and “humanistic” West. His weight grew steadily in the CPSU . Brezhnev reveals that “the proportion of Party members from the industry specialists has increased substantially. Currently , a specialist in four or five is a Communist “(p. 86). The ” 99 % of the secretaries of the committees territory or region of the Party ( … ) , the secretaries of city committees , district and neighborhood have a higher education ” (p. 96).
The bureaucrats in positions of responsibility became almost immovable. Brezhnev said : “The care and attention to the pictures are the norm in our party. Times unjustified too frequent displacements and remodeling of the permanent staff “(p. 96 ) are over. The Brezhnevism means certain tranquility to the bourgeois layer. Here too , the policy of Brezhnev is completely opposite to that of Stalin : Stalin showed too demanding to cadres, who made mistakes were dismissed , they were not imprisoned or liquidated , and other very young, formed in the purest spirit Bolshevik , were promoted to senior positions . Adept Khrushchev Zhores Medvedev explains: ” In times of Stalin, senior party leaders felt threatened by the security organs that ordinary citizens ” ( 11).
Peace and stability for the leaders
A rabid anti-Stalinist and Medvedev is forced to admit that it was under Brezhnev when he left the bourgeois social workers a new layer. Here is what he writes: ” Brezhnev was not a real leader in 1964 , but the representative of the bureaucracy , seeking to live quietly and safely, while increasing their privileges. Not from their constituents rather than the bureaucratic elite . In this respect , Brezhnev also changed the system since fostered more than anyone the conditions for the flourishing of a real privileged elite , a true nomenklatura “( 12). “When he was forced to make changes in the Politburo , Brezhnev offered to those who were destitute high positions in the nomenklatura , which allowed them to continue their comfortable lifestyle . Gave a maximum security party leaders in employment , while officials and state Obkom were assimilated as servants, not as elected politicians accountable to their constituency “( 13).
The quiet corruption
Insured the peace and stability to the political and economic elite , its members could not settle their legal income. ” The stability of the elite had a negative effect. Official corruption is not stopped developing at all levels . Party discipline down , nepotism became common and on the ideological and administrative prestige of the party he was undermined “( 14). “The great corruption of Soviet bureaucrats were better placed had become a form of” occupational disease . ” The distinction between public property and private property ” (15) is not respected .
Russakov , secretary Kuibichev region , was involved in the illegal sale of cars Lada Zhi- gouli and the main Soviet -made Fiat factory , located in the region.
Brezhnev ‘s daughter , Churbanova Hen , who was married to the general Yuti Churbanov , deputy minister of internal affairs , was involved in diamond smuggling and currency speculation , as the son of Brezhnev, Yuri (co-opted in 1981 to Central !) Committee. In the apartment of one of the members of this band , Anatoli Kolevatov , police seized $ 200 000 as well as diamond estimated to be worth a million dollars .
The general Cheliokov , an old friend of Brezhnev, served as minister of internal affairs. Between 1970 and 1982 , there was a series of increases in the production of luxury goods such as gold , silver , jewelry, caviar and furs. Cheliokov was accustomed to buy large quantities of these products, before the surge in prices ( 16). There were clandestinely exported networks some expensive items , such as icons , skins, caviar , vodka and clandestinely imported hi – fi brands , jeans and western wear . Between 1969 and 1979 , hundreds of people, including the Minister and Deputy Minister of Fisheries , were involved in the smuggling of caviar. Secretly was canned black caviar canned 3 kilos bearing the label ‘ herring ‘. Sold in the USSR and abroad , and fraudsters the difference between the price of herring and caviar ( 17) pocketed .
By the late ’70s, Victor Grishin and Grigory Romanov , two of the younger members of the Politburo , lived in opulence and corruption. For the wedding of his daughter, he brought the Romanov tableware Catherine II the Great, which was composed of hundreds of pieces of invaluable. Located intoxicated, the guests broke many of the imperial vessels ( p. 14).
The corruption of the minds also manifested itself in the political arena. Brezhnev played a marginal role in the anti-fascist war. But 23 years after the war, in 1968 , became attributed the gold medal of the Order of Lenin , the highest military medal. During the 70s, was attributed to four times the gold medal war hero. He skipping three gradations , became quarterback . Then he gave himself the Order of Victory, special commendations that at the end of the war, received some exceptionally famous quarterbacks who had led the major battles during the four years of war. Among them, Zhukov , who had organized the defense of Leningrad and Moscow , and had directed , along with other generals, the Battle of Stalingrad and the offensive on Berlin . At his death , Zhukov had 27 medals and decorations , at the time of his death , Brezhnev had …270 ! ( 18 )
The XXVI Congress : headlong rush toward the collapse
The XXVI Congress is a decadent Brezhnev that is thrown adventures of the craziest , in a moment where you are breaking the foundations of its hegemonic policy. ( 19 )
Everything is fine , everything is going wrong
In its report , we find the same wording that the three previous congresses .
The progressive camp situation could not be better . ” The power , activity and authority of the USSR have increased ” (p. 4). “The monolithic unity of the CPSU ” is always assured seamless ( p. 132). ” In my opinion, it can be assumed that , in their essential and fundamental features , structure classless society will be formed within the historical framework of socialism, which has reached maturity ” (p. 102).
The friendship and cooperation between the countries of the socialist community develop vigorously , to the point of being mentioned in the constitutions of these countries. ( p. 9).
In the third world also continues to progress the cause. “States of socialist orientation ( … ) have become more numerous .” Brezhnev mentions Angola , Ethiopia , Mozambique , Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Yemen .
” The communist movement has continued to grow , strengthening its influence over the masses.” Brezhnev And do not forget to mention your “irresistible force of attraction ” (p. 28).
As always, the situation of imperialism could not be reviewed . “It has restricted the sphere of imperialist domination in the world . The internal contradictions in the capitalist countries and the rivalry between them , have worsened “(p. 4-5).
The hegemony becomes military adventurism
Brezhnev practices in their headlong rush hegemonic policy increasingly relying exclusively on military force , at a time when the political basis of this hegemony is crumbling , and its economic base shows obvious signs of a near crisis.
In the socialist community
The Polish Socialist regime was practically settled by degeneration , corruption and incompetence of the clique Giereck and pressure of a reactionary mass movement led by Solidarity and the Church. There are similar in other countries of Eastern trends. However, Brezhnev emphasized as ” priority task socialist integration ” (p. 11). In this integration, the military aspect , ie the military control of the Soviet Union on the Eastern socialist countries , acquired a dominant role. “The organization of the unified armed forces has been developed in coordination. ( … ) The political and military defensive alliance of socialist countries has everything you need to infallibly defend socialist gains of the peoples “( p. 10).
Military parity
Khrushchev refuted at the time the thesis that ” imperialism is war.” He also denied three essential factors that allow counter the war policy of imperialism : the development of the national – democratic revolutionary movement of the oppressed masses of the third world, the strengthening of the workers’ and democratic movement on an anti-capitalist and revolutionary base in the capitalist countries , and the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy in the socialist countries and the sustained growth of their economies.
Following the same right-wing orientation, Brezhnev bet almost exclusively by the growth of the Soviet armed forces to keep the peace. “The military and strategic balance that has been established between the USSR and the USA, between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO, objectively contributes to the maintenance of peace in our world ” (p. 41). Denying the dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolution , Brezhnev actually enters a militaristic and adventurous way , since the “military and nuclear parity” with the Western military -industrial complex is an unworkable and disastrous exit for a socialist country. Brezhnev is reduced to making threats entirely counterproductive to European countries . It states : “a nuclear war ” limited ” to Europe from the beginning would mean certain destruction of European civilization ” (p. 38).
The Soviet Army in the Third World
But in the third world where it exhibits more openly military adventurism. From Khrushchev , the CPSU no longer have any confidence in the masses of Asia , Africa and Latin America. Openly hostile to revolutionary work shows long-term policies aimed at creating the basis for the armed struggle and the popular uprising against imperialist domination. In this political context, the ultra – leftist proletarian internationalism on employing Brezhnev sometimes speech is merely a cover for a policy of interference , control and hegemony. Where imperialism assaults a village, the USSR sent its soldiers. Where exports counter imperialism , the Soviet army is ready to defend the revolution. It’s what Brezhnev publicly declares , falling into a totally foreign adventurism to revolutionary Marxist-Leninist principles . Here Brezhnev ‘s words : ” Every time I do lack assist victims of aggression , the Soviet soldier appears to the world as a selfless and courageous patriot, as an internationalist willing to overcome any difficulty ” (p. 127). “When we ask , we help strengthen the United released its defense capability . This was the case in Angola and Ethiopia. You attempted to crush the popular revolutions in those countries. We are against the export of the revolution, but we can not accept the export of counterrevolution ” (p. 22).
The struggle against the arms race and shaft
This adventurism “left” to be on a clearly rightist political base , which denies the fundamental role of popular revolutionary movements for building socialism in the world is reflected in the fundamental thesis of Brezhnevism ” the struggle for reducing the threat of war, and curb the arms race, is at the heart of the foreign policy of our party “(p. 48).
Khrushchev had begun to assert that peaceful coexistence was the general line of the foreign policy of the USSR. Brezhnev decided military and nuclear parity between the USSR and the United States. As the weight of such a policy was unbearable for the USSR , Brezhnev had to make the fight against arms race “general line ” of its foreign policy. At the same time , hoped to use the issue of nuclear threat to draw the masses in the imperialist countries in the fight against their bourgeoisie , the relative paralysis of the latter would then allow to carry through military adventures of the USSR in the third world . But in view of the economic policy of the USSR and weakness , this contradictory policy was , in fact, doomed to failure.
The “struggle against the arms race as the focus of foreign policy ‘ should be compared with the correct argument made by the CCP during the great debate with Khrushchev . “In our opinion, the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries should have the following contents : to develop , on the basis of proletarian internationalism , the friendship , support and cooperation between the socialist countries ; fight for peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems on the basis of the five principles , and fight imperialist policies of aggression and war, support the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. These three aspects are linked to each other , inextricably , and none of them can be omitted . ” ( 20 ) .
Omens of a near collapse
The report to Congress XXVI contains a completely new orientation in the thinking of Brezhnev. For the first time , the numerous statements about continuous and irresistible progress of socialism are now offset by the widespread awareness of a future political and economic collapse : “There were many difficulties , both in the economic development of the country and in the international situation” ( p. 5).
Announcing the crisis in East
In Poland, ” the foundations of the socialist state are being threatened .” ” We will not let impairment of socialist Poland , will not leave your fate to a brother country” ( p. 16).
In fact, the foundations of socialism in Poland would have been completely dismantled without the intervention of the army of Jaruzelski . It was clear that Poland was practically in the final stretch of the long process of degeneration began with Khrushchev , and other Eastern countries had gone into the same route. However, at a time that would be required a radical change in political strategy in the socialist countries of the East, in which therefore the foundations of Soviet political domination to a hegemonic Brezhnev launches adventure in Afghanistan should have been questioned. Instead of a radical change in strategy , Brezhnev stated in his “analysis” of the Polish case the general who had already used ten years ago to talk about the same Poland and Czechoslovakia . To save socialism in Poland , is needed , he says, reaffirming the leading role of the party, listen carefully to the masses, fighting against bureaucracy and voluntarism , develop socialist democracy , implement a realistic policy on external economic relations ( page 17.) . Even when the degeneration process has virtually come to an end in Poland, Brezhnev is not anything interesting to say about the revisionist degeneration of a socialist country. Their analysis is null and the remedies proposed are more of the same .
Apparently tired and overtaken by events , the old man concludes with a formula that is unrelated to what you just said. “There were difficult times and times of crisis. But the Communists always faced with courage to attack the enemy , and succeeded . Always was , and always will be “(p. 17). Here’s how it was spoken in the USSR at the time of Stalin. But at that time , the party was led by true Bolsheviks.
Declining economic mechanisms
In the economic field also , the future crisis of Soviet society is seen in the report of Brezhnev. It is the first time at a conference underlines the usefulness of ‘ use experience fraternal countries ” ( p. 11). Things have to go very wrong in the USSR to say such words! And Brezhnev mentioned eg cooperatives and agricultural companies in Hungary, the rationalization of production , the economics of energy and raw materials in the GDR, the social security system in Czechoslovakia, the agro -industrial cooperation in Bulgaria …
Brezhnev takes ten years highlighting the need for certain quantitative changes in the structures and mechanisms of the economy. In a lax tone, merely repeat without any analysis of past failures . This underlines the need for a ” step essentially intensive development ” where the key word is ‘efficiency’ . But why do not we move from extensive to intensive development phase ? Here’s what we found : ” We have not completely overcome the force of inertia and habits acquired in a period in which he was given higher priority to the more quantitative aspects ” (p. 69).
As in previous reports , Brezhnev notes that the achievements of science are introduced in production with an ” intolerable slowness .” “The key sector and concern today is the implementation of scientific discoveries and inventions ” (p. 81).
Brezhnev takes the already long known examples of disorganization and neglect. 25% of the production of rolled ferrous metals becomes waste or defective products ( p. 74). The losses of fruits and vegetables are considerable , due to failures in the transport, storage and treatment ( p. 88).
The FMCG sector is neglected , but have machado for two five-year plans with the question of ” meeting the daily needs of man” ( 21). Brezhnev notes : ” Year after year , not satisfied with the delivery plans of many consumer goods , especially textiles , clothing , leather shoes , furniture and TVs. Progress is inadequate in terms of quality, finish and choice “(p. 91). We make decisions , but apparently are not able to plan economic development accordingly. Brezhnev noted the ” delays in the scientific basis and the study project lighter, food and pharmaceutical industries , the construction of agricultural machinery” . Then makes a significant observation : “We can count on the help of the branches that have a particularly strong basis for scientific research, as is the case for the defense industry ” (p. 83). This is the first time since 1966 that we see Brezhnev say something about the military … In all its reports , he boarded the economic issue , Brezhnev succeeded, through various tricks , the guidelines development be discussed without ever talking 10 – 14% of GNP spent on military weapons . Here , without doubt, one of the main reasons for the economic weaknesses of the USSR. This idea is familiar to Brezhnev … even when analyzing the problems of the other superpower . ” The militarization of the US- military spending reached 150 billion a year – weakening U.S. economic position : its share of world exports has declined by 20 % ‘( p. 36).
Of course , we would like to know what the far more consequential, negative effects of such a military effort on the Soviet economy.
Brezhnev admits that planning, one of the foundations of socialist economy , is increasingly poor . “The party has always considered that the plan is a law. This truth manifests itself tends to be forgotten . Increasingly widespread review of the plans , in the sense of its decline . This practice disrupts the economy , corrupt cadres , encourages them to take us to their responsibilities “(p. 95). However, the conclusion that will bring it will infallibly be to go toward dismantling faster planning . According to him, needed ” an extension of the autonomy of cooperatives and companies , the rights and responsibilities of business leaders ” (p. 96).
It seems like Brezhnev to find that whole chunks are crumbling Soviet economic edifice , without being able to find the causes of it , let alone how to find the remedy. “There have been big disappointments in planning and management, a lack of demand from certain bodies of the party and economic officials, transgressions of discipline and manifestations of neglect ” (p. 69).
It should be noted that economists Gorbachev and Bogomolov Aganbegyan team , made the same criticisms and observations. But always presented as an ” uncompromising denunciation of the period of stagnation ” ( brezhneviano ) . And with these old reviews always give new solutions : steps to pass comprehensive restoration of capitalism.
notes:
( 1) All quotes : XXIII Congress of the CPSU , ed. Agency Novosti , 1966.
( 2) Siegfried Müller, New mercenaries , ed. Empire France , Paris, 1965 , p.100 -101.
( 3) Controversy about the general line of the international communist movement , ed. foreign language , Beijing, 1965 , pág.441 , 443-444 .
(4 ) All quotes : XXIV Congress of the CPSU , ed. Agency Novosti , 1971
(5) Zhores Medvedev: Andropov in power, Flammarion, 1983 , pág.192 .
(6 ) Ibid , p. 189 .
(7 ) All quotes : Activities report of the Central Committee , XXV Congress of the CPSU , Moscow, 1976 , ed. Agency Novosti .
( Controversy about the general line of the international communist movement , ed. foreign language , Beijing, 1965, p. 288 , 289-290 .
( 9) Controversy about the general line, p. 220 .
(10 ) Ibid , p. 25-26
( 11) Zhores Medvedev , op.cit. p.7
(12 ) Ibid , p. 226-227
(13 ) Ibid , p. 105
(14 ) Ibid , p. 107
(15 ) Ibid , p. 110
(16 ) Ibid , p. 141
(17 ) Ibid , p.162
(18 ) Ibid , p.120 -123
(19 ) All quotes : Activity Report XXVI CPSU Congress , ed. Agency Novosti , Moscow, 1981.
(20 ) Controversy about the general line, p.34 .
( 21) Report to Congress XXV , p.74
[1 ] Translator’s note: ” Everything is fine, Marquise ,” the title of a song from 1935 French jazz composer Ray Ventura , which became a proverbial expression for an attitude of blinding in a desperate situation.
in italiano e testo originale : http://paginerosse.wordpress.com/category/ludo-martens/
Fuentes:
The Brezhnev years : ‘ Stalinism ‘ or revisionism ? by Ludo Martens