Manifesto of the Russian Party of Bolsheviks

The ruling bourgeois regime in Russia, as recently as 5-10 years ago shouting about democracy and frightening people with “bloody Bolshevik dictatorship”, today itself resorted to dictatorship. "Democratically elected" President Putin, who came to power not without the aid of capital of Berezovski and other oligarchs, has now proclaimed "dictatorship of law." But what is "dictatorship of law" under the conditions of dominance of large capital, under the conditions, when the Duma (law passing organ), and even the attorney general obtains dachas and apartments in Moscow from the hands of private corporations (everything is very "legal," not to worry!), when judges obtain the wage of 28 000r. in the month (isn't this bribery from the ruling class?), under the conditions, "when capital buys itself power." (According to the expression of the same Berezovski, who arranged through his lackey mass media grand pre-election advertisements for Putin and his group Edinstvo (Unity).) This is nothing but a dictatorship of capital, i.e., fascist dictatorship, which eliminates even those already curtailed bourgeois liberties it guaranteed yesterday. Repressive organs (first of all, FSB) control now the state. For the proletariat, "dictatorship of law" has turned out as bloody terror: the state obtains an opportunity to throw behind bars whoever is dissatisfied; moreover, the state does so not for allegedly political views, but “for criminal offense”, thanks to a great number and variety of articles in the criminal code: (“give us a man, we will find the article to put him behind the bars”). Examples -- Komsomol member Andrey Sokolov, sentenced for 5.5 years for blowing up the Nicolai II monument; secretary of Tula VKPB, who disappeared, etc.

In foreign politics, fascism promotes aggression to other countries, the predatory imperialist war for the possession of colonies -- Chechnya, Kosovo, Central Asia, suppression of national liberation movements.

What does fascism in Russia mean to us?

First, it means that the working class is still too weak to show any resistance to going back to the times of the medieval Inquisition: the proletariat does not yet have its militant organization --the party. Second, it means that the bourgeoisie is already too weak to rule through peaceful, “civilized”, "democratic" methods. The bourgeois police-bureaucratic apparatus no longer has the support of the people, and it is forced to retain its regime through the bayonet, suspecting all and each dissatisfied of “terrorism”.

It would be too naive to think that the Putin regime could retain its supremacy, if it did not have powerful support from opportunism -- bourgeois policy under the guise of communism in the working class movement, which damps, which lulls any dissatisfaction. In the epoch of imperialist wars, opportunism takes the form of social-chauvinism--the justification for its, domestic imperialism by patriotic phrases, by demagogy about defending fatherland. The clear example of opportunism is Zyuganov's KPRF. Calling themselves communists, the KPRF at the same time reject the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, revolution and international proletarian solidarity. Instead of the contradiction between labor and capital as the principal contradiction of capitalism, Zyuganov advances the contradiction between human and nature. Instead of the fight with the bourgeois military regime--unity of army, internal police structures and people. Generally, for the class struggle with the bourgeoisie they substituted a nationalistic fight with Jews, "Chechen terrorists", "damned Americans, who occupied great Russia”. From Leninism, Zyuganov took only what is profitable for him: the intensification of the state authority (although Lenin repeatedly emphasized that the bourgeois state machinery must be broken completely, not strengthened; he meant intensification of state authority after the victory of October, when the state was proletarian), and that the Western imperialists -- worst enemies of Russia (although Lenin taught to fight first domestic imperialism, but not to distract attention with the crimes of foreigners).

The most progressive class according to Zyuganov is skilled workers (i.e. labor aristocracy, the workers’ bourgeoisie), scientists, professors (although education is a privilege of the bourgeoisie) and other representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, middle class. However, what exactly is so progressive about this petty-bourgeoisie, if it is bribed by its more- less supportable existence, fears revolutionary violence, relies on the police “dictatorship of law” -- Zyuganov does not explain.

On the oppressed class -- the proletariat – “communist number one” keeps silence.

The KPRF declared the main direction of its activity work in the parliament, thus rejecting work with the masses, trading interests of the proletariat for parliamentarian privileges, using the Duma not as means for the propagation of communist ideas, but as a source of privileges. "If the KPRF didn't exist, it should have been created," acknowledges one of the leaders of the bourgeois bloc Otechestvo.(Homeland). The capitalists understand that the KPRF is necessary for them for removing the masses from the fight, for the prevention of a revolutionary explosion.

Recently the KPRF returned to the slogan "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" on its newspaper Pravda (Truth), and even prints the name of this newspaper in red color. But hardly can these cheap tricks deceive conscious workers. Considerably more dangerous is covert opportunism. For example, the leader of "Working Russia" Anpilov does not reject dictatorship of the proletariat, but this does not prevent him from speaking in favor of the strengthening of the bourgeois army (instead of its decomposition.) He did not reject, also, internationalism, but this does not stop him from writing insulting jokes about the Jews. In 1999, on the eve of Duma elections, the party's organ "Molnia" ("Lightning") published a comparative table, into which was shown the position of parties on different questions. Anpilov's party, naturally, differs significantly (and positively) in this table from their competitors in the Duma, including Zyuganov's.

But what points did they compare?

An example is the "principal question" regarding Stalin's regime. Anpilov was the only one who respected Stalin, commended his regime. Therefore, he is the true Bolshevik to be voted for.

It seems too easy--praise Stalin and win public support.

Really principal questions, such as war in Chechnya for plunder of Chechen oil, were pass over in silence. No wonder, otherwise, it would be clear that there is not much difference between Anpilov and Zhirinovky and the rest, who justify expansionist politics of Russian imperialism by nice phrases about "defending the homeland."

In Rostov-Na-Dony, in a rally in front of the court building, Anpilov's party advocate exoneration of colonel Budanov -- a fascist rapist who strangled an Chechen girl. “He is our Russian officer!” – cried Anpilov’s old women in ecstasy of patriotism.

A few words about the Russian Communist Workers' Party (RKRP).

Instead of dictatorship of the proletariat as a civil war with dictatorship of the bourgeois military, they suggest "unity of working and military collectives," which "prevent unleashing civil war" (see RKRP program, 1996, page 11). This party also shows a servile attitude to the petty bourgeoisie, declaring the intelligentsia and peasantry it's allies.

Let's talk about the history of the Russian Revolution.

In 1905 both the intelligentsia and peasantry were revolutionary forces, because the revolution was bourgeois-democratic. In February 1917, the intelligentsia, given democratic freedom, was totally satisfied, and stopped being a progressive force; in October 1917 it already played a counterrevolutionary role.

In October 1917, when socialist revolution in the city joined bourgeois-democratic revolution in the country, the peasantry that was fighting for division of landlords' property, for private peasant's property, was progressive. Peasants became satisfied after they received land; many of those peasants who fought in civil war for revolution, opposed collectivization later in the '30ies [my present-day view on collectivization varies from that – A. G.]. Thus, the peasantry as a class is done with its progressive role. The time of peasant insurrections in Russia is gone forever. The modern peasantry is nothing more than a resource for the bourgeoisie, where it finds new candidates for oppressive structures, such as the MVD [police].

The revolutionary force in the modern Russian countryside is only the landless peasantry -- the proletariat of the countryside. Of course, some parts of intelligentsia and peasantry are going to join revolution, but in general, they cannot be considered allies, because of their privileged status (education for the intelligentsia, land for the peasantry) they will always vacillate between the proletariat and bourgeoisie.

The RKRP apparently didn't take into consideration the experience of the Russian revolution.

The RKRP didn't take into consideration also new force – International of insurgent colonies (Afghanistan, Central Asia, Chechnya, Kosovo), that is ally of Russian proletariat, which has already showed itself through armed struggle against Russian imperialism.  

RKRP rejected international proletarian solidarity. First Secretary of RKRP Tyulkin wrote: "Developed countries - North America, Western Europe, Japan - are now converted into 'combined capitalist,' using superprofits to bribe workers in their own countries. It can be said, that these countries already built 'national socialism' (‘national’ – from territory, not from race). These countries are rotten for revolution, just as it was no sense to try to find any driving force among servants of feudal castle."

First of all, while talking about developed countries, RKRP forgets about Russia, thus justifying Russian imperialism.

Second, imperialists use superprofits to bribe far from all working people in their own countries, but only narrow stratum of workers in the strategic, important, large enterprises, i.e. labor aristocracy [Today I consider labor aristocracy as majority, 60-80%, of employees, both in Russia and in the West – A. G.].  

Body of workers – proletariat [Today I consider proletariat as minority, 20-40%, of employees, both in Russia and in the West – A. G.]- often live in even more miserable conditions than people in the colonies, but it's more difficult for them to organize: they are disintegrated, not concentrated in large plants.

American scientist - Marxist Michael Parenti wrote: "In 1985 a special medical commission on the problem of famine in the U.S. discovered that at least 20 million Americans constantly experience starvation. Famine is a national epidemic in the U.S. -- that was a conclusion."

And, finally, it's lie that these countries are rotten for revolution. The information about revolutionary actions in USA, Canada, Germany, England, Italy and other advanced countries leak out even in bourgeois mass media. Parenti wrote about USA: “There were 20 strikes simultaneously every day at the beginning of 1986 – this fact evidences that militant spirit of working people not disappears”.  

The RKRP tries to separate Russian workers from American workers by saying that while Russians earn $50 a month, Americans make $2000 [in 2009 - $600 and $3000 respectively – A. G.]. They forget to mention that prices in USA are also 50 times higher than in Russia [in 2009 – 5 times – A. G.].  
Our critique of opportunism would be incomplete, if we didn't mention All-[Soviet] Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Nina Andreeva--VKPB (AUCPB in English)). In one’s time it was advanced party, which did a great deal for the exposure of opportunism, carried out objective analysis of counter-revolution in USSR, revealed, that sources of counter-revolution should seek not in 1991 (Yeltsin’s coming to power), and not even in 1985’s (Gorbachyov’s coming to power), but in 1953, when Khrushchyov’s clique, which refuse dictatorship of proletariat and class struggle a short time later, have came to power. But now, in period of fascist rule in Russia, VKPB, evidently, has fallen behind the times, has lost the sense of newness.

The VKPB blames restoration of capitalism on personalities: socialism died with Stalin. VKPB explains counterrevolution by absence of a person who could take leadership. Thus, VKPB underestimates the role of the masses in history, and gets drowned in bourgeois theory about "heroes and the crowd." Lenin wrote about the danger of possible split in the party, because the party is based in two classes -- the proletariat and peasantry. In 1917 the peasantry supported the proletariat; however, after land was handed to farmers, the peasantry split itself into two camps. Rich peasants turned against the proletariat during the collectivization process [my present-day view on collectivization varies from that – A. G.]. Of course, this split affected the party as well.

Counterrevolution and restoration of capitalism in Russia is also Stalin's fault. If Lenin believed that the most important principle in politics is straightforwardness, Stalin didn't exclude deception as a means of achieving political goal. For the sake of victory in the Great Patriotic war, Stalin disbanded the Comintern, used ideas of Great Russian chauvinism, used the idea of god, so popular among Russians (cult of personality -- "For homeland! For Stalin!" - one of the most popular slogans during the war). Thus, Stalin, conformed too much to the petty bourgeoisie/ peasantry, who won the party after his death. This vacillating group of people rejected dictatorship of the proletariat, saying that classes do not exist anymore, and declared party (class organization) "party of whole nation." The state, class system of repression, was declared all-national instead of a reflection of the class structure. The opportunist top of the party eventually became the party's bureaucracy and played a fatal role in the process of counterrevolution. The VKPB didn't analyze class balance in the process of restoration of capitalism.

The VKPB didn't reject dictatorship of the proletariat. But how they understand it? “Dictatorship of the proletariat is state power in favor of workers, peasants and labor intelligentsia” – VKPB newspaper “Za diktaturu proletariata” (“For dictatorship of the proletariat”) proposes as basic slogan. Notice: not “state power of workers”, but “state power in favor of workers”, i.e. bourgeois power may be dictatorship of the proletariat too, if it have made some reforms “in favor of workers”. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible at all, how VKPB put peasants and intelligentsia in this concept. “Party of socialist-revolutionaries [S. R.], which wishes to rest both on intelligentsia, proletariat and peasantry equally, by that inevitably (regardless of its will) leads to political and ideological enslavement by bourgeois democracy” – Lenin wrote in 1902. Today “Bolsheviks” became such as S.R.

But really dictatorship of the proletariat is the total arming of oppressed working masses.  However, VKPB never mentions armed proletariat, disarmament of police and army, disbandment of the court system, which is the very core of the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat. The difference between VKPB and KPRF is that KPRF rejected dictatorship of the proletariat openly, but VKPB -- in clandestine manner.

"We support real "double-authority" as a real way of returning power to workers, peasants and intelligentsia without civil war" -- Materials of 2nd Congress VKPB, 1996, even though Lenin said that "those to forget civil wars or reject them are guilty of extreme opportunism and rejection of socialist revolution". That is, already at that time, in 1996, VKPB rejected ideas of civil war and armed struggle oppressed masses against bourgeois rule. At that time this opportunism wasn't so obvious, but now, when  but now when there is already civil war in Caucasus against fascist regime, VKPB complains about "Chechen terrorists, who transform the country into transfer point of arms".

How these "Bolsheviks" are going to establish dictatorship of proletariat without armament is not clear. Real Bolsheviks must be happy that the country is transformed into transfer point of arms, and they must use this for arming of proletarian masses.

In the colonial question VKPB was more revolutionary, until the matter came to practice. It said in "Materials of Congress": "After reinforcement its positions within a country, the Russian financial oligarchy got engaged in winning positions abroad. Treaties with Kazakhstan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and other ex-Soviet republics, provide for creation of financial-industrial groups based on the largest Russian banks. The bourgeoisie of “sovereign states” prefer not to claim their nationalist ambitions here, because it sees in these financial-industrial groups the guarantee of its own existence. State-monopoly capital in Russia tries now to use integration processes in order to become “the gatherer of Russian acres”. Under development of such tendency, a half century later after the international colonial system collapses, national question in Russia may take the form of national-colonial question again."

Then VKPB admitted all these facts. However, today, when the national liberation movement is a hot issue of the day, when Central Asian countries struggle against Russian imperialism for overcoming feudal disunity and for creation of a single Islamic state on its territory, VKPB says that "Real Bolsheviks don't support militant clergy," concentrating on the religious form of the movement, and forgetting its anti-imperialist core.

"Not true Bolshevik" Lenin admired Islamic revolution in Iran, he wrote: "Political protest under religious cover is the phenomenon, that inherent to all nations, in a certain stage of their development."

"Not true Bolshevik" Stalin wrote: "The revolutionary character of a national movement in conditions of imperialist oppression not supposes the imperative presence of proletarian elements in the movement, the presence of revolutionary or republican program of the movement, the presence of democratic base of the movement not at all. The struggle of the Afghan emir for independence of Afghanistan is objectively revolutionary struggle, despite the emir's monarchist views."

Moreover, the "religiousness" of national liberation movements was always exaggerated by reactionaries, which is very beneficial for both Islamic and Christian obscurants.

It's notable, that while talking about the national-colonial question, VKPB totally disregarded Chechnya, probably, “mechanically” (as Russian chauvinist) considering it still part of Russia. However, in other part of "Materials of Congress" it was said: "Chechen citizens have to vote in a referendum if they want to be part of Russia, have autonomy within Russian borders, or to be totally independent."

It is clear, that if a referendum is conducted by the Russia, or, rather, Russian FSB, 100% will be for unity with Russia. Therefore it is bathos of stupidity to transfer the matter from political area to juridical. VKPB sank into the bog of legality completely by its desire everything to be “according to the law”. However, Chechens have already voted for independence by the fact of their armed struggle.

But if in 1996 VKPB admitted, even if inconsistently, that Chechnya has a right to be independent, today VKPB says that "Chechen terrorists with financial support of the USA try to destroy the territorial integrity of Russia". That is, Leninist right of nations for self-determination is “out of fashion” among “Bolsheviks” today.    

All history of Chechnya as a Russian colony is a history of a war for independence. For instance, remember Chechen wars lead by Shamil, which continued during almost whole 19th century. Thus, we, Bolsheviks-Internationalists, believe that including Chechnya (as well as Trans Caucasus, Central Asia) in the Soviet Union was a violation of rights of nations for self-determination. Lenin was right when he said that the very idea of the creation of the Soviet Union was erroneous and untimely completely. This is the result of excessive hurry of Stalin who wished to involve Caucasian and Asian nations into socialism as soon as possible. But, as Lenin said, it's impossible to force one into paradise by beating.  

Time proved Lenin right, when during WWII Chechnya fought against the Red Army. Another proof is collapse of the Soviet Union with massacres in Tbilisi, Riga, etc., carried out by Russian side.  

Today the main slogan of VKPB is restoration of the USSR. However, will be this Union Soviet, if the foremost aim is territorial integrity? No, it will be Russian Empire. Even with the formal right to create independent states it will always be possible to denigrate the national liberation movement by saying that it's not a people's movement, but financed by America.

Lenin said that it's possible to talk about creation of a Soviet Union only when we are not simply establish Soviet power, but when we are absolutely sure of this power as of our power, when we clean it of “Great-Russian” bureaucrats-despots. Those who talk about restoration of the Soviet Union without having yet Soviet power in Russia itself, are not only being stupid, but criminal, because such a notion justified the colonial politics of Russian imperialism.  
In regards to Yugoslavia and Kosovo issues, Nina Andreeva also expressed herself as social-chauvinist. She accused American imperialists of bombing Yugoslavia, and said nothing about Putin's military which does the same thing under the cover of "defending of Slavic brothers”. VKPB bureaucrats name Kosovo’s Albanians “frightful cutthroats” and refuse to recognize their right to separation from Yugoslavia too, refuse to recognize their right to affiliation to united Albania.

The Kosovo issue has arisen in the 40ies, when Tito, supported by American capital and labeled by international communist movement as fascist, annexed these territories, rich with coal deposits and other mineral resources, even though they were populated by Albanians. This policy was supported by Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and this Russian “protection” continues to present day.

Refusal to recognize the progressiveness of Kosovo and Macedonian Albanians means supporting fascists, such as Tito, Khrushchev-Brezhnev opportunists and fascist Putin.

The VKPB pays a lot of attention to a "very principal question" of return of the Soviet anthem and flag as Russian state insignia, and doesn't understand that emphasizing these issues only diverts the proletariat's attention.

The VKPB accuses American imperialism of plundering Russia, but doesn't say anything about Russian imperialism that plunders Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Asia (Russia takes out a half of billion dollars from the mere Vietnam a year!). Moreover, VKPB regrets that clever American capitalists exploit other countries, but our own stupid capitalists only exploit our own nation. It is monstrous lie. In fact, Nina Andreeva herself acknowledges, that the size of working class in Russia have decreased at 4-5 times during last 15 years. But what cause of this decreasing? Obviously, it is not advantageous for Russian bourgeoisie to keep manufacture here, in Russia, rather it is advantageous to transfer manufacture into backward countries of Asia, where workforce costs very cheaply, and to get super profits by this.        

VKPB newspapers write a lot about discrimination against Russians in Ukraine, Baltic, Kazakhstan, but hush up facts about terror against Caucasians and Asians in Russia. VKPB criticized Putin not because he started a criminal war in Chechnya, but because he cannot finish it victoriously.

The VKPB names Zionism as a most aggressive force of imperialism, diverting attention from Russian nationalism. Zionism could be "most aggressive force of imperialism" for Israeli Bolsheviks; when Russians say so, it sounds more like anti-Semitism. Moreover, VKPB claims that anti-Semitism was caused by Zionism, which justifies “Great-Russian” anti-Semites.

The VKPB rejects the idea of work in parliament, saying that the communist party in bourgeois parliament becomes bourgeois one, and French and Italian parties are examples of such transformation. However, Lenin said, that during a period of reaction, when the situation is far from revolutionary, Bolsheviks must use even most reactionary parliaments as a means of propaganda of communist views. Boycott of parliamentarian activity is justified only during periods of revolutionary upheaval, which is not happening now.

Nina Andreeva called her party "most scientific, most theoretically correct, with the most precise analytical approach, vanguard, much ahead of the time." Stalin was so right when he said that an arrogant party stops being revolutionary force.

This is exactly what happened to VKPB. This party got too engrossed in resolutions, sanctifying (instead of studying) of Stalin, nostalgia for Stalin epoch (instead of critical analysis) and became just another religious sect.

Opportunism of official communist parties compelled us, Russian Bolsheviks, to create our own party.

Our main principles: 1) Dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. total arming of the oppressed working masses, civil war against fascist dictatorship, disarmament of army and police, disbandment of courts, parliament, etc., taking over banks, plants, factories; salary of government bureaucrats shouldn't be higher than average salary of worker; workers' control of profits of enterprises.
2) Military intervention of Russia in Chechnya, Balkans and Central Asia is imperialist war; we, as true internationalists, are for defeat of Russian imperialism in these wars, for converting imperialist war into civil war against the Russian government.
3) Solidarity with the working class of advanced countries - USA, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc.

Our main allies: International of oppressed peoples of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Chechnya, Kosovo. We admire these national liberation movements. Of course, there is a bourgeois-democratic, rather than socialist revolutionary process [today I consider this process as socialist in many respects; I consider Taliban Islamism as Leninism at current stage – A. G.], but it corresponds to the level of development of these countries, because these countries are in semi-feudal backwardness, and imperialist oppression is obstacle to their development, to their entry into capitalism. On the other hand, Russian imperialism parasitize on this, strengthening fascist dictatorship by exploiting colonies. We, Russian proletarians, can defeat our mutual enemy -- Russian fascism -- only in union with oppressed and insurgent colonies.

We declare about our readiness to have a dialog with any Bolshevik party on the planet for the purpose to creation of new Bolshevik International. It is possible to win world imperialism only by common efforts, rejecting national partitions!      

--Bolshevik Party writer July, 2001