On the question of disintegration of the USSR from the perspective of the class theory of state

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

V.I. Il'ichev Pacific Oceanological Institute of Far-Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Science

On the question of disintegration of the USSR from the perspective of the class theory of state

Yuri Zuev

research worker

Summary

collapse class marxism history

On the basis of Vladimir Lenin's works the author makes the conclusion that the main causes of the disintegration of the USSR were the CPSU's strategic deviations from the class theory of the state and Stalin's course for reducing the role of the Party in state affairs, as well as major faults of Marxism. In this context, the question of class and nationalist interpretation of history and a new approach to it are considered.

Keywords: state, capitalism, classes, Marxism-Leninism, narodnik, nationalism, party, revolution, socialism, fascism, philosophy.

Introduction

In the quarter of a century that has passed since the disintegration of the USSR many experts tried to clear the causes of self-destruction of the first “socialist” state based on Marxist-Leninst class theory [1; 2; 3, p. 2; 4; 5]. Today the interest to this question is dictated by the necessity of understanding the motives of its founders. At the same time, the difference of approaches and positions caused the difference in interpretation. The approach of the author of this article is to consider historical developments from in the context of the hierarchy of factors (in hierarchical relation) [6, p. 4]. This approach allows to highlight key and conclusive factors. The key factor of Russian revolution was, as it is well-known, civilizational factor, i.e. feu- dalistic backwardness and social and capitalist underdevelopment of the country [7, pp. 379-381; 8, p. 1]. That explains why the socialist revolution was accomplished in a “backward peasant country” by following the bolshevist course in spite of the logic of the orthodox “Western Marxism” and European revolutions. Due to this factor selection, as the further development of capitalism in “civilized countries” showed, the revolution at that time was possible only in Russia [8, p. 19].

Since the moment when the conscious class struggle (according to Marx) became the defining force in social relations, the leading role in them began to play their theory. The first successful steps of the socialist revolution in Russia were linked with the theoretical work of Lenin. After him, such theoretical work in the Party was conducted by Leon Trotsky and practical work was conducted by Joseph Stalin. But the theoretical work already could not keep pace with the revolutionary practice, so Trotsky's idea of the permanent revolution [8, p. 6] due to the political situation in the 1930-s could not be implemented. The world was preparing itself to Second World War, and the USSR, which was not ready, in view of the strengthening of its national security up to the last moment followed the policy of peace and could not support Comintern [9]. At that time, Bolshevism split into two political movement Trotskism and Stalinism. And the later had to substantiate its point of view in the new world war.

Today's trend of globalization of the capitalist monopolism erasing all forms of state, nationality, and Narodnik ideology, of which Marx wrote back in premonopolistic era [10, p. 111], turns multi-polar world into a mono-polar one, and, with the civilization clash, makes national forms of class relations more complex [11, pp. 437-482]. Global challenges of modern civilization not only make the idea of the socialist revolution being successful in an individual country - suggested at different times by Georg von Vollmar (1878) [8, p. 19] and Vladimir Lenin [12, p. 354] - outdated, they produce an illusion that class struggle as such is irrelevant. And the idea of the “world revolution” set forth by Marx and Engels, and later by Trotsky [13, p. 89; 8, p. 6] becomes relevant again. Lenin considered it a slogan; the idea, in his view, could be relevant only after the accomplishment of the socialist state in Russia (Lenin's speech at the meeting of the Petrograd Soviet of Deputies, October 25 (November 7, N.S.) 1917). That is why this question cannot be avoided when we consider the failure of “Russian Socialism” and disintegration of the USSR. In the situation when class problem is complicated by globalization process, when national state, Narodnik ideology, and patriotism (characteristics of the multi-polar world) seem to be an illusion, and the old ways of the resolution of class conflict through fascism and world war seem to be impossible and are superseded by informational instruments (theoretical and diplomatic) social theory is relevant as never before. The attitude towards the theory is becoming the definitive arch-factor in the interpretation and solution of sociopolitical questions, including the question of the disintegration of the USSR, because theoretical factor played key role in that.

On class and Narodnik interpretation of history

In the long list of the causes of disintegration of the USSR, strategic deviations from the Marxist-Leninist class theory of state are conspicuous by their absence; they have never been analyzed, whereas many answers to this question are on the surface, in Lenin's works on the theory of State, revolution, and nationalities question. There Lenin pointed at many internal threats to the Socialist state. [14, p. 162; 15, p. 386387]. Similarly, those questions were interpreted in Trotsky's works [8, pp. 1, 19]. Strangely enough, experts almost never refer to them. Then again, it may be quite unsurprising, considering the fact that after “bourgeois” reforms of the 1990-s class theory was revised from a perspective of the quasi-modern “non-class theory of state”, or rather Narodnik ideology, reactionary character of which, as a petty bourgeois phenomenon, was noted long ago by Marx (1847) [10, p. 130] and Lenin (1894) [16, p. 283]. Today it prevails in political thought [3]. Narodnik ideology represents today a wide range of nationalistic populism. An example of such revision is the textbook "Theory of the State and Law" by A.B. Vengerov, criticizing Marxist-Leninist theory of State for its “historicism” [17, p. 245-261]. (At the same time Vengerov falls at the same absolutist trap as Marxism that he criticizes [6, p. 4-7]) Vengerov's point of view is that it does not agree with the universal human values of today's “non-class civilization” (PostModern) and Western models of its own time (“Sociailism in a backward country”).

However, it was just that circumstance that Lenin used to substantiate the necessity of socialist revolution in Russia [18, p. 110]. When the European West from the late 19th - early 20th centuries already experienced the end of the era of capitalism (according to Marx) and entered the "era of socialist revolutions", the characteristics of which Marx described in the third chapter of the Communist Manifesto, Russia was only on the threshold of a bourgeois revolution. This civilizational backwardness, he, as we know, associated with the "reactionary nature of the Slavs", for which the chauvinist Narodniks dubbed him a "russophobe" [3, p. 6]. Nevertheless, it was thanks to Marx, that revolutionary Russia could not only overcome this backwardness, but also outstripped the West.

It seems that the characteristic that Marx gave in the Manifesto to different political classes is enough to understand the idealistic nature of the non-class rhetoric of the today's Narodnik, but it is not enough to reveal the reason for the disagreement of history between Narodniks and adherents of class theory. And this reason, which both sides do not suspect, is not actual (ontological), but methodological, and is in fact in an outdated approach and method of thinking, therefore it needs to be considered in the categories of theoretical philosophy. Here we can not study it in depth, considering it, however, in the light of a new, relativistic-hierarchical approach [6, p. 31-35]. That was the reason, why the classics of Marxism were inconsistent in their class and civilizational interpretation of history [3].

Marx in his manifesto showed that capitalist relations, as they develop, erase all national boundaries, and then the civil class struggle in individual countries turns into a class struggle between nations or into a "clash of peoples" [10, p. 124], where the peoples under their patriotic banners fight on the side of their national class enemies - i.e. against the "enemy of their enemy", which was why the Bolsheviks During the First World War I called on the belligerent peoples "to turn the imperialist war into a civil war" [18, p. 110; 19, p. 325]. The world "war of peoples" is essentially a class struggle at a new hierarchical level of its development, at the interstate level of "governments", where the roles of civil classes passes on to nations and civilizations.

Thus, the controversial question whether the "struggle of peoples" is class-based, ca be methodologically decided on the basis of the principle of hierarchical relativity [6, p. 15]. Only Marx presents this solution in an intuitive form. Confusion of ethnic wars with class ones is possible only as the confusion of form with content, since the new, class content of these wars arises later in history, preserving the old form in the Narodnik ideas about the "struggle of peoples and civilizations", even among such modern ideas men as Marx. Putting it tentatively (not in the sense of the hierarchical relativity) "non-class" wars were possible only in primitive societies.

Narodnik perspective on Marxism and the Russian Revolution

The theme of the failure of "Russian socialism" and the disintegration of the USSR covered by today in extensive political and scientific literature, and is connected, one way or another, with Narodnik criticism of Marxism. This criticism is conducted from different positions: either discrediting or, on the contrary, protecting the "purity of Marxism" from the layers of "Leninism", "Bolshevism" and "Stalinism" [3, p. 1; 20, p. 21]. One of the prominent entries of this list is the book of the well-known political journalist S. Kara-Murza "Marx vs. Russian Revolution", in which he rejects Marx's chauvinism from the non-class, Narodnik position, noting nevertheless its civilizational-revolutionary motivation. The publisher advertises the book accordingly: "A new sensational book from the author of the bestsellers "Soviet Civilization "and "Mind Manipulation”! A fresh look at our history! A profound analysis of revolutionary events! Refutation of established dogma! The Russian revolution was not carried out "according to Marx," but in many respects contrary to it. Russian folk (italics added -Y.Z.) revolution violated the main Marxist dogma. The Russian people's revolution contradicted the Russophobic ideas of Marx about the "reactionary nature of the Slavs," and especially the Russians. And all the excesses of 1917, all the blood of the Civil War happened precisely because of attempts to squeeze the Russian people's revolution into the narrow framework of orthodox Marxism ... "[3].

On Lenin's practical negotiation of Marxism's limitations

The fact that “Russian revolution was made not `according to Marx”, but in a lot of ways contrary to him”, according to Lenin and, later, to Stalin - in Bol- shevicks' way - is obviously true, but not in the sense suggested by those who underline Narodnik character of the Russian revolution. The change of the stages of capitalist development at the turn of the 19th century and a number of revolutionary actions in Europe showed the major role of class consciousness. Capitalist socioeconomic relations are impossible to explain solely through them as such, regardless of their bourgeois subject, the class of private owners, and its superstructural (ideal) - legal and other - institutions of the bourgeois consciousness. That is why unconditional one-sided economic views of Marx had not just became obsolute and reactionary, they were originally flawed. For instance, in “Critique of the Gotha Program”, Marx wrote: “Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?” [22, p. 12]. This precedent was not philosophically realized at the time, but already manifested itself in the intuitive views of the advanced social-democratic "sectarians". That is why in the Leninist theory and practice of the revolution, one can find a system of contradictions to “the orthodox Marxism. " Lenin's philosophical position: "Consciousness not only reflects the world, but also creates it" [23, p. 194] no longer corresponded with the unconditional Marxist materialistic postulate: "It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness" [24 , p. 541], which in relation to "being" was incorrect in the first place. In reality, consciousness, along with material conditions, is part of being and also determines it [6, p. 20-21]. From this follows that being is determined not only by economic (material) prerequisites, but also by a relatively independent class consciousness: its legal and ideological institutions (revolutionary proletarian or reactionary bourgeois). Only viewed from such a relativistic, "non-Marxist" position, Lenin's theory and the history of the Russian Socialist Revolution can be understood correctly.

But after the collapse of the USSR, the bourgeois point of view came to life again, explaining the failure of "Russian socialism" by its being premature, "historical running ahead - running into the future", and by the violent nature of the social revolution in Russia, despite the fact that all the "Western Marxist" bourgeois-reformist kinds of National Socialism failed to become anything more than utopias of social revolution. So the Social-Democrats now are motivated to reduce them to the claim that "closer to socialism is not the society that liquidated private property" (the basis of exploitation), "but the social system ... where, as a result of limiting exploitation and oppression, the man of labor ... gains more and more freedom "(an exploitative system with a" human face.” - Yu. Z.) [25].

Narodnik ideology as a nationalist form in the world class struggle

The correctness of the conclusion about the need for a violent social revolution in Russia was confirmed by the history of the World War II when the destiny of the world was decided not by bourgeois or feudal countries, but by two state-monopoly socialist powers: the USSR and Nazi Germany. But the petty-bourgeois German "military socialism" [26, p. 191-192] was only a Narodnik form in the world class struggle. Military-socialist Germany first of all fought not with "barbarian peoples", but with communism and the USSR as its stronghold [27], being (like the socialist revolution in Russia) Narodnik in its form and class in its substance. With the collapse of the USSR, the "era of socialist revolutions" in the modern world lost its revolutionary character and became reactionary bourgeois-democratic. Here comes to mind the liberal, non-violent socialism of Herzen, which turned into Western Nazism (Eurofascism with a military organization (NATO)), or religious (Islamic or other) fascism. This process is accompanied by its theoretical logic: on the one hand, Narodnik criticism and revision of Marxist Historical Materialism [3, p. 25], and, on the other hand, contrasting it with Leninism [20, p. 21] Along with the old (democracy, patriotism, Zionism and racism), new types of Narodism appeared in different forms of the "struggle of peoples" such as "People's Front", "Slavic Unity" "Clash of Religions”, movement "for the purity of Islam" (reminiscent of the struggle for "the purity of Marxism"), the "struggle of cultures", "the struggle between East and West, the North and South," "the struggle of civilizations" [11, p. 438]; and they also conceal the class essence of the forms of struggle, which can not be understood without a hierarhically relativist approach. Under the patriotic Narodnik banner today's feudal-bourgeois Russia was celebrated the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Second World War, its class character was never mentioned, as well as the socialist fatherland, the Soviet people, and their class leaders, Lenin and Stalin, which suited well today's Russian political leaders.

"Marxism" becomes the mainstay of reaction against Leninism

To understand the general plan of the modern socio-political process, as Lenin did in connection with the First World War, the methodological level of Marxist philosophy obviously is no longer sufficient. This will require revision of its philosophical categories. Us defining the next stage of imperialism (as the stage of monopoly capitalism) a "liberal globalism of the era of controlled chaos" [28] or stating that Western socialism in the modern sense is a social order with "the limitation of the exploitation and oppression of the labor man ..." [25], cannot substantially change Marxist understanding of the social process. Marxism relied on materialism as an advanced philosophy for its time, but, like idealism, it traditionally suffered from philosophical absolutism [6, p. 4-7]. This circumstance relates already to the theoretical reasons for the difficulties and failures of "Russian socialism" that Stalin saw [29]. Today, the philosophical shortcomings of Marxism are used by reaction (as by the Trotskyite opposition before [8]), as a theoretical basis in the struggle against the "real socialism", Leninism, and Stalinism. It seems that behind the political struggle between Trotsky and Stalin was not the struggle for power, but the relevance of their political courses - Trotsky's position was often untimely. This applies to the participation in the Communist International, the ideas of the "world revolution," and the separation of the party from the state.

To overcome the impasse in the solution of the class problem, conservative attempts are made to use the evolutionary tactics of late Marxism to justify of the opportunistic path of capitalism `growing into' socialism and communism, and purifying Marxism from Leninism. In particular, famous professor of Marxism, T.I. Oyzerman in his article "Marxist doctrine and the idea of a violent revolution", dogmatically interpreting the materialistic character of Marx's teaching, calls for overcoming Lenin's "voluntarism" in interpreting Marxism concerning a violent revolution, with which Marxism allegedly has nothing in common. [21] In fact, Lenin never linked himself dogmatically to Marxism, and although theoretically he remained on the absolutist platform of Marxism, but in revolutionary practice, under new historical conditions (in the struggle against "economism", and in his principle of "consciousness not only reflecting the world, but also creating it"), he had already "arbitrarily" overcome this defect in his own concept of revolution. This was highly appreciated by A. Gramsci in his article "The Revolution Against Capital" (1917) [3, p. 101], but "underestimated" by Oizerman. It is therefore not surprising that after such a "scientific" revision of Lenin's heritage that "President V. Putin" had nothing better to do than, at the meeting of the Presidential Council on the memorable date of January 21, 2016, to accuse Lenin of "subversive schemes against Russian statehood" and the collapse of the USSR [30].

The failure of socialism in the USSR is more likely to be explained by the practice of deviations from the Marxist-Leninist theory of the state, while Vengerov's criticism of its “historicism” (according to C. Popper claiming the knowledge of historical laws) [17, pp. 93,115] and Oyzerman's criticism of Lenin's "voluntarism" [21] clears nothing except for its own reactionary nature. The whole misunderstanding in the criticism of the former is that it is built on the absence of a single interpretation of statehood in history: if Marxism links this concept only with the history of public government in antagonistic class societies as an essential, historically transient feature of it ("history as class struggle"), Vengerov insists on a broad interpretation of the state, identifying it with any public authority and extending it to non-antagonistic, early class societies. Under the conditions of the modern globalization of capitalism, in a "classless" society (without class struggle), transnational capital dominates, needing neither state, nor any national power at all, turning them into archaisms. Such is the Marxist dialectic of the state, its historicism. And here lies the explanation for its appearance and vanishing and blaming class theory of the state for this seems inappropriate.

Another example of the reactionary political trend for the "purity of Marxism" in the labor movement and its liberation from Leninism and Bolshevism was shown by Marxist Workers' Party in its program, stating that "... the MWP must remember the main error of the Bolsheviks, the error that led to the destruction of the gains of October, to the transformation of the RCP (b) into a nonBolshevik, anti-labor CPSU. A proletarian party should not fight for power only in order to become the ruling party. It fights for power to organize the working class itself into the ruling class of society through the system of workers' Soviets "[20]. This is how the new leaders of the working class decided to correct the "mistakes" of the old leaders, which they see not in the CPSU's departure from the principles of the Marxist-Leninist class theory of the state, but in its ruling status (`gov- ernmentalization'). The leaders of the MWP probably meant the inadmissibility of a prolonged party administration of the state, since this would contradict the very idea of the development of socialism into a classless society, since party state administration (`govern- mentalization' of the party and dictatorship) is necessary only in the initial period of the revolution and the construction of socialism “to organize the working class itself in the ruling class of society through the system of workers' Soviets. " But the party, being a product of its class, at the same time, remains a superclass and "alien" organization to it - just like the state [31, p. 362] - an intermediary between the class and the state. However, the parties of the ruling classes always subordinate the state to themselves or stand over it, which further alienates them from the society with all the consequences that come with it. However, while at the first (political) stage of the revolution the governmentaliza- tion (bureaucratization) of the party is not a mistake but a necessity, later, at the cultural stage, it turns into a "childhood illness of leftism in communism" with a lethal outcome for the party. This is the "main error of the Bolsheviks ...". Thus it is not clear what it has to do with RCP (b), and why it is necessary to cleanse of Bolshevism, and Leninism in general, if this "mistake" falls on the 1960-80-s, the years of the cultural period of the revolution and the CPSU rule, considering the fact that Stalin began the degovernmentalization of the party (similar to Lenin's separation of church and the state) with the constitution of the 1930-s. It was in this connection, as is known, that Stalin enunciated his famous principle: "Without a theory, we are dead! Dead!! Dead! ! ! "[29], setting the task of moving the party from the political to the ideological and theoretical, cultural stage of class relations.

An important theoretical point relating to the question of the relationship between "special units of armed men" (the state) and "self-acting armed organization of the population" [31, pp. 305, 363; 33, p. 1011] should be noted here. In the post-war, cultural period of the revolution, the state's political functions with respect to classes fall away, because class problems are already being solved at the ideological and theoretical level and, accordingly, its legal system is being restructured. During this period, the state ceases to be an "instrument of class domination" as such and becomes a "state of socialist democracy', obviously that only a socialist, not a bourgeois, state can be one. Then the de- governmentalized parties turn into the "self-acting armed organization of the population", "armed" of course with ideology and theory. But this can only be the case in a well-developed civil society. Otherwise, the state (bureaucracy), in alliance with any of the social classes, itself becomes the ruling class, if the classes of the civil society with their parties are ideologically, theoretically, and legally disarmed, and therefore are not organized as "self-acting armed organization of the population" the class problem arises ("people vs. government") and, accordingly, a class struggle against the bureaucracy as a class starts. Although Trotsky, from the standpoint of "Marxism", objected to such identification of bureaucracy as a class [8].

The value of the Marxist-Leninist theory, which has been enriched by the experience of the Russian revolution and counter-revolution for the real history of the twentieth century over and above covers all of its inherent theoretical shortcomings. Attempts to criticize Marxism-Leninism and "Stalinism" from the standpoint of fashionable physical concepts like "synergetics" [17, p. 23], which themselves still in need of scientific and philosophical conceptualization, are untenable. Marxist philosophy, despite the current crisis in its development caused by the absolutist flaws it inherited from the classical philosophy, nevertheless retains the ability to develop on modern methodological principles of hierarchical relativity, and remains an important materialistic moment in relativistic philosophy [6, p.66].

Strategic deviations from the Marxist-Leninist theory as the cause of the collapse of the USSR

By the departures from the Marxist-Leninist theory of the state, revolution and socialism, as well as from the "Leninist norms", which after the Twentieth Party Congress has been called "Stalinism" [32], we mean not tactical deviations from the strategy in the course of practical construction. For Lenin, tactical (practical) or temporary deviations from the theory's provisions were the norm (violent revolution, NEP, the alliance of the working class with the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie, a temporary concession to bourgeois nationalism). The revolution was threatened with strategic deviations from theory and vice versa - inertia and delay at the right practical moment (the need to move from federalism to a unitary state, from the temporary Leninist plan to the long-term Stalinist one).

Among the main theoretical theses of the socialist revolution in Russia, Lenin distinguished two stages (departing from Western theories): a short-term violent, political revolution, and long-term cultural revolution ("On Our Revolution" (1923)). That marked the originality of the Russian revolution, distinguished it from Western European revolutions - its "cultural unpreparedness" [13, pp. 86-87; 14, pp.169-175; 15, pp. 375391]. At the first stage, the armed proletariat carries out the seizure of state power and the change of the state apparatus. The principal moment of this stage, as Lenin notes, is the control of the activity of the old state apparatus on the part of the "self-acting armed organization of the population." "Engels, writes Lenin, poses theoretically the same question that practically, visually and, on a scale of mass action, is put before us by every great revolution, namely, the question of the relationship between" special units of armed men "and" selfacting armed organization of the population" [33, pp. 10-11]. This most important strategic point of the theory was tactically violated because of practical necessity in the state structure of the USSR. The opposite occurred - instead of “self-acting armed organization of the population” the role of which was to be fulfilled by the revolutionary party that merged with the state, "special detachments of armed people" were created: the armed organs of the state and the party (the police). Functions of “self-acting armed organization of the population” together with the party passed to the state apparatus. Citizens could not control the armed state apparatus, and therefore, there was no revolutionary restructuring of the state power, and it continued, as before, to maintain its dominant position over the society. This created the condition for its long (strategic) alienation and bourgeois degeneration.

The task of the second stage was the implementation of the cultural revolution in public administration and in the economy. These tasks Lenin expounded in his article "On Cooperation" (1923) and in the report at the Second All-Russian Congress of Departments of Political Education (October 17) [14, pp. 169-175]. The issues of state constuction, the state apparatus, and the creation of the workers' and peasants' inspection consisted the most important theoretical and strategic direction of the cultural stage of the revolution and the subject of Lenin's constant attention ("How do we reorganize Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate", "Less is better" (1923)). He warned that the most serious enemy was the internal enemy, "that destroyed all previous revolutions"; the enemy encountering which, "the revolution faces a precipice where all previous revolutions stumbled and retreated..." [14, pp. 162], this enemy, able to destroy it, is the petty-bourgeois element declassing proletariat and its government.

After the revolution, the question of the national and state structure of the country arose before the Bolshevik government. Before the First Congress of Soviets in 1922, the Central Committee of the Party instructed Stalin to draft a project of decision on the question of nationalities. The Stalinist project offered cultural autonomy of the national republics within the framework of the Soviet unitary state [34, p. 116]. Lenin then criticized the Stalinist project ("On the question of nationalities or about "autonomization" (1922)), seeing in it the infringement of the right of nations to self-determination [34, pp. 107-137]. Adoption of any one concept potentially was equally dangerous for the integrity of the state, only the Lenin's concept (as time showed) put off this threat to a later date, while Stalin's provoked it immediately. Lenin proceeded from the danger of weakening of proletarian solidarity by the unpopular policy of administrative restriction of national liberty. Stalin proceeded from the danger presented by bourgeois nationalists who opposed the centralization of Soviet power, under the slogans of national independence and liberation from Great-Russian chauvinism. Such forces were especially dangerous in Georgia and Ukraine [34, pp. 107-137]. The question was resolved by the adoption at the First Congress of Soviets of the Leninist plan for the federal system of the state on the basis of the then popular in the bourgeois world right of nations to self-determination (Lenin, On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1914)).

Conclusion

Thus, the main reasons that could lead to the disintegration of the first "socialist" state are the three most important strategic digressions in practice from the Marxist-Leninist class theory of the state, which had the character of a spontaneous class-bourgeois processes that:

1) were not controlled from below by the " disarmed "and having no “active power population"; 2) were determined by the pro-bourgeois, federal structure of the state and 3) by the prolonged Party's rule. Later, they proved incompatible with the cultural stage of the development of socialism and socialist state, which ultimately led to a systemic crisis and disintegration. All three reasons were the result of the CPSU's abandonment of the Stalinist course developed on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist theory of the state, which was discredited by the Party's leadership in the 1950-s - the course on "separating the party from the state" and reforming the federation of republics into a unitary state. The Russian socialist revolution proved to be possible only because Lenin could break philosophical provisions of the "Marxist" materialist theory of social revolution, having understood the independent of economic conditions role of class consciousness. The evolutionary, pro-bourgeois Social-Democratic path to socialism through the economic development of its material prerequisites remains utopian and leads to fascism on national as well as on global scale.

References

1. Video "On the causes of the collapse of the USSR." [Electr. resource]. - RD: https://goo.gl/E3RcYc.

2. G.A. Zyuganov, TV appearance in the program "The Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov", Channel 1 Russia. [Electr. resource]. - Access mode: http://kprf.ru/party-live/cknews/140643.html#related.

3. Kara-Murza, S.G. - Marx vs. Russian Revolution. / - M.: Eksmo, Yauza, 2008. [Electr. resource]. - Access mode: www.litmir.co/br/?b=123156&p=1.

4. Rogachev, V.I. To the Question of the Causes of the Collapse of the USSR and the CPSU. [Electr. resource]. - Access mode: https://goo.gl/ftzFg7.

5. Tsygankov, A.V. - Why did the Soviet Union die? [Electr. resource]. - Access mode: http://pom- nimvse.com/380pb.html.

6. Zuev, Yu. Fh. - The Principle of Hierarchical Relativity. 23 Centuries from Plato and Aristotle to a New Solution of the Key Question of Philosophy. / Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing,2013.-75p.

7. Lenin, V. I. "About Our Revolution. " / collect. op. T. 45. - P. 378-382.

8. Trotsky, L.D. “Revolution Betrayed”. [Electr. resource]. - Access mode: http://iknigi.net/avtor-lev- trockiy/70082-predannaya-revolyuciya-chto-takoe- sssr-i-kuda-on-idet-lev-trockiy/read/page-1.html.

9. The Communist International. Wikipedia. [Electr. resource]. - P. d; https://ru.wiipdia.org/wiki/KoMMyHTOra4ecKm^HTe рнацио-BE.D1.80.D0.BC.

10. Marx K. and Engels F. - Manifesto of the Communist Party. Selected Works. In 3 volumes, T. 1. - M.: Politizdat, 1980. - P. 95-138.

11. Semenov, V.S. Lessons of the 20th Century and the Path to the 21st Century. (Socio-Philosophical Analysis and Forecast). Moscow. 2000. [The electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://sbiblio.com/biblio//ar- chive/semenov_uroki/.

12. Lenin, V.I. “On the Slogan of the United States of Europe”. / Collect. op. Vol. 26. p 351-355.

13. Engels, F. “Principles of Communism”. Selected Works in 3 volumes/ Vol.1. Moscow. Politizdat, 1980. P. 77-94.

14. Lenin, V.I. “New Economic Policy and Tasks of Political Education./Collect. op. Vol. 44. P. 155-175.

15. Lenin, V.I. “To the History of the Question of Dictatorship”. / Col. Works, vol. 4І. P. 371-391.

16. Lenin, V.I. “What are the "Friends of the People" and How They Fight against the Social Democrats?” / Collect. op. Vol. 1. P. 131-349.

17. Vengerov A.B. “Theory of State and Law. Textbook.” [for law schools] 4-th ed., Moscow, Omega-L, 2007. 608 p.

18. Lenin, V.I. “Development of Capitalism in Russia”. / Collect. op/ vol 3, p. 527.

19. Lenin, V.I. “Socialism and war. / Full. collect. op. 26. - P. 306-351.

20. “Marxism and Bolshevism. Socialism According to Marx and Lenin.” [Electr. resource]. - Access mode: http://lp-in-pdf.narod.ru/ www.telenir.net/politika/marksizm_i_bolshevizm/p1.php#s4.

21. Oyzerman, T.I. “The Teachings of Karl Marx and the Idea of a Violent Revolution”. [Electr. resource]. - Access mode: https://sbiblio.com/biblio/ar- chive/oyserman_uchenie/ https://goo.gl/GTzctv.

22. Marx K. “Criticism of the Gotha Program”. Selected Works. In three volumes, Vol. 3. Moscow, Politizdat, 1981. P. 5-28.

23. Lenin V.I. “A Synopsis of Hegel's Book “The Science of Logic””. / Full. collect. op. T. 29. - P. 200204.

24. Marx K. “On the Criticism of Political Economy”. Foreword. Selected Works. In three volumes, vol. 1. - M.: Politizdat, 1980. - P. 534-538.

25. Socialism. [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://center-yf.ru/data/stat/Socializm.php#.

26. Lenin, V.I. “The Coming Catastrophe and How to Deal with It”. / Collect. op. vol. 34. P. 151-199.

27. The Onset of Fascism and the Tasks of the Communist International. The Left Radical. [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://levoradikal.ru/ar- chives/11542.

28. Sorkin, M.A. “Marxism-Leninism and the Present”. [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://ledokol-ledokol.livejournal.com/41643.html.

29. Zhdanov, Yu. A. "Without theory, we will die!" Death!! Death!!! [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://sotref.com/politika/318-bez_nauki smert.html.

30. Putin told scientists... [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: Putin told scientists about the subversive role of Lenin in Russian history http://www.mter- fax.ru/russia/490856.

31. Engels, F. - The Origin of Family, Private Property, and State "/ Selected works. In 3 volumes, T. 3. - M.: Politizdat, 1981. - P. 362-363.

32. Zinoviev, A. “Stalin. Stalin's Era. Stalinism”. [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://pom- nimvse.com/479pb.html.

33. Lenin, V.I. “State and Revolution” /Collected works Vol. 33. P. 1-120.

34. History Teaches a Lesson / Edited by V.G. Afanasyev, G.L. Smirnov; Comp. A.A. Ilyin. - Moscow: Politizdat, 1989. - 414 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru