ComradeRat

I sent a letter to the Central Committee from Geneva, where I was on the International Atomic Energy Commission, and wrote that Khrushchev was continuing to repeat the same error Stalin had made when he argued that communism could be achieved under conditions of capitalist encirclement. I was recalled to Moscow and expelled from the party at the meeting of the Council of Ministers party nucleus. Lesechko and some women, whom Khrushchev had brought to the meeting, raged more than anyone else. I was expelled, but I appealed. The party bureau confirmed the expulsion. I appealed again. The Sverdlovsk District Party Committee and then the Moscow City Party Committee approved my expulsion. I appealed again. Demichev was particularly adamant against me. He took my party card . . . . Four times I applied to be reinstated in the party. I wrote to Brezhnev. Not once did I get an answer. Asked about my party membership status at a party conference, Shaposhnikova explained to the communists that "he didn't apply to be reinstated in the party." I am going to send another application to the XXIVth Congress.

**Chuev: "Am I right, the slogan "peaceful coexistence" was not used under Lenin?"

It was never used, and Lenin never used it. And I think the reason is quite understandable. In those days it would have been naive, utterly naive, to talk about peaceful coexistence. As if we would have begged, "Please give us peace! " The imperialists would have given us no kind of peace whatever. They went their way, we ours. Along the revolutionary way, our policy was affirmed and gathered strength. In my view it is a correct slogan today, but we must bear in mind that some people, pacifistically minded people, incorrectly interpret this slogan. The very idea draws people toward a pacifist way of thinking. Under Lenin the old program condemned such views. Pacifist ideas are pernicious. Lenin was very punctilious, most precise in this regard. But today it's another matter.

Khrushchev even included it in the party program . . . .

I personally tried to avoid this expression and still do, while Khrushchev, in contrast, tried to make it the touchstone of party and state policy. Elaborating on it leads to no improvement. Another aspect of it needs to be stressed. In 1921 we made no use of the slogan. We stood for peace, we were for the development of relations with the bourgeois countries. We intended to attack no one. But we were opposed to pacifism. This was stated very sharply, even scathingly, in the party program, that is, the Lenin program. I took the trouble to reexamine the program to check on this. It does not contain this slogan. Even during the struggle over the Brest peace treaty, when Lenin defended the necessity of peace, even then this expression was not employed, at least not by Lenin and his closest associates. Today it is widely and eclectically bandied about. The general line on this has already been fixed. We are, as it were, begging for peace. But to beg for peace means exposing one's weakness. And to show one's weakness to the strong is politically disadvantageous and inexpedient. For Bolsheviks it is unseemly. The expression was widely used by Khrushchev, who did not always speak correctly to questions of theory and questions of a profoundly political, principled character. One finds in him all kinds of similar crude formulations . . . . ... The impression is being given that we have consolidated the peace, when we have done nothing of the kind. We have consolidated nothing. In dealing with imperialism is it possible to say, live and let live? If so, permit me to ask: what are we living for? If it is for the overthrow of imperialism, can we possibly coexist peacefully without overthrowing imperialism? Are we renouncing the overthrow of imperialism? No, we are not. How then is it possible to combine peaceful coexistence with the overthrow of imperialism? According to the Communist Manifesto, "The communists do not conceal their views. They stand for the violent overthrow of the entire existing social order." This is basic to Marx and to Lenin. Everything is reasoned out so as not to contradict this teaching, but now we preach peaceful coexistence. How does one fit in with the other? If they do jibe, then explain how. The real purpose of this expression is to set people's minds at ease.

More than a hundred years ago we were not afraid to speak out openly, and we rallied people into insurrection. But today we who have grown strong talk about peaceful coexistence. There can be only one long-range goal if we are to move forward: only international revolution. There is nothing, no alternative, more reliable than this. It is our duty to preserve peace. But if we believe that without international revolution we can fight for peace and delay war, if we still believe that it's possible to arrive at communism in this way, that is deception from a Marxist viewpoint, both self-deception and deception of the people.

Revolution is on the march, it is growing stronger, everything is moving forward, but not without sacrifices. He who thinks it is possible to advance to communism without sacrifices and without mistakes is naive. The fewer the mistakes the better, but there are bound to be some. Big mistakes that create illusions and spread complacency do not prepare us for decisive battles which are absolutely unavoidable. Thus nothing will be gained, and we shan't move forward. This means that very big battles lie ahead. We are not preparing for them. This is the main danger as I see it. ... We stand for peaceful coexistence in the sense that we stand for peace. We must in every way stand for peace-we are the most peace-loving country-insofar as this does not impede the strengthening of socialism and the growth of the national liberation movement. As to world communism, that goes without saying. If we do not struggle for communism, for world communism, we won't have socialism either. Insofar as this peace does not impair the gradual deepening of the pit under capitalism-we don't speak of this openly-we preserve peace for the purpose of overthrowing imperialism.

In fact, when Khrushchev launched "peaceful coexistence," he did so for the most self-serving of reasons. After all, by playing up fear of atomic war, we help bring it on. Much lies ahead to be done. We proceed from the premise that our positions must be strengthened.

"What struggle? Capitalism has collapsed," said Shota Ivanovich .

Well, well. A formidable struggle lies ahead. And the further we go, the more formidable the struggle. There is no book whatever that will provide a solution to this question. Marx's Capital is the most all encompassing book, but it does not provide an answer to all problems.

How about State and Revolution?

It is based on Marx. Marx said, here is my book. It is a bomb of a kind more powerful than any bomb that bourgeois society ever had or will have. Indeed, this bomb will blow up bourgeois society. No atomic bomb has this power. Nor will any bomb help bourgeois society. Marx's teaching has proved to be a teaching, which, if adhered to---and Lenin undeviatingly adhered to it and very ingeniously applied it to our country's conditions---was capable of blowing up our society. But it has not yet proved capable of this in other countries.

Is the bourgeois system better than the socialist system? Better? In what respects? Better because it is infected through and through with Khrushchevism? But Khrushchevism is the bourgeois spirit.

I told Khrushchev this straight to his face, and I who had always been considered a man of the party was later considered superfluous to the party. I say to you, we must not follow in Khrushchev's footsteps! Khrushchev is not alone. We have very many "Khrushchevs" in our country; indeed, they are the overwhelming majority. We who believe that we must take fundamental positions different from Khrushchevism should have looked into things a bit more deeply . . . . Why do we have such a situation in our country? What is its cause? Is Khrushchev alone to blame? It would have been so easy to kick him out. But we are surrounded by little "Khrushchevs," and they keep mum-but now they have come to understand . . . . Everyone wants to live, it's a legitimate demand. But if we who consider ourselves dedicated communists devote all our attention to this, we will begin to move through bourgeois floodwaters to the aid of Khrushchev. We will cling to him so as not to fall behind.

We just talk about socialism in generalities and refer only in passing to the difficult questions. We deliberately avoid these questions. ... I laugh when I receive New Year's greetings: I wish you a tranquil life, and so forth. They want a tranquil life, but I know it is impossible. I am against the tranquil life! If I craved a tranquil life, it would mean I have been "philistinized."

Take Stalin. I believe that toward the end he suffered a monumental failing: he turned complacent. True, for decades, like no one else, he had overstrained himself. All the same it was a failing, because he was not Lenin — 3/3

Liquidate the kolkhozes, tum them into state property?

Yes, exactly. To do this, however, vast preparatory work must be done, but we are not yet doing it because presumably socialism has been fully built, a claim that hinders preparation for the liquidation both of the kolkhozes and of money. I must say that apart from Stalin no one has embarked on this work or even grasped its necessity. I read and discussed this matter with Stalin. In his booklet Stalin at first writes hesitatingly but in the last letter very categorically. Twenty years ago he wrote that the kolkhozes were already beginning to block progress. Today the kolkhozes can rely on their own funds. But what if the state should invest in this matter? The rate of growth would rise phenomenally. The party program states that the sovkhozes [state farms] should serve as a model for the kolkhozes. If we have already built socialism and if we are building communism, why not transform them into the model? . . . . I hold that the rural economy presents no problem for us. We shall not, however, solve it quickly until we have enough machines adapted to the conditions of various regions of the country and each farm unit, crop, and variety is integrated with the others. If we mechanize realistically, in a scientific and efficient way, we shall easily cope with these tasks. We must not lag behind in military technology. It is here that we have concentrated all our strength . . . .

Priority for industry is our first concern.

Of course. More than anything. We now find ourselves at a very advantageous position as the only country in the whole world not dependent on foreign oil or gas. America is dependent in this regard, as are France, England, all. . . . We are fully self-sufficient in energy. We lack only machines and educated people. But the main thing is mechanization. If we clearly understand this and firmly carry out mechanization, we shall speedily move forward. But we need to understand, really understand, what socialism means.

Generally speaking, no one even discusses this today.

What do you mean, no one? They are discussing it. Indeed, too much so. Philosophers and economists are discussing it. We have two books recently published on the foundations of scientific communism, edited by the director of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Academician Fedoseev. Just look at the nonsense he read into Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

He is confused?

Totally. The contributors just sow confusion: peace, peace, peace! Nixon will never hand it to you on a silver platter. A bitter struggle for peace lies ahead; it is not yet avoidable. Our ideologists disingenuously shout peace, peace! Better the hand wither than write this nonsense! Peace, peace! It must be fought for and won! ... We have signed a nuclear test-ban treaty with the imperialists of America and England, a treaty directed against socialist China. Why bar China from having nuclear weapons? China just shrugged off the ban and developed its own bomb. France disregarded the ban. We proved to be helpless as a newborn babe, and we gave Mao Tse-tung his main reason to break with the Soviet Union. The imperialists signed this treaty to foster the split between China and the Soviet Union. It is now almost impossible to rectify that blunder. The Chinese further deepened the rift because they are semi-Marxists rather than true Marxists.

Khrushchev apparently instigated it.

Instigated it? He literally dragged us into it. So, we signed the treaty: peace, peace! But there can be no peace without war.

We are handing out billions in Soviet money to foreign states, but the recipients have collapsed.

Can you name just one?

**Chile, for example. You yourself once told us several years ago that Chile could not hold out for long.((

All right, that was Chile. There will still be many Chiles---victories and defeats.

But no one can deny that Soviet billions have gone to foreign aid.

Oh, you philistine, you! Just a philistine!...

Cuba is a burden on us. Let it be?

It's not at all.

And Chile would have been a burden, too.

No, don't go on that way. I am very sensitive on this topic . . . . You are a great philistine in matters of politics, Shota Ivanovich. — Chuev said: "Many people are displeased that we help others too much. They say it's time to take care of ourselves . . . ."

In Stalin's time we helped, too, though we had less wherewithal. Then people grumbled, too. Now our bonds are stronger, of course, and the scale is greater, but in general, from my point of view, it is necessary. All of this is necessary not just for those whom we are helping but first for us . . . . The Vietnamese fight for us even more than we do for ourselves-they get killed. And from the point of view of weakening imperialism, our most dangerous enemy, they do a colossal job. Every step that weakens imperialism is absolutely great. Otherwise it will become more difficult for us after a number of years or maybe even tomorrow or the day after.

Chuev: "Otherwise we can isolate ourselves, can't we?"

That's the point. It's more that we could make plenty of trouble for ourselves. And very many people, including communists, think this way-peace, no matter what, only peace! That's right, but it has to be ensured. We are not given this for nothing. Or else we have to give up. The Vietnamese don't want to give up. Tiny Vietnam is fighting imperialism with unbelievable heroism! Why should we fear imperialism?...

The people say now, if only there won't be a war.

This is Khrushchev's shortsighted view. It is very dangerous. We need to think about preparing for new wars. Events are moving in that direction. Yes, we must be ready. Then they will be more careful. And if they go to extremes, we will be strong. Vietnam sets an example for the whole world. If tiny Vietnam, with help from friends, can stand up to American imperialism, what does the Soviet Union have to fear? Only its own helplessness, faintheartedness, slackness of discipline.

With Brezhnev, in my opinion, the direction is fundamentally weak. Everything is staked on peaceful coexistence. Of course we need peaceful coexistence, but you have to remember that is not guaranteed us.

2/3

Molotov Remembers is my favourite source on what led to Khrushchevism (and later Brezhnevism). Is interviews/memoirs of a guy who was there and has the guts to admit when he thinks he and Stalin messed up, and also because Molotov has a fairly conversational style making it readable (however this and the way the book is organised means the analysis is scattered throughout the text). He emphasises theoretical errors among leadership (and consequently incorrect leadership given to the state) as a huge issue.

He emphasises that, much as Khrushchev is wrong to blame everything on Stalin, it would also be wrong to blame everything on Khrushchev—Molotov maintains that the seeds of Khrushchevism must be sought in the Stalin period (i've edited it to break up the paragraphs a bit for ease of reading):

"The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" was discussed at Stalin's dacha. "Any questions, comrades? Have you read it?" He gathered together the members of the Politburo, some seven or eight people. "What do you think about it? Any comments?" We said something or other. I mentioned something not terribly important.

Now I confess, we underestimated the work. We should have gone into it more thoroughly. But no one as yet understood this. Unfortunately, people were bad at theory.

The more familiar I become with Stalin's "Economic Problems of Socialism," the more defects I find in it. I reread it today. How could he write: "It is obvious that after the disintegration of the world market, the spheres of exploitation of the world's resources by the major capitalist countries, the USA, Britain, and France, will contract, yet the cyclical character of the development of capitalism, the growth and contraction of production, will nevertheless be preserved." This is true. But further on-and this was written in 1952-"However, the growth of production in these countries will take place on a narrower base, because the volume of production in these countries will contract." But nothing of the kind has occurred.

Chuev, the interviewer, asked: "Was Khrushchev adept in matters of theory?"

No. He was extremely weak in that regard. We were all "practicals ," all practitioners. Before the Revolution we read all the books and newspapers, now we read nothing. Had I not spent so long in prison and exile, I wouldn't know many things either! I read publications written by our opponents too, and we had to participate in heated discussions.

Chuev asked Molotov: "Is it true that after XIXth Congress [1952] Stalin said we had built a military-industrial dictatorship instead of socialism?"

He said something else. In private conversation he confessed that we no longer had a dictatorship of the proletariat. He didn't state this firmly, but he said it. Only to me. Perhaps he was testing me, or perhaps he was trying to understand something himself.

If you read our constitution thoroughly you will see that it contains many points which contradict the dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course, it's all said in a very transparent form. There is something like this: our Soviet power was born in 1917 as the dictatorship of the proletariat and became the power of all the toilers.

Notice, "all the toilers." That is why our country is administered by Soviets of Toilers' Deputies. Soviets have existed and remain, but they used to be Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies, fundamentally Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. But this class division no longer exists. In my opinion this is a revision in diluted form: not the dictatorship of the proletariat but power of the toilers.

Khrushchev gathered writers together one day at Stalin's remote dacha, two hundred kilometers from Moscow. There he announced for all to hear that he had differences of opinion with me. His move particularly displeased me because he announced it at a nonparty gathering. It all started with an article in the journal Kommunist in 1955, where I argued that we had constructed only the foundations of socialism in our country. Shortly before that I had gathered reporters and distributed the article to them. There were some queries on the article. But I said I believed that socialism in our country was not yet complete

Chuev said, "Under Khrushchev, Molotov was reproached for saying that in our country, only the "basis of socialism" had been constructed and not "socialism basically, " and he confessed his mistake in the journal of the Central Committee, Kommunist."

No, I had to. They forced me to. At a session of the Supreme Soviet I delivered a report on the international situation. By the way, I still believe that both conclusions were correct. Then, a letter signed by Pospelov and Rumiantsev was published. They contended that "socialism basically" and its "basis" had been built long ago. I then said at the Politburo: "I don't see any contradiction in terms there. One can say that both "socialism basically" and "basis" have been built. "Basis" is a narrower concept, which places greater emphasis on the economic side of things. "Basis" or "basically"-just so much talmudic hairsplitting. I wrote that both formulations were correct, consequently there could be no objections to my position as being incorrect, because "basis" is the same as "basically." To see a difference between the two one would have to be a pedant.

At that time Khrushchev started undermining you.

Why started? He had always been doing that.

They seem to have been eager to incriminate you somehow. They launched a campaign against you.

Not just over some issue or another. Not just any issue. This question was absolutely crucial. To say that socialism had triumphed completely and definitely was to oversimplify our achievements, and this contradicted Marxism-Leninism. No one wants to dig into this now, but exasperation with this situation is sure to mount. Younger people will take up the issue and agree that the wrong conclusion had been drawn...

Another of the interviewers, Ivanovich, said: "We have brought an end to class struggle,"

We have not yet brought an end to anything.

Within the country.

Even within the country we have brought nothing to an end. We have only laid the foundations.

Khrushchev said we have completed the edifice.

It was not completed under Khrushchev, and it is still not completed. Quite the contrary, the ideology contained in the party program only hampers progress.

Good heavens! The program is incorrect!

Not just incorrect, it impedes the building of socialism. The workers toil and move the cause forward; the peasants, kolkhozniki, work slowly but are advancing. They lack genuine leadership. In reality the people are preoccupied with problems of daily life. A socialism in which money dominates is not the socialism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. There is no such socialism. Just try to find it. Yet in our country such "socialism" exists. There is no genuine socialism in which two kinds of property exist, neither in Marx, Engels, and Lenin nor in a developed, completely built socialism. Instead of overcoming these vestiges of the transitional period, we have preserved them and applied the brakes to further progress. And we claim we are already building communism. It's absurd. That's what this ideology leads to.

In "Economic Problems of Socialism, " didn't Stalin address this problem correctly?

Correctly. He started off cautiously, but in the end he took a firm position. He alone addressed the question correctly. We didn't understand all of it back then. He made some mistakes, and I called them to his attention. He let me read the manuscript of a part which was then published, and the second part on which he was still working. But I repeat: there is nothing in Marx, Engels, and Lenin to suggest that you can have socialism while money, the purse, holds sway.

The kolkhoz is a transitional, and only a transitional, form. No socialism, no complete socialism, exists while there are two forms of property, state and cooperative. Yet we say that we have a developed socialist society, delude ourselves in this manner when in fact we are slamming on the brakes. We must liquidate this delusion and unleash the full energy of the people. This step will turn things white-hot but will work itself out.

Nevertheless, our present leadership [under Brezhnev and Kosygin] doesn't understand this, while those who slip them ineffectual memoranda are simply mindless, petty bourgeois ideologists. We have only built the foundations; true, this is irreversible. But lo and behold, they proclaim: "This is developed socialism! Let us pass on to communism!" and so forth. We are passing on to nothing.

Look, Brezhnev, in spite of himself, is one of those leaders who doesn't understand this, one of those who live according to a vulgar, petty bourgeois ideology. We have a lot of that around in our country, and it cannot but impede progress. Most interesting is the fact that you won't find any serious people pondering this problem. Have you heard of anyone who says that we must somehow change so as to build the socialism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin? You won't find such a person.

But how to change, begin with what, with the kolkhozes or what?

Yes, with the kolkhozes. 1/3

I'm basing my views on things written by animal scientists like "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?" by Frans de Waal, in addition to works on local history (written by people who've lived around bears), theory written by indigenous people. I've talked to people who've lived around bears who share my views, so clearly people's views are less monolithic than you present.

If you wanna actually share research instead of namecalling I'd be happy to learn more, but as it stands, based on what you've told me, the only ones harming bears have been the ones shooting them. You haven't mentioned any negative effects beyond it being not "natural."

Bears, like humans, are animals capable of learning and adapting, and developing attachment to a place and types of food. Even in "nature," they develop specific preferences. I don't find it "insane" at all that an animal would travel hundreds of miles to get back home. To me, the thing we should be labelling as a problem ("insane" as you put it) is the society that says, for the bears own good, they must be shot to death because they keep trying to go home

Similarly, the very fact that bears can lose their "natural" fear of people means it is a learned behaviour rather than some intrinsic behaviour of all bears. The fact that every account i've heard of the bears in Jasper asserts a lack of serious harm done even to the tourists tells me the issue isn't with the bears being overly aggressive, but bourgeois society being to stingy with its food. Bears adapting to human societies in peaceful ways was neat and good (and there are other examples to observe, e.g. Hyenas in some cities in east Africa)

To extend your logic "bears are foragers etc" to its absurd conclusion (that what is "natural" is inherently good), we should force all humans to engage in the "natural" behaviour of foraging too. This would require the extermination of upwards of most of the human species? Well, at least the dead will know they died for their own good. The survivors will surely think "Sure, the human population was larger in the old days. But those people were locked into extremely unhealthy behavioral cycles." If anyone complains about death from diabetes they can be told: "Humans are not meant to live like that. Don't cure diseases."

"Locally produced" is usually just a way for the petty bourgeois farmers to greenwash their exploitation of migrant labourers ime

Oh he wrote a new book cool

Cant speak to it specifically, but Saito's marxology and analysis of what the ecological problems are and how they relate to capitalist production is usually good and useful, at least insofars as theory in general is useful.

Watch out for his views on Engels and AES, he hates the latter (except Cuba) and blames them on the former (except Cuba). It doesnt usually ruin his books for me, but he basically always talks about the evils of "Engelsism-Stalinism" at least once.

In terms of his solutions, Saito is useless he's completely utopian-idealismbrained and believes the "3.5% of the pop can create real change" thing and belives if he spreads the Good Word of Eco-Marxism enough the Revolution will Just Happen.

Let any doubters of gilgamesh and enkidu's love story (or the capability of past humans to be gay in general) read tablet 12 lines 86-101and try to find a straight explanation (its not possible):

Gilgamesh opened a hole to the Underworld

and brought Enkidu's spirit back, like a ghost.

They hugged, they kissed,

they talked, they asked:

"Tell me, my friend, tell me, my friend,

tell me the laws of the Underworld you saw!"

"I will not, my friend, I will not.

for if I tell you the laws of the Underworld I saw,

you would break down crying!"

"So let me break down crying!"

"My friend, my penis, which you touched to please your heart,

is being eaten by a moth, like a threadbare cloth.

My friend, my crotch, which you touched to please your heart,

is filled with dust, like a crack in the ground."

"Woe," cried the king, and threw himself in the dust.

"Woe," cried Gilgamesh, and threw himself in the dust.

In addition to what purpleworm and buckykat said, different versions of the epic portray enkidu differently, generally getting more animalistic over time (whereas in some of the earlier versions, he's a normal human herder or hunter).

Some scholars think this transformation reflects a change in the urban-state mesopotamian perception of the surrounding non-state peoples, from viewing them as humans with a different economic system towards viewing them as mystical savages

People will see this and still not realise weebs are the most oppressed minority....even more oppressed than gamers...!

By "effectively go insane" and "major issues that harm them" what do you mean specifically? (Unless by "insane" you mean "considers human trashes a food source"? In which case you think killing them is better than letting them eat trash?)

Everything I've heard and read about Jasper suggests the bears were fine. My grandmother has tons of stories from her childhood of the bears being calm, not "insane" whatever you mean by that

This is quite Leninphobic