About the slander of proletarian dictatorship |
In the digest «Materials of international scientific-practical colloquium "Liberal and authoritarian societies: the past, the present, the future". Ufa, March 28-30, 2002» there is an article of bourgeois scholar Vladislav Bugera, who poses as “proletarian revolutionary”. The article is called “The unity, mutual complementarity, mutual generating of “liberal” and “authoritarian” societies”. Bugera begins his article with words:
“First of all, it is necessary to note, that the contrast between “liberal” and “authoritarian” societies is illusive” (p. 67).
It is right. Lenin already wrote about elimination of the distinction between democracy (“liberal society”) and monarchy (“authoritarian society”) under imperialism: every “the most democratic” bourgeois republic pursues the same reactionary police policy as monarchy does. But how does Bugera argue it?
“Every class society –both “liberal” and “authoritarian” - is divided into minority, which possesses economic and politic power, and majority, which is subject of manipulations of ruling minority” (pp. 67-68)
It is barefaced lie. Leninism rightly says, that at imperialist stage, i.e. at the stage of decayed capitalism and proletarian revolutions, the states of 2 types are possible – bourgeois dictatorship (the dictatorship of rich minority over poor majority) and proletarian dictatorship (the dictatorship of poor majority over rich minority). But in Bugera’s view every dictatorship, both bourgeois and proletarian, is the dictatorship of minority over majority. Bugera’s position is a mere rehash (repeat) of Proudhon’s and Bakunin’s dogmas, which were disproved a long time ago by the history process. For Proudhon and Bakunin, and, after them, for Bugera the words “dictatorship”, “authority” are scarecrows. Objectively it is the position of petty bourgeois, which fears equally both bourgeois dictatorship and proletarian one as a result of his position, which fluctuates between bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Bugera illustrates his arguments with the example (incidentally, the example is chosen well – well for making clear, that Bugera’s views are erroneous):
“The examples are at hand: all “liberalism” of political regime, which was established in Afghanistan recently with the support of the rich liberal democracies, consists only in the point, that the fighters of North Alliance, unlike talibs, not shoot at Buddha’s statues and not smash up news-stands, where magazines with photos of women faces sell” (p.69)
“There is no fundamental difference between North Alliance and Taliban” – such is the sense of Bugera’s words, words of this ideologist of the petty bourgeoisie.
But the large bourgeoisie sees this difference very clear. On the one hand, it suppress talibs strictly, it slander them (both through the mass media and through such corrupted scholars as Bugera). On the other hand, it arms and finances North Alliance.
Thus, the large bourgeoisie shows openly by its actions the point, which its servants - bourgeois professors - try to conceal from us, from proletarians, namely: the difference between bourgeois dictatorship and proletarian dictatorship.
December 4, 2004
Related Articles -
Taliban, dictatorship, Leninism, imperialism,