Well, if you were a great economist, like Gaidar or Yavlinsky, why didn't you figure out the reasons of the deteriorating position of the people? Why did you simply reject science, which was studied even by capitalists, and begin to act: first – the transfer of someone else's liberal experience in the form of reforms; second – the invention of a new, market paradise in 500 days?
Artificial borrowing, simply rejecting personal development /if one calls a spade a spade/, does not make any sense. However, it is the same regarding the failed propagation of fictional schemes.
But the market, so desired by our opponents, which unites now all kittens and cheeky wolfhounds, one can neither introduce nor abolish. While there are division of work, exchange of products, and attendant commodity-money relations, the market is objective. Another thing is its level of development and state regulation, but it cannot be, by design, neither created nor destroyed. But one, ultracommunists, felt that it was allegedly gone, and others, ultra-liberals, decided to recreate it. This is ridiculous!
Above we have seen that the problems, created in the consumer market in our country /poor quality of goods, deficit, distortions in pricing, hierarchy, and gradation of distribution nets, and more, right up to infringement of morals/, hark back to incorrect regulation of job market. And the conflict, which had constantly been conducted between the worker and the administration for the price of work, expressed in the lowering of prices on one side and exceeding standards on the other, was a tough proof of its existence. The commodity market was simply suffering from bad regulation of job market.
But there came «great and terrible» Yegor Timurovich! And solemnly, with a red ribbon and scissors for cutting, he opened it for us and supposedly brought us into it. While he was to examine the existing socialist market and to learn how to regulate it. But without fooling around: as if the market will fix itself, but in the interests of the worker. To warn and prevent the alienation, appropriation and accumulation of the work of others by hidden grabbers. But Yegor did not do what was needed. He wanted fame.
And what do Marxism and communism have to do with this, when people have not left the brutish state yet, when «self comes first» and people, for the sake of primary consuming, are ready to be violent, when everybody wants personal and not common happiness? If you were a scientist like Gaidar, why didn't you see that infringement of needs, endlessly done by bureaucracy, led to activation, aggravation of contradictions, but not to the growth of productivity of work?
Marxism, certainly, got burned by «the person». But isn't that exactly what we see in the avalanche-like tsunami of liberal «reforms»? Gaidar's crafts gave freedom, alas, not to the people, but to the scums and scoundrels to plunder the working people. This untied their hands, freed from prohibitions, responsibility, and morals. They have corrupted a greedy grabber and a self-satisfied parasite with impunity.
Do you think that people are born humans once and for all? Nothing of the sort. People left primitive conditions not that long ago. Features, attributes, and means changed. Essence, goals, and passion are still the same. The species gives only a form but does not guarantee humanity in the person. People need to become people every day and every moment, proving it to themselves and others through overcoming the animal, consumer egocentrism, through the delight of the developed human abilities. A person is as a person as much his/her creative abilities are developed and active. This is what makes him/her different from other living creatures in the world and compatriots in society.
Did you want to get better? And what happened? The vilest passions were unleashed. Do not jump in at the deep end. Having replaced science with subjectivism and eclecticism, you ruined the continuity of social development, having depreciated life and the efforts of several generations, of a few million people. And how many people have you ruined together with Chubais – from malnutrition, illnesses, suicides, hungry freezing to the floor? How many people you did not let to be born, to grow, to be realized? You have won a historical dispute with mass repressions of 1937–1938: we have never lost so many people in time of peace. But you continue to smile playfully and to lecture, pretending to be inscrutable wise people. And you succeed just because your savvy reforms have turned to be beneficial for bureaucracy, which you criticize, as the right of unrestricted private property is dearer to it than former dosed privileges. And it is not because that liberalism is a highway of human progress. Your deception was favourable to «the elite». That's the whole sacramental secret of your success!
Let's get back to our «deep end», if you like. If the people destroyed the superstructure, which did not fit in, then why did this happen? Privileges? But the rulers always had them, and the people always tolerated this. Command and mandative administration? What else, if there is no interest?… Bureaucratism in the consideration of requests, complaints, suggestions? But everything is given not for beautiful eyes but according to regulations… Defects of the distribution system? They are everywhere, aren't they?… Alas, all these nasty things are well known and familiar to the people to make them jump under tanks or tank attack. The liberal intelligentsia, who consider themselves to be spiritual mentors, got exhausted of criticizing nomenclative and bureaucratic socialism. But, certainly, it was after the fight. And they left everything as it was, only having worsened and multiplied it, and having destined themselves as the new elite.
People got up and went to fight because they wanted to live better. They always want this. And they work for it. But all is in vain. People are working more and more, suffering, and hoping. And again they do not succeed. They change tactics and begin to sneak around, but they see that their achievements are not worth it and do not justify sacrifices. When this is accumulated over the edge and moves into high gear, they go outside, to the rails, to the «White House». And they resent!
But what scoundrels, who think only about themselves, does one need to be in power to stand against angry batons, soldiers, barbed wire, riot police, and tanks? And there are communists, who call this impulse the «counterrevolution». And the people just want to live and to live better, being neither the communists nor the democrats, not having any concept of the basis, of the superstructure. The leaders must have been thinking about the people and not about themselves. But they were not thinking about the people, and therefore, they left them aside. This is the essence of the problem.
But why and when did the communist leaders stop thinking about people? They used to think about them. That is why they were supported and raised to power in their time.
To understand something, we must call a spade a spade. The socialist revolution is neither an invention of Lenin nor the result of the communist propaganda. It is the result of the natural development of society. This is a joint movement for justice and law of the communist leaders and the working masses. But then the leaders became the ruling class.
When they were fighting together with the workers for their future, they were equal. And it was perfect! But, when they came to power, they began to build a ladder of the state, party and administrative positions, ranks and titles. And it turned out that the recent heroes… were the ordinary people, like everyone else. Each of them had their own problems and motives inside, fundamental contradiction between the abilities and the needs that press down on the person on the outside and on the inside, causing one or other shift in his/her thoughts, deeds, actions. In short, they became competitors among themselves.
Fighting first for the nation, they became fighters for themselves. For the purpose of nomination, growth, and personal success. All the hallmarks of a career struggle were present, where even the overall success was usually placed on the altar of somebody's personal success. As the class struggle in this period was still in progress, interpersonal career civil strife could be easily confused with class contradictions.
We know from history that many intraparty fights took place in this period from top to bottom. Factions, coalitions, platforms, deviations. The main leader, General Secretary of