The veteran leader of Russia’s Communist Party has warned parliament that the country’s faltering economy risks stoking a 1917-style revolution and that the government needs to take urgent measures to correct its course.
“Communist” is afraid of revolution.
I understand (and even support) being internally critical of the government in order to squeeze out some reforms. But unless the fear of 1917 is a legal defense or some irony lost in translation, that’s discrediting to his own argument.
Ok so i’m going to play devil’s advocate here and ask you to consider the alternative: should he have said that the government should continue its present course, which he believes is making conditions worse for the working class, in hopes that this sparks a revolution?
Well that would be considered accelerationism, and the problem is that, when workers hear you say things like that, it does not make them like you and other communists more. It comes across as you advocating for their conditions to get worse so that you can achieve your political aims. This is incredibly cynical. People support those parties and politicians who show that they understand their concerns and are actively working to make them better. Even if this means appealing to the liberal-bourgeois ruling party.
In fact this is smart messaging and smart strategy. Because if the government refuses to take action and things get worse and people do start thinking about revolution, then you will be among those who the discontented flock toward to lead them, as someone who championed their interests and warned about the consequences. On the other hand, if the government does take action then you can sell it as your party having pushed them to do that, which also gains you credibility and respect as a political force.
There is also the factor that a 1917 style revolution at this point in time would be devastating for Russia and would have very little chance of success. You have to remember that even back then a coalition of a dozen imperialist nations invaded Russia to try and put down the revolution. And that was after a devastating world war that had exhausted practically all the other imperialist powers too.
Would the revolution have succeeded in defeating the white forces and the imperialist intervention if it had happened not in 1917 but in 1913? NATO is just waiting for any weakness in Russia to present itself, any internal conflict and they will immediately take advantage to try and implement their plan of subjugating and balkanizing Russia. There is a rabid and expansionist Neo-Nazi regime on Russia’s border with a large and battle hardened army. If there was a civil war in Russia, would the Russian army be able to continue to hold back the fascists? Would the revolutionaries be able to put together a new Red Army capable of stopping them?
The reason i’m asking this is because the main question that we need to consider here is this: would a rapid collapse in the conditions of the Russian people be beneficial for the potential success of a future revolution, or detrimental? One could argue that in the present circumstances this would make the revolution more likely to fail and socialists to get exterminated if the state collapsed. And this is probably also what Zyuganov is thinking. It makes more sense to bide time for now and build up the base of support of the communists by fighting for an improvement in their material conditions.
Eventually the neighboring fascist regime will be defeated and eventually US hegemony will also be gone. The imperialist camp will itself fall into crisis, which will lift the boot off the necks of all imperialized and besieged nations that are not yet socialist, opening up the geopolitical space for successful socialist revolutions.
And this is probably also what Zyuganov is thinking.
Then he should’ve said any of that. He’s the leader of the CP, not a twitter user limited by character count.
For the simple question of what he should’ve said, he shouldn’t have framed the 1917 revolution to solve these problems in the negative. It doesn’t take too much in rhetoric skills to denounce the issues, but side with the people rather than the government. Though again I’m willing to believe that this is could be a translation and legal issue.
In fact, I found the speech transcript and read it through machine translation. And he seems to be doing exactly what I said with this “Victory Program”.
I took issue with one particular line, as it betrays a “democratic socialist” kind of revisionism. Of course, this is the part Western Media will pick up on, rather than the rest of the party program, as it screams “Russia falls tomorrow”. However, it is to its core a demsoc program.
Interesting context. I’m very curious now what the exact translation is. Machine translation that I get says:
The president recently gathered the government. I have not seen such a sad and so alarming meeting for a long time. He had to hear from you, from representatives of the party of power, why we are again falling into the financial and industrial crisis. But I never heard a clear answer to this question. And we have repeatedly warned you: with this course, the economy will inevitably fail. The first quarter is marked by an obvious fall. And no serious specialist today does not believe that at least symbolic growth will be achieved at least at the end of the year. Everyone states stagflation and recession. If you do not urgently take the necessary financial and economic measures, if you do not adjust the course in principle, then in the autumn we can expect what happened in February 1917.
We have no right to repeat it! Therefore, it is necessary to take into account historical experience and make long-term urgent decisions.
Like this part in particular, I wonder what it’s like in Russian, in context:
We have no right to repeat it!
Because in English, that could have multiple meanings. It could mean things like: “it is illegal to repeat it”, “it is a failing on our part to repeat it”/“it is wrong of us to allow ourselves to reach a point where we would have to repeat it”, “it is wrong of us to repeat it”. The last one would be the most revolution-adverse as a matter of fundamentally opposing revolution even if necessary, but is that actually the meaning?
I tried prompting an LLM about it, which I’m aware is not to be taken at face value, but as perhaps a corroborative piece of information. Noting that I did not state my view on it, only asked for its interpretation of that line in the context of the previous paragraph, and that I first asked it to translate that part of the speech, which it did with similar results to Google Translate. The interpretation from it:
the best interpretation is that the speaker is making an urgent, almost desperate appeal to the conscience of the decision-makers. They are arguing that the stakes are so high, and the historical lesson so clear, that failing to act decisively would be a grave and inexcusable dereliction of duty, a moral crime against the nation they are meant to serve. It’s a powerful attempt to shame or compel the authorities into action by framing their choice in stark, historical, and ethical terms.
This more or less syncs up with how I’m inclined to take it in context. That he’s not trying to say “revolution bad”, but rather, “it would be shameful if the Russian people have to repeat it because you do such a poor job of ruling.”
If anyone who is bilingual in Russian and English can weigh in though, that would be nice.
“Communist” is afraid of revolution.
I understand (and even support) being internally critical of the government in order to squeeze out some reforms. But unless the fear of 1917 is a legal defense or some irony lost in translation, that’s discrediting to his own argument.
Ok so i’m going to play devil’s advocate here and ask you to consider the alternative: should he have said that the government should continue its present course, which he believes is making conditions worse for the working class, in hopes that this sparks a revolution?
Well that would be considered accelerationism, and the problem is that, when workers hear you say things like that, it does not make them like you and other communists more. It comes across as you advocating for their conditions to get worse so that you can achieve your political aims. This is incredibly cynical. People support those parties and politicians who show that they understand their concerns and are actively working to make them better. Even if this means appealing to the liberal-bourgeois ruling party.
In fact this is smart messaging and smart strategy. Because if the government refuses to take action and things get worse and people do start thinking about revolution, then you will be among those who the discontented flock toward to lead them, as someone who championed their interests and warned about the consequences. On the other hand, if the government does take action then you can sell it as your party having pushed them to do that, which also gains you credibility and respect as a political force.
There is also the factor that a 1917 style revolution at this point in time would be devastating for Russia and would have very little chance of success. You have to remember that even back then a coalition of a dozen imperialist nations invaded Russia to try and put down the revolution. And that was after a devastating world war that had exhausted practically all the other imperialist powers too.
Would the revolution have succeeded in defeating the white forces and the imperialist intervention if it had happened not in 1917 but in 1913? NATO is just waiting for any weakness in Russia to present itself, any internal conflict and they will immediately take advantage to try and implement their plan of subjugating and balkanizing Russia. There is a rabid and expansionist Neo-Nazi regime on Russia’s border with a large and battle hardened army. If there was a civil war in Russia, would the Russian army be able to continue to hold back the fascists? Would the revolutionaries be able to put together a new Red Army capable of stopping them?
The reason i’m asking this is because the main question that we need to consider here is this: would a rapid collapse in the conditions of the Russian people be beneficial for the potential success of a future revolution, or detrimental? One could argue that in the present circumstances this would make the revolution more likely to fail and socialists to get exterminated if the state collapsed. And this is probably also what Zyuganov is thinking. It makes more sense to bide time for now and build up the base of support of the communists by fighting for an improvement in their material conditions.
Eventually the neighboring fascist regime will be defeated and eventually US hegemony will also be gone. The imperialist camp will itself fall into crisis, which will lift the boot off the necks of all imperialized and besieged nations that are not yet socialist, opening up the geopolitical space for successful socialist revolutions.
Then he should’ve said any of that. He’s the leader of the CP, not a twitter user limited by character count.
For the simple question of what he should’ve said, he shouldn’t have framed the 1917 revolution to solve these problems in the negative. It doesn’t take too much in rhetoric skills to denounce the issues, but side with the people rather than the government. Though again I’m willing to believe that this is could be a translation and legal issue.
In fact, I found the speech transcript and read it through machine translation. And he seems to be doing exactly what I said with this “Victory Program”.
https://kprf.ru/party-live/cknews/243204.html
Here’s a much longer report on that Victory Program.
https://kprf.ru/party-live/cknews/243374.html
I took issue with one particular line, as it betrays a “democratic socialist” kind of revisionism. Of course, this is the part Western Media will pick up on, rather than the rest of the party program, as it screams “Russia falls tomorrow”. However, it is to its core a demsoc program.
Interesting context. I’m very curious now what the exact translation is. Machine translation that I get says:
Like this part in particular, I wonder what it’s like in Russian, in context:
Because in English, that could have multiple meanings. It could mean things like: “it is illegal to repeat it”, “it is a failing on our part to repeat it”/“it is wrong of us to allow ourselves to reach a point where we would have to repeat it”, “it is wrong of us to repeat it”. The last one would be the most revolution-adverse as a matter of fundamentally opposing revolution even if necessary, but is that actually the meaning?
I tried prompting an LLM about it, which I’m aware is not to be taken at face value, but as perhaps a corroborative piece of information. Noting that I did not state my view on it, only asked for its interpretation of that line in the context of the previous paragraph, and that I first asked it to translate that part of the speech, which it did with similar results to Google Translate. The interpretation from it:
This more or less syncs up with how I’m inclined to take it in context. That he’s not trying to say “revolution bad”, but rather, “it would be shameful if the Russian people have to repeat it because you do such a poor job of ruling.”
If anyone who is bilingual in Russian and English can weigh in though, that would be nice.