Note: My last two attempts at typing this blog post have both met deletion from technical error. I pray this one actually sees completion.
So, Comrade Pyizzah Hyot, what are my initial impreßions? Out of ten, I would rate him a three, and for comparison, I would rate Khrushchev a two and Brezhnev a solid five (Lenin a nine, Stalin an eight, Trotsky a five-point-five). I do not obviously consider him the worst Soviet head of state, with the Liar Khrushchev taking that role, but he is not good in of himself.
To move on into actual political disagreements, let us begin with Perestroika, the simpler to explain. Perestroika or 'Restructuring' was nothing leß than an anti-socialist sabotage of the planned economy. Many Gorbachev allies bespoken of trucks loaded with meat rotting, grain becoming mouldy, stores being utterly empty, but not once did these Gorbachevites think it sensical to ask 'why is this just happening now, under "Comrade" Gorbachev, and not under, say, Comrade Brezhnev?'. Well that is the clear of the matter! These Gorbachevites, like the Khrushchevites before them are vested in the 'correct' outcome, which in this case means the discrediting (through sabotage bear in mind) of the socialist planned economy as implemented by Comrades Lenin and Stalin. There is common kennage around much of the Communist Left these days, which goes about this 'attack Stalin to attack Lenin to attack Marx, to destroy the proletariat'. Eßentially, you need to attack the latest leader of the people in order to progreß to aßaulting the bedrock of communist ideology, this is usually the playbook of the anti-Communist 'Left'. If you can fool the people into thinking that planned economies are leß efficient than private ownership of the means of production, then you have succeßfully disproven proletarian sovereignty in favour of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. And this leads me to my next great disagreement.
Glasnost (Openneß) was wrapped up in all sorts of glitter, and made sure to put the colour spectrum on every one of its propaganda outlets. How do you tell whether a publication is actually socialist? That is easy; if it is draped in rainbows then it is likely a market 'socialist' misinformation kiosk. I pledge to you here, that the only colour to be present on this site shall be bright Crimson Red! Our Sacred Lenin Banner shall never be corrupted by anti-Communist market reforms, otherwise kennst in a more enlightened era as revisionism. Glasnost was a poorly begrippst programme at best, and a nefarious anti-Soviet foreign plot at worst. We shall most probably never kenna if and how the Western intelligence agencies were involved, and what relation the Gorbachev government had with them. Now I will say as well that, if implemented truthfully and cautiously, a variant of Glasnost which I have termed Kommunost/Komnost, may have been viable to institute. Could Soviet media have been slightly reorganised? Of course it could have been, and further, on a Marxist, Communist basis. Self-criticism is an important tenet of most Communist parties, and certainly, it might not have hurt for Soviet television and publications to adhere more rigourously to this tenet. On the other hand, however, we must also consider that any matter of criticism, dependleß on self or outward, can be used by the bourgeois fiends of the people's state. I seem to remember Lenin saying something on this, but the precise text eludes me.
To tell my endthogt: Mikhail Gorbachev was a terribly misled revisionist social-democrat. He had not begraspen Marxist-Leninist theory, and this led to him taking a capitalist-roader type path. One thing I can say most certainly; the USSR would have been better off without him, even if it cost the sacrifice of Pyizzah Hyot. I have a bunch of Gorbachev pamphlets coming, so I shall let the man speak for himself, and when I have heard his defence in full, I may return to this subject in another post to do more rightly by him.
Comments