Страница 14 из 98

A Call for armed insurrection

This, however, is only part of the strategy. It only explains our priorities. As to say before the second part of our plan, it will be outlined by me further.

It is no secret that the political regime in Russia is weak and absolutely insignificant. He is the best example of the «paper tiger» Mao was talking about. Today, our government is relentlessly confronted with many challenges. These problems are economic, social, political and whatever. The main thing here is that these very problems are very much. They fall on the crowning headsof our rulers from all sides. American and Chinese imperialists are attacking Russia from abroad. Corruption scandals shake her from within. The decline of the economy undermines the power of the state and leads to the rapid impoverishment of the population. All the above in sum angers the people and excites discontent in it. On top of that, the country has been led by guerrillas fighting against the power of freemasons and hucksters. Of course, in such circumstances, the question of the demise of today's bonapartist regime becomes only a matter of time. Sooner or later, the people, driven by the talentless policy of our government to the full poverty, – will rise up against the clique of bandits and murderers. Then the Putin regime will come to an end!

At the same time, the situation in Russia should not be idealized. A future revolution to overthrow the existing regime is, of course, inevitable. But as for the nature of this revolution, it may be difficult... The fact is that in modern Russia the proletariat is still very undeveloped. «Why so?» – you ask. I'll explain it. You all know how privatisation took place. Of course, we love to say that, they say, it was not privatization, but just a robbery. That is why, by the way, in Russian language, the verb «privatize» is often used as a synonym for the word «steal». It should be remembered, however, that it was not only prominent officials who tookover factories and factories. Ordinary citizens were also allowed to pocket a little. It was mainly about city apartments and cottages. And forgive me for the liberal jargon, but as a result of privatization Russia has became a country of owners. What does this mean? This means that we have the vast majority of the population has private property. And that's where the fun begins. The fact is that if you have private property (i.e. capital), you can no longer be a proletarian. A proletarian is not just a hired worker. He's a total beggar employee. An employee who is completely devoid of property. A lot of our left-wingers here wouldn't agree with me. They think that the proletarian is absolutely any person living on a salary. If so, it turns out that president Putin is a proletarian! But let's leave this scholastic dispute! Of course, if you really want, the person who has an apartment, a country plot and a car can be called a proletarian. But here is the question: will such a «proletarian» be revolutionary? I guess not. When Marx said that the proletariat had nothing to lose but his chains, he did not exaggerate. The proletarians of that time existed on the verge of starvation. That's why, in fact, they were so revolutionary. When you clearly face the prospect of starvation, it is not terrible to go to the barricades. If they kill you, nothing! You're going to die a little! And if they put you in jail, that's a good thing! They're feeding in prison! But if you have an apartment, a car and a cottage, you will think a thousand times before you go to the rally. Even if this rally is legal. And it's clear: you have something to lose. You're afraid of losing your property, your own scarce capital. That's why you re barely a revolutionary. The majority of our citizens are owners! So little bourgeois. Very small, very small, but still bourgeois. In doing so, they may well be hired employees. No contradiction is here. Explain in the example. Let's say the man has two urban apartments. One of them rents out the rent, and the other one lives on the other. He, however, lacks the money rented out of the rent. That's why he works at the office. If our bourgeois lose his job, yes, he'll have to cut his expenses, but he s not go