Answer:
Explanation:
On 8 February 1948 the Yugoslav party leader, Djilas, returned from a meeting with Stalin in Moscow and reported to the Yugoslav party leadership: “We must expect to have to manage on our own and not count on any assistance. The Soviet government will subordinate us to their own policies and force us down to the same level as the occupied countries of Eastern Europe”. This was the first time a Communist leader questioned the nature of the Soviet state. The Soviet Union’s international prestige was at its peak at this time. Djilas’ statements would never have been believed by communists around the world if they had been made known outside the borders of Yugoslavia.
Today the evidence is that there is much to be said for the Yugoslav criticism.
Through the forcible industrialization campaign in the thirties the bureaucracy and technical intelligentsia had moved further and further away from the working class and the people. The War had given rise to a system of privileges for the highest echelons. Russian chauvinism had become steadily more apparent. After the War profits were given a more central position in the economy, at the same time as the Soviet government took complete control of the economic and political development in the East European peoples’ democracies. This type of negative aspect of the socialist Soviet Union was becoming ever clearer. The counterrevolution which was carried through after Stalin’s death had been “in preparation)) for a long period. For the international communist movement this first became clear after the 20th party congress in 1956. It was from this point that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) began its criticism of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) – criticism which indeed led to a complete breach after 1960.
Split in the view of the Soviet Union
Throughout the world communist parties and revolutionary groups became split in their view of the development in the Soviet Union. When, in the 1960s, those of us who subsequently formed the Workers’ Communist Party (marxist-leninist) were in the youth movement, we had connections with the Soviet Party’s youth movement. From 1967 onwards we had in reality adopted a standpoint on the conflict between the Soviet Union and China. It was clear to us that the Soviet Union was no longer a socialist society. Subsequently the struggle against the false communism and against social imperialism played an important role in our work. After the Soviet entry into Czechoslovakia in 1968, the occupation of Afghanistan in 1979 and the events in Poland in 1981, more and more progressives have taken a view against parts of, or the entity of, Soviet policy. But, at the same time the Soviet Union has acquired new friends. As a superpower with large economic, political and military resources the Soviet Union has played the part of “progressive” vis-a-vis liberation movements and nations which have struggled against U.S. imperialism. Moreover, the large Soviet market acts as a magnet for capitalist groups and opportunists the world over. For them it is therefore important to tone down the criticism of the Soviet Union. These factors, and the fact that Soviet society is as closed as it is, have meant that there is still much confusion as to the nature of the social system in the Soviet Union. The fine phrases about socialism, the leading role of the party, the planned economy etc., blur the picture and serve to disguise the true facts – capitalism in an advanced form: Social Imperialism. In this article I will present some of the material which shows the Soviet Union to be capitalist. In the first instance I will examine the economic system.
Answer:Oct 28, 2015 · Alexander Hamilton believed that the national bank was constitutional because the Constitution specifically gives the federal government to do whatever is "necessary and proper" for the US to function well, and he believed a national bank was essential for the US to function properly.
Explanation:
