This is a very interesting interview and I will add the most important segments that may interest Lemmygrad. This contextualizes plenty of contradictions within the Russian society

The USSR Constitution stated that the leading and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, is the Communist Party, which exists for the people and serves the people.

Moderator Dmitry Agranovsky opened the discussion with a question about the state’s purpose: “The media is increasingly reporting that our ship, ‘Russia,’ is drifting rudderless. It’s unclear what its captain and crew want, what to do about it, and where our statehood is headed.”

The shadow of the “holy nineties” and manual nationalization

• Dmitry Agranovsky:

Sergei Pavlovich, the ideology of liberalism was laid down back in the 1990s. Although the current authorities outwardly deny it, it de facto exists. What exactly does the ruling class intend to preserve?

• Sergei Obukhov:

“The very existence of the Yeltsin Center is the best proof that the results of the predatory privatization are immutable for the authorities. The participation of officials in the center’s celebrations demonstrates that the “holy 90s,” as Naina Yeltsin called them, continue to define the ruling elite.”

Of course, there’s creeping nationalization going on. But it’s being carried out in defiance of the nationalization law drafted by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Our bill clearly states that asset restitution must be carried out solely in the interests of the people and the state. Pro-government nationalization, however, is being carried out through arbitrary decisions: the prosecutor’s office finds something, the presidential administration finds something else. This doesn’t legitimize the redistribution of property.

The government is forced to build a military-style economy. The president declared that the situation will not return to that state until 2022. It’s good that we’re developing the military-industrial complex, which, by and large, should be nationalized. But modernization and a new industrial policy require enormous resources. These resources would be found if we had a planned economy and the law on strategic planning, which the Communist Party of the Russian Federation pushed for (it’s currently just sitting in the government’s laps), were implemented.

The governing documents are inconsistent with each other because there is no clear “vision of the future” and no understanding of the need to act in the national interest. Selfish, oligarchic interests remain paramount.

Mimicry of the system: Soviet words, oligarchic deeds

• Dmitry Agranovsky:

“But there are other examples. Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin calls China a superpower, Rostec CEO Sergei Chemezov praises the Stalinist model. Many talk about the need for the State Planning Committee and the study of the Soviet experience. The government even borrows ideas from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation platform. What do you think about this?”

• Sergei Obukhov:

“Indeed, socialist ideas dominate public thought; they cannot be ignored. The fact that opponents are attempting to exploit elements of our experience demonstrates that the ruling system is mimicking and drifting, but has not yet abandoned its class essence.”

One can admire China, but the entrepreneurial class there is under the strict control of the Communist Party. Businesses are forced to share in the pursuit of common goals. Here, however, we have nothing but homages to the planned economy, but no real action. Is the government ready to implement five-year plans, as the Communist Party of the Russian Federation proposes, using Levchenko’s Irkutsk plan as an example? Unlikely. Will the oligarchs subordinate their interests to the national one?

Let’s remember Mr. Miller. When we were enjoying the golden rain of oil and gas, he shocked everyone with top management salaries, forgetting that Gazprom was a national treasure. And when trillions of dollars in debt accumulated, we were told that all “dear Russians” should help pay them off by raising tariffs. That’s the essence of the current policy.

Labor versus Capital: A Historical Challenge

• Dmitry Agranovsky:

Gennady Andreevich Zyuganov emphasizes that we face a choice: socialization or fascism. Which way will we be headed?

• Sergey Obukhov:

“Capitalism is at a dead end—Putin, Macron, and even the former Pope are all talking about it. It would seem the answer is obvious: salvation lies in socialism. However, fashionable Western theories of “property abolition” don’t envisage taking property away from transnational corporations. They want to take it away from ordinary people.”

Therefore, the issues of the relationship between labor and capital remain crucial. Only one force can successfully resolve them—the Communist Party. The CPRF is objectively faced with the need to realize a historical imperative: labor must drive arrogant capital into the fold. A society of social justice must prevail. Only such a society can solve humanity’s global problems.

• Dmitry Agranovsky:

“In Soviet times, there was a slogan: ‘The Party is the mind, honor, and conscience of our era.’ And it was true, because the Party lived for the people and expressed their aspirations. This is precisely where all our successes and achievements were rooted.”