TWO ARTICLES FOR THE theleftlane.media WEBSITE
May 3, 2026 9 Comments
I am an editor for theleftlane.media website which can be found here Home – The Left Lane. It is a new and exciting 24/7 website for the left which launched May the 1st and hopefully it will become increasingly influential. I urge my readers to log on and read the many interesting and topical articles to be found there.
THEPLANNINGMOTIVE.COM 
“The period we live in today, marked by inequality, was formed by the defeat of the organized working class in the West and the collapse of the USSR in the East.” “Since the 1980s, inequality has grown.” Exactly. That’s 100%. It’s the regressive phase of the socialist CER cycle of 1917. Since the beginning of the 80s, ALL the economic variables favorable to the working class that had grown until the 80s have decreased until today. The resulting inequality increases. You’ll see it in my book, which I’ve mentioned to you several times. Regards Enviar comentarios
One more question. The word “collapse” is incorrect when referring to the dissolution of the USSR. “Collapse” refers to a breakdown caused by some internal failure of the system. The correct word is “overthrow” by attack. Overthrow caused by some variable external to the system. Which variable? The global capitalist class. A class that, with the 1917 revolution, had not lost its majority in global productive capital. And it pressed to regain its dominance. It will certainly lose it with the next revolution between 2035 and 2045. Regards.
One last point. The only internal failing of the USSR, and of all real socialism to this day, was its failure to achieve total equality for the population. It did not eliminate class society. The emergence, unforeseen by the founding Marxist, of a bureaucratic class, which, influenced by the global capitalist class, appropriated a significant portion of the profits from socialist production, did not contribute to this step. Socialist production, in its main variables, far exceeded that of capitalism. For example, socialist growth was four times greater than capitalist growth (6% annually versus 1.5%) for several decades. The current declining growth of this semi-socialist China demonstrates this. Semi-socialist because it still maintains a high degree of central planning, which compensates for the privatization initiated by Deng Xiaoping. You will see this in my book. Regards.
Sorry for the delay in responding a couple of emergencies and pressures elsewhere. This is a complex issue and one which is best discussed rather than limited to a comment section. Are you still visiting the UK.
Unforeseen emergence of a bureaucratic class? Failure to achieve total equality? Appropriated a significant portion of the profits from socialist production? I’ve been hearing this so-called Marxist analysis for 60 years, will it never go away? And China is now semi-socialist, what does that mean? Okay, it has a capitalist class but a socialist state that rules that class. It’s the existence of this capitalist class that helps a socialist state survive and maintain its sovereignty in an imperialist world. This is the reality of the world we live in. What the writer wants is a perfect world, in a phrase, an idealist world. This is not Marxism.
You’re right that it’s a complex and lengthy topic, not easy to discuss in a blog comments section. Besides, I need to stay focused on the book and can’t participate in discussions right now. I’ll send you the book when I finish it. Then we can discuss it a) by email and b) in person, during my visit to the UK. I hope to schedule that visit sometime after the fourth term. I’ll let you know. Best regards
Look forward to your book and meeting you in person
1. Okay, you ask three questions about my theses on the USSR, implying that you have a different, supposedly better, point of view. But you don’t explain it. What is it? If you don’t explain it, for now, let my point of view prevail. 2. You say, “It is the existence of this capitalist class that helps a socialist state survive.” It only helps the CCP bureaucracy, not to survive, but to live like new feudal lords, far above the working class. So your solution for achieving socialism is to maintain a certain amount of capitalism. How much exactly? If you can argue and demonstrate this, I assure you that all socialists since Marx will be delighted to read your work. Regarding survival: You only have to look it up (it’s easy) and compare the data on what the Chinese state elite (Xi Jiping and company) earns with workers’ wages. The differences are brutal. And they are increasing. Who lives and who survives? I’m also talking to you about the movement of Chinese society. Its scientific approach. Since Deng Xiaoping’s privatizations began in 1978, private production has reached 50% of total output. Some European capitalist countries (France) have fewer capitalist enterprises than China. And those countries call themselves capitalist. The other productive variables (investment, employment) have followed the same trend since 1978, moving towards more and more capitalism. So, is that the path you believe leads to the socialism of a classless society? I’m afraid your viewpoint is idealistic, far removed from the evidence of what’s happening. I’m making this criticism, but I’m very aware that for someone who isn’t an economist, it’s not easy to delve into the general economic reality. It’s not their profession. It took me many years and a lot of study. The same is true for the economic reality of China. But now I am scientifically certain of what is happening in China. It is returning to capitalism. Best regards
One last point for the esteemed Comrade Barovsky. Note that I don’t consider the socialist bureaucracy the primary cause of the fall of socialism. I said it was “influenced by the global capitalist class.” That is to say, the primary cause of the fall was the pressure exerted by this global capitalism, which owns the majority of the world’s productive capital. This is why Stalin’s slogan of “Socialism in One Country” didn’t work. Leaving sufficient “alive” capitalism has only caused, and will continue to cause, socialism to regress. And China has long since surpassed the limit of a non-harmful, viable capitalism. Regarding socialist leaders in general, I don’t criticize them all either. I didn’t criticize them until the 1980s, in any country. But until the 1980s, the progressive phase of the 1917 socialist European Economic Community (EEC) was underway, and since the 1980s, that EEC has been in regression, in retreat. Regression (to Capitalism) is unstoppable, scientifically speaking, except through a revolution. This theory of ERs (revolutionary economic cycles) is not yet available. I hope it will be soon. When it is, I hope it will convince the working class that they shouldn’t expect China, or the other few remaining socialist countries, to move towards Socialism. If you’re interested, I can send you a copy. Regards