Yegor Ligachev was Gorbachev's hand-picked right-hand man from 1985 to 1988. Ligachev started as one of the main implementors of "glasnost" and "perestroika," but the Western media grew to portray Ligachev as the leading "conservative" in the so-called Communist Party.of the so-called Soviet Union. From all the bad-mouthing papers like the New York Times did against Ligachev, MIM gathered that he could not be all bad, so we read this book with moderate hopes. Unfortunately, Ligachev’s infamy in the Western bourgeois press was nothing but a product of cultural chauvinist ignorance with no basis in fact.

Mainly Ligachev succeeds in providing details of events leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. A picture emerges of Gorbachev's surrounding himself with advisors of academic background, heavily tilted toward the West. (i.e. Yakovlev, e.g. p. 97) Whereas in the United $tates, the masses do not take economists very seriously, in the Soviet Union, Gorbachev and then Yeltsin handed over their society to those implementing idealist abstractions. The result is a massive depression and the death of millions from want and civil war.

We raise the fact that Western economists came to Russia to implement things business people and the masses don't take seriously in the West, because it raises the question of national conflict. Many believe that the West sent these economists to destroy the ex-Soviet economy and cause a depression so as to weaken the country and make it less of a competitor. Others also believe it has hastened the exodus of billions from the economy at the expense of people freezing and starving to death. From this perspective, Yeltsin whether perpetually drunk or a conscious traitor, is objectively speaking a pawn of the West, not a real imperialist competitor.

Whether the Western press is more ignorant than bourgeois or more bourgeois than ignorant, the result is the same: coverage of non-Western imperialist society is worthless. Many Westerners and Russian "pseudo- democrats" accused Ligachev of being a "Stalinist" "hard-liner," but they throw around terms without knowing what they mean.

In fact, under Stalin, Ligachev was labeled a "Trotskyist" and removed from power. Ligachev also married the daughter of a general named Zinoviev, executed under Stalin in 1937. Ligachev's own father got the boot from the party in 1937.

Not surprisingly, Ligachev gained his first real power under Khruschev in 1961 as someone working in the Central Committee. In the Brezhnev years, he went to Siberia to work at a low profile. Khruschev-minded party members like Andropov and Gorbachev brought him back to Moscow after Brezhnev died. Thus, within the Soviet political spectrum, Ligachev was never a "hard-liner" or "conservative." The New York Times and other Western bourgeois media use the term “hard-liner” to refer to those officials they think may interfere with the full restoration of capitalism. Ligachev was always linked to the most openly revisionist forces; although he declaims revisionism a few times in the book, mainly in connection to how the Soviet Union fell apart into nationalist movements.

Of note, Chernenko did give Gorbachev the number two job in the party, (p. 31) so there is no doubt that Gorbachev can be tied to both Chernenko and Andropov, the two previous Soviet leaders. Likewise, Yeltsin was already a ranking party leader in the Brezhnev years. All of the major players in bringing back open capitalism had their patrons ranging from Khruschev to Chernenko, and not a single Soviet leader from 1956 onwards is not implicated.

Despite this fact, Ligachev mentions Mao in passing because he met him twice, but he skips over many theoretical and ideological issues. In one sentence, he tells the world that the ruling nomenklatura of the Soviet Union had no privileges.(p. 361) It is common in the Western press to link such a line whitewashing the state-capitalist ruling class to Brezhnev or "Stalinism," but in fact, it would be more accurate to say Ligachev was Khruschev spawn: "I did not breathe freely, did not straighten my shoulders and believe that the worst years were behind me, even after Stalin's death--not until the 20th Party Congress, which exposed the personality cult."(p. 261)

Throughout the book Ligachev attacks his opponents for "Stalinism," by saying they call themselves "democrats," while continuing with Stalin's methods.

Unity

There are some areas where we agree with Ligachev. Often he seems sincere, as if he were simply incapable of digesting certain problems while he worked hard on many current events and analyses. No where does he address that the bourgeoisie arose in the party, but he does say some interesting things that MIM in particular agrees with.

When it comes to evaluating political leaders, Ligachev adopts a materialist standard straight from Lenin: "Lenin has an interesting idea that 'historical merits are judged not by what historical figures did not give in comparison with contemporary demands but by what they gave that was new in comparison with their predecessors.'"(p. 30) In other words, people should be compared with people and not subjective wishes.

There is another surprising area we agree with Ligachev on--the overall picture of economic development this century. Taking care not to ruffle Amerikan feathers, he says that workers of imperialist countries work hard too, but still their wealth is the result of superprofits. All peoples have talents and work hard within systems that promote or retard their actual achievements. We agree: "Only a small number of the Western countries are thriving. Undoubtedly, to a large extent this is the result of the labor of the people of these countries. But it is impossible not to consider the historical factor. For centuries and to this day, capitalists pump superprofits out of poorly developed countries by using cheap work forces and raw materials. Add to this the millions of foreign dispossessed workers who receive low wages and live in difficult conditions without benefit of many rights and freedoms."(p. 321; also, p. 360) He goes on to paraphrase Stalin on how the Soviet Union developed without plundering other countries.

We also see that Ligachev understands Western political thinking and its hypocrisy. The Georgian nationalist "democrats" shut down the press and elections once they threw the so-called Communist Party out (p. 102) and Yeltsin bombed the elected Parliament and imprisoned its leaders in 1993 (p. 369). Nevertheless, the West continued to support Yeltsin and the pseudo-democrats as Ligachev calls them.

One last point we can agree on is that there can be a gap between leaders and led, rulers and ruled etc. that leads to slander. On many issues, where information was under strict control as in the state-capitalist Soviet Union, all sorts of rumors arose. We in MIM believe that the party must take an active political role in building public opinion and that includes openly reprinting and rebutting common reactionary notions.

Apparently the pro-Western capitalist-restorationists blamed Ligachev for everything and sought to defame him for accepting bribes among other crimes. We agree with Ligachev that communists must be willing to rise above the persynal attacks and not withdraw from the struggle on their account, no matter how vicious. Indeed, there is little of value in politics that boils down to the individual anyway. Christians, unconscious Christians and other pre-political people who believe so are ready fodder for the personality cult idea.

We seek to alter the systems that cause humyns in their millions and billions to act certain ways. If Ligachev were correct about capitalism and national questions and his opponents incorrect, then even if he did accept a 30,000 ruble bribe, he would still be the superior leader. 30,000 rubles would have meant nothing compared with stopping the inter-ethnic strife that is plaguing the ex-Soviet Union today. It just so happens that Ligachev was not correct about capitalism and he probably did not accept a bribe either, but the point remains about the role of individuals in struggle and the use of defamation and "psy-war" as the Filipino comrades often say.

Contemporary revisionism

Ligachev helped form the Russian Communist Party and other pro-revisionist organizations in order to counter the "radical" "pseudo-democrats" who bombed the parliament and shut down the press in the name of Liberal democracy. He is clearly aiming at winning over the old managers of Soviet state-capitalism, the Orthodox Church and all Russian nationalists.

We agree with Ligachev that violence against Russians and inter-ethnic strife are uncalled for. These wars are much like those in the former Yugoslavia and MIM does not condone the bloodletting amongst oppressed and exploited peoples on a nationalist basis. At the same time, Ligachev has an apolitical blind spot regarding Russian chauvinism. He believes the Russians have subsidized other peoples in the Soviet Union, but at the same time he admits that forces arose for a restoration of capitalism. We find it difficult to understand a facile return to the Soviet Union until a thorough house-cleaning has been done with regard to the bourgeoisie in the party.

Of course the tell-tale sign in addition to the peremptory formulation of the national question and failure to lay down a persuasive argument for a Soviet Union is Ligachev's refusal to embrace "dictatorship of the proletariat." He says only that workers would be elected to power and entitled to use government force to put down opponents. (p. 385)

In contrast Lenin, Stalin and MIM speak for the "dictatorship of the proletariat," because where there is organized force there is dictatorship. Since there can be no state under our goal of communism, speaking of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a matter of basic accountability regarding the transition period called socialism that is a stage on the way to communism.

In conclusion, we would just like to point to Ligachev again. "Of the 200 states on earth, 15-20 have material sufficiency--frequently by exploiting other countries and peoples. Millions of people are poor and live in slums, 11-12 million children die of hunger every year, and almost a billion people are illiterate. So one has to ask why the Soviet people, who had enjoyed a comfortable and fulfilling life, have to follow the capitalist path for the country."(pp. 384-5) It's too bad that Ligachev was on the capitalist path his whole life in the Central Committee.

MIM does not particularly care to recommend this book. Those who followed what the major Western papers had to say about Ligachev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin will find this book of use to correct confusion that goes beyond merely calling capitalism socialism.

Buy this book