🇻🇪 In 2018 when Kelloggs announced they were leaving Venezuela overnight, making hundreds redundant, the Venezuelan government just let them go and helped the workers physically take over the factory.

It is still producing, using 100% Venezuelan raw materials.

An inspirational story

Video link -> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2046262915276128256/vid/avc1/1920x1080/jTKCaPMR3cPYYopv.mp4

Source -> https://xcancel.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/2046268598591660048

The National Congress "Common Causes for Mother Earth" is meeting for two days in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, starting this April 21st with the aim of turning the climate debate into methods of action and transformation that contribute to preserving the environment.

The first meeting takes place from the early hours of Tuesday morning at the Venezuelan School of Planning where the delegates work in an intensive session from 08:00 to 17:30 local time.

During the sessions, 1,200 participants from all regions of Venezuela are expected to analyze proposals aimed at protecting ecosystems and mitigating the effects of global warming, reaffirming the State's commitment to defending the rights of nature in order to consolidate a unified environmental agenda.

This strategic space strengthens the connection between the State and the People's Power. The central objective of this debate is to move from consultation to implementation , building an ecosocialist development model with a direct impact on each territory through real solutions in key areas.

The event is organized through working groups that address urgent and cross-cutting issues from scientific, political, and social perspectives. Key themes include the Chuquisaca Plan, waste and solid waste management, and the circular economy.

Additionally, working groups have been established to address legislation, environmental awareness, and training , along with a specific space dedicated to the climate crisis and biodiversity protection, integrating efforts to advance solutions that guarantee a living planet. This space will serve to systematize the 1,650 grassroots assemblies held by social movements and communes throughout the country in the preceding months.

For his part, the Minister of Popular Power for Ecosocialism, Alfred Nazaret Ñáñez , explained that these meetings, which began in March, allowed the reactivation of the environmental agenda from the communes and social movements.

Ñáñez clarified that "this is not a space for diagnoses, but rather for coming together to work on the ground, prioritizing actions by bioregion under the premise of uniting those who are committed to the cause of life." Regarding the Chuquisaca Plan, the minister maintained that it represents the most ambitious and largest reforestation effort ever undertaken by any government in the world.

He explained that this project brings together schools that "plant water" and the Tree Mission for the protection of watersheds, applying sophisticated and modern techniques for the restoration of ecosystems with native criteria.

The activity features a real-time streaming platform to ensure that what the territories have to say regarding guidance is clearly heard .

She also recalled that environmental rights in the country are the result of popular participation since the 1999 Constituent Assembly. Finally, she emphasized that this meeting is extremely useful thanks to the ideas of the people and the will of the acting president, Delcy Rodríguez , to consolidate an updated work agenda in defense of nature.

In this sense, Venezuela is consolidating ecosocialism as a structural response to predatory capitalism , uniting two centuries of history in a single course of action. This vision began in 1825 with Simón Bolívar and his Chuquisaca Decree, which ordered the reforestation of one million trees to heal the land after the war.

The Liberator understood that national sovereignty depended directly on the protection of the soil and water. For his part, Commander Hugo Chávez elevated this mandate to a constitutional and geopolitical level. With the Fifth Objective of the Plan de la Patria (Homeland Plan ), Chávez denounced the capitalist system as the culprit of the climate crisis and demanded a change in the global model to save the human species.

This struggle transformed traditional environmentalism into a tool for liberation for the peoples of the Global South. Furthermore, President Nicolás Maduro continued to deepen this path through the Sixth Transformation (6T) and the Chuquisaca Plan.

The Bolivarian Government is promoting native reforestation and communal power to protect bioregions. This Venezuelan model prioritizes life and social justice , recovering ancestral roots in the face of environmental destruction imposed by imperial powers.

To conclude this historic event, the activities will move to the Teresa Carreño Theater tomorrow, Wednesday, April 22. The final day will begin at 8:30 a.m. and continue until 7:00 p.m. local time, at which time the work agenda for bioregions and the consolidation of the Great Mission Mother Earth Venezuela are expected to be presented .

Both spaces guarantee the leading participation of the organized people to consolidate an environmental awareness that transcends theory and translates into community impact projects.

The delicate process that Ecuador is currently experiencing, which involves, among other things, the privatization of security, involves the reconfiguration of the State under neoliberal principles and also the projection of the strategic interests of the United States in the region.

Under the guise of security, which has become the sole national theme, within the framework of the “internal armed conflict” that Noboa himself declared in 2024, using the fight against narcoterrorism and organized crime as a pretext , the country faces not only increased violence but also the erosion of state power and increased dependence on private foreign (mercenary) forces to address the crisis; and not without significant consequences.

As is well known, one of the fundamental pillars of the modern state is the legitimate monopoly on the use of armed force. However, the increasing privatization of security has fragmented this monopoly, since what once seemed to be an exclusive function of the state is now shared with private actors, who often have more power and influence than a country and who operate according to the logic of capital and the market, rather than the public interest.

In fact, the increased participation of private actors in conflicts and wars is closely linked to the privatization process driven by neoliberalism; that is, their prominence as actors in security dynamics responds to strategies and policies specific to this new stage of capitalism.

Although the use of private entities and the displacement of state functions in matters relating to security has a long history, it was in the nineties of the last century, a decade that evidenced the negative effects of the implementation of the first neoliberal policies, that their participation increased hand in hand with the reconfiguration of the post-Cold War international order.

In other words, the increase in corporations, troops, or resources from private capital was accompanied by the rearticulation and global expansion of the capitalist accumulation system—in the face of the implosion of the Soviet Union and socialism with it; by the (relative) change in the traditional security paradigm—which moved from a unidirectional (state-centric) and unidimensional (military) archetype to one that incorporated other actors and other issues in its dynamics and definition; and by the decrease in military budgets, armaments, and armies—and the consequent surplus of troops, military equipment, and arsenals—produced massively within the framework of the capitalism vs. socialism confrontation.

Among the tasks performed by private military or police actors are the protection of strategic infrastructure, military training and advising of the armed forces, logistical support, intelligence functions, surveillance tasks, personnel protection, maintenance of weapons systems and even direct participation in combat .

In contexts where the state appears “incapable” of protecting its population, as in the case of Ecuador, the involvement of private actors can lead not only to a lack of accountability, the weakening of military and police institutions, and human rights violations (especially in armed conflict scenarios), but also to the use of privatized violence as an inherent symptom of the supposed “weakening of the state,” allowing powerful groups to consolidate their control. In other words, the state's perceived lack of capacity (or will) can be intentionally fostered to benefit those who profit from violence, such as criminal groups, corrupt political elites, or, as in this case, private security corporations.

As private actors take over tasks that are under the authority of states, the latter lose their exclusivity in the exercise of coercive functions ; and when coercive power no longer emanates solely from the state apparatus, there is a risk that it will be subordinated to military, economic, or business interests (which of course also happens with the power of the state, since, in fact, it often becomes a threat to the security of those it governs).

On the other hand, the privatization of state functions related to security, defense, and the use of armed force almost naturally leads to the militarization of security processes. This, in turn, requires the adoption of logics, language, and structures typical of the military sphere in the management of social or economic problems, for example. Thus, while the state loses sovereignty to private actors to whom it has ceded control of strategic capabilities, it also adopts mechanisms characteristic of militarization (such as states of emergency or war) that will inevitably have negative repercussions for the population, especially for groups that are often the target of security policies that perpetuate violence.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, there are more than 16,000 private military and security companies employing approximately 2.4 million people . Some of these corporations carry out training or equipment tasks, but others, especially those from the United States, are contracted in the region to assist public security forces, combat organized crime, and even “terrorist groups.”

In the specific case of Ecuador, one of the countries with the highest homicide rates in the region, the security crisis associated with drug trafficking, gangs, and the (lack of) control of cocaine trafficking routes to Europe and the United States has led the country to adopt a security strategy based on the militarization of public security. This includes the deployment of armed forces to combat threats and the use of private security forces. In 2015, for example, the average homicide rate in Latin America was 17.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, a 5% decrease compared to the previous year. However, Ecuador's homicide rate increased by 31% compared to 2014, reaching a record high of 50.9 per 100,000 inhabitants last year . This meant going from being the second safest country on the continent in 2017 to the most unsafe and violent in 2014.

While the above has been used as part of a state narrative to justify Daniel Noboa's militarized security strategy, which includes an alliance between the Ecuadorian government and private armed forces under the command of Erik Prince, a former U.S. military officer and founder and owner of the private company Blackwater (now Academi), it is true that violence in Ecuador is on the rise. It goes without saying that this powerful military corporation has been involved in various armed conflicts around the world and in controversies involving the killing of civilians, such as the Nisour Massacre in Baghdad, Iraq, in 2007, when Blackwater forces contracted by the United States opened fire on Iraqi civilians, resulting in 17 deaths and 20 injuries.

The strategy between Noboa and Prince, announced in 2025 (which remains unclear but aims to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities, train law enforcement, and protect Ecuador's maritime space ), has not only proven insufficient to eradicate drug trafficking and gang violence, but also reveals a significant shift in the security policy of this Latin American country. This is especially true considering that the strategy between the state and forces associated with Blackwater is accompanied by a constitutional reform that eliminates the prohibition on establishing foreign military bases and armed or security forces within its territory. This reflects, on the one hand, the deepening of neoliberal policies that promote the weakening of the state in strategic areas and, on the other hand, Ecuador's important position in guaranteeing the extraterritorial interests of the United States.

Its location, situated between Colombia and Peru, the world's first and second largest producers of cocaine, respectively, makes Ecuador a key territory within the global drug trafficking system. The Port of Guayaquil on the Pacific coast, the country's most important port because it handles 85% of its various imports and oil, makes the territory a major logistical hub for cocaine destined for Europe and the United States; in turn, making it a strategic point for organized crime groups.

Control of traffic routes through "cooperation" with an "ally" country, which does not have permanent military bases on its territory but whose government, led by a businessman of American nationality, does intend to reinstate the base in Manta, a former US base, and the installation of another in the Galapagos Islands, becomes a fundamental part of the power's security interests.

What we are witnessing in Ecuador is thus part of a significant restructuring of hemispheric power in which the U.S. wields considerable influence, with dangerous repercussions for this Andean nation. The transfer of the strategic task of security to someone like Prince, who is part of political-military networks linked to the U.S. military-industrial complex, undoubtedly implies the projection of U.S. geopolitical interests in Latin America, but it also entails a significant domestic realignment.

To begin with, the involvement of private military companies in public affairs leads to the erosion of sovereignty. When the State, which is by definition the guarantor of security, delegates strategic functions involving intelligence gathering, training, military operations, and so on, to private contractors, a fragmentation of the institutional power structure becomes evident, which can lead to the privatization of conflicts or war and the inability to guarantee order.

At the same time, the commodification of security transforms what has traditionally been seen as a right into a commodity dependent on monetary capacity to acquire it, leading to neoliberal securitization where the corporate management of risks and threats is prioritized over guaranteeing rights and fulfilling the State's obligations. Reducing the social functions inherent to the state apparatus can lead, for example, to the strengthening of control and surveillance mechanisms.

On the other hand, when the State becomes less social and more police-oriented, regimes of exception and their inherent mechanisms such as repression, surveillance, discipline, systematic violation of rights, counterinsurgency or lack of accountability become normalized because, unlike state armed forces, which go through a process of legal regulation, private ones operate without any transparency.

As an example of the above, it suffices to say that since Noboa assumed the presidency (late 2023), he has signed 17 decrees that effectively normalize the state of emergency. The curfew recently imposed in Guayas, Los Ríos, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, and El Oro—provinces with 6.5 million inhabitants (35% of the population) and where more than half of the nation's homicides occur —is a prime example. The operation, which involved the deployment of 75,000 military personnel in a joint maneuver between the government and U.S. forces, resulted in the arbitrary detention of 253 people, and to this day, it remains unknown how many are actually linked to organized crime.

I.M. BRATISHCHEV, First Deputy Chairman of the Central Council of the Russian Union of Socialist Researchers, Doctor of Economics, Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.

April 21, 2026, 11:18

“…The historical moment has arrived when theory is transformed into practice, enlivened by practice, guided by practice, and tested by practice…”

The fact is that socialist production relations, as a more complex system of human relationships than those under capitalism, do not arise within the old order. They create only the material and spiritual (particularly intellectual) preconditions for the abolition of capitalism and private property in general, while the foundation of new relations lies in the social form of ownership. Its establishment changes the very essence of society, imbuing it with a form of partnership, civilized cooperation in social production, and mutual assistance. In this case, production relations, while remaining material, objective relations that develop in the decisive sphere of people's lives—material production—begin to determine the specific nature of all other social relations (ideological, legal, etc.), forming the specific basis, the foundation, of the entire social edifice.

From Theory to Practice of Controlled Evolution

When setting out to create a socialist society, initially guided by purely theoretical considerations, its creators immediately encounter a situation described by the saying, "It looked good on paper, but they forgot about the ravines, and we have to walk through them." However, they quickly begin to understand that this complex process is of a concrete historical nature, meaning that the problems arising along the path to a new way of life cannot be resolved in a general sense. Moreover, the entire history of humanity, from its origins to the present day, has been a movement in the grip of contradictions, among which the most destructive is the contradiction between individualism and collectivism. "Mine" and "ours" permeate the entire history of humanity and its thought.

Scientific communism (and its lower phase, socialism), based on an understanding of the laws of social development, rejects any kind of pipe dreaming or utopianism, but demands knowledge. Indeed, a generation that has accomplished a socialist revolution in one form or another "finds in place a certain material result, a certain sum of productive forces, a historically established relationship of people to nature and to one another," noted V.I. Lenin. "It finds a mass of productive forces, capital, and circumstances, transmitted to each subsequent generation by the preceding one, which, although on the one hand they undergo modification, on the other hand, prescribe their own conditions of life and impart a specific character to its specific development."

In Russia in 1917, although the people began to build a new society under very specific slogans: "Peace to the Nations!", "Power to the Soviets!", "Land to the Peasants!", "Factories to the Workers!", the construction of socialism itself nevertheless began with an idealized vision of the future socioeconomic structure and an idealized rejection of the current state. In other words, it was clear that socialism was historically possible only as anti-capitalism, as an overcoming of the social condition that had developed over many centuries. This meant, first and foremost, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production as the basis for the atomization (individualization) of society and, consequently, the exploitation of man by man.

But what specific forms public ownership should take, how social reproduction would be organized across its constituent phases (production, distribution, exchange, and consumption)—these questions were already being addressed during the construction of socialism. This, of course, relied on serious theoretical, ideological, and party-political activity, complicated by the fact that at the beginning of socialist construction, that is, during the transition period from capitalism to socialism, alongside the emerging socialist order, the following orders continued to exist:

• patriarchal (in its majority it consisted of a natural, peasant economy, in which products were created for personal consumption);

• small-scale production, represented by peasant farms, one way or another connected with the market;

• capitalist private-economic, characteristic of the remnants of the so-called classical capitalism of free competition;

• capitalist state, generated by the era of imperialism in its state-monopoly form;

• socialist system.

In this classification proposed by V.I. Lenin, the second, third, and fifth stages of the transitional period from peripheral capitalism to socialism can be considered the primary ones, while the first and fourth stages are considered secondary. Lenin based this classification on two criteria. The first criterion reflected the specific economic ties characteristic of a given social economy (subsistence or small-scale), while the second (the primary one) reflected the type and forms of ownership of the conditions and results of production (private or classical capitalism, state-monopoly capitalism, or socialism).

As we can see, the complexity of socialist transformations in Russia was predetermined by both the existence of a multi-structured economy and the unique nature of the existing structures in our country. The specific nature of each was determined by the type (qualitative feature) and form (external manifestation of internal connections) of ownership of the factors of production (both material and living, represented by the labor force). On this foundation, all other components of social production emerged and began to function: productive forces, production relations, the division of labor, and its cooperation.

From the vantage point of today, as socialism in one form or another continues to establish itself on earth, and its ideas become increasingly attractive to many, many people, issues related to the methodology of scientific analysis of socialism are coming to the fore. In this sense, it is noteworthy that, as a reproducible system, socialism is a whole, but not a monolithic or cohesive whole, but an internally differentiated one, consisting of interconnected parts, their development, and their contradictions.

Economic contradictions are material and objective in nature, inherent in every mode of production, as they form the source of the economic system's self-propelled development. The question is how they are resolved: spontaneously (as is the case in all antagonistic modes of production), or through society's ability to manage their resolution. In the latter case, people must be endowed with the ability to reflect contradictory reality as knowledge and transform their life activity into an object of their will and consciousness.

V.I. Lenin first raised the question of the contradictions of a socialist, multi-structured economy in his post-October works. Focusing on the specifics of Russia's multi-structured economy, he concluded that it was developing in the struggle of a new state taking its first steps toward creating a coherent national economic system with small-scale commodity production, as well as the remnants of capitalism and other systems. In the leader's figurative expression, this life-or-death confrontation, based on the principle of "who will prevail?", was irreconcilable and antagonistic. The fate, course, and outcome of socialist construction in Russia depended on its resolution. Lenin also identified other contradictions of a multi-structured economy that were non-antagonistic in nature.

In expounding on the peculiarity of Russia's multi-structured economy, he made a strict distinction between "contradiction, manifesting itself as the unity and struggle of opposites," and "antagonism" (irreconcilability). Making a marginal note to N.I. Bukharin's book, "The Economy of the Transition Period," which asserted that "capitalism is an antagonistic, contradictory system," V.I. Lenin noted: "Exactly. Antagonism and contradiction are not the same thing. The former disappears, the latter remains under socialism."

In the mid-1930s, interest in the problem of the contradictions of the transition period began to wane (again, partly due to ideological reasons), as the position became established that the transition from capitalism in Russia had been completed with the complete victory of socialism. The changing economic and sociopolitical situation in the Soviet Union during that period predetermined a shift in research interest to a somewhat different plane. And although the existence of contradictions was not publicly denied at the time, attention to this problem was clearly lacking. This negatively impacted the practice of socialist construction in the pre-war period, when so-called excesses and the dizziness of success were repeatedly documented at the official level. The euphoria of victory, in many ways truly justified, continued into the post-war period. How it all ended is well known.

The question may arise: did the contradictions of the socialist multi-structured system present an insurmountable barrier of complexity on the path to a communist society? Difficult to overcome—yes; insurmountable—no. It is generally recognized that the stages of contradiction manifestation are: development, polarization, clash, and antagonism of the parties. Socialism eliminates the private form of production and the appropriation of its results, since it eliminates the capitalist system. But the multi-structured system remains, as will the contradictions, although they will no longer be irreconcilable. Moreover, each of the contradictions that existed then continued to develop, and this development eventually acquired an extreme form of exacerbation (difference, polarization, and clash of the parties were stages in the manifestation of the contradiction itself).

Thus, in its development, the contradiction progressed from the immediate unity of opposing sides (opposites) to their struggle, and then to its resolution. Consequently, the resolution of the contradiction signified the transition of the economic system to a new quality, with new, as yet hidden, features. This is precisely why the classics considered contradiction the "core" of dialectics, which in turn serves as the source of all movement and development.

In essence, the ongoing discussion in our country on the basic economic problems of socialism (it began in the 1920s and 1930s) received a “second wind” after the publication in 1952 of I.V. Stalin’s work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.”

The Soviet experience, as well as the experience of countries that embarked on the path of socialist construction much later, allows us to identify the general patterns of this complex process:

— the accomplishment of a socialist revolution in one form or another;

— liquidation of the state monopoly of exploiters;

— the establishment of political power of the working masses in the person of the working class (in alliance with other strata of the population);

— socialist collectivization of the means of production as the basis for the planned development of the national economy;

— transformation of the entire multi-structured economy (including agriculture) on socialist principles;

— introducing the broad masses of people to the values ​​of national and world culture;

— development of relations between peoples based on friendship, mutual assistance and internationalism.

Following these patterns does not mean that the construction of socialism follows a single, fixed pattern. The socialist order and its transformation into the dominant economic system do not negate national characteristics, nor the unique forms and methods of socialist construction in different countries. V.I. Lenin noted this, concluding: "All nations will arrive at socialism; this is inevitable, but not all will arrive at it in exactly the same way. Each will contribute its own uniqueness to one or another form of democracy, one or another variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a different pace of socialist transformation in various aspects of public life."

The restoration and growth of the socialist system will also be unique to those former socialist countries where the visibly decrepit collective West attempted to restore the bourgeois system with its market tyranny, transhumanism, political correctness, and cancel culture. This is being done with one goal in mind: to preserve the unipolar dominance of oligarchic capital on the planet. The return of these countries to the mainstream will be determined by their specific historical circumstances. But in any case, their socioeconomic development will not escape the contradictions of multi-systemic development.

It was in our country that a system of managed social evolution was created for the first time in history. For the first time, society was given a dual goal: to create a life worthy of Humanity and to shape Humanity worthy and capable of living and developing in a climate of camaraderie, not domination and subjugation. This required the formation of a new structure of social production and the transformation of the multi-structured economy so that it would be based on public, rather than private, ownership. Society initially faced several seemingly simple, but still relevant, questions:

From what sources do new property relations arise in this particular case and what are the methods of their origin (although this question is more significant for the transitional state) of economic systems, when non-economic factors predominate in the formation of new property relations, but even in mature economies the question of the emergence of “old” and “new” wealth will not lose its significance?

What are the ways and possibilities for the reproduction of property, its increase, since until it is finally formed as socialist, that is, belonging to everyone, the mechanism of its reproduction in one or another specific form cannot be considered established, and therefore, fair?

How did the socio-economic essence of a particular form of ownership manifest itself in the past and how should it manifest itself in new, socialist conditions?

In this context, the relationship between the formational and civilizational approaches to the analysis of the socio-historical process is of fundamental importance. Thus, the qualitative specificity of each socio-economic formation (including the communist one in its first socialist phase) is conditioned by the specificity of the system of production (economic) relations prevailing in a given society and their foundation—property relations. Society itself, as V.I. Lenin believed, is "...a living mechanism in constant motion (and not something mechanically linked and therefore allowing for all sorts of arbitrary combinations of individual social elements), the study of which requires an objective analysis of the production relations that form a given social formation, and a study of the laws of its functioning and development."

Fundamental changes in the deep foundations of society

Socialism changes the foundation of society—material production—and at the same time transforms people's ideal way of life, affirming and liberating creativity in their consciousness. Perhaps, in this case, consciousness, while remaining secondary, derived from natural matter, truly becomes a primary factor in people's social life, facilitating the transition of society's spiritual and moral culture to a new civilizational level. This transition presupposes the implementation of new normative and value-based regulators in social life and social relations. And, crucially, in the process of this new civilizational development, socialism preserves the spiritual code of civilization (in our case, Russian civilization).

For many centuries, various forms of private property (slave, feudal, capitalist) dominated society. But can society indefinitely exist within a system that deforms humanity and does not correspond to its essence? No, answers this question scientific socialism (or, equivalently, scientific communism, as developed by the classics of Marxism-Leninism and their successors). History confirms the validity of this doctrine, which arose not only as a generalization and practical interpretation of humanity's spiritual achievements, but also (and this is crucial) as an expression of certain economic and socio-political tendencies within the very reality of previous socio-economic formations.

Public property is the general, collective appropriation of the means of production by people. It is the equal treatment of all members of society and the collective with respect to the material conditions of their productive activity. It is precisely this appropriation—that is, the taking into one's own possession, use, and disposal of material and cultural goods—that divides property into different types and gives each of these groups a specific character, which determines the characteristics and uniqueness of each socio-economic system.

A few words about Lenin's "model of Russia's development"

Lenin's model of Russia's development was based on Karl Marx's concept of property "in general" as the conscious attitude of workers toward the conditions of production as their own, which is realized "through production itself," that is, as a dialectical unity of the economic and legal forms of ownership. This unity of the legal and economic content of property boils down to: firstly, the fact that the subject's attitude toward the conditions of production "as their own" must necessarily be legally enshrined; secondly, property becomes an economic reality only through the implementation (realization) of the entire system of production relations (only this allows a given legal entity to appropriate the produced product or part of it).

Moreover, Marxist theory and the then-current practice of transitioning from the old to the new social order made it impossible to determine what level of socioeconomic and political development in Russia could be considered sufficient to expect success. It is an undeniable fact that the Russian Empire was almost entirely peasant. In terms of economic and political development and the well-being of its population, it could hardly be considered advanced.

V.I. Lenin, earlier and more profoundly than other politicians, recognized that the situation that had developed in Russia and the world in October 1917 was ushering in a new historical era—an era of humanity's transition from capitalism to socialism and, at the same time, an era of capitalism's adaptation to new historical conditions. This predetermined the exceptional complexity of addressing these challenges:

• firstly, the absence of a verified coefficient of mixing of various economic forms and, in general, a verified structure of the national model of the socialist economy;

• secondly, the need to ensure a dynamic and open transition of society and its economy from one socio-economic quality to another – sustainable and stable;

• thirdly, the need to take into account the fact that during the transition period, society is in a state where the content and ratio of economic elements is significantly distorted compared to a normally stable period;

• fourthly, the creation of new forms and the modernization of old ones, initially giving rise to a symbiosis of the “new” and the “old”;

• fifthly, the presence of an openly hostile attitude towards what was happening in Soviet Russia (USSR) on the part of the capitalist environment.

Knowing that society develops in accordance with objective laws and that new social relations never arise before the material conditions for their existence are created, V.I. Lenin emphasized the difficulty of the task of building socialism and the novelty of this undertaking: "We do not pretend that Marx or Marxists know the path to socialism in all its concreteness. That is nonsense. We know the direction of this path, we know which class forces are leading along it, and concretely, practically, only the experience of millions will reveal this when they take up the task."

This means, firstly, that “the road is mastered by the one who walks it”, secondly, that humanity can set itself only those tasks that it can solve, and finally, thirdly, already in the process of the solution itself it is detailed, revealed in detail.

Another circumstance is noteworthy. As a consistent Marxist, Lenin understood that history is subjective. It is created by people (the masses), and therefore any changes in the life of society are the result of their activity, which can be carried out arbitrarily, as they say, "rudderless and without sails," or it can be framed by a plan, in this case, "moving toward socialism." Lenin's plan, in its most basic form, boiled down to the following:

• strengthening Soviet power as a state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat (a socialist state according to Lenin is an executive committee for managing the affairs of the broad masses of the people);

• preserving and strengthening the alliance of the working class with the working peasantry (for peasant Russia during Lenin’s time, this alliance was more than relevant);

• strengthening the friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union on the basis of eliminating the actual inequality of backward peoples (Lenin and the Bolsheviks “demined” the relations between the peoples of Tsarist Russia, turning them into a center of dialectical unity of the national and international);

• strengthening, growth and development of public ownership of the means of production as an economic structure that directly characterizes the social connection of producers with the means of production and the development of elements of socio-economic equality in the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods created in society and the total labor force;

• the creation of the material and technical basis of socialism, the socialist transformation of agriculture through the cooperative formation of the peasantry and the construction of state farms;

• increasing the country's defense capability (defending its right to historical existence in the hostile environment of bourgeois states, the Soviet Union was forced to solve the multifaceted problems of military development, following the instructions of V.I. Lenin that "the best army, the people most devoted to the cause of the revolution will be immediately exterminated by the enemy if they are not sufficiently armed, supplied with food, and trained");

• strengthening the party and its unity, enhancing its role as the vanguard of the working class and all workers (see the works of V.I. Lenin: “Pages from a Diary,” “On Cooperation,” “How We Can Reorganize the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection,” “On Our Revolution,” “On Granting Legislative Functions to the State Planning Committee,” “On the Question of Nationalization or “Autonomization”; Lenin dictated all of these articles in December 1922 – March 1923).

In developing the foundations of the political economy of socialism as a science and a form of social consciousness (literally, knowledge), which, incidentally, was rejected by the majority of Soviet economists of the 1920s, and in creating a coherent, coherent doctrine of the necessity of a transitional period from capitalism to socialism, as a period of revolutionary transformation of the former into the latter, V.I. Lenin considered the construction of a socialist economy the most important and most complex task of the socialist revolution, especially in countries with underdeveloped capitalism.

V.I. Lenin's post-October works provide a profound and comprehensive examination of the economic role of the socialist state and its functions. They laid the foundations of the doctrine of planning the national economy as a unified whole, demonstrating that politics cannot be separated from economics nor opposed to it. V.I. Lenin's conclusion about the relationship between politics and economics was not a mere speculative conclusion. It was confirmed and developed in the New Economic Policy (NEP), proposed by the leader in 1918 and became an integral part and the scientific basis of the plan for building socialism, taking into account the characteristics of the transition period—an essential stage on the path to the creation of directly social, planned, and organized production.

V.I. Lenin resolutely opposed bourgeois notions of socialism as something static, a given once and for all. He constantly emphasized that socialism would develop and pass through various stages of maturity. It is no coincidence that V.I. Lenin's works contain such concepts as "developed," "mature socialism," "complete socialism," and "complete socialist society." For example, speaking of the historical inevitability of two phases of communist society, Lenin asserted that communism grows out of socialism "...after its complete victory..." This testifies to his consistently dialectical-materialist mode of thought, characteristic of Marxism-Leninism as a whole.

It's important to note here that the Bolsheviks, who were creating the new society, had no personal aspirations for wealth or glory, but a firm conviction in the correctness and necessity of their actions. It seems that they foresaw some possible failures and twists in the course of the experiment (as evidenced, for example, by Lenin's turn to the NEP or Stalin's withdrawal from it). But they hardly imagined the final result of the socialist experiment. "We cannot characterize socialism," wrote V.I. Lenin in 1918. "What socialism will be like when it reaches its final forms—we do not know, we cannot say. To say that the era of social revolution has begun, that we have done this and want to do that—we know, we will say... But to know now what completed socialism will look like—we do not know." And also. V.I. Lenin warned that the road to socialism would never be straight; it would be incredibly difficult. Building socialism requires the creativity of millions, a continuous quest.

“Whatever the further twists and turns of the struggle, no matter how many particular zigzags we have to overcome (and there will be a great many of them…),” said the leader, “in order not to get lost in these zigzags and twists of history and to maintain the general perspective, to see the red thread that connects the entire development of capitalism and the entire road to socialism, which naturally seems straight to us, and we must imagine it as straight, in order to see the beginning, continuation and end – in life it will never be straight, it will be incredibly complex – in order not to get lost in these twists and turns, so that in the period of steps back, retreats, temporary defeats or when history or the enemy throws us back, in order not to get lost, it is important, in my opinion, and theoretically the only correct thing is not to throw out our old basic program.”

In 1922, at the 11th Congress of the RCP(b), Lenin, understanding the complexity of the tasks facing the Bolsheviks, noted: “If we have to redo everything from the beginning not twice, but even many times, then this will show that we are approaching our greatest task in the world without prejudice, with sober eyes.”

Source -> https://kprf.ru/history/date/243188.html

A ceremony was held on the border between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to mark the joining of the superstructure of the future road bridge across the Tumannaya River, connecting the two countries.

The event was attended by Russian Minister of Transport Andrei Nikitin, co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation between Russia and the DPRK, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation Alexander Kozlov, and Director of the First Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Ivan Zhelokhovtsev.

The agreement to implement this project was signed in 2024 in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kim Jong-un. Construction work was launched on April 30, 2025, by Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Pak Thae-song.

Andrey Nikitin expressed gratitude to all participants in the construction project: engineers, technologists, workers, and specialists. The bridge's opening will have strategic economic and social significance for both countries. "This will create the first direct road link between Russia and the DPRK. Currently, only a rail route exists—the Friendship Bridge across the Tumannaya River. The opening of the new road bridge will increase mutual trade, optimize logistics, strengthen cultural ties, and transform border areas into dynamically developing economic hubs linked by a modern corridor ," he emphasized.

The Minister of Transport added that the joining of the bridge's superstructures is a truly significant event. " This bridge crossing is one of the central projects of our cooperation . In less than a year, the most important construction stages have been completed: erecting the supports, strengthening, and sliding the superstructures. This was made possible thanks to the professionalism of the combined team of specialists, who turned this strategic project into reality , " said Andrey Nikitin.

"Strengthening bilateral ties is our strategic goal, and the Intergovernmental Commission between Russia and the DPRK will continue to work on all areas of cooperation ," noted Alexander Kozlov . He also expressed gratitude to the Russian Ministry of Transport for implementing the bridge construction project.

The bridge crossing will be nearly 5 km long, with the bridge itself approximately 1 km long. It will have two traffic lanes. More than 70 people and over 30 pieces of equipment are involved in the construction. Over 5,000 tons of steel and over 9,000 cubic meters of concrete were used in the bridge's construction, ensuring compliance with the most stringent safety standards. The bridge is scheduled to open this summer.

As part of the national project "Efficient Transport System," construction is underway on the Khasan automobile checkpoint near the bridge. It will have 10 traffic lanes, and is planned to accommodate 300 vehicles and 2,850 people per day, with potential for further expansion.

Transport cooperation between Russia and the DPRK is also actively developing in other areas. An agreement on the mutual recognition of seagoing crewmembers' diplomas was previously signed. Direct scheduled air service between Moscow and Pyongyang, launched in July 2025, is being supported, and efforts are underway to increase flight capacity and train qualified specialists for North Korean civil aviation at Russian universities.

It's called Orania, a village occupied by descendants of white Dutch Boer settlers who invaded the land because they believed they were God's chosen people and therefore had the right to seize the territory (does that sound familiar?).

For these colonizers, the native Black people were savages who deserved to be domesticated and subjected to slavery under apartheid.

This town, colonized in the 17th century, is exclusively for whites, and its inhabitants (more than 2,000) TODAY claim they don't allow Black people in to "preserve their culture."

These colonialist parasites even play the victim and say that their Black neighbors want to kill them (does that sound familiar again?), while they have been invading their lands for centuries and are proud of their criminal apartheid.

Video link -> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2046556474931843072/vid/avc1/1080x1862/AVqdd3hvNCGMGjU1.mp4

Source -> https://xcancel.com/DaniMayakovski/status/2046556650379612559#m

Listen to the mental gymnastics of this Racist Dutch settler in South Africa.

https://archive.ph/bltFa#selection-287.0-287.72

The Capitol Police are arresting US military veterans for protesting war and genocide. That’s how sick our society is. Protesting war and genocide lands you in jail while supporting war and funding genocide gets you a job in Congress and the White House.

Video link -> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2046329763019833344/vid/avc1/720x1280/baaqPHRMqME2jhLf.mp4

Source -> https://xcancel.com/ProudSocialist/status/2046329821265850775#m

New link has more footage -> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2046469562347225088/vid/avc1/706x1280/CWGLJzkJXEUsnEbK.mp4

While Milei embraces Netanyahu and kisses the walls of Zionist homes in Israel, in Argentina, grandmothers and young people are scavenging in the garbage to find something to eat all day.

For these traitorous Zionist Nazis, Israel comes first, then the US, then the oligarchy, and lastly their own personal gain... they couldn't care less if the people eat garbage.

Video link -> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2046118159510597632/vid/avc1/1080x1920/Jlg1nZOfVmMJawOp.mp4

Source -> https://xcancel.com/DaniMayakovski/status/2046118235095830844#m

This Belgian colonialist exhibition stemmed from the time of King Leopold II and his brutal dictatorship in the Congo. From there, he created a 'Colonial Section' of expeditions, taking hundreds to Tervuren (Belgium) so that investors in his colonial plunder could see firsthand the kind of slaves he had in the Congo colonial project and thus garner more support for his exploitation.

Leopold II even kidnapped some Black slaves and kept them as pets in his own home, where he built them houses of straw and mud, using them for entertainment when visitors came, as if they were exotic animals.

No fewer than 267 Congolese were forcibly taken to Belgium and exhibited to the public like animals in a zoo. At least seven of them died, including an eight-month-old baby, Juste Bonaventure Langa, who perished during the 1958 colonial exhibition.

Far from being an isolated case, human zoos became widespread in Europe, in countries like Germany, Belgium, Spain, and France, from the colonial era onward.

This appalling colonial spectacle was part of a veritable slave industry, where people were treated as pets. This is the West that lectures us on civilization and human rights—we're talking about 60 years ago, not two centuries ago.

Source -> https://xcancel.com/DaniMayakovski/status/2046156341832540312#m

Source -> https://xcancel.com/DaniMayakovski/status/2046225195271065853#m

In the image above, Karoline Preisler, granddaughter of Nazis and a Zionist fanatic, is protected by German police while she supports the genocide perpetrated by "Israel" in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.

In the image below, German police are seen assaulting a young woman protesting against the Zionist genocide.

This is the West and its democratic spearhead, Germany.

Video link -> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2046236199417696256/vid/avc1/1080x1920/LtIafk8IkQ2eXcxF.mp4

Source -> https://xcancel.com/DaniMayakovski/status/2046236437738107093#m