Zyuganov warns of revolution due to faltering Russian economy : worldnews

[-] AverageWestoid@lemmygrad.ml 49 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Honestly the CPRF is one of the greatest divides in opinion I have seen from our comrades on Reddit (storefront) and lemmygrad.

The truth, as usual, largely lies somewhere between the two extremes of "controlled opposition" and "based Bolsheviks 2.0"

The CPRF is hands down one of the single largest communist parties within Europe, holding around 160,000 members to this day.

It is also one of the most rapidly growing communist parties in Europe, with 1/3 of its members having joined the party in the last five years.

Most of the new members themselves are also relatively young (below the age of 30 in most cases.) which will need to be discussed in a bit so remember that.

The CPRF's political wings can roughly be split into two cliques, the Zyuganov clique, and the Rashkin clique.

Zyuganov's clique is largely the clique responsible for the CPRF'S social-reactionary position, as they actively reject social liberation of marginalised sections of the Proletariat (aka LGBTQ+ people) and instead seek to synthesise with conservative establishments, like the Russian orthodox church, as an example.

The Rashkinite clique is more socially progressive in comparison to the Zyuganov clique, rejecting social-reactionaries m and instead upholding the orthodox social positions of Marxist-Leninism (e.g. the liberation of the Proletariat regardless of there marginalised status.)

While the Zyuganov clique still technically "rules" the party, the mass induction of youth members whom noticeably lack the social-reactionary bias of a lot of older members of the party has led to Zyuganov's clique to suffer a lot as they find themselves increasingly marginalised within the party.

(TL;Dr, Zyuganov's probably going to get removed as party head soon, probably even sooner after this ngl.)

[-] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 week ago

Honestly, I do not know much about them, but I always assumed they were some controlled opposition before some of the posts here changed my view slightly. Pointing out the split between two factions is useful in better understanding this party.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 1 week ago

Even without the split, Zyuganov's reactionary positions on socio-cultural issues does not make them controlled opposition. It just makes them communists with reactionary views on those particular issues. Unfortunately this is not that uncommon for non-Western communists.

The fact that you have to recognize is that in the post-1991 period communism in Russia was severely weakened and it is almost a miracle that it managed to survive at all, when other post-Soviet republics virtually eradicated all of their communist movements.

For a long time the KPRF has had to make compromises and lay low to survive. Their political power is not non-existent but it is limited and they have had to act within the bounds of that power. Nevertheless they are and have always been a real opposition party.

Now with a growing youth membership, a drastically changed geopolitical situation, and a resurgence of popularity of socialist ideas and positive remembrance of the Soviet Union, new possibilities are starting to emerge for the KPRF to assert itself as a political force.

But you should temper your expectations: i would not bet on them completely dropping all of their reactionary positions on cultural issues, even with a generational change in leadership. A party reflects the cultural attitudes of its base, and unfortunately Russia is just a pretty conservative society right now.

[-] AverageWestoid@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 week ago

For sure, really the whole "controlled opposition" narrative is just western propaganda to demonise non-western aligned opposition within Eastern European countries to be honest (the west utilised similar tactics against the Ukrainian Communist Party before Euromaidan for instance, as in they where controlled by le evil orks.) but that still doesn't take away the fact that the KPRF and a lot of communist groups in the former USSR have or had highly social reactionary positions.

The origins of this can largely be traced back to the collapse of the USSR, when the Union collapsed communists in eastern Europe took on extremely hardline positions, while this did effectively obliterate revisionists in eastern Europe, it also led to many groups to embrace the social reactionary positions as positive rather than falling into the 30% of things Stalin fucked up on.

In many ways this harmed the formation of socialist opposition within many countries, as marginalised sections of the Proletariat, instead of rallying around the communist party, where forced to instead align themselves with the liberals.

This also acted as a excellent tool for western propaganda, as many anti-western states in eastern Europe, such as Ukraine (up until Euromaidan.) Belarus, and Russia, often embraced highly conservative and reactionary cultural traditions, which in turn made it easier for the west to delegitimise socialist groups in eastern Europe.

In the modern day, most socialist groups in eastern Europe have been either destroyed, coopted, or forced underground, with really only a few nations, such as Belarus and Russia, having significant socialist formations within there countries.

And, well it's a bit of a tangent but let's talk about why the liberal western aligned opposition failed in Belarus and Russia.

In 2020, there where significant attempts at colour revolution within both Belarus and Russia, largely spurred on by legitimate grievances the people had with both governments (well, more so Russia, But still.) these protests seemed at the time to be a potential sign of the collapse of these two countries respective governments.

Why did these colour revolutions fail, well, it was due to a few reasons, in Russia it was largely due to the failure of the liberal opposition to monopolise the protests, with the KPRF, LDPR (basically the nazi party but russian.) and a Just Russia effectively jumping on the bandwagon of the protests at the time, which in turn prevented the liberal opposition from effectively taking control over the protests.

In Belarus, it was largely due to a lack of legitimate grievances outside of the Belarusians governments suppression of Marginalised groups, while cultural issues such as gay rights are something all socialists should support, they themselves are not a sufficient enough concern for a majority of the population to act as a initial foundation for a revolution, this is why we, as communists, embrace class struggle over that of social struggle, but that's besides the point, also when I mean lack of greivences, I largely mean the fact that Belarus largely maintained it's economic structure from the days of the USSR, which notably means it is far less corrupt than in comparison to most eastern European countries, and also is fairly industrious, with Belarus playing a fairly important part in supply the russian military with munitions for the war in Ukraine.

Also obviously there was other reasons, the attempted colour revolutions in Belarus and Russia wasn't exactly the CIA's finest hour, but still.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 1 week ago

In many ways this harmed the formation of socialist opposition within many countries, as marginalised sections of the Proletariat, instead of rallying around the communist party, where forced to instead align themselves with the liberals.

This also acted as a excellent tool for western propaganda, as many anti-western states in eastern Europe, such as Ukraine (up until Euromaidan.) Belarus, and Russia, often embraced highly conservative and reactionary cultural traditions, which in turn made it easier for the west to delegitimise socialist groups in eastern Europe.

I completely agree. Reactionary positions on social issues are self-sabotage on the part of communists. They make forming a united working class movement more difficult and give propaganda ammo to the liberal-imperialist enemy.

Also, excellent breakdown of the 2020 color revolution attempts in Belarus and Russia!

[-] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

So them being reactionary does make them controlled opposition (controlled opposition would include the democrats in America, right?). Got it.

How exactly did communism not get eliminated from Russia? I do not really know much about the period after the USSR fell and broke into many pieces, so it would be interesting to know how it survived in Russia and not in other places (I think Ukraine outlawed communism).

Russia is against LGBTQ+, right? That is definitely reactionary and indicative of the fact that Russia is very conservative.

[-] Tomato_Queen@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 week ago

one of the single largest communist parties within Europe, holding around 160,000 members to this day.

160k is a depressingly number wtf

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For a communist party in Europe that is very sizeable. Also, not all parties take membership equally seriously. In the US membership in the Democrat and Republican parties is huge but it is virtually meaningless. Compare with Germany where the two largest parties CDU and SPD only have around 365-370k members.

In general, communist parties take membership much more seriously than most liberal bourgeois parties do. There is a higher standard set on members, there are requirements in terms of party discipline and theoretical-ideological education, and more obligations and expectations. Communist parties are vanguard parties. There are many times more sympathizers and supporters than there are actual members, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

But yes, even with all that, of course it is very diminished compared to what the CPSU used to be. One day, inshallah, that will come back.

[-] sangeteria@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I'm not a member of my country's communist party (bc I'm lazy and I've only listened to like a half dozen communist audiobooks) but I am in that "sympathizer" territory

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

And that's perfectly fine and normal. We need as many sympathizers as we can get. You play a very important role.

[-] Orcinus@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 week ago

I don't think I can be a member of mine because of socially reactionary tendencies.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 week ago

It's up to you where you draw your red line. I would usually say that an imperfect communist party is still better than no party. And things can always improve over time, maybe with the help of progressive minded people like yourself slowly pushing them in that direction.

But obviously everyone has a limit to how much they can tolerate, and if the things that the other party members do or say make it really impossible for you to be around them, then that party is not for you.

[-] Orcinus@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago

I gotcha. But "can't" in this context means "I doubt they'd let me."

[-] burlemarx@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Some people will be organized members of the party. But even if you are not formally organized, if already follow what your local party is doing and join them in events or demonstrations, you are indirectly organized.

[-] AverageWestoid@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 1 week ago

I think it should be noted that 60k of that membership emerged like, only 5 years ago, so it is rapidly growing, and probably will continue to do so.

[-] 6kb_@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago

let's hope he is removed, and let's hope growth continues.

[-] ComradeChris101@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

I honestly hope Zyuganov gets removed and the Party will have a better chance some day at actually making a difference. The CPRF to me is such a mess that basically cheerleads Russia uncritically and supports its bourgeois but I hope the young guard can change the party.

[-] AstroStelar@hexbear.net 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Where I saw it first, people honed in on the "We don't have the right to repeat [1917]" part as further proof of the CPRF being controlled opposition or "SPD in WW1" social chauvinists, pointing to other instances of "Zyuganov asking Putin to do socialism". However people on Lemmygrad and other communist parties seem to view them favourably. I remember hearing more young people becoming members. Then there's the mess of establishment Russian politics being essentially this photo: Three massive flagpoles in Saint-Petersburg, flying the flags of the Romanovs (beloved by ultranationalists), USSR and Russian Federation; behind them is the supertall headquarters of Gazprom.

So what is the situation with the CPRF? What do they stand for and would they be more than socially conservative social democrats if they ever supplant United Russia, electorally? Is the party evolving behind the scenes? And are their pleas to the bourgeoisie just political theater and not to be taken seriously?

[-] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As for the accusation of "controlled opposition", the KPRF have already responded to this:

Accusations of a “tame opposition,” of the Communists being “on the payroll” of the government, are loud, but fall flat the moment they touch reality. Yes, there’s a faction in the Duma, yes, there are deputies’ salaries. But how else can an alternative point of view be conveyed to millions of people? Go completely underground? Then there won’t be any bills to freeze tariffs, and voices against raising the retirement age, against tax theft, against the commodification of healthcare and education will simply go unheard. Year after year, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the only parliamentary force that consistently votes against anti-people laws. If they had real power, these laws would never have passed. But while the liberals and security forces are in power, the Communists use every platform to at least voice the truth and offer the people an alternative.

As for the contradictions of the Russian society which could be pictured in the massive flagpoles that you shared, this was also mentioned in this post by the KPRF: "Mimicry of the system: Soviet words, oligarchic deeds". In the comments, I also added my brief observation of the two conflicting identities and their dynamics in the comments.

As for the rest of the questions in the last paragraph which is basically the same one, the KPRF is using every platform at their disposal to agitate the masses. From the State Duma, Grassroot Organizations and actively creating strong cadres for unions; they are actively out there organizing. The results varied but the most visible one are:

In summary, there is active work there. They go beyond what a Western socdem(or even leftists) do in Europe or the USA(perfect example of a socdem is Mamdani where he denounced Cuba and Venezuela).

[-] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I read the posts you linked and they literally propagate the replacement theory, e.g. this critique of the govt migration policy:

Let’s take, for example, the demographic strategy. The situation is catastrophic: there is a brazen replacement of the Russian and other indigenous peoples of our country. Yet even in the long term, the document does not set the goal of achieving even a simple restoration of the native population. How can something like this be written?

Or take the term “the supporting role of migration.” In developing the new concept, the authorities speak of restrictions, so that migrants come without their families. It seems, on the face of it, correct.

[-] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

replacement theory

Migration is a messy subject because the issue comes from the understanding of the grassroot base of the Russian society and even Chinese society. Add to the mix the ethnic strife that sometimes appear in Russian society and it is a horrible mix that leads to this type of statements. However, in no way shape or form, should we project the Western filth into Russia. Russia is not the same as the white supremacist West which is the sole origin of our current issues including the siege against Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. If Russia were like that, it would be treated differently by the West.

As for the position of the party, Obukhov, which is the one that mentioned that statement that you quoted, shared the following in other publications:

The deputy formulated the faction’s position:

"We're not against foreign workers. We're against the oligarchic system that, for the sake of superprofits, turns Russia into a thoroughfare and turns migrants into strikebreakers who lower the cost of Russian labor , " Obukhov emphasized.

Principles of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation:

Strict quotas and targeted organizational recruitment - only for specific enterprises, for a specific period

Priority for Russian citizens in everything : work, housing, kindergartens, hospitals, introduction of residency requirements for foreigners

The principle of "come to work - work" : a migrant arrives alone, without huge families that are dependent on social security

A merciless fight against enclaves and ethnic crime , including the dissolution of municipal authorities where Russian laws do not apply.

Resettlement programs are only for real compatriots : Russians and indigenous peoples of Russia who find themselves abroad

Work visa regime with countries that are the main suppliers of migrants

This is the most recent roundtable regarding this topic -> https://kprf.ru/dep/gosduma/activities/243324.html

[-] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml -5 points 1 week ago

Those "principles" are more fascist than what the current wave of far right Western parties are proposing. I used to think CPRF is controlled opposition, now I think they are "national socialist", thank you for educating me.

[-] Marat@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago

I don't have the time [or honestly the knowledge] to go super in depth, but basically a lot of the old guard who currently runs the party are more in line with "Patriotic socialism." [As in, socialism that supports the current state.] Meanwhile the younger generation who gave joined the party more recently are more principled.

The SMO makes things complicated since, to my knowledge, the CPRF was on board with it before even United Russia/Putin was on board with it.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's an incorrect usage of the term "patriotic socialism". That term refers specifically to socialists in the imperial core who fail to correctly reckon with the imperial (and settler-colonial) nature of their country. Russia is not a part of the imperial core. There is no such thing as "patriotic socialism" in Russia any more than there is in Iran or Vietnam. Socialism in countries that are threatened by imperialism is by definition "patriotic". This does not have the same reactionary implications it does in the US.

Also, the KPRF only support the current Russian state insofar as this is necessary to be allowed to operate in Russia. If they could, they would much prefer to restore the Soviet Union. What they don't support is the destruction and balkanization of Russia by imperialist forces, as indeed no communist should in any country that is in the crosshairs of imperialist aggression.

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Also, the KPRF only support the current Russian state insofar as this is necessary to be allowed to operate in Russia. If they could, they would much prefer to restore the Soviet Union. What they don’t support is the destruction and balkanization of Russia by imperialist forces, as indeed no communist should in any country that is in the crosshairs of imperialist aggression.

My view is that arguing about them being controlled opposition is like arguing that the CPC was controlled opposition of the KMT during the Japanese invasion in ww2.

In the grand scheme of things, Russia is a nation under siege even if the SMO makes it seem like they're the ones doing the siege and the KPRF chose to mantain an united front, we'll see if it's a succesful strategy or not.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Agreed. The hostility may not be as overtly violent by United Russia toward the KPRF as it was by the KMT (who committed actual massacres) toward the CPC, but there is nonetheless open aggression by the much larger and dominant ruling party against this smaller opposition party in the form of vote rigging, dirty political maneuvering, media warfare, arrests of its members, etc.

In my opinion a big part of why the "controlled opposition" accusation appeals to some western leftists is because they are not used to communist parties actually being a meaningful force in politics in their own countries. But to remain that the KPRF has to, for now, operate within the bounds of the bourgeois law.

We could argue about the validity of their choice to pursue an electoral strategy for now (though that is far from the only thing they do), but we have to remember that even Lenin said that whether or not to participate in a bourgeois parliament is not a matter of ideological dogma (always right or always wrong), but rather is determined by the present conditions.

From a dogmatic ultra-left perspective choosing anything other than "we need to do violent revolution right now!" will appear as "controlled opposition. To me, real controlled opposition looks like what the Bernie Sanders/AOC/Mamdani types are doing in the US.

[-] Marat@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago

I just didn't have a better term off the top of my head. Conservative socialism isn't exactly a helpful descriptor but I didn't want to say like Tailism either or anything.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago

I think "socially conservative socialists" is a perfect term.

[-] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 1 week ago

National socialists?

[-] Marat@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago

That has a whole different connotation

[-] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

It's what I thought of, reading your original post. But I have a distinctly Western, particularly US, frame of reference.

[+] Verenand@lemmygrad.ml -16 points 1 week ago

They are just something to catch people unhappy with current conjucture, i may disagree with Rudoy, however i agree on him that CPRF is nothing more than just controlled opposition, they support SMO, that is imperalist war, and can't be supported as Lenin states in 21 tome. They don't organise revolutionary masses, and they are actively against revolution (recent statement by Zyganov). They don't fight back in any levels against a man who reads f***** Illiyn, nor do they fight back against religious idiocy or monarchist/fascist political movements. Idk why call them communist apart from campism

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is a very idealistic and uneducated take. In no way is the KPRF "controlled opposition".

They didn't support the SMO only because the Russian government declared it, they supported anti-fascist intervention in Ukraine to protect the Russian speaking population from the Maidanite Neo-Nazis long before the Russian government came around to the idea. The communists were lobbying for this for years while the liberal Putin government was still being fooled by the West's false promises and sham negotiations. This reflected a real desire from the Russian people to intervene and help their brethren suffering under fascist bullets and bombs.

The SMO is fundamentally not imperialist. That is just a very shallow and incorrect assessment, ignorant of the reality on the ground and incorrectly analyzing the world geopolitical situation. It is about actively pushing back against imperialism, directly challenging and halting NATO imperialist expansion for the first time since 1991.

The KPRF very much do in fact engage in worker organizing and participate in labor struggles, and put forward political demands on behalf of the working class. What they don't do is commit the ultra-leftist error of assuming that the conditions are more advanced than they actually are. Russia is not in a revolutionary situation right now, the masses would not support that, and right now all that provoking a revolutionary conflict would do is play right into the hands of the imperialist West that has been desperately seeking Russia's final destruction.

They would prop up reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces, stirring ethnic and religious conflict, then they would directly and through their Ukrainian fascist and other proxies in the region (Poland, Finland, etc.) militarily intervene under the pretext of "stabilizing the situation" and "securing the nuclear weapons", Russia's neighbors would annex territory based on irredentist historical grudges, and NATO would create puppet states that they could easily control on Russian territory, like they did when they destroyed Yugoslavia, to exert military control and extract Russia's resources.

And i'm sorry but it is very ignorant to say that the KPRF doesn't fight against fascist forces or doesn't push back against monarchism. This shows that you do not have any idea what the KPRF actually do and say. It is correct to criticize their tailist attitude on certain cultural issues, but it would be absurd to expect that they completely denounce Orthodox religion as a whole. Just as it would be absurd for a communist party in Latin America to completely reject Catholicism or a communist party in the Muslim world to reject Islam. That would entirely alienate them from the masses.

You and i might not like it, but the reality is that there just is not the same anti-clerical mood in Russia right now as there was in 1917.

A communist party has to operate within the real material and cultural conditions that exist. It is not 1917 and the conditions are not the same. The world dynamics are drastically different, the internal domestic dynamics in Russia are drastically different. To blindly try to impose 1917's solutions on 2026 would be a recipe for failure. It is a common tactic of counter-revolutionary sabotage to use ultra-leftism and accusations (from the real controlled opposition which portrays itself as radical and leftist but is really just wreckers) of insufficient radicalism to goad communists into commiting fatal errors. Don't fall for it.

Support our communist comrades in Russia. There is no other communist force in Russia, or in any other European country for that matter, that has more popular support and better chance of actually gaining and exercising some real political power, even if they do not control the state yet.

[-] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 week ago

is the economy actually doing bad (and do the people perceive it as such), or is he just saying this?

[-] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There are issue in the Russian economy but it is not as bad as the West(Buuut... it needs to be looked upon). A good economist from Pravda, Tatyana Kulikova, can help with this inquiry:

What to do with the federal budget deficit? April 14-15, 2026

Last week, the Ministry of Finance published federal budget execution data for March, which again brought an unpleasant surprise: the budget deficit had grown sharply. High oil prices will help improve the situation in the coming months, but this will only be a temporary respite; it won't solve the long-term problems. Therefore, something must be done about the budget deficit now. The least painful options are raising the income tax on investment income and drastically reducing preferential mortgage rates.

The rest is in:

spoiler

Let's begin with a few preliminary observations. First, federal budget expenditures and revenues are highly seasonal. For example, in addition to taxes collected monthly, there are taxes that must be paid quarterly or even annually (for example, property taxes and personal income tax on investment income). Dividends from major state-owned banks typically arrive in August, so this month typically sees a significant surplus. There are many such seasonal factors. Therefore, the mere amount of expenditures, revenues, or deficits for a given month or quarter tells us nothing. Only a comparison with corresponding periods in the past is informative.

Secondly, starting in 2024, there has been a significant shift in the seasonality of government procurement spending (primarily defense procurement). While previously, the main settlements for government procurement were made at the end of the year (in December), now advance payments for these expenses at the beginning of the year (primarily in January and February) play a much greater role. However, December still remains a significant deficit month.

Considering all that has been said about seasonality, let's look at the federal budget execution data for March, which the Ministry of Finance published last week. The federal budget deficit for the month was 1.1 trillion rubles. For March, this isn't just a large amount—it's catastrophically large: since 2018, March has always posted a surplus (from here on, for historical comparisons, we use economist Pavel Ryabov's calculations).

The main reason is the rise in expenditures: they have grown by 44% (!) compared to March last year; no one predicted such a sharp increase in expenditures. Incidentally, the trend of explosive growth in expenditures continued in early April: according to the Ministry of Finance's latest data, average budget expenditures from April 1 to 8 amounted to 224 billion rubles per day, 60% higher than in April last year (and significantly higher than in March).

But let's return to the March statistics. A drop in revenues also contributed to the March budget deficit, but it was much less significant: revenues fell by 4.5%. This decline is entirely due to a drop in oil and gas revenues (the surge in oil prices due to the war in the Middle East has not yet impacted March tax payments). Non-oil and gas revenues actually increased—by 11% compared to March last year.

Now let's look at the entire first quarter. By the end of the quarter, the deficit had reached a record 4.6 trillion rubles. Given the shift in seasonality in government procurement calculations, this figure can only be meaningfully compared to 2024 and 2025. And this comparison is very alarming: in those years, the budget deficit by the end of the first quarter was more than half as large, amounting to approximately 2 trillion rubles (to be precise, 2.09 and 1.96 trillion in 2024 and 2025, respectively).

Some experts believe that last December, the Ministry of Finance postponed some spending until early 2026 in order to meet the annual deficit plan for 2025. As a reminder, the federal budget deficit was met within the plan (increased after amendments to the budget law mid-year), but regional budgets turned out to be much more deficit-ridden than expected.

The spending deferral theory seems plausible, and it does partially explain the significant increase in the first-quarter deficit, but only partially. After all, if we take the four-month period from December 2025 to March 2026 and compare it with the same period a year earlier, we also see a significant increase in the deficit: from 5.1 to 6.2 trillion rubles.

Now let's look at the problem over a longer time horizon: let's look at the 12-month rolling sum of monthly budget deficits. This indicator can be used to compare any month, as the calculation always covers exactly 12 consecutive months, and seasonality plays no role. This March, this indicator (i.e., the budget deficit for the period from April 2025 to March 2026) reached a new record of 8.2 trillion rubles (the previous record was 7.9 trillion rubles). This is more than double the federal budget deficit plan for 2026 (i.e., also for 12 consecutive months) of 3.8 trillion rubles.

So, we see a trend toward a rapidly growing budget deficit. In the coming months, this will be masked by a temporary surge in oil and gas revenues; the one-time tax on large businesses' excess profits for 2025, which is currently being actively discussed, may also contribute. So, in the coming months, everything will be more or less normal, but in the long term, when the surge in oil and gas revenues subsides, we will again face the problem of a growing budget deficit.

After all, high energy prices will be temporary in any case: either the conflict will end and its impact on supply will gradually be eliminated, or high energy prices will trigger a global recession and, as a result, a decline in demand. In both cases, supply and demand will be rebalanced, and prices will decline.

Therefore, we must begin thinking about the long-term sustainability of the federal budget now. We must take measures that will reduce the budget deficit over the long term. First, we must extend the progressive personal income tax scale to citizens' investment income (currently, two tax rates apply to this income: 13% and 15%). Second, we must drastically—dramatically—reduce the volume of preferential mortgages; they must become more targeted and targeted.

Both of these measures will not bear fruit immediately. Investment income is calculated not monthly, but only at the end of the year, and the tax on this income is not paid to the budget until December of the year following the reporting year.

Regarding preferential mortgages, annual budget expenditures on them amount to trillions of rubles (in 2025, it was 2 trillion rubles), but even completely canceling this program won't save this entire amount at once, since the budget will still have to pay for loans already issued. The budget (that is, we, the taxpayers!) will bear these costs for many years to come. These payments will decrease only very slowly over time—as borrowers repay the principal.

However, if we drastically reduce the volume of such mortgages issued right now, this will at least prevent the problem from worsening in the future, and instead allow us to slowly and patiently begin to address the consequences of this ill-considered policy. The savings won't be significant at first (a couple of hundred billion in the first year, but even that's significant given the scale of our budget). However, they will increase each year. This will thereby ensure the long-term sustainability of the federal budget.

Original post -> https://gazeta-pravda.ru/issue/38-31819-1415-aprelya-2026-goda/chto-delat-s-defitsitom-federalnogo-byudzheta/

As for the Common folk and what the KPRF reported, I have listed a few as follows:

On poverty and citizens' pleas for help:

"I'm ashamed to admit it, but I have to. I get a huge amount of mail. <...> I never had such requests before. The most common requests now are for help with the birth of a child and the burial of a loved one. For dental work and for finishing a child's education. Just think where things are going!"

On exorbitant utility rates (using a teacher's letter as an example):

"A teacher writes: 22,000 rubles in pension, worked for 40 years. <...> They brought me 12,000 rubles in utility bills. I have ten left. I buy medicine, but I don't have enough for food. I buy food, but I don't have enough for medicine. Why did you put a noose around my neck? What can I say to her?"

On the uncontrolled rise in prices within the country:

"Prices have doubled and tripled on everything! Clay, sand, rebar, ceramic dust—everything! I ask: are we importing them from America? No. So why are you jacking up the prices? They'll shrug their shoulders because they don't regulate anything."

On the strangulation of domestic agriculture:

"We have 2,000 tractors and combines at Rostselmash, and 400 at Kirovsky. Only because the farmers weren't given money! They weren't given! On the world market, they used to get back 25,000 rubles per ton of grain. The cost is 12. And they're getting back 12. They can't afford it!"

On the destruction of local self-government:

"Without local self-government, the problems cannot be solved. A fifth column is in place, and they have proposed eliminating the lower ranks of the Soviets. This is absolutely criminal! It destroys the Russian tradition of collective veche governance."

[-] 6kb_@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago

good collection of quotes. stresses me out for them, especially the last part.

[-] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 1 week ago

The possibility of russia returning to socialism is pretty decent. The war has only strengthened the image of the soviet union.

[-] Conselheiro@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The veteran leader of Russia's Communist Party has warned parliament that the country's faltering economy risks stoking a 1917-style revolution and that the government needs to take urgent measures to correct ‌its course.

"Communist" is afraid of revolution.

I understand (and even support) being internally critical of the government in order to squeeze out some reforms. But unless the fear of 1917 is a legal defense or some irony lost in translation, that's discrediting to his own argument.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ok so i'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask you to consider the alternative: should he have said that the government should continue its present course, which he believes is making conditions worse for the working class, in hopes that this sparks a revolution?

Well that would be considered accelerationism, and the problem is that, when workers hear you say things like that, it does not make them like you and other communists more. It comes across as you advocating for their conditions to get worse so that you can achieve your political aims. This is incredibly cynical. People support those parties and politicians who show that they understand their concerns and are actively working to make them better. Even if this means appealing to the liberal-bourgeois ruling party.

In fact this is smart messaging and smart strategy. Because if the government refuses to take action and things get worse and people do start thinking about revolution, then you will be among those who the discontented flock toward to lead them, as someone who championed their interests and warned about the consequences. On the other hand, if the government does take action then you can sell it as your party having pushed them to do that, which also gains you credibility and respect as a political force.

There is also the factor that a 1917 style revolution at this point in time would be devastating for Russia and would have very little chance of success. You have to remember that even back then a coalition of a dozen imperialist nations invaded Russia to try and put down the revolution. And that was after a devastating world war that had exhausted practically all the other imperialist powers too.

Would the revolution have succeeded in defeating the white forces and the imperialist intervention if it had happened not in 1917 but in 1913? NATO is just waiting for any weakness in Russia to present itself, any internal conflict and they will immediately take advantage to try and implement their plan of subjugating and balkanizing Russia. There is a rabid and expansionist Neo-Nazi regime on Russia's border with a large and battle hardened army. If there was a civil war in Russia, would the Russian army be able to continue to hold back the fascists? Would the revolutionaries be able to put together a new Red Army capable of stopping them?

The reason i'm asking this is because the main question that we need to consider here is this: would a rapid collapse in the conditions of the Russian people be beneficial for the potential success of a future revolution, or detrimental? One could argue that in the present circumstances this would make the revolution more likely to fail and socialists to get exterminated if the state collapsed. And this is probably also what Zyuganov is thinking. It makes more sense to bide time for now and build up the base of support of the communists by fighting for an improvement in their material conditions.

Eventually the neighboring fascist regime will be defeated and eventually US hegemony will also be gone. The imperialist camp will itself fall into crisis, which will lift the boot off the necks of all imperialized and besieged nations that are not yet socialist, opening up the geopolitical space for successful socialist revolutions.

[-] Conselheiro@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago

And this is probably also what Zyuganov is thinking.

Then he should've said any of that. He's the leader of the CP, not a twitter user limited by character count.

For the simple question of what he should've said, he shouldn't have framed the 1917 revolution to solve these problems in the negative. It doesn't take too much in rhetoric skills to denounce the issues, but side with the people rather than the government. Though again I'm willing to believe that this is could be a translation and legal issue.

In fact, I found the speech transcript and read it through machine translation. And he seems to be doing exactly what I said with this "Victory Program".

https://kprf.ru/party-live/cknews/243204.html

Here's a much longer report on that Victory Program.

https://kprf.ru/party-live/cknews/243374.html

I took issue with one particular line, as it betrays a "democratic socialist" kind of revisionism. Of course, this is the part Western Media will pick up on, rather than the rest of the party program, as it screams "Russia falls tomorrow". However, it is to its core a demsoc program.

[-] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago

Interesting context. I'm very curious now what the exact translation is. Machine translation that I get says:

The president recently gathered the government. I have not seen such a sad and so alarming meeting for a long time. He had to hear from you, from representatives of the party of power, why we are again falling into the financial and industrial crisis. But I never heard a clear answer to this question. And we have repeatedly warned you: with this course, the economy will inevitably fail. The first quarter is marked by an obvious fall. And no serious specialist today does not believe that at least symbolic growth will be achieved at least at the end of the year. Everyone states stagflation and recession. If you do not urgently take the necessary financial and economic measures, if you do not adjust the course in principle, then in the autumn we can expect what happened in February 1917.

We have no right to repeat it! Therefore, it is necessary to take into account historical experience and make long-term urgent decisions.

Like this part in particular, I wonder what it's like in Russian, in context:

We have no right to repeat it!

Because in English, that could have multiple meanings. It could mean things like: "it is illegal to repeat it", "it is a failing on our part to repeat it"/"it is wrong of us to allow ourselves to reach a point where we would have to repeat it", "it is wrong of us to repeat it". The last one would be the most revolution-adverse as a matter of fundamentally opposing revolution even if necessary, but is that actually the meaning?

I tried prompting an LLM about it, which I'm aware is not to be taken at face value, but as perhaps a corroborative piece of information. Noting that I did not state my view on it, only asked for its interpretation of that line in the context of the previous paragraph, and that I first asked it to translate that part of the speech, which it did with similar results to Google Translate. The interpretation from it:

the best interpretation is that the speaker is making an urgent, almost desperate appeal to the conscience of the decision-makers. They are arguing that the stakes are so high, and the historical lesson so clear, that failing to act decisively would be a grave and inexcusable dereliction of duty, a moral crime against the nation they are meant to serve. It's a powerful attempt to shame or compel the authorities into action by framing their choice in stark, historical, and ethical terms.

This more or less syncs up with how I'm inclined to take it in context. That he's not trying to say "revolution bad", but rather, "it would be shameful if the Russian people have to repeat it because you do such a poor job of ruling."

If anyone who is bilingual in Russian and English can weigh in though, that would be nice.

[-] pyromaiden@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 week ago

don't give me hope...

World News