Текст книги "Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness"
Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 12 (всего у книги 32 страниц)
This psychical peculiarity[203] of many individuals is historically more ancient phenomenon than historically real Marxian Trotskyism in the communist movement of 20th century. In the past, they could not find any other word beside the term «obsession». And in the epoch of materialistic worldview dominance, they could not find such a word to name this phenomenon so that it corresponded to this type of mental degeneration. This phenomenon was named anew, but not in accordance with its essence, but after the pseudonym of one of its most striking representatives of Trotskyism in the communist movement of 20th century.
In its essence, Trotskyism is a schizophrenic, aggressive politically active psyche, which could cover itself with any ideology and any sociological doctrine.
That is why Marxism is basically the expression of psychical Trotskyism. K. Marx and F. Engels were psycho-Trotskyists. Hitler was a psycho-Trotskyist too: on identity in relations of Hitlerism and Trotskyist-version Marxism to many phenomena of social life see the USSR IP’s work “Look Back in Anger…” At the USSR’s decline, the psycho-Trotskyists of anti-communist trend were dissidents. And now, the psycho-Trotskyists are the majority of the activists of pro-bourgeois reforms in Russia and their opponents from the ranks of various patriotic parties and all supposedly communist parties, unable to abandon Marxism.
Bolshevism, as the history of the CPSU teaches us, appeared in 1903 at II congress of Russian Social Democratic Labor Party as one of the party fractions. As its opponents claimed, Bolsheviks never represented real majority[204] of the Marxian party until 1917, therefore Bolsheviks’ opponents always protested against their self-denomination. But such opinion was caused by heterogeneous Mensheviks’ misunderstanding of the essence of Bolshevism.
Bolshevism is neither a Russian modification of Marxism, nor a party membership. And the most senseless is the word combination «Jewish Bolshevism», used by Hitler in “Mein Kampf”, because Bolshevism is the phenomenon of spirit of the Russian civilization, but not of the spirit of the bearers of doctrine of biblical global slavery on the racial basis.
Bolshevism existed before Marxism; it somehow exists now. And it will exist henceforth.
As the Bolsheviks members of the Marxian party of Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) claimed, it was them who expressed in politics strategic interests of the working majority of population of the multinational Russia, therefore only them could be called Bolsheviks. How faultless were Bolsheviks expressing the strategic interests of the working majority and to what extent this majority itself realizes its interests and is faithful to these interests in real life does not change the next. The essence of Bolshevism is not in numerical superiority of the followers of some ideas over the followers of other ideas and the thoughtless crowd, but in the following:
in sincere attempt to express and to make a reality of long-term strategic interests of the working majority, wishing that n o body parasitized on its labor and life. In other words, histor i cally real essence of Bolshevism in each epoch is in support of trans i tion process from historically formed crowd-“elitism” to the multinational humanity of the Earth of the future era.
Menshevism is, correspondingly, the opposite of Bolshevism, because it objectively expresses tendency of parasitism of all considering themselves “elite” on labor and life of the common people, the majority. Marxism is also Menshevism, and not only psychic Trotskyism; and psychic Trotskyism is always Menshevism.
Fascism is a kind of culture of social government, which is possible exclusively in crowd-“elitist” society. Fascism is one of the kinds of psychic Trotskyism.
The essence of fascism as such (irrespective of how it is named or which ideas it covers itself with and by which means it performs its power in the society) is in active support by the crowd of «small people» – under influence of their own ideological conviction – the system of abuse of power by “elitist” oligarchy[205], which:
represents unrighteousness as true «righteousness», and, on this basis, having perverted people’s world understanding, by all its subject might cultivates unrighteousness in the society, pr e venting people from becoming human;
suppresses (under various pretences and by all its subject might) one and all, who doubts its righteousness and the righ t eousness of its policy, as well as those whom it suspects in this.
Crowd, by V.G. Belinsky’s definition, is the “gathering of people who live by the legends and reason by authority” (by A.S. Pushkin’s definition, «reasonless people»[206]), i.e. crowd is the multitude of individuals who live unscrupulously and, essentially, thoughtlessly, either automatically or under control from the outside. And no matter whether the ruling oligarchy acts publicly and ceremonially, exalting itself over society; or it exalts by reticence or in non-aware pride, publicly expressing humility and service to the crowd, naming it «people»; or it acts secretly, assuring the society of its supposed non-existence and, due to non-existence, in its inactivity, which results in supposedly spontaneous way of life of the society, and social life is not ruled by the scripts of conceptually masterful curators of oligarchy[207].
This definition-description of fascism does not include frightening and striking features of its activities: symbolism; ideology, calling to violence and destruction of those whom fascist masters determined as incorrigible social evil; appeals to create political party with strict discipline and system of terror, fighting detachments, etc.
Since 1945, a lot was said about misanthropic nature of fascism on the grounds of the lesson that German fascism taught everybody. Due to the horrors of German fascism of 1933 – 1945 (which become negative-and-cultist), one might find the given definition superficial, estranged from the real life (abstract), and therefore irrelevant to the task of protection of the future from the threat of fascism.
But in fact, this definition is the definition of fascism by nature, and not by the place of its origination or peculiarities of its development and manifestation in the life of society, which distinguishes it qualitatively from the majority of the «definitions» of «fascism» given in different thesauruses and encyclopedias.
* *
*
Given definitions is not just an exercise in casuistry. The matter is that different phenomena of social life should be defined in such manner that their differences and interconnections were clear, and thus they should have different names. These definitions, which distinguish different phenomena of social life, allow us to have a different look at the events that took place in the USSR during Stalin’s epoch, where:
according to public opinion, new social structure, different from all historically known by that time, was built and named «socialist» directing its efforts towards communist prospective;
Marxism was the theoretical basis of its development; moreover, it was its cult basis.
The first condition as such does not cause any disputes. The attempt of new society development is admitted by everyone, although the ideals, which sincere followers of socialism tried to make a reality during 1917 – 1953 are evaluated differently by different people. Some people say, it is an unrealizable chimera, adverse to the human nature, and therefore the attempt to carry it out is the evil and brings nothing but violence and suffering; in short, it is the slave barrack, a kind of fascism, a mistake of history. Other people say, it is objectively possible best future of the whole mankind, which, to be realized, requires subjective factors – development of culture and purposeful work, where mistakes or misuses could occur, sometimes with very grave consequences for both contemporaries and offspring.
Those who support the idea that USSR was created in 1917 as the result of the mistake of the history, and the whole its history was a mistake, would not be interested in discussion of circumstances connected with the Marxism as such and its interpretation by Stalin in his many-sided activities.
Instead, those who think that history did not make a mistake in 1917, having started open practice of building socialism and communism in the USSR and all over the world[208], are arguing about who was the true Marxist and communist in the USSR: J.V. Stalin and his associates? or L.D. Bronstein (better known under the nickname «Trotsky») and his associates? Relating to the present time, this dispute among the followers of Marxism results in the following question: to recommence building of communism means to continue work of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky? or to continue work of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin?
The answer to this question is many-sided and consists in the fact that:
L.D. Bronstein was a true Marxist, and due to managerial inconsistency of philosophy and political economy of Marxism he was a pseudo-communist and died as a hostage of falsity of Marxism that he did not realize;
V.I. Lenin (Ulyanov) was a true communist as much as he had capabilities not to be a psycho-Trotskyist, true to the canons of Marxism in steadfast readiness to press the stream of life in accordance with them;
J.V. Stalin was a true Bolshevik and communist, therefore, he was not a Marxist;
J.V. Stalin was not the successor of Marx – Engels – Lenin’s tack, but the successor of Bolshevistic tack of Stephan Razin – Lenin (in such its constituent, when V.I. Lenin stepped over Marxism), since V.I. Lenin under the cover of Marxism was building Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) as an instrument for realization of political will of Bolshevism, which in principle could become conceptually autocratic (what actually happened when J.V. Stalin had headed the ruling party and State system of the USSR), and afterwards to exceed the bounds of Marxism.
The first one to sense it was L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky). In his work “Our Political Tasks” (written as early as in 1904) he assessed V.I. Lenin’s attitude to Marxism as follows:
«Indeed, it is impossible to treat the best legacy of proletariat more cynically than Lenin does! To him, Marxism is not the method of scientific research, inflicting serious theoretical obligations; it is… a mop, when he needs to wipe out his tracks, a white screen, when he needs to display his grandeur, folding rule, when he needs to produce his party conscience!» (L.D. Trotsky, “On the History of Russian Revolution”, collected works of L.D. Bronstein edited by N.A. Vasetsky, Moscow, “Politizdat”, 1990, p. 77).
And that is not the whole story. From V.I.Lenin’s pen came some equivocal statements, fraught with failure of Marxism by its nature. Here is one of them:
«We do not take Marx’s theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are sure that it only placed the corner stones of the science, which the socialists should advance further in all directions unless they want to be behind the times» (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, 5th edition, vol. 4, p. 184).
But if it turns out that the «corner stone» is unsuitable for the intended course, another «corner stone» will be found inevitably, this is just a matter of time. And this happened during the development of Bolshevism. However, neither L.D. Bronstein, nor his associates or successors and continuators of his work could find any means to suppress development of Bolshevism in the society.
6.2. On Hidden Motive of Revolutions of 1917
But to see this, it is necessary to understand how the interests of various heterogeneous inner ant outer political forces collided in Russia in revolutions of 1917. These forces were characterized by different degrees of orderliness and understanding of the current events, understanding of probability of realization of their interests (moreover, not all of them were aware of these), and, above all, which were characterized by interpenetration.
Let us start with the interior of the empire. Life of the major part of the population in Russia left much to be desired notwithstanding how it is idealized nowadays by the «patriots» of biblical-«Orthodox Church» monarchic persuasion. On the eve of the revolution of 1905, the life of Russia was characterized by the following factors: lack of land among the peasants of the European part of the country and decline of the soil fertility due to low culture of aeromechanics; stratification of rural population into kulaks and field-hands, caused not by exceptional diligence of ones and laziness of the others, but by economical and moral-and-psychological legacy of serfdom and by free market self-regulation in the epoch after the serfdom cancellation; 12 – 14-hour working day in industry without social security in old age, without the system of operational safety, health insurance and occupational accident insurance; under conditions of Mason-filled bureaucracy’s sabotage and misinterpretation of governmental measures of relaxation interclass tension and resolution of interclass contradictions[209]; the majority of population was unable to provide education for their children, and, sometimes, the adults did not understand the necessity of education; infringement of the God-given rights of the majority of population of the country due to the legislation peculiar to estate-and-caste structure, and economical circumstances that accompanied it; as consequence of low educational standard of the majority of population, technical-and-technological dependence of Russia on other countries and foreign private and mob-and-corporative capital.
In other words, the potential for riot in Russia was created by centuries-old policy of the ruling class – Russian nobility, which was the personnel basis for formation of state administrative machine and command staff of army and navy. Besides that, previously created potential of riot was developed by long-tern activity of various «new Russians» of those days, «nouveau riches», upper bourgeoisie of Russia, which grew rich without God, who grew by leaps and bounds in the epoch after serfdom cancellation, when there appeared the market of cheap manpower because the poor from the village started out for the town in search of a job.
The «world backstage», performing the biblical project of the total enslavement, differs from the overwhelming majority of those malcontent with it: it is quite a good estimator of the God’s connivance in respect of its opponents. And in overwhelming majority of cases known in the History, its opponents could not oppose it anything besides their arrogant complacency, ignorance, and unwillingness to think independently instead of «reasoning by authority» of some writ or chieftain. Therefore they could not solve the imminent problems (which could happen in any society) beforehand in accordance with their own political scenarios; this cleared the way for resolution or aggravation of these problems according to the scenarios introduced in collective psyche of the society by the «world backstage».
In contrast to the national ruling “elites”, which lived under these problems comfortably and in social-and-political activities limited themselves to parlor conversations and exposure of vices in their works of art, the «world backstage» was active. Performing the biblical project of total enslavement, it always interpreted national “elites” with autocratic arrogance as the competitors in exploitation of the resources of the planet and demotic population of these countries. Therefore it purposefully nurtured in Russia potential for future distemper by hands of the Russian ruling classes.
Besides that, the «world backstage» by the middle of 19th century was discontented with the social processes in the «advanced» Western countries. There bourgeois-democratic revolutions already had initiated development of capitalism on the basis of freedom of private entrepreneurship, market self-regulation. Which had resulted in consumption race, useless squandering of social and nature resources. And also had resulted in utmost degree of society polarization into super-rich minority and destitute; economically-dependent majority, which was essentially deprived of civil rights in spite of all legal declarations of bourgeois revolutions about freedom and equal protection of the law. Consequently, the potential of riot and future global biosphere-and-ecological crisis was also growing up spontaneously in the «advanced» countries.
In addition to these inner problems of the «advanced» countries, there was the global problem of colonialism, because national self-consciousness was growing in the colonies, and early national liberation riots and wars shown that the problem of global power establishment and maintenance should not be generally solved by military methods, and military methods should be of subordinate nature.
According to these circumstances, the «world backstage» while organizing the revolution in Russia tried to solve two tasks:
regional – to eliminate the local ruling “elite” and, along with it, the multinational “elitist” state autocracy[210] of Russia with the purpose of integration of its common people as the labor force into the Western regional civilization;
global – development of infinitely dependent, i.e. conceptually powerless social-and-economic formation, which would be free of defects of western-type capitalism which had historically developed by that time (which H. Ford and many others wrote about).
Because the internal revolutions of the XIX century under the slogans of socialism were not a success in the «advanced» European countries, and global problems continued to accrue, the global scenario had been changed. In new global scenario, Russia was to serve as the starting point for global transformations and the exporter of the revolution. Russia would convert all the mother countries of Western regional civilization, their colonies and «retarded» countries, which retained state independence to the norms of life of artificially created formation alternative to the historically developed western-type capitalism. In those years this project was called «world socialist revolution». And in the course of its fulfillment, revolutions in Russia and Germany[211] were to initiate creation of military-and-economic and cultural-and-ideological «base» for further expansion of the new regime to the other regions of the world.
To solve these interrelated problems, the «world backstage» needed cardinal, or, at least, revolutionary reconstruction of relation between the power and the property rights in Russia in its favor. Therefore, it was necessary to change the political course of Russia so that its state autocracy would come to political and economical failure. This was accomplished by hands of arrogant ruling “elite” which plunged Russia into Russian-Japanese[212], and, ten years later, into World War I of the 20th century without having prepared the country for the victory in both wars.
By that time, Marxism and other corresponding scenarios of seizure and retention of power by the periphery of the «world backstage» had already been introduced in Russia. And in the form of the theory of permanent revolution (which presupposed during the revolution and performance of transformations armed seizure of state power and merciless suppression of opponents of the new regime), started by A.L. Gelfand[213] (Parvus) and developed by L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky), political scenarios of the «world backstage» assumed the most complete appearance. In the theory of permanent revolution, everything was already scheduled as early as in 1905: from repressions towards the ruling classes (who were assessed as the incorrigible enemies of revolution) to transfer of the revolution to the village and forced establishment of socialist production relations in the village. Also, the export of revolution to other countries (where internal revolutionary forces were too weak to perform revolution and social-and-economic transformations by themselves) was motivated[214].
So the revolution, which happened in 1917, and was called the Great October Socialist revolution, occurred due to ideological fertility of Russian “elite” and feverish activity of the «world backstage» periphery in the country. However, Russia differed from the advanced capitalist countries of that epoch: in Russia, there was Bolshevism (as this notion was defined in Part 6.1).
Bolshevism is the social moral-and-psychological phenomenon, tracing its roots back to pre-bylina[215] antiquity of regional civilization of Russia. So-called «Serpent’s Mounds» (earth-and-wood fortifications that stretch for thousands kilometers across the Ukrainian steppes southward of Kiev, and date back to the first millennium B.C.) are the evidence of pre-bylina antiquity of Bolshevism: first, there construction was not possible under conditions of tribal fragmentation and predominance of petty psychology of individualism and clannishness; second, true history of their creation is forgotten, and bylinas gave the fabulous version[216].
The spirit of Bolshevism, even if not realized by the individuals who support it with their efforts and actions, is the most powerful force in history of modern global civilization, although not everyone sees its direct manifestations and actions. As a matter of fact, that is what distinguished the church of Russia from Catholicism, Protestantism of every stripe that appeared later on, and also from all other autonomic landed churches, which called themselves «Orthodox», too. When Russia had been christened, the power of Bolshevism (under conditions of development level of people’s culture and world understanding of those days) was not enough to prevent invasion of biblical project under the guise of Christianity; however, the power of spontaneous Bolshevism was enough to make this project get stuck desperately, to start comprehension and development of global Russian project, which was its alternative.
In 19th century, Bolshevism left Russian Orthodox Church, having exhausted facility of development on the basis of its dogma and organizational structures. And, trying Marxism on as the lexical shell, Bolshevism penetrated into Marxism exactly the same way as it penetrated 900 years before into the biblical church that came to Russia from the mendacious Byzantium. Then, Russian church (owing to penetration of the spirit of Bolshevism in it) acquired originality, which distinguished it from the origins and foreign analogues. The same way, on the boundary of 19th – 20th centuries Marxism in Russia acquired inner originality of purport of life implied by the Bolsheviks, which distinguished it from the version, affirmed by the «world backstage». This fact doomed internazi Marxian project of «world socialist revolution» to failure.
The failure happened practically immediately after the Soviet regime was established in Russia, although initially it looked as malfunction, which allowed changes in scenario of further actions. The project of «world socialist revolution» failed because V.I. Lenin had insisted on making obscene (his estimation) peace with Germany and its allies.
True Marxist-Internazi L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky) stood against that: at first, in open inner-party polemics, and then, being the chief of Soviet delegation at peace negotiations with Germany in Brest-Litovsk (today, city of Brest in Byelorussia on the border with Poland), tried to ruin the resolution adopted in Moscow. Despite direct instructions given by V.I. Lenin, he proclaimed truly Marxian revolutionary policy «neither war nor peace». Essentially, it called Germany and its allies to continue the war and condemned Russia (which was disorganized by revolution) to involuntary resistance to aggression. However, the peace was made despite Trotskyists’ activities. An attempt to recommence the war by assassinating German ambassador, Count Mirbach (which occurred after a time on July 6, 1918 in Moscow), by the hands of left-wing socialist-revolutionaries did not result in recommencement of military operations.
6.3. New Line of the «World Backstage»:
Socialism at an Individual Country
Such actions of L.D. Bronstein and politically myopic left-wing social-revolutionaries considered within Russia at first sight seem hysterically-senseless. But if we consider the situation in global scale, this is not so by far. Brest peace treaty slowed down forcing of revolutionary situation in Germany and Austro-Hungary. Due to its influence on the course of events[217], revolutions in these countries under slogans of socialism started, but as Marxian internazi revolutions they failed; they created multitude of bourgeois republics and Yugoslavian monarchy out of two Central European monarchies.
In Russia by spring of 1918 aversion to the new power and sabotage of its undertakings by the part of population (first of all, by the representatives of former ruling classes and variegated «middle class») began to develop into Civil War. This put a question before the «world backstage», which it should support in the Civil War: either Marxian Soviet power, which developed during the revolution (even though contaminated with Bolshevism), or counter-revolution?
The victory of counter-revolution would inevitably result in firm establishment of nazi fascist regime in Russia (the history of Germany confirmed this later on). Though the «world backstage» had time to give Germany its protégé as the Fuhrer, curing Germany from fascism was the waste of time in the global project of replacement of capitalism with different social system with the lower level of intrasocial tension and more harmonious relations between society and biosphere. But it is quite difficult to promote the protégé for the position of Fuhrer under conditions of Civil War. And in case of the counter-revolution’s victory, multinational “elitist” imperial Nazism would incinerate not only the hateful Bolsheviks, misinterpreters of Marxism, but also the staff of professional Internazi revolutionaries. This would make the project of «world socialist revolution» in 20th century unrealizable. Therefore the «world backstage» decided to assist the Internazi Marxian power (though infected with multinational Bolshevism) in winning the victory in the Civil War, planning to solve the problem of Bolshevism suppression later on depending on circumstances.
The «world backstage» exercises its power by means different from those used by the rulers of the states and which are perceived by the men of the crowd as the means of execution of power in the life of the society. The governments issue the laws that concern all citizens (subjects), and directives that are addressed to the chiefs of certain state structures personally, whereas the «world backstage» participates, through its periphery in the society, in the activity of State machinery and social institutions, by either supporting their independent activities or by sabotaging them, but supporting at the same time other activities, activities of other structures both within the society and in other countries.
This power is executed on the basis of moulding the worldview of certain groups within the crowd-“elitist” society in a pre-emptive (anticipatory) manner. Due to the worldview moulded in this way whole social groups and classes act as if on their own accord but in a manner which is necessary for the «world backstage». This allows getting by with a minimal number of non-documentary directives (this is a sort of «pre-telephone right» existing from times immemorial). In each country those directives are addressed specifically to a very narrow circle of the «world backstage’s» periphery co-coordinators who are initiated into its activities.[218]
In accordance with this customary practice «world backstage» permitted the bourgeois regimes of Europe and America with Japan’s complicity to start an intervention into Soviet Russia in order to split and colonize it with support lent by local counter-revolutionary forces.
But as the global history studies on the Civil War and intervention indicate, counter-revolution was being defeated on the battlefield because it was being let down by its foreign allies. Under the pressure of their internal movements who put forward slogans like «Keep your hands off Soviet Russia!» military deliveries were being called off shortly before decisive battles.[219] Admiral A. Kolchak, (who was the potential head of the multinational “elitist” imperial Nazism if the counter-revolution had got the upper hand), was betrayed by the interventionists following a direct order from their masonry superiors. He was handed over to the revolutionary authorities that did not hesitate in doing away with him quickly.
The Civil War’s last front in Russia was actually the Crimean front fought against baron P. Vrangel. M. Frunze gave his word of honor to preserve the life of those who would yield themselves prisoner. After P.Vrangel fled abroad the Crimean formation stopped resisting and surrendered in an organized way. Immediately after that M. Frunze by order of the high command was transferred to a new appointment. In his absence the internazis (it was exactly internazis who organized that military crime: Sklyansky, Zalkind (Zemlyachka), Bella Kun) killed 50,000 imprisoned White army officers in the Crimea. They broke the promises of preserving the life of prisoners of war thereby depriving Bolsheviks of potential managerial personnel whose effort would be directed to the nation’s benefit.[220] This incident is nothing exceptional. It is among the last in a whole series of similar incidents that took place in the course of the Civil war. In the course of war mass destruction, in some places amounting to complete destruction, of the former ruling “elite’s” representatives together with their families (including children) was a customary phenomenon. The victims of such massacres engaged in no anti-Soviet activities whatsoever. Along with that there were so many Hebrews among the VChK’s (National Emergency and Security Committee) executive staff, both in central and peripheral divisions (especially in the Ukraine), that the VChK of the time could be considered as a prototype of Hitler’s Gestapo only in its Hebrewish variant.
