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: 19 (всего у книги 32 страниц)
It should be remarked that in his “Critique of the Gotha Program”, where it is no longer capitalism that he is investigating, but, among other things, the first phase of communist society, Marx recognizes labour contributed to society for extension of production, for education and public health, for administrative expenses, for building up reserves, etc., to be just as necessary as the labour expended to supply the consumption requirements of the working class». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 2. “Commodity Production under Socialism”).
We’ll let the issue concerning commodity production and the market in the socialist state planned economics pass. Instead we’ll concentrate on the sense of the rest of the extract. If we cast away from Marxian Political Economy such notions as «necessary» and «surplus» labor, «necessary» and «surplus» product, «necessary» and «surplus» time as Stalin bluntly suggests, it … will fall to pieces. As a result of it Marxism will collapse as well, because its Political Economy is a product of its philosophy. As a consequence Political Economy break-up will inevitably entail the philosophy revision, and hence – sociology revision on the whole as well as revision of the system of representations of global civilization history and its outlook.
But on the whole socialist society needs Economic Theory and Sociology. Beginning with as though accidental suggestion, which is actually murderous for Marxism, to cast away all the Marxian Political Economy conceptual categories he enumerated, Stalin finishes the part we have cited giving direct instructions to scientists – to work out a completely new economic theory, which would be in line with life and social wants of economics control:
«I think that our economists should put an end to this in congruity between the old concepts and the new state of affairs in our socialist country, by replacing the old concepts with new ones that correspond to the new situation.
We could tolerate this incongruity for a certain period, but the time has come to put an end to it (put in bold type by the authors)». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 2. “Commodity Production under Socialism”).
But there may arise the question: how must we understand Stalin’s direct references to K. Marx, which are situated between the suggestion to cast away all the Marxian Political Economy conceptual categories and the suggestion to scientists to work out an economic theory, which would be in line with the real life?
In this connection it’s good to remember that J.V. Stalin used to be a seminarist, and in the seminary he studied quotation-dogmatic philosophy, which works on the principle «if there arises a question – look for a pertinent quotation in authoritative sources»[359]. In order to be a good dogmatist-quotationist it’s necessary to know and remember well works by philosophical school founders and their pupils – commentators and successors, who by tradition are recognized as legitimate authorities.
But if classics raised to the rank of infallible authorities are mistaken in something or haven’t examined some question, then quotation-dogmatic philosophy fails to solve problems emerging in life. But already in his youth Stalin surmounted this quotation-dogmatic philosophy scantiness. This becomes apparent in his works – he could easily express his thoughts in the form of succession of quotations from universally recognized texts, joining different quotations with his own words, giving his words the mission of control over the sense of the composite text containing quotations.
The given extract from Stalin’s work with references to K. Marx and to his works, where K. Marx examined something and came to some conclusions, won’t lose its sense minus references to K. Marx and just with the narration left. In other words it is the sense that is important and not the fact whether K. Marx or somebody else made any conclusions regarding some certain questions or not. This also concerns the first cited extract speaking about objective character of laws of science and subjectivism of their application including society economic life control. But the fact that Stalin cites K. Marx gives the impression that “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” belongs to Marxian literature.
Though on the whole it’s anti-Marxian propaganda. The point is that understanding of such kind of texts depends upon the reader: ones who just read and memorize words without thinking about their connection with the real life – don’t care what the words are about. And those who honestly want to understand the life, but under conditions of Marxism cult domination over society face with obtrusion of Marxian viewpoint model, are statistically fated to come to the question: «Why have the notions (categories) named by Stalin become out of place in Political Economy?»[360] And if they are unshaken in their purposefulness and find the answer – they won’t become Marxists, but liberators of the society from Marxism power and its backstage masters.
And the answer to this question is simple and has its origin in the natural up to childish naivety practical question, which once a thoughtful student of some natural-scientific or technical faculty will inevitably ask himself or his teacher of Marxian Political Economy: «How can one measure «necessary» and «surplus» labor time in real production activity, how can one distinguish and separate a «necessary» product from a «surplus» one in a warehouse? – there are no answers to such questions neither in Marxism nor out of it.
Absence of answers to these questions means Marxian Political Economy metrological groundlessness: there are no objective phenomena at the heart of its notions[361], or characteristics chosen for objective phenomena description defy identification and measuring in the real life. All true sciences are metrologically valid: the phenomena they study do exist, and objective phenomena characteristics confronted with their conceptual mechanism can be objectively identified and measured. Only pseudo-sciences including Marxism are metrologically baseless.
If Stalin had said directly that Marxism was pseudo-science, the society stupefied by Marxism cult would have hardly agreed with him[362]; most members of the society, who didn’t want to take care and responsibility, who didn’t want to think themselves, would have rather agreed with loyal Marxists-psycho-Trotskyites, who would have palmed an explanation, which wouldn’t oblige to re-comprehend life, off on them. For example, something like: comrade Stalin has overworked himself, he’s got a nervous breakdown, as a result of it his conceptions have become inadequate, therefore he should be relieved of his work, treated medically, and then taken to a cosy country cottage to have merited rest where «the best doctors» will take care of him. But Stalin said Marxism was a pseudo-science «between the lines»: in the stream of figurative notions present in the text. Someone didn’t notice that, and those who did, didn’t take pains to explain that to others. But this shows that:
“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” is the work, which can be read only by those who feel the life, and whose right-brain (responsible for figurative notions and creative thinking) functions well, and not by itself, but in harmony with the left one (responsible for linguistic forms and logic).
So, in one phrase about Marxian Political Economy conceptual categories Stalin programmed Mar x ism’s collapse; and since «nature abhors a vacuum» – he also programmed elaboration of original ideology in Russia, which would meet the needs of Bolshevist global civilization building.
In other words he actually destroyed Marxism as an ideology. One shouldn’t think that Stalin destroyed Marxism by accident, through his ignorance and intellectual primitivism not realizing the meaning of his own words and not foreseeing consequences of this work publication, as well as many Stalinists and anti-Stalinists of the past and the present didn’t and don’t realize the meaning of his words. Stalin hit Marxism’s underbelly[363]; his blow was aimed, concealed from the enemy and merciless. Ever since Marxism exists as a corpse-zombie: overt Marxists haven’t realized it, and Marxists-«esoterics», who are guided by a different ideology from the beginning and just use Marxism as a cover for their actions, don’t hurry to share this bad news with their «flock».
In “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” there’s the following extremely important part:
«8) Should there be a special chapter in the textbook on Lenin and Stalin as the founders of the political economy of socialism?
I think that the chapter, «The Marxist Theory of Socialism. Founding of the Political Economy of Socialism by V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin», should be excluded from the textbook. It is entirely unnecessary, since it adds nothing, and only colourlessly reiterates what has already been said in greater detail in earlier chapters of the textbook». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 8. “Other Questions”).
In our opinion, fussy contemporaries just drove Stalin to such a state when he could write without sarcasm neither about the present «Marxian study of socialism» and «Socialism Political Economy» as a science, nor about Lenin’s and his role in the creation of this intoxicating verbiage, distribution of which in the society he couldn’t openly prevent alone. But in traditional understanding this work is a gibe at the people who were involved into Stalin’s cult of personality creation. And we believe, people, whose sense of humor and literature style hasn’t grown numb, will agree with our understanding of the given extract.
But there are direct evidences of Stalin’s uneasiness about absence of sociological theory in the USSR, which would meet demands of Socialism and Communism building. A quotation from an interview of R. Kosolapov, published in «Zavtra» («Tomorrow») newspaper № 50 (211), December, 1997, confirms this:
«From the end of 50-s till the beginning of 70-s I had to collaborate with Dmitry Chesnokov, a former member of the Central Committee Presidium[364], who was exiled to Gorky in 1953. Khrushchev couldn’t explain him the reason for that: this is the opinion – and that’s it. This is Chesnokov whom Stalin had told by telephone one or two days before he died:
«You should take up the theory’s further development as soon as possible. We can mix something up in the economy. But we will improve the situation somehow. If we make a mess of the theory, we’ll ruin everything. Without the theory we are dead, dead, dead!» (put in italics by the authors).
As a matter of fact, if Stalin recognizes Marxism as a theory of Socialism and Communism building, he has no reason to convince D. Chesnokov that without the theory Bolshevism’s deed will collapse – «Marx’ study is omnipotent because it is correct» – as comrade Lenin used to say. But if Stalin is sure that Marxism looks crooked, then his appeal to Tchesnokov is a direct instruction to work out an alternative sociological theory, if we remember what is said in “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”: «We could tolerate this incongruity
Besides “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” also includes “Reply to Comrade Alexander Ilyich Notkin”, “Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yarochenko”, “Reply to Comrades A.V. Sanina and V.G. Venzher”[367]. All the works by their implication follow the main idea of the book: Bolshevism needs a sociological theory, which can release the society and all the humanity from the domination of Marxism and its masters’ mafia. But as far as the works are not uniform by their subjects and significance (according to the hierarchy of generalized controlling means priorities[368]), we’ll examine them according to the significance hierarchy of the problems touched upon by Stalin.
6.8.2. To Overcome the Atheism
That is why we are going to continue the analysis of “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, starting with Stalin’s opinion about the mistakes that were made by comrade L.D. Yaroshenko:
«Some time ago the members of the Political Bureau of the C.C.[369], C.P.S.U.(B.) received a letter from Comrade Yaroshenko, dated March 20, 1952, on a number of economic questions which were debated at the November discussion. The author of the letter complains that the basic documents summing up the discussion, and Comrade Stalin's «Remarks», «contain no reflection whatever of the opinion» of Comrade Yaroshenko. Comrade Yaroshenko also suggests in his note that he should be allowed to write a “Political Economy of Socialism”, to be completed in a year or a year and a half, and that he should be given two assistants to help him in the work». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yarochenko”).
As it was said earlier, «to describe Comrade Yaroshenko's opinion in a couple of words, it should be said that it is un-Marxist – and, hence, profoundly erroneous». But if J.V. Stalin really wanted the USSR to come up with a non-Marxist social-science theory, including Political economy, then there is a question:
Why in “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” he openly opposed the suggestion of comrade Yaroshenko of «allowing him to write «Political Economy of Socialism» in a year or year and a half time-period with the help of 2 assistants»?
In other words:
What are the mistakes of comrade Yaroshenko, which have no bea r ing on the matter of his adherence to Marxism?
Having this key question formulated, let’s turn to the text of J.V. Stalin:
«Under socialism, Comrade Yaroshenko says, «men's production relations become part of the organization of the productive forces, as a means, an element of their organization»[370] (“Comrade Yaroshenko's letter to the Political Bureau of the Central Committee”).
If that is so, what is the chief task of the "Political Economy of Socialism"? Comrade Yaroshenko replies: «The chief problem of the Political Economy of Socialism, therefore, is not to investigate the relations of production of the members of socialist society, it is to elaborate and develop a scientific theory of the organization of the productive forces in social production, a theory of the planning of economic development» (“Comrade Yaroshenko's speech in the Plenary Discussion”).
That, in fact, explains why Comrade Yaroshenko is not interested in such economic questions of the socialist system as the existence of different forms of property in our economy, commodity circulation, the law of value, etc., which he believes to be minor questions that only give rise to scholastic disputes. He plainly declares that in his Political Economy of Socialism «disputes as to the role of any particular category of socialist political economy – value, commodity, money, credit, etc., – which very often with us are of a scholastic character, are replaced by a healthy discussion of the rational organization of the productive forces in social production, by a scientific demonstration of the validity of such organization»'[371] (“Comrade Yaroshenko's speech at the Discussion Working Panel”).
In short, political economy without economic problems.
Comrade Yaroshenko thinks that it is enough to arrange a "rational organization of the productive forces," and the transition from socialism to communism will take place without any particular difficulty. He considers that this is quite sufficient for the transition to communism. He plainly declares that «under socialism, the basic struggle for the building of a communist society reduces itself to a struggle for the proper organization of the productive forces and their rational utilization in social production» (“Comrade Yaroshenko's speech in the Plenary Discussion”). Comrade Yaroshenko solemnly proclaims that «Communism is the highest scientific organization of the productive forces in social production».
It appears, then, that the essence of the communist system begins and ends with the «rational organization of the productive forces». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yaroshenko”, part 1. “Comrade Yaroshenko’s Chief Error”).
The last two paragraphs clarify that:
the statement that «communism, bolshevism is in denuding the property of others and dividing it among ourselves» is a vile slander of fools that is a systematic propaganda of Russian mass media and public politicians (including B.N. Eltsin) since 1985 and especially after 1991.
J.V. Stalin was not of the opinion that if the productive spectrum per capita reaches some rather high point, it will automatically bring all-out welfare, prosperity in communism (this remark is for those, who consider communism and bolshevism an earth-fed aspiration of primitives to fill their maw and grab tricks).
Further by the text, Stalin continues taking a more detail view of L.D. Yaroshenko’s ideas and formulates his thought by means of the suitable quotation from Marx’s heritage:
«Marx said:
“In production, men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by cooperating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production take place”». (Karl Marx, “Wage Labour and Capital”, Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 83.)[372].
Revealing himself with the help of this quotation to everyone willing as a true Marxist, J.V. Stalin pursues his thought and readdresses the ideas of L.D. Yaroshenko:
«Consequently, social production consists of two sides, which, although they are inseparably connected, reflect two different categories of relations: the relations of men to nature (productive forces), and the relations of men to one another in the process of production (production relations). Only when both sides of production are present do we have social production, whether it be under the socialist system or under any other social formation.
Comrade Yaroshenko, evidently, is not quite in agreement with Marx. He considers that this postulate of Marx is not applicable to the socialist system. Precisely for this reason he reduces the problem of the Political Economy of Socialism to the rational organization of the productive forces, discarding the production, the economic, relations and severing the productive forces from them.
If we followed Comrade Yaroshenko, therefore, what we would get is, instead of a Marxist political economy, something in the nature of Bogdanov's «Universal Organizing Science».
Hence, starting from the right idea that the productive forces are the most mobile and revolutionary forces of production, Comrade Yaroshenko reduces the idea to an absurdity, to the point of denying the role of the production, the economic, relations under socialism; and instead of a full-blooded social production, what he gets is a lopsided and scraggy technology of production – something in the nature of Bukharin's «technique of social organization». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yaroshenko”, part 1. “Comrade Yaroshenko’s Chief Error”).
One comes to a conclusion that Yaroshenko’s addressing to non-Marxist views in his “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” for J.V. Stalin is only a convenient occasion to warn against mere declamation on the topic of so-thought enough replacement of a conceptually define theory by «a common-sense reasoning about rational organization of the productive forces in the social economics, scientific underpinning of such organization», and against nisus to take purchase on something qualitatively similar to “Universal Organizing Science” of A.A. Bogdanov in the development of the theory.
As for the first point – the so-called «common-sense reasoning» regarding organization of the processes of management and self-management in society in the pace of arising problems – Stalin during decades of his party and state work (especially after 1923 as the party and state power was being concentrated in his hands) has mastered in such kind of common-sense and amiss reasoning, that ran in lexical forms of Marxism and economical science, that conceptual expressed Self-focused mentality of the “elite” of the before-socialist formations. And when this reasoning was of common sense and this was demonstrated in the successes of the USSR economics, they hid actually full and desperate practical and theoretical inequality of Marxism from people who were not in management. J.V. Stalin was obviously not content with such a situation. And he very convincingly showed in his answer if not to comrade Yaroshenko, then to many readers of his work, that having pretensions to soundness of reasoning, that free from «scholastic argues» (i.e. from the necessity to define the meaning of each of the used definitions and their interrelations with each other and life[373]), comrade Yaroshenko in fact is not capable of such reasoning.
It becomes clear, if you understand that Stalin was not a Marxist, and Yaroshenko, understanding neither this fact, nor Marxism in its essence, pretended to creative development of the Marxist theory in the context of new historical circumstances. Accordingly, at the example of comrade Yaroshenko, in the form of criticism of non-Marxist viewpoints J.V. Stalin showed the sterility of attempts of the «creative development of the Marxist theory in the context of new historical circumstances» and turned the laugh against the leaning to «common-sense reasoning», that pretend to change the conceptually defined sustainable theory.
Generally, as the historical reality shows, the so-called «common-sense reasoning»:
either turns into creation of sustainable scientific theories, which do not reject common-sense reasons, but become their backbone in tackling the problems that arise before the society, revealing to the people the possibility of comprehending the problems and their reasons and also the ways and methods of their solving;
or stays a Self-focused schmooze, that is the source of life for, at times, rather large social groups, but is of no good for creation, and therefore can destroy a lot of things if to hang on it in the politics on the state and society[374].
One of the following examples of such kind of the «common-sense» reasoning is academic A.D. Sakharov (under the physiological dictate E. Bonner) and the whole dissenting movement that took place in the last decades of the USSR existence[375]: if to suppose that their goal was to destroy the USSR in order to drain million people dry and rule over them, and be parasitic on their labor and life, then A.D. Sakharov and his companions are just scoundrels; but if they hoped that after the downfall of the bureaucratic regime in the forms of nationality of the Soviet power all in the social life will go on «on its own» to the pleasure of everybody (i.e. there would be neither homeless, beggars, living at dump piles[376], nor seats of Civil War, and such social intestine calamities that took no place on the USSR, at least in the periods of its peaceful life) then they are fools, that were «deceived» and used by scoundrels, who stayed at the backstage of the following events.
However, in the foundation of such kind of foolishness is abiding ethics. In other words if academic Sakharov is someone’s conscience, then it is a very sick and perverted one. An earlier but a matter of record example of such «common-sense» reasoning on the topics of history and sociology is «Mein Kampf» by A. Hitler. In all appearance J.V. Stalin actively desired to see the nations of the USSR free from the power of such kind «common-sense» reasoning that ruled them and their fates.
Therefore a question about “Universal Organizing Science” by A.A. Bogdanov touched upon by Stalin is more significant, than just non-Marxist ideas of comrade Yaroshenko and his tendency to «common-sense» reasoning, that pretend to change the conceptually defined sustainable theory, becoming a matter of allusion of problematic of universal organizing science as such. And this is also a question of «conspiracies» [377] in the general context of “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”.
A.A. Bogdanov – Malinovsky (real last name) Alexander Alexandrovich (1873 – 1928) is an economist, philosopher, natural scientist, political leader, and fantasist; since 1896 until 1903 – a member of social-democratic party, joined the Bolsheviks. His views in many ways were of a non-Marxist character. In 1909 he dropped out of the party. In the following years linked up with different party groups. After the Great October social Revolution he gradually drew back from the politics and devoted himself to the scientific work (his basic education was medical). He is the organizer and the director (since 1926) of the first in the world Blood Transfusion Institution, that later was named after him. Malinovsky died on April 7, 1928 during the experiment on blood transfusion that he tried on himself (biographical background is based on the article about A.A. Bogdanov from the “Big Soviet Encyclopedia” (BSE), 3 edition, book 3, p. 442, 443).
Among the scientific inheritance of A.A. Bogdanov during all this time “Universal Organizing Science” or according to its other name “Tectology” is the most interesting point. As the aforementioned encyclopedia article runs, A.A. Bogdanov was one of the «pioneers of the systematic approach in the modern science. In the series of the latest research works of soviet and foreign authors it is noted that some of the statements of Tectology anticipated the ideas of cybernetics (the principle of the feedback, the idea of modeling, etc)».
“Universal Organizing Science” – is a huge in volume ideological tractate, many educated people have heard about it, but only few read it, among all because it contains non-Marxist ideas and in the Soviet times it was not republished[378], and it could be found only in the special storages of the leading scientific libraries or few in number in the family libraries. It represents an attempt to fetch away from the power of Marxism over the man’s understanding of the world, its essence being based on the version of The Sufficiently common theory of control in the terms of A.A. Bogdanov.
But J.V. Stalin found this attempt unsuccessful and was right[379]. Those who do not agree with Stalin on this point may find all three books of “Tectology: Universal Organizing Science” and start to study and apperceive them. They are not the first ones: after the downfall of the cult of Marxism in the USSR, many take this way, those who understand that the science about management is the key to everything. But before taking this way it is worth seeing what those who have already studied and learned some things from «Tectology» have to say.
In the Internet there is a paper work titled «48 Thesis of “Tectology” by А.А. Bogdanov»[380]. As the author of this paper says, his goal «includes brief representation, in tabloid form of the essentials of Bogdanov’s work, which he considered his lifework – “Tectology. Universal Organizing Science” (1913 – 1922)». Let us turn to the paper work:
«1. “Any human activity objectively is of an organization or disorganization character” (p. 19)[381]. and it may be viewed as a material for organizational experiment. Organizational activity of a man directed on rearranging the surrounding world according to his needs. Mankind however, are not united in their organizational activity, which creates disorganizational activity that is the result of the clash of different organizational processes.
This is the organizational view of the world.
2. “Nature – is the first great organizer” (p. 22). The last achievements of natural sciences make the view that all the natural phenomena, alive and static, are organizational and well-founded. From this the understanding of organizational experience expands to the world total combination of organizational and disorganizational processes.
3. Similarity of the organizational arrangement, that is inherent in different natural systems and the possibility of a man to adopt this principals in his activity bring us to the thought about the entity of the organizational methods, that are inherent in the world in all its displays, monism of the world arrangement.
4. The entity of the organizational methods brings us to the necessity of creating a new science for their summarizing. The organizational experience should be investigated and used for the benefit of the humanity» (the aforementioned paper work, thesis 1 – 4).
Although we are not familiar with any commentaries of J.V. Stalin about «Universal Organizing Science» of A.A. Bogdanov, as the first four theses of the “Tectology”, given by the author of the paperwork, show that objectively Stalin was right in his rejection of such kind of morally diluted «scientific and theoretic» basis for development of the socially needed social theory, including its economical component[382].
