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: 20 (всего у книги 32 страниц)
Those theses of the “Tectology” that are given by the author of the paperwork express Self-focused (anthropo-focused[383]) atheism of the material kind[384]. And this is a rather sufficient reason for not accepting “Tectology” of A.A. Bogdanov as a sustainable standard of understanding the universe. This understanding should be achieved by all intellectual people in their development by the time of they maturity.
If to judge according to what we know about the life of
A.A. Bogdanov, he was a sincere man, who didn’t accept any oppression against individual (that is why he had conflict in his inner party hierarchy in Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and had to leave the politics), he was ready to sacrifice his life for the life of other people (and he proved this readiness by the way he died during the medical experiment). But justly refusing the leading in Russia cultic forms of idealistic atheism, A.A. Bogdanov however could not dramatize in Life and comprehend the manifestation of All-power of God. That is why he could not overcome atheism as such, which he absorbed with culture. As the result of this circumstance, accusations in mechanistic, which in fact is an accusation in the moral petrifying (immorality: mechanisms have no morals, though they reflect the morals of their creators) that is voiced by many in this or that form against his version of universal organizing science as such is also fair.
A man as a person and humanity in the whole is a barer of this or that but rather definite, objectively native to him, moral. But besides this, he is free to re-comprehend his existent moral and having this re-comprehension as a foundation he is free to create his future moral. This is about personal and panhuman moral that is fixed by neo-sphere as a present bottom-line of life of mankind; every person makes a contribution to it in the form of a thought-over well-directed or inane input.
Just because “Universal Organizing Science” of A.A. Bogdanov is morally petrified, and as a result it may present evil morals and immorality of a subject and communities as an objective fact that is free and independent on their intentions and will; it is so attractive for Self-focused outlook that is a characteristic of many central figures of the modern science. In their opinion what important is the scientific result that is acclaimed in the «scientific communities» and which in its essence is the only characteristic of the human virtue of the personality of the researcher, and as for all the other characteristics and his morals, they are not other people’s business and they do not concern the science as the process of study and managing the circumstances of life of the societies and people[385]. The fact that the scientific result and the possible practice of its appliance are most of all conditioned by the morals of the researcher is a fact (this is true about all the other activities of every person and a collective: trivial or professional). Comprehension and understanding of this is especially difficult for flourishing in the historically formed circumstances scientists (and the leaders of other branches) – bearers of Self-focused conception.
Because of being morally petrified «general» organizational science in the version given by A.A. Bogdanov is absolutely not general and therefore is unable to tackle the problem of overcoming estrangement of specialization of sciences, which is a characteristic of a presently ruling culture, though this aim was in his times put up by
A.A. Bogdanov, and the author of the paper in question made it his 5th thesis:
«5. Different forms of common mentality in this or that extent are inhere the organizational view of the world. Largely what is said refers to Philosophy, which is nonetheless “did not realize its dependence on the reality of life” (p. 64). Impediment to the true learning of the organizational experience is the specialization of sciences that prohibits “integral formulation of the question” (p. 65). It is high time to overcome this impediment. “New, universal organizing science we are going to call «tectology», its … translation from Greek means «discipline about building»” (p. 66)» «48 Thesis of “Tectology” by А.А. Bogdanov»).
The thing is that in the morally petrified “general” organizational science there is no place for Psychology, that directly or indirectly deals with morals of people and collectives and changes of morals under the pressure of circumstances and under the influence of will of the people themselves as a result of their reconsidering the life and in their applied appendix – with the adjustment and disorder of algorithms of peoples mind, collectives, societies and the global civilization in the whole. As an addition to this case – in «tectology» there is no place for History as well, because historical science, insensible to moral-esthetic changes, turns into a senseless in its nature, closed-up «bookkeeping» of archeological memorials, texts, facts. Thereof:
Universal Organizing Science may be only relatively right moral-conditioned theory of social control, which has ways out, connections with Psychology in entity of specific life of psychological theory and psychological practice, and with History, and consequently (and this is the main thing) with the political script-writing for future.
Only in this case knowledge and skills, that make up the essence of the private sciences and crafts, become an attachment to the single for all human core of any personality and do not change the core of the personality, which dissociate the society, sciences, crafts and all kinds of people’s activities in the social life, including family, generating many conflicts. But «tectology» due to being morally petrified is not able to overcome this dissociation; otherwise those scientists who were morally petrified would not have referred to it as the deceased academician N.N. Moiseev.
Stalin thinking of comrade Yaroshenko’s ideas as of the kind of «tectology», accuses him basically for the same – for rejecting the role of the productive, economical relations of people: «intellectuals» that do not use right-brain always forget that political economical theories always deal with the interaction of people, with their morals and ethics. Exactly in the result of such obvious and unobvious putting people’s moral and God’s righteousness[386] beyond the scope of research instead of political economy and sociology in the whole, that are clearly morally conditioned, we get a lopsided and fleshless technology and mechanical organization of production and consumption. It is expressed in a more broad way in the phrase:
How many of these beasts do we need and how much do these beasts need so that we could have all to our hearts’ content?
But this anti-humane nature of morals and ethics of sociologists, economists, public and backstage politics may be veiled for its evident foolishness or hypocritical cynicism by rather goodly speculations on «human rights», «socially-oriented market economy», «civil society», etc.
Some may still think that due to his intellectual primitivism and ignorance (that are assigned to him by permissively-individualistic, so-called «liberal» tradition of interpretation of the world) Stalin was not able to comprehend the heights of the tectological thought, that is expressed in such a literary language:
«17. Desingression is something opposite to ingression. “In the ingression of activity, those that were not connected before – connect, forming ‘a bond’ of conjugating complexes; in desgression they are mutually paralyzed, what leads to the establishing a ‘border’, i.e. separation” (p. 121, footnote). At the full neutralization of activity there is a full desingression that is accompanied with the establishing of tectological border and dissociation of complexes. Medium elements are implanted on lines of cyclic resistance between the complexes»[387] (aforementioned paperwork «48 Theses of “Tectology” by A.A. Bogdanov»).
But Stalin’s evaluation of different kinds of morally petrified «tectological» approaches to the economical life of society is the case when morally-conditioned, right in its essence result is important; no matter whether it is accomplished as a bottom-line of long accumulation and study of facts, formulation and apperceiving of terminological conceptual and on their basis reasoning in the course of some intellectual activity culture or it is accomplished momentarily as an effulgent flash of intuition.
As any person in all his activity Stalin had a border that limited what he understood clearly and what were beyond his understanding and were conditioned by interaction of his mentality on the subconscious levels with aggregors[388] with the mentality of others subjects, guidance from Above[389]. This deals with accomplished events (including the evaluation of «tectology»), as well as present events and providence.
But no matter where was the boarder in the Stalin’s activity, he expressed God’s Providence[390] supporting Bolsheviks in a couple of phrases in the pseudo-Marxist text where he preprogrammed the end of the Marxism and in a matrix way excided the possibility of the future need of Bolsheviks of some morally petrified atheistic «general» organizational science.
6.8.3. To solve the problems.
Having cleared out these principal worldview issues, let us get back to the essence of Stalin’s work in question. J.V. Stalin is precise about choosing its title “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” avoiding phrases like “Guidance on Managing the Socialist Economy on the Way to Communism”. This very subject-matter of UNSOLVED PROBLEMS including inappropriate Marxism and Tectology which prevent the further establishment of socialism and communism is the core of “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”.
What J.V. Stalin in his “Remarks” says seems enough if we base our world understanding on Marxism. But having once stated his standpoint on the problem in the “Remarks” he repeats himself twice in his answers to A. Notkin’s letter and A. Sanina and V. Venzher’s letter. That is why if you aim at understanding economic procedures and their management while reading “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” it is inevitable that the following question arises:
What was the purpose for Stalin’s including his answers to the two letters into the book? He just repeats the ideas stated quite clearly in the «Comments on the Economic Problems…» often quoting himself.
The answer to this question which is of great importance nowadays can be given neither on the basis of Marxism with its restrictions nor on the basis of the I-centered proprietorial world understanding of Capitalism. It cannot be given without consideration of the text of “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” from a historical point of view either.
To answer the question one should exceed the bounds of Marxism, for on the ground of its “elitist”-Marxist «esoteric» world understanding, the problems that J.V. Stalin writes about seem detached from real economic life. They appear to be of any importance only for the system of propaganda as a system of suppressing members of society’s mind and political will with certain opinions. That is the foundation of the ruling oligarchy in any crowd-“elitism”. Based on the world understanding of a crowd sincerely believing in Marxism, these problems seem to be solved by J. Stalin, the great leader and wise teacher of the Soviet people. From the position of the I-centered world understanding and the worldview of proprietorial capitalist entrepreneurs, the things that Stalin calls problems can be taken as defeatism and impossibility for socialist ideals and later on for communist ones to come true. They might be morally and ethically unprepared to solve such problems. It is this possibility that Stalin’s warning against risk of defeatism, made at the Central Committee plenum of October 1952, correlates with:
Without developing people’s world understanding and worldview proper economic problems of Socialism, i.e. problems of management and self-management organization in national economy, cannot be solved. The statement has been proved by the subsequent history of the USSR and former Soviet republics including Russia.
We have showed that there are «beacons» in “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” that enable a thoughtful reader to define the direction of development of his/her world understanding and worldview and to correlate it with the world understanding and the worldview prevailing in society. This view is “automatically” reproduced in the succession of generations through culture and noosphere.
Besides in order to get an answer to the question we have to get back to the historical reality of the period from 1930 to the early 1950s.
Let us begin with the fact that J.V. Stalin knew well that the USA Capitalism was not the free market capitalism of private enterprise in the field of production and trade as described by K. Marx in his “Capital” and F. Engels in his “Anti-Dühring”, without taking into consideration the banking system and stock exchanges. It was not the Capitalism of state monopoly that Lenin tried to describe in his work “Imperialism as the Sublimity of Capitalism” either.
In particular it was not the freedom of private enterprise and market self-regulation that helped the USA fight the Great Depression, which began after stock market crash of 1929. It was limiting the freedom of market self-regulation while organizing state control of their multiindustrial system of production and consumption under the direction of president Franklin Delano Roosevelt (30.01.1882 – 12.04.1945). Following the state plan during World War II the USA met the demands of the population without restraining much their habitual mode of living, as well as the demands of the Armed Forces waging a cruel and costly[391] war against Japan over the Pacific Ocean. Besides they provided military and industrial equipment, foodstuffs and transportation for the Anti-Hitler Coalition allies[392]. Moreover during the war the USA carried out a directory guided project of creating nuclear weapons. State and private companies of almost all industries participated in it, often unaware of it.
The same things happened in Germany and even to a greater degree. The planned beginning of action on a national scale was one of the factors to enable Hitlerism regime to lead the country out of the economic crisis that broke out in 1929 because of the «liberal» regime of «the Weimar Republic» including «liberalism» in economy. Without a planned beginning on a national scale, introduced into the economy by Hitlerism regime, neither Germany’s preparation for the war with the reached military and economic power, nor its resistance to the Anti-Hitler Coalition (to the USSR mainly) during World War II could be possible. It had proceeded for almost four years beginning from June 22, 1941. The preceding events can be considered the period of Germany getting involved into the war.
At the same time Germany, unlike the USSR, suffered from lack of raw materials and almost complete foreign trade isolation during the war but for robbing Europe enslaved by Germany. Therefore the country had to work, to develop production facilities and up-to-date aircraft and tanks. Germany was just about to complete the program of rearmament air forces with jet-planes. The country added to its armory missile weapons of strategically tactical work range (cruise missiles FAU-1 and ballistic missiles FAU-2); they kept working at intercontinental ballistic missiles and enabling missiles to take-off from submarines. They carried out their own program of nuclear weapon making. It is a case for another investigation to find out the causes for their being late for the end of the war.
These well-known facts[393] proved that a planned beginning on a national scale suits in a way market regulation of capitalist states, at least the most advanced of them, without breaking the rules of a crowd-“elitism” organization of Capitalism[394].
As everybody knows in the post-war period the USSR was mastering scientific and technical progress of the Third Reich and the USA the USSR copied the American bomber B-29 which is a nuclear weapon carrier, studied and put into practice their specimen of various electronics. The Soviet nuclear project was not accomplished without studying American achievements that became available due to L. Beria himself and intelligence services’ work. The first post-war engines for jet-planes were copies and modifications of captured German materials. After the war Verner von Brown, German missiles’ creator, moved to the USA and worked there, but some of his developments reached the USSR and were examined working out Soviet missiles, for German proving ground and leading plant were located on the territory of Poland. Both military and domestic products were studied and copied.
During the war Germany suffered from lack of raw materials and almost complete foreign trade isolation, from cessation of scientific and technical information exchange, from brain-drain because of the immigration of many scientists and engineers related to Jewry, and from sabotage organized by Hitlerism regime antagonists in Germany and subordinate Europe. Still many products of the kind appeared in Germany. Some of them excelled the progress of Anti-Hitler Coalition decades. It was evident for many people it was not only the consequence of the fact that the Nazi regime was based on the traditional German culture which had encouraged education, raising the level of one’s skill, inventiveness and conscientious industry for centuries. It was also the result of the high quality of resources management provided by the Third Reich government, including uncovering and making use of diverse creative potential of its population.
The system of economy management and self-regulation created by the Nazi regime was put to evil ends by this very regime. Nevertheless it was a very effective producing and distributing system that would not be less effective when set to realize other goals. Its efficacy was achieved by a combination of the state planned beginning of defining the range of production and distribution of resources among projects first of all, and secondly among industries, and the market mechanism that kept the make-out of enterprises at the highest level due to reducing production expenses and costs.
We have cited the quality evaluation of macroeconomic systems of developed countries of 1930 – 1940s by well-known facts, which characterize them integrally. One should bear it in mind that several Soviet intelligence departments also effected a detailed interpretation and analysis of global political and economic proceedings and the situation in other countries. Analysts of any high-leveled intelligence service do not depend on prevailing or promoted ideologies or «public opinion» that they sometimes form themselves. That is why in the inner world of secret services they touch upon issues that cannot be discussed by ordinary people without being afraid of punishment. Calling things by their proper names they go as far as terminology, mastered by society and secret services, and «self-censorship» of crowd-“elitism” permit. It is another question whether their opinions will be made public and in what way they will be expressed.
Some of the USSR secret services worked for J.V. Stalin in person. That is why Stalin knew facts; he read analytical reviews that reached him through the system of «self-censorship» and personnel guardianship of him. They made it clear that a planned state beginning penetrates economy management of developed capitalist countries keeping market mechanisms of economy self-regulation, and thus enhancing labor productivity. It increased stability of the capitalist system in general, without enlarging hugely the number of bureaucracy as a burden for the producing and distributing system.
Looking back we are not trying to present J.V. Stalin more clever and far-sighted than he really was. But in his works he did write about the question of introducing a planned state beginning on a national scale into capitalist economy. In “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” we can find the following lines:
«4) Coalescence of the monopolies with the state machine.
The word "coalescence" is not appropriate. It superficially and descriptively (put in bold type by the authors) notes the process of merging of the monopolies with the state, but it does not reveal the economic import of this process. The fact of the matter is that the merging process is not simply a process of coalescence, but the subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies (put in bold type by the authors). The word «coalescence» should therefore be discarded and replaced by the words «subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies». (“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 the given fragment J.V. Stalin does not seem to say anything about planning on a national scale under the conditions of Capitalism, but the following question arises:
What happens in the process of the so-called «coalescence of m o nopolies with the State machinery» or to be more exact, in the process of «submission of the State machinery to monopolies»?
If we imagine the activity of monopolies’ management and the State machinery, we can easily find the answer to the question:
A planned beginning means culture of development planning and production organization, new products’ development planning and organization, existing within intra-industry monopolies and multi-industry concerns in a capitalist society[395]. When it exhausts its capabilities to enlarge capitalists’ profits, it begins working in a new field that is production planning and organization on a national and transnational scale. Consequently monopolies’ managements have to subjugate by any means the State machinery. Under the pressure of monopolies’ managements the State machinery in its turn has to organize economic planning on a national scale for the sake of monopolies, to be exact for the sake of capitalists, monopolies’ owners[396].
Now this process has gone so far that nations under the pressure of transnational monopolies establish transnational planning bodies like International Monetary Fund, World Bank and others. They abandon their independence in national economy politics and finances more and more. But they prefer to avoid the term «planning» lest a number of private entrepreneurs and common people should think about the way the states are made to realize the plans and control their implementation on a global scale, and about the objective purposes of it[397].
Those were the external economic circumstances of developed capitalist countries that J.V. Stalin correlated the Soviet social and economic life with, and thought about the prospects.
By the end of 1950s multi-industry producing and distributing system of the USSR in general had been successfully developing[398] for a quarter of a century. The management was effective enough for:
Preparing the USSR for the war;
Winning the Great Patriotic War that was one of the hardest wars possible;
Repairing war damage and eliminating the USA monopoly in the field of nuclear weapons within five post-war years;
Leading the world in education of the population.
It was possible because the pace of social and economic development in the USSR during the years of Stalin’s Bolshevism was the fastest in the world, in spite of the sabotage of Socialism adversaries, acts of which occurred all over this period.
Consequently the USSR was the first country of Europe, that had been through the war, to abolish the rationing system of product distribution. The USSR was the first to repair war damage, though Hitlerists and later on our former allies hoped that it would take the USSR over 20 years. The fact that European countries were still supported by the USA on the ground of the «Marshall Plan», while the USSR restored national economy on its own did not prevent it. Moreover the USSR did everything possible to help other states that had chosen Socialism as their path of development. Just the assistance to the peoples of China with the initial industrialization and founding of scientific and technical schools cost very much.
At the same time by the end of 1950s industries determined by the number of population reached the level of maximum sufficiency in the USSR. Everybody could get education including higher education, medical care of high quality according to the standards of the time, food and clothing. There were no unemployed or homeless people, nobody boarding at garbage dumps. People had time for rest and personal development. The population of the USSR did not have a grievance against the range of supply and the quality of products, though it did not meet the “elite” consumer standards[399] of developed capitalist countries. It met the common standards of most of the people and was better than that of 1913 that they still remembered well. The level of social protection of a person was higher than in any capitalist country[400].
But further development of quality and quantity of production came into question. It was the result of the fact that national economy management had been based only on personal and addressing distrib u tion of directive and checking information.
The so-called “elitarization” of professional managers that was in many aspects influenced by noosphere and culture inherited from the past. Though it would be wrong to blame everything on the «automatic» impact of noosphere and culture. Owing to the “elitarization” state officers’ aspirations of personal and family wealth displaced objectives suiting social interests[401], in their behavior motivation at work. As a result of the orientation toward their selfish momentary needs the body of professional managers “elitarized” presently losing the understanding of the pint of those technological, organizational and general social matters that used to be under their control. They would become to them.
As a result of the decline in managers’ qualification and necessity to provide management the body grew in number faster than production. Presently it turned into a gang of dumb bureaucrats that parasitized on management processes and the life of society. It characterizes bureaucracy of the State machine as well as bureaucracy of other spheres of social life: spheres of the state organization, economy, education and science[402].
In the USSR both: abstract and applied science including design developments became the sphere of clannish mafia bureaucracy. It promised no good. J. Stalin also directly indicated the risk of clannish mafia bureaucratic degeneration of science:
«Question: Was “Pravda”[403] right to open a free discussion over the issues of linguistics?
Answer: It was right.
The way the problems of linguistics will be solved shall become clear by the end of the discussion. Now we can be sure that the discussion has brought much good.
First of all the discussion showed that in linguistics institutions both in the center and in republics there ruled a regime that in not characteristic of science and scientists. The slightest criticism of the present situation in the Soviet linguistics, even the most fragile attempts to criticize the so-called “new teaching” in linguistics were persecuted by the ruling linguistic groups. Valued researchers would be ousted or demoted for their critics of the heritage of N. Marr, for a slightest dissent with his teaching. Linguists used to be promoted not by their professional qualities, but by their implicit recognition of N. Marr’s teaching.
It is universally acknowledged that no science can develop and succeed without divergence of opinions and the freedom of critics. But this universally acknowledged rule was ignored and violated most impudently. There appeared a group of leaders without a sin that began to act willfully and outrageously, having secured themselves against any critics». – Here we cite the final pages of J. Stalin’s work “Marxism and questions of linguistics”[404] (“Pravda”, June 20, 1950), where he summed up another social and political discussion.
So it would be a lie to argue that J.V. Stalin was admiring himself for the progress the state he governed had made or for his own progress in his career. It would also be wrong to say that he did not see the problem of management inefficiency of the growing and turning bourgeois bureaucracy or did not try to find means and ways of solving this problem.
Here in chapter 6.7 we cited K. Simonov’s story about J. Stalin’s speech on the plenum of the Central Committee of October, 1952. It was belated and contained some libelous estimations of J.V. Stalin in the spirit of Khrushchev’s period imposing an idiotic «understanding» of history on everybody. The story was also one of the showings that J. Stalin was satisfied with neither anti-communist movements that grew stronger, nor with his personal position and his «associates» who belonged to parasitically regenerating[405] bureaucracy, inefficient from the point of view of management. Besides from the middle of 1920s till the end of 1930s L. Trotsky[406] constantly pointed to the bureaucratization of life in the USSR. No matter how Stalin treated Marxism in general, but being well-read in Marxism literature he knew that Marx was right giving his definition of bureaucracy as a phenomenon of life of crowd-“elitism” but for the last phrase. Here is this sociology term definition given by K. Marx:
«Bureaucracy is a circle that nobody can escape from. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The upper stratum relies in lower ones when the matter concerns knowledge of particulars. Lower strata rely on the upper one when it concerns general understanding, so they mislead each other mutually.[…] the universal spirit of bureaucracy is a secret, a sacrament. Complying with this sacrament is secured in its own environment by the hierarchic organization. Regarding the outward world
