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: 30 (всего у книги 32 страниц)
[326] The question of relieving J.V. Stalin of a part of his functions. K. Simonov talks about it further in detail.
[327] It’s distressing to die being a psychical-Trotskyite who hasn’t done his duty to the future.
[328] I.e. J.V. Stalin thought it necessary to speak without any pre-arranged text or thesis of his speech, which could become known beforehand to some of his «guardians» from the Central Committee staff.
This could entail frustration of Stalin’s put-up speech to the extent that he could die suddenly during the plenary session or before it and have no chance to speak.
[329] This is admission of the fact that they realized Stalin wasn’t power-seeking, but cared for succession in the work of Bolshevism.
[330] This is one more admission of the fact that Stalin was sincere in his concern for the future and wasn’t power-seeking.
[331] This oblivion of the fact of the matter resulting from reluctance to understand the matter is a characteristic feature of psychical-Trotskyism: neither the content nor the form, nor the meaning of the given information is remembered, but the emotional impression of the event, which is first of all caused by personal morals rather than the events themselves.
[332] If J.V. Stalin had been mistaken in V. Molotov’s personality, then several years after Molotov wouldn’t have appeared to be a member of the «antiparty group» which included «Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and Shepilov, who joined them», that supposedly opposed Khrushchev’s policy directed at resumption of «Lenin’s standards of the party life» and who wanted to resume the order existed in the party and in the state under Stalin. K. Simonov doesn’t remember about it though.
[333] In 1962 in the town of Novocherkassk of the Rostov region mass disorders broke out caused by the rise in foodstuff prices (meat in particular), which followed immediately after the increase in output quotas at the Novocherkassk electric locomotive producing plant. People gathered on the square demanded meeting with A. Mikoyan. A. Mikoyan was secretly in the town at that time, but he didn’t speak to the people. K. Simonov doesn’t remember about this as well (though it’s possible that he didn’t know about Mikoyan’s whereabouts).
Everything came to the end with military units introduction into the town for «pacification» and burst of sub-machine gun fire: there were victims; after the meeting dispersal its «ringleaders» were arrested, prosecuted and shot.
A. Lebed being a teenager was sitting on a tree during the meeting. When the first bursts were fired, other teenagers like Sasha (then), who had been sitting on the same tree a branch upper and a branch lower, fell from the tree lifeless. Sashe fell down safe and sound, but he remembered this episode for all his life. He remembered about it in August 1991 what Muscovites should be obliged to him for.
As for the rise in prices in post-Stalin period, prices are reduced in national economy as the industry spectrum as well as the consumer satisfaction increase, the way it was done under J. Stalin.
In the antinational economy prices rise independently of the industry spectrum dynamics, as the rise in prices depreciates salaries, pensions, savings and thus makes everyone living by his own labor dependant on the system masters. According to this circumstance E. Gaidar and the «Union of the Right Forces» on the whole, A. Chubais, V. Chernomyrdin, A. Livshits and many-many others would better to hold their tongues and not to say they are true exponents of the democratic idea.
[334] These Molotov’s and Mikoyan’s attempts to justify themselves are just usual servility.
[335] This is a description of a zombie, which is most likely to fit their psyche formation. Every person is responsible for his/her psyche formation him-/herself (and not anyone else): if both of them are zombies, then this is their own and not J. Stalin’s fault.
[336] If the cult of his own personality was disagreeable to Stalin, why should he like the «smaller» cult of Molotov’s personality blossoming under the shade of the cult of Stalin’s personality?
[337] Molotov’s wife’s surname – Pearl – sounds in Russian translation as Zhemchuzhina, which became her party pseudonym and then turned into her surname; she was a Jew by birth. If Molotov knuckled under to his wife, she was imprisoned for revealed anti-bolshevist internazi influence she had upon her husband – a member of the CPSU Central Committee, Politburo and the USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs.
About bed-political women and sex-bombs as weapons of mass destruction see the work “From Human Likeness Towards Being a Human” by the IP of the USSR (first published under the heading of «From Matriarchy Towards Being a Human…”).
[338] Later on Malenkov overlooked, didn’t sense something, thus he found himself in the «antiparty group» together with Molotov. But it’s possible that Khrushchev’s neo-Trotskyists, who knew him very well, didn’t take him into their team and preferred to get rid of him including him into the «antiparty group» of Molotov, Kaganovich and Shepilov, who joined them.
[339] The first impression coming out of the depth of mind, as statistics shows, is in most cases very close to the impartially true one. Everything subsequent is an attempt to justify oneself, an attempt to justify the following Khrushchevism and Brezhnevism, whose nomenclature treated K. Simonov in a quite benevolent way.
[340] I.e. loyal lyric poet K. Simonov was an adherent of the monarchical variant of the power succession provision: where the leader gets a new one inter vivos.
[341] Unlike K. Simonov Malenkov understood that was not necessarily so. And unlike loyal K. Simonov the intra-system mafia was for the second monarchical variant: the «conclave» of «associates» proposes a new leader according to their interests. At the same time they could probably decide when they should bury the former leader. This became apparent in Malenkov’s reaction to Stalin’s suggestion, which would have made the intra-system mafia’s scenario impossible, if there had been Bolsheviks instead of lackeys at the plenary session.
[342] I.e. J.V. Stalin faced the same problem H. Ford had faced, but unlike H. Ford’s problem – Stalin’s one was at the national level:
«But the vast majority of men want to stay put. They want to be led. They want to have everything done for them and to have no responsibility. Therefore, in spite of the great mass of men, the difficulty is not to discover men to advance, but
[343] On this subject see the book: Yu. Mukhin “Murder of Stalin and Beria”, Moscow, «Crimea bridge-9D», «Forum», 2002.
[344] But K. Simonov was the only one of several dozens of participants of the Central Committee plenary session in October 1952 who did it, though 27 years after. However he did it on his deathbed, as he didn’t want to go to a better world with a sin upon his soul: with the sin of concealment of the truth in his lackey silence. He knew the truth, but it was concealed from the rest of the society by the mafia power.
Besides, we should understand, that at the Central Committee plenary session in October 1952 J.V. Stalin didn’t just want to express his ideas supposing that delegates would take them round all the USSR. He really wanted to rely on the inner-Party democracy, but the plenary session participants appeared to be incapable of it. He wanted to see an irreversible result in the life of the party itself, and not only delegates to take his words round the USSR, where they would have no consequences and would soon be forgotten because of the flow of everyday events.
That’s why a similar speech by its matter at one of the sessions of the 19th Congress (which, as it may seem, could have solved the problem of the information expansion in the society in a better way due to a greater number of the participants) didn’t do for J. Stalin’s attempt to rely on the real inner-Party democracy: suppression of the personality by means of psychological gregarious effects would work better in a larger audience. A relatively small plenary session audience could better do for exciting people’s political will – thus in the party there would eventually appear the informal (coming from the people) bolshevist power of simple Party members over the State machinery. But unfortunately it didn’t happen.
[345] «Righteous society made up of rascals», – a proactive characteristic by V. Kluchevsky, which warns about the attempt to introduce a majority of bearers of the crowd-“elitist” psyche algorithmic model into the organizational forms of Socialism. It’s desirable to think of it every time when the matter concerns various abuse of power at the time of Stalin’s Bolshevism.
[346] Subscription publications were distributed almost in the way newspapers and magazines are distributed now by means of subscription. The only difference is that one part of subscription publications was delivered to the customer’s place by post, and the other part was distributed through a network of bookshops, where they took stocks of the subscribers and the receipt of the editions they ordered. Correspondingly, a more-than-one-year delay of the regular volumes edition of the subscription publication of J. Stalin’s works couldn’t but go unnoticed and evoke perplexity in rather large sections of the public in all the USSR cities.
[347] Is it possible that the «all-powerful dictator» didn’t understand what was going on? or he was going to live forever and thus postponed the publication of the final version of his collected «revelations» to chronologically uncertain «next time»?
[348] «We’ve endured too much during the last 15 years», – in this way the US National Security Council directive 20/1 of August 18th, 1948 characterizes the period beginning from 1933, when Trotskyists-internazis’ undivided power in the USSR was broken off by Stalin’s Bolshevism. Extensive extracts from this US National Security Council directive under the name «Our Aims Concerning Russia» are cited in the book «The CIA against the USSR» by N. Yakovlev.
[349] Though a greater part of these works was published in the periodical press, the historical experience proves that books and especially collected works are more effective means of information transmission to descendants than separate periodical editions due to two circumstances: first, books are statistically better preserved on library bookshelves (and first of all in home libraries) than newspapers and magazines; secondly, the concentration of significant information is substantially bigger in books and especially in collected works than in longstanding periodicals filings.
[350] “St-Petersburg vedomosti” of the 10th of March 1992. The article “The CIA Planned to Kill the Father of Peoples” said (with reference to the book “Old Friends: American Elite and the CIA Origins” by historian Burton Hersh) that the CIA director Allen Welsh Dulles approved of the plan of Stalin’s assassination in 1952. From this we can understand that J. Stalin’s influence upon the global policy was a very significant hindrance, as far as such an operation was planned concerning an old man (On the December 6th, 1952 J.V. Stalin was 74. His real date of birth, which is confirmed in church records, is the December 6th, 1878), who, taking into account the state of his health and way of life, had just several years more to live.
[351] The 14th, 15th and 16th volumes of J. Stalin’s works were edited in 1997 in Moscow by the publishers «Writer».
R. Kosolapov prepared and organized the edition of the volumes. During Gorbachev’s reconstruction he filled the post of the chief editor of the theoretical organ of the Central Committee of the CPSU – the magazine «Communist» (we can’t say he «worked at his post», if we correlate what was going on in the country with what was published in the magazine «Communist» when R. Kosolapov was at the head of it). The matter of the 14th – 16th volumes, which continue the edition of J. Stalin’s works, was formed with some additions according to the edition of his works published in the USA for «Sovietologists’» needs. It included 14th – 16th volumes published on the basis of the sample copies of the might-have-been soviet edition, which were found in the USA.
[352] K. Simonov was one of the USSR most erudite cultural workers, and in most cases a man, who had independent and not trite thoughts. However even with such qualities he appeared to be psychologically unready to apprehend that little bit of the social truth, which J.V. Stalin stated in his speech at the Central committee plenary session. His example is one of numerous indices that there are statistically objective limits of information perception by any audience (from one person to the whole mankind). No one who brings information home to people can transgress those limits without causing psychological breakdown of this or that kind: depression, stupor, hysterics directed towards the audience itself or towards other people.
[353] Pier Courtad’s epigraph to the book «About the USSR’s Nature. Totalitarian Complex and a New Empire» by Edgar Moren (Moscow, «Science for the Society», 1995; French edition – Fayard-1983).
1 As an example of presuming «know-alls»’ attitude to the «leader» and his works – people who forgot that due to God’s mercy every nation lives a bit better than it deserves according to its temper and ethics – here is an extract from the article «Goebbels’ Creative Development» by B. Khazanov, published in «Oktyabr’» («October») magazine, № 5, 2002:
«Indeed, a great abasement of our time was that the roles of omnipotent rulers were played by mean, unscrupulous, narrow-minded people with primitive way of thinking and poor cultural background. As Goebbels once said – «Leadership has very little in common with education». He was right. One can talk about Stalin’s striking guile as much as he/she likes, one can wonder at his instinctive understanding of methods and machinery of absolute power – but it’s enough to read the leader’s works to evaluate his closed mind. One can admire Hitler’s ability to hypnotize the crowd – but his chaotic book produces the same lamentable impression as Stalin’s works. There’s nothing common with greatness – it’s a question of remarkable meanness.
Power corrupts its bearer; power lets his vile instincts expand in plenty. But there’s power’s charm. Power – and especially omnipotent power – throws reflection on everything that the ruler does. Platitudes from a tyrant’s lips seem to be insight, vulgarity transforms into profundity of thought, coarse humor turns into sophisticated wit. Harshness, meanness, immorality are interpreted as dictates of the highest necessity. Omnipotence aura makes slaves romanticize the ruler, worship his divine boots. This explains the wish to see the dictator as a great man, in spite of obviousness, or at least imagine him as a demon, raise him to the rank of Antichrist. The thought that we were ruled by a pygmy is unbearable».
– Change the Past Tense onto the Present one in this quotation and you’ll get a text, which would be signed by many representatives of Stalin’s Bolshevism soviet “elite”. But in that epoch they hid such thoughts even from themselves, as they were afraid to fall victims of denunciation from «high-moral know-alls» like themselves. But due to such kind of evaluation of Stalin’s personality and works by Bolshevism opponents the publication of the “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” became possible: «What’s there? – Ooh… new platitudes from the tyrant’s lips… – to be published».
And those who really were ready to lick Stalin’s boots devoutly didn’t care for his thoughts, but for the chance to lick his boot at least once in life – it’s such a good after which you could die happy. Such kinds of moral-psychological types are at enmity with each other just because of the disputes about problem whose boots to lick and about the queue and frequency of licking their idols’ boots.
2 If there’s no understanding of the global history course, then Stalin’s mentioned work is a collection of platitudes and senseless Marxist jabber – this thought is emotionally expressed by B. Khazanov in the extract from his article, which is cited above.
In order to show vivid consistency of our understanding of the «Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR» and absurdness of different opinions about Stalin’s intellectual primitivism, we had to premise parts 6.1 – 6.7 devoted to the USSR history and global politics history of the 20th century, to the present part, in which we analyze Stalin’s work.
[356] During a generation’s life the nation made its way from almost overall illiteracy, plough and splinter to the best education in the world, to industry based on advanced constructions and technologies, was getting ready to the first space flights.
[357] In other words whether God – Creator of Nature (Universe)– exists, or not, and there is just fiction about Him?
[358] The head of state and ruling party leader while during a quarter of the century personally considering almost every project of five-year or annual USSR social and economic development plan, setting tasks for the authors of the plans and projects, he can’t but notice and understand that Marxian Political Economy is a separate entity, and is neither connected with plan working-out process nor with the control process of the plans carrying out.
But if the leader just poses problems «in general» and signs documents worked up by others, putting signature where clerks show, he won’t it even during several decades, as all following USSR leaders didn’t realize that.
[359] I.e. besides people of authority there may be authoritative sources including ones without any definite authorship (for example, the Bible).
[360] On the other hand, Marxism teachers also didn’t like this question, which had no answer in Marxism. As far as they didn’t know the answer, they automatically found themselves in the opposition to Stalin’s version of life interpretation through Marxism.
[361] «Value transfer from means of production to produce» – this is a Marxist Political Economy notion. There’s no such an objective phenomenon in the real life, but there is an accounting procedure of attribution of amortised deductions, which are a legal part of means of production value, to the production price.
[362] Even now, 11 years after the USSR break-up, when Marxism is no more the dogma, many economists and ordinary people support Marxist Political Economy conceptual mechanism: how come there’s no «necessary» labor time? How come there’s no «surplus value»?
[363] Underbelly – due to the fact that the issue concerning the conceptual categories he named is comprehensible for the most general strata of society without any special education.
[364] This institution replaced Political Bureau. Central Committee Presidium was established by the 19th convention and was to control the party in the interim between conventions and preliminary sessions. It was abolished by the Khrushchev regime after J.V. Stalin had been murdered.
[365] One of Lenin’s utterances.
[366] This is real and is happening in Russia now (2002).
[367] Those who think that in Stalin’s epoch there was terrible tyranny should admit that all the named comrades wished to express their views on this or that problem themselves without fear of falling under the article 58 for counter-revolutionary actions, if the «tyrant» didn’t agree with their opinions. None of them was exiled to the concentration camps. L. Yaroshenko, who lived till the Reorganization (Perestroika), even was interviewed and said that Stalin hadn’t understood national economy and economic science problems.
This fact as well as evidences of those who really had worked with Stalin solving different country problems proves that the following Khrushchev’s statement is lie and slander: «Stalin didn’t act by persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by thrusting his ideas on them and demanding strict obedience to his opinion. Those who opposed his opinion or tried to prove their point of view and correctness of their line, were doomed to be dismissed from the office…» (from N. Khrushchev’s «secret» report at the 20 Congress of CPSU convention, which 6 months after was published in the USA, but was concealed from the USSR peoples until Perestroika when «struggle against stalinshchina» (the Stalin’s heritage) began).
But if Khrushchev and the like were ignorant and so pusillanimous, that fear bound their minds to such a degree that it was impossible to convince them of something; and if Socialism and Communism ideals provoked in them subconscious abhorrence and unmotivational aversion, which were directed towards his decisions’ implementation, it’s mean to lay the blame on Stalin for their own ignorance, moral perversity, cowardice and stupidity.
[368] See the «Explanation for the Last Paragraph», which finishes part 6.6.
[369] Central Committee
[370] But if to recollect what H. Ford wrote about the organization of «Ford Motors», it was all the same at his company.
[371] But the reasons can’t be of common sense if there is no definiteness in understanding the terms and in their interrelation with life and with each other, which are the basis for reasoning. And defining the terms is exactly what L.D.Yaroshenko evades.
[372] Footnote to the edition used by Stalin.
[373] In other place Stalin gives the following quotation of Yaroshenko: «Comrade Yaroshenko declares that in his "Political Economy of Socialism," "the categories of political economy – value, commodity, money, credit, etc., – are replaced by a healthy discussion of the rational organization of the productive forces in social production» …»
[374] But there is the third possibility: there are experts of the “common-sense” reasoning whose speeches are intended to confuse others, forming false figurative conceptions about Life phenomena, as a result, those people find themselves dependant on these experts of the “common-sense” reasoning whose figurative conceptions in spite of their words are still consonant to the objective Life phenomena.
[375] At this time in the USSR one could be discontent about one of the two things:
either that socialism was being built in the country;
or that the process of building socialism proceeds along with barbarism and abuse of citizens and authorities, that pervert the essence of the socialism.
The first dissidents destroyed the USSR and started reforms of a bourgeois character. The second wave of «dissidents» finishes the reformations and draws the bottom-line.
[376] Out of the window there are trashcans. In the summer flies skit around them. This anti-sanitary is the built-in part of the architectural-urban style of «khrushchevki» (blocks of tiny low-cost flats that were erected during the time of Khrushchev), it represents the «concern about people» of psychical-Trotsky Khrushchev and Brezhnev’s regime.
The fact that now from sunrise until sunrise these trashcans are watched and investigated by «free» «proprietors» is an accomplishment of Gorbachev’s regime and reforms of Yeltsin and Gaidar. Of course, the tertiary treatment and reprocessing urban ore branch is necessary but we cannot agree that it should be organized in such a way by means of forcing people out of life to the scrap-heap.
In the USSR there was no such a majority of people who were decayed to the life on scrap-heap because of the state politics, neither in its high time, nor in the time of its degradation.
[377] Though some contemporary supporters of «Conspiracy» do not go deep into it.
[378] As a result of searching the Internet we found references only to the following editions:
1. Bogdanov A.A. “Tectology. Universal Organizing Science”, book 1 – 3, S-Petersburg, Moscow-Berlin, 1913 – 1922.
2. Bogdanov A.A. “Tectology. (Universal Organizing Science)” – second edition in 2 books: book 1 – 304 pages, book 2 – 351 pages – Moscow «Economica», 1989.
[379] If it were successful, then after publishing in 1913 the first chapters of this work of A.A. Bogdanov there would have been algorithmic reconstruction of the neo-sphere of the Earth and the problem of overcoming the Marxism would have been solved in some way in the first half of the 20th century. The history of the 20th century would be different.
[380] The author is А. Kitashov, biological department of the Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, the paper work dated by the year of 1995. The address of the paper in the Internet (June 2002): http://1.cellimm.bio.msu.ru/people/cetum/bogdanov.html (in the address “l” – Latin letters, but not the graphical signs for number “1” instead of the first symbol which is “one”).
[381] The author of the paper gives references to the page numbers of the Berlin edition of the “Tectology”, 1922, with the original punctuation, where possible.
[382] Yu.I. Mukhin in the aforementioned book «Murder of Stalin and Beria» (Moscow, «Crimea Bridge-9D», «Forum», 2002) on page 484 cites the lists of the books from Stalin’s library. Among them there are 2 books of A.A. Bogdanov «Brief course of Economics» that were published before the Revolution are mentioned.
[383] I.e. such, where Self-focused conception pretensions to express world-view positions and interests of all mankind.
[384] Those who think that this argument based on the paperwork is not convincing, may turn to the works of A.A. Bogdanov. In particular Self-focused (anthropo-focuced) atheism of a material kind is expressed in his article «A Mystery of Science», which may be found in the Internet and which is included in the catalog «Other authors» in the Information base of the USSR that is distributed on CDs.
[385] «There is no need, let say, to limit goals and subjects of the scientific researches by ethical demands. Ethics accumulates experience of the past life, including (may be even in the first place) experience of past failures. And science is always a search of new possibilities of society development and its adaptation to the surrounding conditions. In seeking (of course, not in use) there shouldn’t be any restrictions!» (From an article of academician N.N.Moiseev and professor of physics and mathematical science I.G.Pospelov «Set of Evolution and Mind», magazine «Priroda» № 6, 1990)
Though the authors write that «the main attribute of evolution process is its unpredictable character», but on the foundation of all the historical experience of crowd-“elitism” self-destruction of humanity is guaranteed, if crowd-“elitism” will still coincide with the absence of ethical restriction for goals and subjects of researches.
Since it is impossible to limit the investigation and use of the knowledge in the society and evil morals of the society will turn into evil any knowledge, then the only protection from this destruction is ethical, and morally conditioned in their essence, restrictions for goals and subjects of the researches that are applied by researchers themselves: scientific knowledge can’t be used for evil until it is not investigated; that is why barbarism of society, that decline the moral and ethical progress is the virtue for itself and for environment.
Let’s continue looking at this question about interrelation of morals and “Tectology” and turn to the edition of «Gorbachev-Fond» (creation of his starting capital is a special matter of moral and ethical and criminal and legal character) “Perestroika. 10 years later” (Moscow, “April-85”, 1995, circulation 2500 copies, i.e. the edition is under the secret classification “For elite only”). Page 159, art critic Andreeva I.A. says the following in a confused way (her self-rating, see p. 156):
«Moral basis – it is high-flown and complicated. But the elements of ethic are quite available to us». It is said after the words of the «physicist» – mathematician and say «ecologist», academic of Russian Academy of Sciences Moiseev N.N., went by the art critic («lyrist»):
«On the top (in the context he speaks about power structure) there may be a scoundrel, a rotter, a place-hunter, but if he is a clever man, many would be forgiven to him, because he would understand that what he does is useful for the state» (p. 148).
– No one said anything against it, in spite of the fact that academic actually identified morally conditioned interests of a clever scoundrel with the interests of the whole country. But it does not scare neither the academic, nor his listeners, because they have become just as immoral or of evil-moral as the scoundrel that are hypothetically in their attention. What scares them? – The academic gives an answer:
«What we were afraid of? We were afraid of what A.A. Bogdanov wrote in his “Tectology”: when some system (organization) appears it brings forth, desirably or not, its own interests. This is what happened with our system. There appeared a certain elite group that practically usurped the property of the great country».
– The academic is lying, because «this certain elite group» did not appear from nothing, it was generated by the principle that was earlier formulated by the academic: It is true that there was a day when clever scoundrels and rotters organized on the basis of Self-focused demonical atheistic moral and expressed their own low and dirty interests in the biblical doctrine of all-enslavement and the development of science that sees no Higher moral, expressed in the life of Creation, cover them up just as N.N.Moiseev did by referring to “Tectology”.
In this way N.N.Moiseev proved the point of J.V. Stalin in his rejection of «tectology» and of relatively similar in quality to it morally petrified atheistic organizational-managing theories to which «cybernetics» belongs as well.
[386] It is expressed in the life of Creation and due the power of its all-embracing character is identified by atheism with «immorality» of Nature. But righteousness is one for all. The difference is only in attitudes to it: it expresses the subjectivism of God and for all the rest, righteousness, as an ideal of their possible morality, is an objective from of Above-predetermined entity.
