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: 31 (всего у книги 32 страниц)
[387] We express hope that freedom-loving intelligentsia (if any of them is reading this text) has understood right away what is said in this thesis, even without reading “Tectology”.
But in our opinion, this terminological conceptual, the sense of which words was clear almost only to the author of “Tectology” – to
A.A. Bogdanov himself, – represents expression of the fact that his understanding of the general organization of Life as such was blurred, fragmentary, kaleidoscope-like. Exactly because of this unclear understanding of laws that were immanent to the analyzed by him «object = object» – Life as such – the volume of the «Tectology» turned out to be of 3 books and its terminological conceptual is rather «exotic» from the point of view of many even educated part of the society. As such «Tectology» of Bogdanov is not more than of a historical and textological interest, since it is easier and more effective to formulate all from the beginning rather than correct its different inaccuracies and errors and add something.
Our practice shows that relatively general theory of management may be formulated in 10 pages with the use of the commonly used terminology of a mathematic and engineering character with some broadening of the meanings of terms, it includes only 9 conceptions that are interconnected and that can always be connected with reality of life. The full text of the constructive materials of the study course of the Relatively general theory of management takes in the book 112 pages, including the 10 pages of its brief description, which are given in details in the full version. See «The dead water» in the editions, beginning from 1998 and separate publishing of «Relatively general theory of management».
[388] Aggregor (from aggregate) is a collective mentality formed by people with similar parameters of their biofields and some senses. Thus to form an aggregor one needs at first – the similarity of peoples power parameters of their biofields, and at second – the similarity of some their senses (professional, sense of being etc.) For example – the aggregor of smokers. They found their special sense in smoking and when one smoke he “tunes” his biofield by the special (similar for everybody) way.
[389] In the present work we are not going to consider the question about the sacred religion of Stalin, as a system of his personal relations with God beyond any dogmas and rituals. This topic is touched upon in the works of the IP of the USSR “Turn back in rage…”, “The Brief Course…” and “It is Time I Should Start the Tale of Stalin…”.
[390] In this respect anti-Stalinists and other opponents of bolshevism should to think about the nature of Providence and about their own relations with God.
[391] For the USA the war was really costly, from the point of view of investment costs, rather than bloody or expensive on the ground of damage caused. During the period of war US armed Forces had the death toll of about 500 thousand people. There was no destruction on the territory of the USA.
US navy at the end of the war can be considered as a showing of the investments costs. It became the most powerful navy in the world and almost every unit of it was built within three years of war (after 1941), including dozens of heavy ships i.e. battleships and aircraft-carriers, and a few hundreds of light ships, i.e. cruisers, destroyers, convoy aircraft-carriers, and a number of ships with other functions. In times of piece shipbuilding programs of the kind including development of production facilities of shipbuilding industries, would take decades.
Due to the geographical location of the USA and US role in the war during that period production facilities of US national economy developed considerably and that distinguishes them from other countries that took part in the war. In other words investments in the war brought a good return while the death toll was not heavy regarding the number of population. It counted 500 thousand to 150 million people of the population, while in Belarus it was about 2 million to 8 million people.
[392] Lend-lease expenses of the USA for the period from March 11, 1941 to August 1,1945 amounted to $46 billions (13 per cent of all the military expenses of the war and more than 50 per cent of their export). The USSR got $9.8 millions out of the sum. No matter what they propagandized concerning the military supplies from the USA as compared to the USSR’s own volume of production, and the quality of American tanks and planes, one should not forget the Studebecker trucks and other kinds of products needed at war. They probably were not the key needs but were important enough to lighten the burden of war for the economy of the USSR.
[393] At that time you could even find it in newspapers that after the war had been finished capitalist countries began developing state economy intensively. It inevitably led to organizing a state system of economy management. In particular Great Britain nationalized several industries when the war was ceased.
[394] Some scoundrels and lamebrains (these words are not an emotional outburst but a reasonable characteristic of their morals and intellectual powers) tried and excluded the planned state beginning out of the economical activity of society. This attempt proved that advanced technology industries such as aerospace or abstract science could not survive without a planned state beginning and especially being suffocated by bank usury.
[395] It was this culture that H. Ford wrote about s you can see in the previous chapters.
[396] Still they produce for the sake of profit. Production range extends due to scientific, technical and organizational progress and in developed countries finally it reaches the level of sufficiency according to the number of population. However it is not followed by a structural reforming of national economy, reducing daily working hours, encouraging creative work of the population in a field apart from the paid job.
Instead of discussing ways of solving these problems, western economists discuss the problem of artificial maintenance of employment under the conditions of the existing organization of producing and distributing system. They justify reduction of the technological lifespan of production and the cult of fashion. At the same time they admit that it is possible to create models of refrigerators, washing machines etc that approach the ergonomic optimum, i.e. so convenient to use that no drawbacks of the construction can make one change it for an up-to-date model. They can be in use for 20 – 30 years and satisfy a want of them within five years. But after that capitalism economy will cease functioning, the level of unemployment will rise that will lead to increase in crime and other problems. It cannot be tolerated.
Accordingly it is necessary for maintaining the existing system of social relations of the crowd-“elitism” to develop entertainment industry in order to busy the unemployed, to adjust the demand to constantly renewing fashion and to depreciate resources characteristics of production to maintain employment.
As you can see this strategy of economy management does not coincide with the one suggested by J.V. Stalin in “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”. The question is which strategy is better? It is obviously Stalin’s one because in the long run it is capable of getting in harmony with the Earth’s biosphere and the outer space providing good living and working conditions, amenities of rest and meeting the needs of personality development. While the strategy of the West exhausts more and more resources of nature and society aimlessly consuming everything for the sake of crowd-“elitism”. Most of the people in this society are just attachments to their working places or “dregs of society”, and the minority of the population is spongers.
[397] So the question of the meaning of the words «submission of the State machinery to monopolies» is a question of terminology and thoroughness of analyzing the processes that take place in monopolies and in the State machinery while it is submitting to monopolies.
If it were only about coalescence it would reveal itself in the State machinery as legitimization of bribery and exaction of state officers. It would make these crimes look decent as certain «democratisers» in Russia, G. Popov in particular, suggested. But submission of the State machinery to monopolies’ management has a broader sense than legitimization of money and shares bribery within the bounds of «the legislation of lobbying» or in another way.
If one sticks to the ordinary meaning of words and rules of grammar, and relies only on the descriptions without getting to the point he/she can really get an impression that Stalin knew nothing about introducing a planned beginning to Capitalism economy, that he wrote one thing but we try to arrogate another thing to him. Let people who think so explain in detail what the manifestations of «submission of the State machinery to monopolies» are. Why does the planned beginning not permeate through monopolies’ activity and reach the State machinery’ activity?
Or probably this submission appeared in Stalin’s dreams? Then Joseph Stieglitz, the Nobel Prize in economics winner of 2001, also dreamt of it and this loathsome vision appeared even more vividly. (See Supplement 2.)
The question of submission of the state to monopolies proves that it is no use to read Stalin’s works with only one’s left-brain in action, without referring to the real historic circumstances of the age. Commenting them on the basis of such «reading» is making a fool of oneself or a scoundrel and a swindler in front of all somewhat thoughtful people.
[398] It would be stupid to refuse the mistakes made and the abuse of power, but those were not numerous; as a consequence the first bolshevist state in the history of the global civilization did not collapse.
[399] When the matter concerns comparing quality of products, it is better to correlate with certain consumer standards of different social groups.
[400] It is so if we consider the reality of that time and the life of the working people, not libelous myths composed by loony Trotskyite politicians, i.e. Khrushchev’s followers and «democratisers», and the intellectuals. Nowadays they are supposed to have created «unexcelled spiritual values» and to have claimed the prior right for material comforts that were created mostly by others without any assistance of the intellectuals-abstractionists of science and culture.
[401] Which were «awfully far from people…» if we put it in V.I. Lenin’s words.
[402] Yu. Mukhin avoids speaking about the problem of conceptual authorities in the aforementioned book «Murder of Stalin and Beria». He concentrates readers’ attention only on mafia bureaucratic degeneration the Party machine alone, which corrupted and in the end brought up managers in the rest of industries. In spite of the fact that the author of the book shields specialists, production managers, it is management in general and leading specialists that showed their nonentity and anti-national nature during the years of Khrushchev’s rule and in the following age, especially during the perestroika and other reforms.
Therefore everybody who has read or just intends to read this book should not only know but also understand the following. The measures, J.V. Stalin took to change the status of the party and the state system, which Yu. Mukhin writes about were only the consequence of Stalin’s conceptual authority. Any original conception of administration finds expression in broad function of administration, the function in its turn expresses itself in the architecture of administration structures. See the USSR IP’s work «The Dead Water» part II, the chapter «Representation of the broad function of state and non-governmental structures of the social self -administration system».
[403] A daily all-union newspaper, the gazette of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), later on of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
[404] This work is not about linguistics as many people think, but about miserable tendencies in science in the USSR, demonstrated by J.V. Stalin by the example of linguistics.
[405] At that time it was called «bourgeois regeneration».
[406] Though one should not delude oneself. If Trotsky’s wing of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party won, bureaucracy headed by L. Bronstein would come to power. In his «Letter to the Party Congress» V. Lenin accused him of «excessive enthusiasm for purely administrative aspect». It was accusation against L. Bronstein (Trotsky) of the “elite” bureaucracy: representatives of the upper stratum of bureaucracy misuse their right to express more or less good wishes. Without having mastered practical knowledge and skills they entrust their subordinate «specialists» who are to have these skills and knowledge, with all the work to realize these wishes (which may really be good). Actually the «specialists» may not have any knowledge and skills due to the bureaucratic management style. They are rejected the right to participate in the activity of the upper layer of the hierarchy, as well as the right to criticize the upper bureaucrats personally, let alone drawing conclusions or inferences for future.
Many pressmen and mass media in general claim for their sole right to express their more or less good wishes. They claim for the right to call to account by means of public denunciation for a real or imaginary abuse of power owing to pressmen’s ignorance in matters they express their opinion about. Accordingly these claims are one of the gravest and most dangerous types of bureaucracy, for it is informal bureaucracy.
[407] This way K. Marx explained in good time who created the cult of personality of J.V. Stalin in the Soviet society for what reasons and purposes.
[408] As if adding to Marx’s words V. Belinsky gave the definition of a crowd that we have already mentioned: it is a «gathering of people living by tradition and judging by authority». Accordingly bureaucracy is not elite, though it rules, but a crowd, «a senseless people». Belinsky is precise in his definition: he criticized «judging by authority», but did not touch upon the personal aspect of every single bureaucrat. Many people reproach the USSR IP for recognizing no authority. His is not true. The USSR IP acknowledges certain personalities impact on the history and recognizes their authority in this sense. But the USSR IP is against «judging by authority» on the ground that every person has to act according to particular features of the age. That is why the USSR IP suggests substituting the culture of thinking for «judging by authority». It would give everyone an opportunity to get rid of intellectual dependence.
[409] In 1970 – 1980 it was the most widely used edition. It became the last one published in the USSR.
[410] This word is that of «intellectuals» and does not describe the point precisely unlike a coarse vulgar word. The point is that whatever name we give to this person a toady cannot overcome his sex instincts. Sex instincts of a Homo Sapience aim at maintaining vitality of the species in the biosphere. According to this function a woman is made unconditionally psychologically dependent on children, while a man is made unconditionally psychologically dependent on a woman. And women show their demonic character to misuse men’s instinctive subjection to them. As a result men often reveal their mistresses will which in not always wit and socially responsible.
However in civilized society of crowd-“elitism” this unconditioned instinctive subjection of men to women and subjection of women to children is restrained by cultural factors. This problem is analyzed thoroughly in the USSR IP’s works such as “From Human Likeness Towards Being a Human”, “Principles of Personnel Policy belonging to a sate, an «anti-state», a social initiative”, and the Supplement to “The Sufficiently common theory of control” in separate editions beginning from the year of 2000.
[411] As mafia makes a hierarchy in real life of crowd-“elitism” society and biblical teaching dominates over society, bureaucracy inevitably falls into admiration of zids. In the end it serves «world biblical backstage» to the detriment of their own people and their development potential.
[412] Referring to Lenin’s definition of a social class well known in the Soviet period, it was clear even at that time that bureaucracy in the USSR was becoming a social class, an exploiter parasite antisocialist and anticommunist class.
«Social Classes. “Classes are groups of people, which differ in their place in a certain historic system of social production, in their relation to means of production (stated in laws), in their role in the social labor organization, therefore they differ in the ways they get their share of public welfare and its proportions. Classes are groups of people one of which can misappropriate the other group’s labor due to the difference in their positions in a certain structure of national economy”. (V. Lenin. The Complete Works, edition 5, volume 39, page 15.)» (Cited from the “Big Soviet Encyclopedia”, edition 3, volume 12, page 280; reference to “The Collected Works” of V. Lenin, to “The Great Start”).
As the saying goes, guilty conscience needs no accuser. So the Big Soviet Encyclopedia tries to justify the Soviet Party bureaucracy of Khrushchev and Brezhnev periods mainly to continue «explaining» the point:
«This definition was given by V. Lenin referring to classes of an antagonist society. Their relationship leads to class struggle inevitably. Yet classes still exist in socialist society that has eliminated exploitation of
This was to be understood in the following way: there are only single manifestations of some officers’ bureaucracy that make semblance of bureaucracy really existing. There is no parasitic bureaucracy but a body of managers who come of common people and who are still a socially useful working group of population.
V. Lenin made a vitally valid definition of the term «social class». Besides even before the Russian Revolution in his book «State and Revolution» he wrote (with G. Apfelbaum-Zinoviev as his co-author) openly that bureaucracy was hostile to the essence of the Soviet power. It was so fair and persuasive that during the period after Stalin’s rule corresponding fragments were never discussed at party studies or within courses of social science in higher educational establishments. If anybody referred to them in the course of a seminar on his/her own initiative the leader would fall into tedium and try to change the subject immediately, to go on break or to close the seminar:
«By the example of the Commune
We would like to draw your attention to the fact that practical measures of the Commune of Paris are basic to their description by classics of Marxism, i.e. they also come from life, not from Marxism. From the standpoint of the Sufficiently common theory of control reducing managers’ wages to the average level in productive industries the Commune of Paris tried to close feedback of social management on the working majority, turning them to high-yielding groups of “elite”, both national and transnational. The Commune crashed, because people who agreed to run the management on the offered conditions did not have the necessary qualification, while those who had it demonstrated arrogance of the “elite” and regarded Paris workers as rowdy crowd to be brought to their level. So they turned MORALLY UNREADY to manage society by concerns of the majority’s life and at the same time to live as an average family.
Some people can argue that Stalin made no reference of the kind and never said openly that bureaucracy was an exploiter class, therefore we again attribute wisdom to him post factum. But crowd-“elitism” society is able to maintain a campaign with the slogan «Annihilate bureaucracy as a class!» that is similar to the motto «Annihilate the kulaks as a class!» They could be driven to that by Trotskyites and after that the USSR would be left again without any professional managers. J.V. Stalin did not want it to happen and hoped to solve the problem another way of social and historic development, as it is clear from “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”.
Besides in the USSR under Stalin and in the following years «State and Revolution» and Lenin’s works that give the definition of the term «social class» used to be cult works. Thus nothing except indifference to the lot of Motherland or cowardice could prevent a schoolchild, a student or a Party member in the course of party studies from behaving according to real historic circumstances reform as Bolsheviks.
But bureaucracy in Russia is still a social class, a parasite exploiter class hostile to all the society and to itself. There is no place for bureaucracy in the future. Let the bureaucracy know and remember about it…
Fighting bureaucracy is always either “a funny game” called «hide-and-seek» the very bureaucrats or a class struggle of working people for introducing humanness into life. But one of the parasite classes of the crowd-“elitism” society prevents it.
[413] However the Soviet bureaucracy of 1920 – 1930’s also deserves thanks. This thoughtless and weak-willed monster overridden by J.V. Stalin appeared good enough for stopping the open mafia pseudo-democratic absolute power of Marxist psycho-Trotskyism in 1920 – 1930’s. But by the end of 1940’s it stood in the way of the further development of the USSR.
[414] It is not a question of adding badly constructed aircraft to the armory but of providing the troops with production bundle that does not meet the standards and approved technical demands.
[415] Bureaucratic management style of various products «life cycle» is one of the implicit mediate reasons of almost all the known man-caused disasters. It concerns both: great and slight ones, from spontaneous inflammation of color TV-sets (the «epidemic» of 1970’s) to the Chernobyl disaster and the submarine «Kursk» wreck and many other incidents that remain unknown or unrecognized as disasters.
[416] «Becoming active makers of social development» implies conceptual authority of common people (called «lower classes» in terms of crowd-“elitism”) and absolute subordination of the state organization to it. That is not what despots, tyrants and power-seeking people appeal to.
[417] J.V. Stalin virtually proved that macroeconomy of a state could work stably in the regime of systematic planned cut in prices. After the derationing of 1947 prices used to be cut every year demonstrating an incontestable increase in social labor productivity. Unlike H. Ford who carried out the policy of a planned cut in prices on the level of microeconomy in his company «Ford Motors», in the USSR the policy of a planned cut in prices was adopted within the state-super concern. As a result of this policy all people’s wealth increased but not only of those who can settle themselves and live by some additional income differing a lot from the rest of society’s standard of living.
That is what the «World backstage» and its henchmen (financial and stock-exchange tycoons and their tame pressmen and social «science») cannot forgive him for. On the other hand the present Russian «opposition» is either stupid or so coward that does not dare to make the demand for the regime «Long live Stalin’s policy of a planned cut in prices!»
[418] In this case Stalin per se would not have been in history, there would have been a more successful person than L. Bronstein, another «Trotsky» by spirit, i.e. by his mind and morals.
[419] Referring to the aforementioned anecdote, we can say that «world backstage» has made a mistake in their attempt to charge «the bargain» to Stalin. They did it but the «bargain» became the national property owing to Stalin and together with him dissolved in the future where there was no room for «world backstage» …
Sjids of all nationalities really have reasons to feel angry with Stalin.
[420] Correspondingly Khrushchev and Brezhnev’s policy (with N. Baybakov running the State Planning Committee of the USSR) of «production equipment instead of production of consumptive use» was a distortion of Stalin’s course by means of running to an absurd extreme. What is more the production equipment was out-of-date and imperfect due to bureaucratization of science, research and development, the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the republics.
[421] It concerns both: Capitalist and Socialist economy with the only difference. The difference is that in Capitalist economy speculative sector is legal, while in Socialist economy it is to be suppressed legally and socially.
[422] For a detailed study see the USSR IP’s «A Brief Course…», «The Dead Water» ( in editions of 1998 and succeeding years). In these works the theory of multi-industry system of production and consumption unfolds as well as general rules of organization of the long-term planning system conditioned by population study.
[423] Nikolai Baibakov (b. 1911) was the head of the committee for forward planning of the Council of Ministers from 1955 to 1957. From 1957 to 1958 he worked as the head of the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR. From 1965 till his retirement during perestroika he was the vice chairman of the Council of Ministers and the head of the State Planning Committee of the USSR.
We know nothing about N. Baibakov’s grievances against economics and against outstanding economists or muddlers personally on the ground of his dissatisfaction with their «scientifically valid» planning methods. We agree that it was impossible to put Stalin’s demands into practice on the basis of the existing methods of planning and the way control used to be organized in the USSR. It was impossible not because of real impracticability, but because of the unfounded methods of planning in operation. (You can go back and see the nonsense of the book “The Planned Equilibrium: installation, maintenance, efficiency” by V. Belkin and V. Ivanter, quoted in «Digression 7».) It was also impossible because of the management bureaucratization. It was impossible to put Stalin’s demands into practice, as legitimate scientists were incompetent professionally and intellectually.
Initiative in developing methods of planning was not encouraged or supported by bureaucrats of the State Planning Committee and the Central Committee. Even the initiative of such prominent figures as the world chess champion and Doctor of Science Mikhail Botvinnick. Those with no titles were also ignored. If they dared to insist they were suppressed, expelled from the Communist Party, charged with being graphorrhea addict and with anti-Soviet work, etc.
[424] Once again we want to remind you that in spite of the bureaucratic and propagandistic custom of the USSR a NORMAL plan for the state and society had the following characteristics:
It is not a high hurdle that the multi-industry system of production and consumption had to clear at the breaking point;
It is an attainable level with a control index that the system of production and consumption had to maintain and would better exceed. It must be guaranteed by the freedom of scientific and technical, and entrepreneur management creative work.
In other words the plan must be guaranteed not to be tense. In process of accomplishing it organization of work must guarantee exceeding production volume if it is needed and forestalling schedule deadline if it is admissible. It must also guarantee development, mastery of technique and production of new products of public utility that initially have not been planned.
[425] If the state is the owner of the financing system then it is mediately the owner of everything that is taken stock of throughout the territory regardless of the patterns of ownership.
Therefore from the State Planning Committee’s viewpoint (as well as that of Ministry of economy) products exchange as a united system of production and distribution accompanied by monetary circulation is built on the basis of interior cost values of the system. They include expenditures conditioned financially, which are characteristic of the system management and stocktaking on different levels. They include: workshop cost value, the cost value of the enterprise workshop cost value + overhead expenses; branch or regional cost value including dues and donations constituents; all national economy cost value = internal prices of production; foreign market prices as one of the features of external economic potential of a super concern-state.
This approach to the description of economic processes secures the unity of form and content on every level: from an individual to super concerns and global economy of the humanity. The approach comes from the principle of integrity of multi-industry system of production and consumption. This way of understanding economic processes corresponds with axioms of economics (Digression 2) and with main rules of political economy of an industrial civilization (Digression 6). If it dominates in society them micro level management of national economy and macro level management can be brought to a conflict only by evil design and society’s inactivity. Those were things not to be found during the period of Stalin’s Bolshevism.
