Stalin’s Directions for the Future to Bolsheviks

Refuse Marxism

The contents of the book “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” also suggest that this Stalin’s work became the common property of the people; and it managed to escape the motley self-censorship of the crowd-“elitist” society. Thoughtless and industrious functionaries (of the State machinery) didn’t understand and let it be published1; and more thoughtful «world backstage» acting through its periphery didn’t manage to prevent publication and distribution of the work in the society.

The characteristic feature of the work is that ideas of the book are beyond one’s comprehension without understanding of the global history course. In other words, understanding of the global history course influences the reader’s understanding of “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”.2

There are many people who dream about Communism, but haven’t released from power of Marxism over their worldview. They make reference to “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” as to an example of the Marxist theory development by Stalin, which is directed toward Communism building. They don’t realize that this work is capital sentence for Marxism, which is though expressed by linguistic means of Marxism itself. They don’t realize this fact as well as Stalin’s «guardians» from the State machinery mafia and from the «world backstage» didn’t realize it in 1952, and thus let the collected articles and reply letters to the economic discussion participants be published.

Such a faulty opinion arises from two circumstances: first — people’s unwillingness and inability to realize the course of life on their own; second — in “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” there are many phrases, which make the impression that Stalin is Marxism’s man Friday. Here is one of the most impressive phrases of the kind:

«To describe Comrade Yaroshenko's opinion in a couple of words, it should be said that it is un-Marxist -- and, hence, profoundly erroneous». (“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”).

In other words, only Marxist approach to emerging problems leads to their solution, and thus enriches the Marxist study:

«Marxism regards laws of science — whether they be laws of natural science or laws of political economy — as the reflection of objective processes which take place independently of the will of man. Man may discover these laws, get to know them, study them, reckon with them in his activities and utilize them in the interests of society, but he cannot change or abolish them. Still less can he form or create new laws of science» (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 1, “Character of Economic Laws under Socialism”).

And of course, in order to succeed in Communism building it’s necessary to bring up the young generation in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism:

«Hence, the laws of political economy under socialism are objective laws, which reflect the fact that the processes of economic life are law-governed and operate independently of our will. People who deny this postulate are in point of fact denying science, and, by denying science, they are denying all possibility of prognostication — and, consequently, are denying the possibility of directing economic activity.

It may be said that all this is correct and generally known; but that there is nothing new in it, and that it is therefore not worth spending time reiterating generally-known truths. Of course, there really is nothing new in this; but it would be a mistake to think that it is not worth spending time reiterating certain truths that are well known to us. The fact is that we, the leading core, are joined every year by thousands of new and young forces who are ardently desirous of assisting us and ardently desirous of proving their worth, but who do not possess an adequate Marxist education, are unfamiliar with many truths that are well known to us, and are therefore compelled to grope in the darkness. They are staggered by the colossal achievements of Soviet government[351], they are dazzled by the extraordinary successes of the Soviet system, and they begin to imagine that Soviet government can «do anything», that «nothing is beyond it», that it can abolish scientific laws and form new ones. What are we to do with these comrades? How are we to educate them in Marxism-Leninism? I think that systematic reiteration and patient explanation of so-called "generally-known" truths is one of the best methods of educating these comrades in Marxism». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 1, “Character of Economic Laws under Socialism”).

Reading the given extracts from “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” — without going into the sense of some details — we get the impression that this is a type of agitation for Marxism study and propaganda for Marxism as for the theoretical basis of Communism building.

But what is shown in the extracts cited above is a model of perception palmed off by the Marxism believers who don’t know it and who don’t understand Life. This model of perception lets them easily place Stalin among Marxists and thus allow this work be distributed in the society where cult of Marxism dominates. And there are even more such models of perception, which unambiguously characterize “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” as a Marxian work. That’s why everyone who wants to believe in it, but doesn’t want to think or be responsible — do believe that Stalin is «a genuine Marxist who constructively develops the Marxian heritage with reference to the new historical conditions», or is «stupid, as all Marxists are, and that’s why he tried to solve emerging problems on the basis of Marxism without going outside its scope».

But if we, being acquainted at least with the main Marxism principles, try to realize the «details» dispersed in “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, we’ll see that this work by its matter is nothing but relentless antimarxism, which penetrated on the sly into authoritative classical Marxism literature of that time and used its common language.

Its anti-Marxist essence is one of the reasons why the book is neither criticized nor praised by Marxists of the following generation. If they don’t realize, then they feel that: discussion of it in public is Marxism’s public death penalty.

Indeed, as Marxism teaches, every problem of every philosophy is «the problem of relation of consciousness to existence, thinking to substance or nature; and the problem has two aspects: first, what is primarily — spirit or nature[352], substance or consciousness — second, how knowledge about universe relates to universe itself, or, in other words, whether consciousness agrees with existence, whether it can correctly reflect universe» (“Philosophical Dictionary” edited by academician I.T. Frolov, Moscow, «Politizdat», 1981, p. 266).

These problems can be raised to the rank of «the main issue» only by customers of the philosophy aimed at tearing people away from life and making them dependant on life events flow interpreters, which are guided by some other philosophy, concealed by them from the rest of the society.

Such is the case, as without any mental tricks and logical proves and historical-philosophical erudition most people, who have to solve everyday big and small problems in their life, instinctively know the following:

· Independently of the answer on the first aspect of the question: either «spirit (i.e. God) is primarily, nature — fruit of spirit (God) is secondary»; or «nature is primarily — human consciousness is secondary», — the man can’t change the existing reality. And answer on the question: which of the two opinions agrees with the objective truth? — lies out of any logics proof area. This is confirmed by the millennial interminable dispute of logical and quotation-dogmatic philosophical schools of “scientific” materialism and occultism — “scientific” idealism.

· As for the second aspect of «the main issue» of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, one doesn’t need any logical tricks to understand instinctively that knowledge about universe may agree with universe itself or not. When people act according to the knowledge that agrees with universe, they are success. If they act according to the knowledge or pseudo-knowledge (false notions), which doesn’t agree with the living conditions, they get worse results than they expected down to a complete failure, what may entail many human victims and natural disasters.

And that’s why only the philosophy, which can answer questions in the real life, such as: whether the results of work will be worse than expected; or they won’t be worse (i.e. they will be just like they are expected or even better) — has practical value in everyday life of most people.

In other words, the main issue of practically useful wisdom is the problem of detailed consequence predictability, which can assist people in their activities (including circumstances control) both by oneself and collectively in real living conditions.

And according to this practically useful worldly wisdom that has nothing in common with far-fetched logical and schizophrenic constructions of Marxism, which considers problems of control neither on the whole, nor in particular aspects. J.V. Stalin undermines domination of Marxism and its philosophy’s «main issue» over people’s mind in the given extract:

«… the laws of political economy under socialism are objective laws, which reflect the fact that the processes of economic life are law-governed and operate independently of our will. People who deny this postulate are in point of fact denying science, and, by denying science, they are denying all possibility of prognostication — and, consequently, are denying the possibility of directing economic activity».

Since Marxism doesn’t handle the problems of foresight as well as different processes control and their self-management organization, and Marxian philosophy and Political Economy are formed to prevent understanding management processes on the basis of foresight as a whole, and in economics particularly, — this extract concerns neither Marxism nor its so-called «creative development as applied to new historical conditions».

Still, it’s well known, that it’s possible to grub up a lot of quotations from a big text touching upon a wide range of different problems; put the quotations in a definite order, comment upon them and thus prove practically any predetermined conclusion. Nevertheless the demonstrated Stalin’s non-Marxian approach to the problem of the society economic life control is not the result of such a fact selection and understanding abuse.

In accordance with our target setting concerning the society economic life control, Stalin shows his aversion to Marxian Political Economy, as one can organize the society economical activity control on its basis neither practically nor theoretically[353]. This was mentioned in many works beginning from 1994. But the corresponding extract from “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” was reduced in them to a great extent. Here we cite it in full:

«Absolutely mistaken, therefore, are those comrades who allege that, since socialist society has not abolished commodity forms of production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. These comrades confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production. They do not realize that our commodity production radically differs from commodity production under capitalism (put in bold type by the authors).

Further, I think that we must also discard certain other concepts taken from Marx's Capital — where Marx was concerned with an analysis of capitalism — and artificially applied to our socialist relations. I am referring to such concepts, among others, as «necessary» and «surplus» labour, «necessary» and «surplus» product, «necessary» and «surplus» time (put in bold type by the authors). Marx analyzed capitalism in order to elucidate the source of exploitation of the working class — surplus value — and to arm the working class, which was bereft of means of production, with an intellectual weapon for the overthrow of capitalism. It is natural that Marx used concepts (categories) which fully corresponded to capitalist relations. But it is strange, to say the least, to use these concepts now, when the working class is not only not bereft of power and means of production, but, on the contrary, is in possession of the power and controls the means of production. Talk of labour power being a commodity, and of «hiring» of workers sounds rather absurd now, under our system: as though the working class, which possesses means of production, hires itself and sells its labour power to itself. It is just as strange to speak now of «necessary» and «surplus» labour: as though, under our conditions, the labour contributed by the workers to society for the extension of production, the promotion of education and public health, the organization of defence, etc., is not just as necessary to the working class, now in power, as the labour expended to supply the personal needs of the worker and his family.

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»[354]. 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?»[355]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[356], 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[357]; 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 Marxism’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[358]; 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[359], 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 <of Marxism conceptual mechanism to the real life> for a certain period, but the time has come to put an end to it». We should understand that if «Marx’ study is omnipotent because it is correct»[360], then the words «we’ll ruin EVERYTHING» when Marxism dominates the society are out of place. But if Marx’s study is nonsense, which dupes people’s minds, then without the theory’s further development and release of people’s minds from Marxism domination over them — all the deed of change to the righteous society will be inevitably ruined, and we’ll have to start it from the beginning under hard pressure of objective conditions, though in another historic period[361].

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”[362]. 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[363]), we’ll examine them according to the significance hierarchy of the problems touched upon by Stalin.

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.[364], 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 bearing 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»[365] (“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»'[366] (“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.)[367].

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[368]), 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[369].

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[370]: 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[371], 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» [372] 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[373], 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 controlin the terms of A.A. Bogdanov.

But J.V. Stalin found this attempt unsuccessful and was right[374]. 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»[375]. 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)[376]. 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[377].

Those theses of the “Tectology” that are given by the author of the paperwork express Self-focused (anthropo-focused^[378]) atheism of the material kind[379]. 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[380]. 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 5^th 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[381] 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»[382] (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[383] with the mentality of others subjects, guidance from Above[384]. 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[385] 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.

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 1950‑s.

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[386] war against Japan over the Pacific Ocean. Besides they provided military and industrial equipment, foodstuffs and transportation for the Anti-Hitler Coalition allies[387]. 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[388] 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[389].

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 monopolies 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[390]. 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[391].

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[392].

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[393] 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[394] 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[395].

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 distribution 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[396], 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[397].

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”[398] 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”[399] (“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[400] bureaucracy, inefficient from the point of view of management. Besides from the middle of 1920s till the end of 1930s L. Trotsky[401] 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 <society> it is secured by its exclusive corporate organization. Therefore open mind of the state and national thinking seem to bureaucracy a betrayal of the secret. Thus authority is the principle of knowledge, and idolizing the authority[402] is the way of thinking[403]. […] As for a bureaucrat, a state goal becomes his personal goal, his rush for ranks, his career making». (bold type is supplied by the authors) (K. Marx. “To the Critics of Hegel’s Legal Philosophy”. K. Marx and F. Engels’s works. The second edition[404], volume 1, pp. 271 — 272.)

However concerning a single bureaucrat K. Marx is not right. It is just on the opposite: it is not the goal of the state that becomes personal for a bureaucrat (that would be any state’s dream), but wants to present his personal or family clannish purpose as a national necessity. It can happen because a bureaucrat is often a toady[405] or a subordinate to clans of high position in a certain sphere of society life. If he cannot do it he tries and does it as a secret to society. It is on the basis of this aspiration that bureaucracy forms as a mafia corporation[406] that is «a circle that nobody can escape from» alone and so on by Marx, except for his view on the essence of a bureaucrat activity as a phenomenon of the crowd-“elitism” society life that we have rejected[407].

According to this proactive warning J.V. Stalin knew that bureaucracy could not provide production management and distribution in society in compliance with the needs of Socialism and Communism building[408]. He regarded bureaucracy and every single bureaucrat as enemies of the idea and mission that he carried out sincerely.

Even during the Great Patriotic War it became clear that the warning was correct, but «one should never swap horses while crossing the stream» but for emergency cases. According to this fact after the war officers of high rank of the air forces and aircraft industry stood trial for malfeasance in office during the war. Both the parties mutually agreed that the air forces got from the aircraft industry defective equipment[409]; as a result many aviation accidents happened where pilots were injured and or died without being involved in operations.

Recent years this episode if the USSR history has been presented by mass media as an example of the supposedly «unjustified repressions» that took place in the post-war period. Yet it is not the only case of bureaucracy showing its anti-national essence. It just happened to be the most well-known one out of a great number of similar cases of the Soviet age that accompanied the bureaucratic management style in production development all over the history of Russia, from the rule of Peter the great to the present moment[410].

Slips made by the Soviet bureaucrats in the field of national economy management are also mentioned in “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”. We shall come back to it further on.

In order not to carry the yoke of the global biblical or another oligarchy of witch-doctors again the USSR peoples had to begin solving the problems of the unfinished building of Socialism. In life there is a certain correspondence in the system «aims — problems that have to be solved to achieve the aims». In other words «certain aims involve certain problems, other aims involve other problems». In “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” J.V. Stalin pointed out the aims of a regular stage of the USSR social development definitely and accurately:

«It is necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of society as will secure for all members of society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members of society may be in a position to receive an education sufficient to enable them to be active agents of social development[411], and in a position freely to choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives, owing to the existing division of labour, to some one occupation.

What is required for this?

It would be wrong to think that such a substantial advance in the cultural standard of the members of society can be brought about without substantial changes in the present status of labour. For this, it is necessary, first of all, to shorten the working day at least to six, and subsequently to five hours. This is needed in order that the members of society might have the necessary free time to receive an all round education. It is necessary, further, to introduce universal compulsory polytechnical education, which is required in order that the members of society might be able freely to choose their occupations and not be tied to some one occupation all their lives. It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods (put in bold type by the authors)[412].

These are the basic conditions required to pave the way for the transition to communism». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yarochenko”, part 1. “Comrade Yaroshenko's Chief Error”).

It appears from this that the USSR national economy was not to work for the man in the street to gorge himself, to get filled with bear and vodka and heaped up with clothes. It was not to give him time on account of reduction of working hours for lechery that is as befuddling as alcohol and other drugs promoting showbiz, pornographic and gambling industry. It was not to bear a new lordly “elite” that would become «cultivated» and detached from Life parasites, idlers of high society with the rest of people working like mules for them.

This is a well-grounded living alternative to that suicidal way of survival (not way of living) reached by developed capitalist countries having brought other countries to ruin, in the period after 1952. At the beginning of chapter 6.8.3 we talked about it in one of the footnotes.

National economy was to work for providing all people with free time that was necessary for them to feel, to realize and to understand themselves, to recognize their potential of personal growth, to help their children and grandchildren to recognize their potential of personal growth; for enabling all people to become active makers of social development.

In other words if the level of social and economic development defined by Stalin as far back as the middle of the 20^th century were achieved within the period of two or three generations, i.e. about 70 years, a new Man and his civilization could be born. If compared with it all present regional civilizations and the global civilization in general would come out in their true colors: in their inhuman savagery and anti-human demonism, in their underdevelopment, perverse morals and personality essence.

If this change happened it would exclude the very possibility of any tyranny towards society and any of its members.

Therefore «world backstage» did their best not only to prevent this level from being achieved, but to make everybody forget about it and to make the USSR society that was still crowd-“elite” to diminish the achievements made under J. Stalin.

If J.V. Stalin had not written “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” where he killed Marxism and pointed out a valid living prospect of development, if he had not spoken against the State machinery “elitarization” at the Central Committee plenum of October, 1952, «world backstage» would have added his name to history as an outstanding Marxist and Communist and would have begun propagating to developed capitalist countries the USSR achievements in curbing the race for consumption [413]. But all the achievements were connected with the name of Stalin, so they had to extirpate the spirit of Stalin’s Bolshevism out of society[414]. That was the reason why their periphery suppressed and perverted the processes started in the age of Stalin’s Bolshevism.

J.V. Stalin lived in society where materialistic worldview prevailed and many people did not think culture development and personal growth to be the most important things; therefore he began the cited fragment with the word «thirdly». But this word is preceded by two more conditions that secure practicability of this «thirdly» under the rule of materialistic worldview:

«1. It is necessary, in the first place, to ensure, not a mythical “rational organization” of the productive forces, but a continuous expansion of all social production, with a relatively higher rate of expansion of the production of means of production. The relatively higher rate of expansion of production of means of production is necessary not only because it has to provide the equipment both for its own plants and for all the other branches of the national economy, but also because reproduction on an extended scale becomes altogether impossible without it.

2. It is necessary, in the second place, by means of gradual transitions carried out to the advantage of the collective farms, and, hence, of all society, to raise collective-farm property to the level of public property, and, also by means of gradual transitions, to replace commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange, under which the central government, or some other social-economic centre, might control the whole product of social production in the interests of society». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yarochenko”, part 1. “Comrade Yaroshenko's Chief Error”).

The first point in essence means that it is necessary to create technological basis of production in a short space of time by standards of history. The production basis would secure meeting all the demands of society conditioned by the number of population including cultural needs while daily working hours would not exceed 5 hours. It would satisfy the major law of socialism formulated by J.V. Stalin that we cited in part 4.4.

Creating the production basis demands development of new generation means of production. They must be produced up-to date instead of obsolescent means of production, so that in all industries of national economy equipment, up-to-date organization and technologies would prevail. Accordingly production of new effective means of production should prevail over production of consumptive use[415].

The second point in essence means that this process should be accompanied and provided for by founding a national system of development management, production and distribution, because it is impossible to reach the new level of social development determined by Stalin without it.

According to the three conditions public enemies hiding behind place-hunters who do not suit their posts because of their imbecility and behind know-alls subjected to pressure did the following:

· They began fighting against the impact of Stalin’s Bolshevism ideas on people’s worldview under the pretext of fighting «the cult of personality of Stalin» that they had created and supported themselves. For that reason they withdrew all Stalin’s works including “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” from libraries, excluded them from the course of political science and launch a libelous campaign against J.V. Stalin personally and all the age of Stalin’s Bolshevism.

· They supported bureaucratic mafia in the field of science, research and development and encourage it to persecute and deprave creative talented people, to suppress pioneer developments, to reject application of the achievements of science to production, to squander resources and intellectual potential for dead-ends. That was why by 1980 the USSR had one of the most out-of-date production bases in the world though possessed a number of world-recognized inventions and applications rejected by the Soviet patent agency that Japan was ready to buy wholesale.

· They prevented all fields of activity from organizing effective systems of public administration. For that purpose most of higher educational establishments had to exclude the subjects forming a general idea of management processes in life, enabling students to solve practical problems in the field of engineering, agriculture, science and politics as management problems. Such subjects as dynamic programming, linear and nonlinear programming, automatic control theory for the lack of a more general theory, they were unknown for the majority of alumnae in the USSR and Russia.

· They continued pressing on people, the young generation mainly, with the cult of Marxism, perverting their world understanding and idea of life prevailing in society.

Neither the crowd-“elitism” party, nor the crowd-“elitism” society of the USSR rebuffed this perversion of the course of Communism building. Therefore economic problems and problems of Socialism in the USSR connected with them appeared unsolved, moreover new problems added and previously unsolved problems «rose from the dead». Yet they have to be brought to light and solved because by the Predestination there is no room for the civilization of speaking human-like sensible apes and their demonic masters and bosses. So let us come back to the facts that J.V. Stalin regarded as incontestable progress of Socialism and to the way he understood problems that were to be solved.

J.V. Stalin regarded national economy of the USSR as an integral system, i.e. as an object of management constituted of a number of elements with different functions that interact with each other. He conceived developing this multi-industry production and distribution system as development and update of the element basis and the interconnection system of elements. Anybody can make sure that it is true after a careful consideration of the text of “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”. At the same time the integrity function should se subject to certain laws forming the hierarchy of mutual multiplicity.

The most important law among them must be the main economic law of Socialism formulated by Stalin the following way: «providing maximum satisfaction of ever-growing material and cultural needs of society by means of continuous growth and improvement of Socialist production on the basis of advanced techniques and equipment».

The law of planned (proportional) development of national economy is in its turn subordinate to the main economic law. In “Digression 6” we analyzed carefully the understanding of the words «planned» and «proportional».

Explaining the interrelation of economic laws of socialism and their interconnection with life, J.V. Stalin pointed out that unlike the force of law of value under spontaneous market capitalism, economic laws of Socialism do not have the characteristic of automatism of the kind. They take knowledge. Only after that effective planning and national economy management becomes possible according to the knowledge and public needs. In particular:

«…the law of balanced development of the national economy makes it possible for our planning bodies to plan social production correctly. But possibility must not be confused with actuality. They are two different things. In order to turn the possibility into actuality, it is necessary to study this economic law, to master it, to learn to apply it with full understanding, and to compile such plans as fully reflect the requirements of this law. It cannot be said that the requirements of this economic law are fully reflected by our yearly and five-yearly plans». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 1. “Character of Economic Laws Under Socialism”.)

Many people suppose that J.V. Stalin attached no importance to «the law of value» as a code of objective showings of economy efficiency such as production cost value, market prices and profitability and therefore national economy of the USSR appeared so inefficient. Actually is absolutely untrue.

J.V. Stalin attached special importance to «the law of value» that was impossible to achieve under the conditions of capitalist economy. But beginning from the first edition of “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” economists and first of all titled fools from the economic department of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and union republics or the present Russian Academy of Sciences could not or did not want to understand what J.V. Stalin wrote. Neither they understood what there was behind accountants’ guides in the course of economical activities. J.V. Stalin wrote the following lines concerning «the law of value».

«…the sphere of operation of the law of value is limited by the social ownership of the means of production, and by the law of balanced development of the national economy, and is consequently also limited by our yearly and five-yearly plans, which are an approximate reflection of the requirements of this law (put in bold type by the authors: the important thing here is that saying approximately Stalin admitted inevitability of mistakes caused by different reasons. Any plan is subject to them therefore it is not the most precise realization of the plan that is the best way of using national economy production facilities among feasible ones).

Some comrades draw the conclusion from this that the law of balanced development of the national economy and economic planning annul the principle of profitableness of production. That is quite untrue. It is just the other way round. If profitableness is considered not from the stand-point of individual plants or industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, which is the only correct approach to the question (all put in bold type by the authors), then the temporary and unstable profitableness of some plants or industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of stable and permanent profitableness which we get from the operation of the law of balanced development of the national economy and from economic planning, which save us from periodical economic crises disruptive to the national economy and causing tremendous material damage to society, and which ensure a continuous and high rate of expansion of our national economy». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 3. “The Law of Value Under Socialism”).

«When speaking, in my "Remarks," of the profitableness of the socialist national economy, I was controverting certain comrades who allege that, by not giving great preference to profitable enterprises, and by tolerating the existence side by side with them of unprofitable enterprises, our planned economy is killing the very principle of profitableness of economic undertakings. The "Remarks" say that profitableness considered from the standpoint of individual plants or industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of profitableness which we get from our socialist mode of production, which saves us from crises of overproduction and ensures us a continuous expansion of production (all put in bold type by the authors).

But it would be mistaken to conclude from this that the profitableness of individual plants and industries is of no particular value and is not deserving of serious attention. That, of course, is not true. The profitableness of individual plants and industries is of immense value for the development of our industry. It must be taken into account both when planning construction and when planning production. It is an elementary requirement of our economic activity at the present stage of development». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Reply to Comrade Alexander Ilyich Notkin”, “The fifth point”).

J.V. Stalin made a reserve bluntly. He wrote:

«…there can be no doubt that under our present socialist conditions of production, the law of value cannot be a "regulator of the proportions" of labour distributed among the various branches of production». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 3. “The Law of Value Under Socialism”).

The function of inter-industry proportions regulation should be performed the main economic law of Socialism. It results in defining the objects for the production system and in the law of planned (proportional) development of national economy. This law opens up possibilities of bringing production capabilities into accord with needs of society in the best way possible.

But here a question arises: how does the superior profitability of national economy correlate with profitability of every single industry? In other words with profitability of a number of enterprises in certain industries. These enterprises can work by any pattern of ownership, i.e. state, co-operative or kolkhoz and even sole proprietorship.

Normally sales return of a business should exceed expenses. Otherwise donation would be needed. If it is not needed and the business is profitable, then what does profitability of national economy as a unite system in the course of 10 or 15 years mean? Many people do not understand it.

First of all they do not understand it because a Socialist state is not one of the financial system users but the owner of it. Besides the state as the owner of the financial system and a number of enterprises gets no profit and suffers no loss if some values move from the balance of an enterprise to the balance of another one. This process is accompanied by the proper transfer of funds.

Actually it is not so difficult as it may seem. At a certain period gross output can be valued at cost or at a real price. Accordingly at the same period it can comprise capital goods expenditures including the equipment of production distribution system securing production storage and sale to ultimate consumers. After a while these means of production will produce products that a consumer will buy. The way consumers will pay for them and their prices do not matter when considering the question of national economy profitability as a whole. Another thing matters:

Introducing new means of production in all the industries results in a range of products. If national economy on the whole is profitable at a certain period of time then the cost of the range of production at a value cost of the beginning of the period must exceed the cost of means of production.

Certainly some time is needed for the products to compensate for the new means of production. It is natural that the shorter this period, the more effective and the larger the profitability of national economy as a whole. At this it is not production for consumptive use but manufacturing more effective means of production that should be of paramount importance. This is the pledge of stability of the given regime of national economy functioning in the succession of planned production cycles, i.e. intervals of all-system profitability control.

This approach estimates profitability of national economy only by the production activity including production distribution to ultimate consumers. Anything that is not directly relevant to production and distribution is excluded from the estimation of national economy profitability. The reason for it is the fact that other sectors’ activity is conditioned by the capability of the production and distribution sector to feed and to settle lives of those involved in other sectors. Scientific, technological and organizational advances are kept in stability store of estimation of national economy profitability. Speculative sector preoccupied with deriving an income from «securities» and on-selling is not taken into consideration for being parasite[416].

This is a general point of view. It is to be put into practice on the ground of a certain classified nomenclature of products and services. It forms a basis for planning, production record, production distribution and real consumption. They are to provide correlation between showings at the beginning and at the end of a control period. Otherwise uncertain nomenclature and changes in it during the period of time would prevent from correlating the showings.

The structure of industries and their relationship change in the course of time under the influence of scientific, technological and organizational advance. Therefore division of national economy into industries and classification of industries are secondary to classified nomenclature of production. In other words the system of long-term strategic planning of production, distribution, consumption and recycling can be and must be derived from stable nomenclature of a range of needs based on population study. It should not be the consequence of unstable nomenclature of industries[417].

J.V. Stalin determined the duration of the estimation period of national economy profitability on the whole as ten or fifteen years. It means that during tan or fifteen years virtually all investments should compensate for themselves in the described way and secure national economy profitability estimated at constant prices.

Besides J. Stalin’s wording about the rule of superior profitability of national economy actually implicated the requirements for planning. Those are to provide for high-quality renewal of all the equipment and organization of national economy as united system of production and consumption every ten or fifteen years. It does not mean that there cannot be more durable enginery and projects with a longer self-repayment span or planned unprofitable but socially necessary projects. It means that in every industry more up-to-date, more efficient equipment and technologies should be introduced extensively.

What has been said proves that that J.V. Stalin suggested no protracted building when a project would become obsolete, the execution of it would lose sense and when structures installations would begin ruining in course of construction. Such protracted building later becomes normal. But it is a perversion of Baibakov’s followers[418] in the State Planning Committees of the USSR and republics of Khrushchev and Brezhnev’s age.

J.V. Stalin wrote that the law of value was subject to the rule of «superior profitability of national economy» in the period of ten-fifteen years, while the multi-industry system of production and consumption was subject to «the main economic law of Socialism» and «the law of planned (proportional) development of national economy». Actually all these things implicated two associated goals:

· Maintaining balance of dues and grants in national economy, i.e. providing for financial stability of planned unprofitable enterprises and business of low profit. That is to be achieved owing to redistribution of excess profits of highly remunerative enterprises in favor of business of low profit;

· Using over and above the plan production facilities so that the produced output would find a consumer and would serve society. These facilities:

Ø inevitably exist because of mistakes in books and necessity to secure stability of the plan by resources and facilities involved[419];

Ø appear again due to scientific, technical and organizational advance in process of accomplishing state plan targets, – so that the goods which can be produced with these facilities could be in demand and use for the society.

Neither of these goals can be achieved under bureaucracy rule. It was one of the reasons for J.V. Stalin to write fairly that «under the present Socialist conditions of production (our splash text) the law of value cannot work as a «regulator of proportions» in labor division between different industries».

The matter is that non-profitability and low profitability of an enterprise can have different nature. It can result from poor bureaucratic management and Socialist property looting or from the public price-formation policy pursuing noneconomic objects and being guided by J. Stalin’s principle of superior profitability. A bureaucrat who is to manage the balance of dues and grants cannot differentiate between these types of non-profitability and low profitability. Therefore basically he can maintain the balance of dues and grants distributing donations in favor of fools and thieves at the expense of hard-working people. Being «quite well-meant» he violates the principle of the superior profitability of national economy trying ‘not to make a mistake’ and not to harm the public price-formation policy though he does not understand what objects it pursues. But it is within a high-ranking bureaucrat’s grasp to maintain the balance of dues and grants according to the principle of the superior profitability of national economy.

A bureaucrat of a lower rank is no better. He is to manage an enterprise. He does not understand the principle of the superior profitability of national economy; moreover it disgusts him thoroughly, because his personal and clannish objects substitute for social ones that determine the principle of the superior profitability. This principle secures his wealth in the future on a par with all people. Nevertheless the fact that business is subject to this principle, so that resources and production facilities are to be used according to it, prevents the bureaucrat from abusing his position and getting rich to the prejudice of others, both: at present and in the future.

In the same way it is impossible to use over and above the plan production facilities under bureaucratic rule. Using over and above the plan production facilities in essence requires expansion of the scope of commodity-money exchange in Socialist economy. The scope should embrace public enterprises of national economy. Then it would become possible to organize self-regulation of the usage of over and above the plan production facilities in national economy. It could be done when they would appear not to be used in a planned work. The immediate person in charge of the facilities would manage it without wasting time on forwarding ideas, arranging meetings, changing the plan in action. It would help to avoid standstill of facilities until they are used for planned production in the next planning period.

But bureaucratic rule left out such a possibility, because production facilities belonged completely to bureaucrats, that is business managers and directors. Legalization of the machine of market self-regulation when using over and above the plan production facilities led automatically to sabotage, both deliberate and accidental. Deliberate sabotage was aimed at discrediting Socialism and re-establishing Capitalism. Accidental sabotage was through ignorance. It urged to rush for profits in order to improve the well being of their own group to the detriment of production objects of great importance to society.

The rule of Marxism political economy rooted out the possibility to expose deliberate sabotage and to leave out sabotage through ignorance. Here some explanation is needed.

Henry Ford, being a private proprietor de jure, regarded his enterprises common wealth de facto. Therefore concluding purchase and sale deals and adopting the policy of planned reduction in price for output goods to serve people he objectively worked for the principle of the superior profitability of US national economy. He did not care about correlation of purchase and sale based on property law with the status of public property of his own enterprises. Political economy as a means of organizing sensible public work on the basis of a common world out-look did not matter to him. The reason was that he did not realize it had such a function. He regarded all contemporary political economy experts as windbags and drones whom conscientious working people had to feed. Actually that was essentially true.

In the USSR things were different. Bureaucrats regarded enterprises of public property as their private property within the limits of their authority. Marxism political economy would not answer to the following question:

What if a state owned (Soviet) enterprise transfers some money to the account of another state owned enterprise as a payment (or something else) for certain goods or services produced by the second enterprise?

Unlike H. Ford, J.V. Stalin being the leader of the ruling party and the head of the state thought over this problem and the consequences of it being unsolved. He realized the role of sociological theories and particularly theories of political economy as a means of organizing sensible public work on the basis of a common world out-look. J.V. Stalin wrote the following lines on the problem of an unintelligible interpretation of such questions in Marxism political economy:

«It therefore follows that in the sphere of foreign trade the means of production produced by our enterprises retain the properties of commodities both essentially and formally, but that in the sphere of domestic economic circulation, means of production lose the properties of commodities, cease to be commodities and pass out of the sphere of operation of the law of value, retaining only the outward integument of commodities (calculation, etc.).

How is this peculiarity to be explained?

(…)

If the matter is approached from the formal angle, from the angle of the processes taking place on the surface of phenomena, one may arrive at the incorrect conclusion that the categories of capitalism retain their validity under our economy. If, however, the matter is approached from the standpoint of Marxist analysis, which strictly distinguishes between the substance of an economic process and its form, between the deep processes of development and the surface phenomena, one comes to the only correct conclusion, namely, that it is chiefly the form, the outward appearance, of the old categories of capitalism that have remained in our country, but that their essence has radically changed in adaptation to the requirements of the development of the socialist economy» (put in bold type by the authors). “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Reply to Comrade Alexander Ilyich Notkin”, part 3 “The third point”).

If we do not examine the problem within the bounds of Marxism we can come to the only right conclusion:

Marxism political economy does not call all things and phenomena by their proper names. Consequently there appears inconsistency of the form and the content of a phenomenon.

In situations of this kind concordance of form and content is a subjective matter:

· As far as H. Ford and J.V. Stalin are concerned it is in favor of public property de facto, planned beginning on a national scale, the principle of superior profitability of national economy based on effective management of business and prices according to real present and future needs of conscientious working people and the state concerning products and services;

· In case with a Soviet bureaucrat, a Marxist and dogmatist it is in favor of himself and to the prejudice of ideals and the cause of Communism. One cannot find fault with it: everything is justifiable by Communist advisability expressed in Marxism. A person has a right to interpret it in a certain way according to his/her position in the hierarchy of post subordination.

The inconsistency of form and content is not the result of Marxism only, but of any modification of the I-centered worldview. In order to establish the unity of form and content[420] an alternative comprehensive sociological theory was needed that would call things and phenomena by their proper names, thus secure uniqueness of life conception for different people.

If a theory of this kind were developed, well-meant but ignorant bureaucrats would begin changing the structure of their mind while mastering the theory. They would adopt their subjective ideas of life to reality and consequently would quit being bureaucrats. They would become good managers and businessmen, Bolshevik entrepreneurs. The theory would help most people expose ill-intentioned «know-alls» pursuing the object of destroying Socialism advances and re-establishing a kind of legalized crowd-“elitism”. As a consequence of this unsolved problem alongside with some others J.V. Stalin was right under those social and historic circumstances to limit the scope of commodity-money exchange (trade in the field of production). The limitation was implemented by means of interaction of the state economic sector and co-operative one on the basis of prices established by the state.

There was nothing to prevent profitability of co-operative business from growing to the level that could be reached on the basis of state planned shopping prices, but bureaucracy in management. The same concerns increasing profitability of state enterprises as compared to a planned level.

Here a question arises, why did J.V. Stalin write that common wealth increase should be ensured by means of:

· Direct wage raise;

· Further systematic cut in prices for articles of mass consumption.

The latter point is especially important.

The answer to the question shows that in Socialist economy the principle of superior profitability of national economy as a whole must go with the principle of achieving utmost self-repayment of enterprises. Note that the principle of superior profitability of national economy is manifested by a planned systematic cut in prices according to the increase of social labor productivity and of serving people’s needs in various products including services. As a result the savings of manufacturing a product as well as over and above the plan production should become apparent not only in price cutting and output rate increasing[421], but in the up growth of nominal cash income of enterprises. This enables groups to develop their funds of public consumption and to reward their employees thereby encouraging them to work conscientiously, without waiting for a national cut in prices.

During post-Stalin’s period this strategy was distorted. But it does not mean that J.V. Stalin was wrong in his idea of a planned state beginning on a national scale and principles of self-repayment (profitability) of national economy as a whole as well as of single enterprises.

The issue of commodity production under Socialism and accordingly the issue of market functioning is explained by J.V. Stalin in the following way:

«Commodity production must not be regarded as something sufficient unto itself, something independent of the surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed in slave-owning society, and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed in feudal society and served it, yet, although it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production, it did not lead to capitalism. Why then, one asks, cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism, bearing in mind that in our country commodity production is not so boundless and all-embracing as it is under capitalist conditions, being confined within strict bounds thanks to such decisive economic conditions as social ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the system of wage labour, and the elimination of the system of exploitation?

(…)

Of course, when instead of the two basic production sectors, the state sector and the collective-farm sector, there will be only one all-embracing production sector, with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy," will disappear, as being an unnecessary element in the national economy. But so long as this is not the case, so long as the two basic production sectors remain, commodity production and commodity circulation must remain in force, as a necessary and very useful element in our system of national economy. How the formation of a single and united sector will come about, whether simply by the swallowing up of the collective-farm sector by the state sector – which is hardly likely (because that would be looked upon as the expropriation of the collective farms) – or by the setting up of a single national economic body (comprising representatives of state industry and of the collective farms), with the right at first to keep account of all consumer product in the country, and eventually also to distribute it, by way, say, of products-exchange – is a special question which requires separate discussion.

Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state, the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which, together with its "money economy," is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production». (“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”.)

«Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist.

In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the exchange of commodities through purchase and sale, the exchange, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.

But the operation of the law of value is not confined to the sphere of commodity circulation. It also extends to production. True, the law of value has no regulating function in our socialist production, but it nevertheless influences production, and this fact cannot be ignored when directing production. As a matter of fact, consumer goods, which are needed to compensate the labour power expended in the process of production, are produced and realized in our country as commodities coming under the operation of the law of value. It is precisely here that the law of value exercises its influence on production. In this connection, such things as cost accounting and profitableness, production costs, prices, etc., are of actual importance in our enterprises. Consequently, our enterprises cannot, and must not, function without taking the law of value into account.

Is this a good thing? It is not a bad thing. Under present conditions, it really is not a bad thing, since it trains our business executives to conduct production on rational lines and disciplines them. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives to count production magnitudes, to count them accurately, and also to calculate the real things in production precisely, and not to talk nonsense about "approximate figures," spun out of thin air. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives to look for, find and utilize hidden reserves latent in production, and not to trample them under foot. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives systematically to improve methods of production, to lower production costs, to practise cost accounting, and to make their enterprises pay. It is a good practical school which accelerates the development of our executive personnel and their growth into genuine leaders of socialist production at the present stage of development.

The trouble is not that production in our country is influenced by the law of value. The trouble is that our business executives and planners, with few exceptions, are poorly acquainted with the operations of the law of value, do not study them, and are unable to take account of them in their computations. This, in fact, explains the confusion that still reigns in the sphere of price-fixing policy (put in bold type by the authors: the integral evaluation of economic literacy of managers and economists generation brought up by Marxism political economy). Here is one of many examples. Some time ago it was decided to adjust the prices of cotton and grain in the interest of cotton growing, to establish more accurate prices for grain sold to the cotton growers, and to raise the prices of cotton delivered to the state. Our business executives and planners submitted a proposal on this score which could not but astound the members of the Central Committee, since it suggested fixing the price of a ton of grain at practically the same level as a ton of cotton, and, moreover, the price of a ton of grain was taken as equivalent to that of a ton of baked bread. In reply to the remarks of members of the Central Committee that the price of a ton of bread must be higher than that of a ton of grain, because of the additional expense of milling and baking, and that cotton was generally much dearer than grain, as was also borne out by their prices in the world market, the authors of the proposal could find nothing coherent to say. The Central Committee was therefore obliged to take the matter into its own hands and to lower the prices of grain and raise the prices of cotton. What would have happened if the proposal of these comrades had received legal force? We should have ruined the cotton growers and would have found ourselves without cotton». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 3. “The Law of Value Under Socialism”.)

These fragments show that J.V. Stalin understood that there was no way to escape the objective law of value in economy in the course of building Socialism and Communism. But management and economists’ ignorance prevented from achieving the utmost efficiency of planned Socialist economy of the USSR. The efficiency was improved by turning on market machinery of self-regulation of using available over and above the plan facilities. It was impossible to overcome this ignorance under the limitations of I-centered economic theories both: Marxism and private-owner theories. Without overcoming the ignorance they would not solve the problem of combining the plan of public utility conditioned by the population science and market machinery within one system of production and consumption.

This is not the whole story. If de-bureaucratization had been carried out it would have exposed ill-intentioned bureaucrats and would have enlightened ignorant bureaucrats on the basis of a theory alternative to Marxism. Then market machinery could have been subordinated to the planned beginning and the main economic law of socialism by means of the machinery of dues and donations and included into Socialism economy. But J.V. Stalin was not content with market machinery as a regulator. It did not guarantee superiority over Capitalism in the quality of economy management for in capitalism economy there had already been an attempt to combine a planned beginning on a national scale with market self-regulation. That was the reason for J.V. Stalin to set another object explaining the issue of the law of value under socialism. This object was more important than combining a plan and market machinery of self-regulation of using available over and above the plan facilities in the USSR national economy:

«In the second phase of communist society, the amount of labour expended on the production of goods will be measured not in a roundabout way, not through value and its forms, as is the case under commodity production, but directly and immediately — by the amount of time, the number of hours, expended on the production of goods <if we specify it as the time conditioned by techniques and organization and remember that scientific, technical, organizational and technological advance are held in store of plan stability then everything is right. There appear no unfounded man´hours needed to make a scientific discovery>. As to the distribution of labour, its distribution among the branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will have ceased to function by that time, but by the growth of society's demand for goods. It will be a society in which production will be regulated by the requirements of society, and computation of the requirements of society will acquire paramount importance for the planning bodies»(put in bold type by the authors: comments will be given later). (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 3. “The Law of Value Under Socialism”).

If we go into particulars of direct responsiveness of people’s needs and production orientation towards them directly, it suggests the following. There should be created such systems of production and of production management and distribution that secure production of almost everything[422] at a pace that does not cause nuisance for a consumer during the time while his order is being executed.

J.V. Stalin realized this system was an alternative for the market, that could excel the market in efficiency. Naturally he did not wait for Communism to be built to move to this system but started it right away.

«We still have no developed system of products-exchange, but the rudiments of such a system exist in the shape of the "merchandising" of agricultural products. For quite a long time already, as we know, the products of the cotton-growing, flax-growing, beet-growing and other collective farms are "merchandised". They are not "merchandised" in full, it is true, but only partly, still they are "merchandised." Be it mentioned in passing that "merchandising" is not a happy word, and should be replaced by "products-exchange". The task is to extend these rudiments of products-exchange to all branches of agriculture and to develop them into a broad system, under which the collective farms would receive for their products not only money, but also and chiefly the manufactures they need. Such a system would require an immense increase in the goods allocated by the town to the country, and it would therefore have to be introduced without any particular hurry, and only as the products of the town multiply. But it must be introduced unswervingly and unhesitatingly, step by step contracting the sphere of operation of commodity circulation and widening the sphere of operation of products-exchange.

Such a system, by contracting the sphere of operation of commodity circulation, will facilitate the transition from socialism to communism. Moreover, it will make it possible to include the basic property of the collective farms, the product of collective farming, in the general system of national planning». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Reply to Comrades A.V. Sanina and V.G. Venzher” part 2).

If the state regarded this undertaking seriously more and more enterprises of all economic sectors would be involved in this system of self-regulation of production and consumption in the course of social and historic development. It could be achieved on the basis of virtual management structures of production and consumption products exchange[423]. But when J.V. Stalin died this way of development was cut short. Some economic reformers of the age of Khrushchev and Brezhnev and the period after the USSR break-up showed their readiness to capitulate to Capitalism, others showed their feeble mind for they concentrated on the problem of introducing a market machinery into Russian economy. First they tried it as a means to improve the planned beginning function, then as a supposed alternative to it[424].

While reading the given fragments concerning the substitution for commodity production (and trade correspondingly) by direct products exchange one should not think that J.V. Stalin was an idiot. He was not like those reformers of early 90-s of the 20^th century who could not cope with adjustment of the financing system to maintaining product exchange because of their stupidity and grabbling and who drove the country to barter. Barter was a type of exchange trade of primitive society. Those who take his words about direct products exchange this way are idiots themselves, they insensible to the tenor of life and incapable of thinking. J.V. Stalin had figurative ideas of the way Socialism planned economy was to work in the process of changing to communism. But in the culture of society there was no conceptual system to express his thought clearly. J.V. Stalin did not create this system himself. It appeared too much for him to bear to govern the country day-to-day and at the same time to create philosophy and sociology afresh that agreed with ideals of Communism, building of it in practice and the atmosphere of Marxism cult that was essentially hostile to Communism.

*   *   *

Keeping the supreme public authority of the USSR under his thumb J.V. Stalin being the leader of the Party and the head of the state for thirty years led society successfully to another point of re-examining the past and forming intentions for the future. With the help of the means of expressing thoughts available in the culture of society at that time he revealed and defined the unsolved problems that prevented the USSR society and the global civilization from developing.

That is the reason for us to be thankful to him. Another reason is that he managed to organize the victory in the Great Patriotic War in spite of the tendencies characteristic of the crowd-“elitism”. It will not to do to succeed at others’ expense: these problems as well as some others were to be solved by science. The fact that mostly on the territory of the USSR they were not solved moreover forgotten demonstrates parasitism, mental and professional weakness. This refers to everybody with an academic degree in philosophy or economics and other branches of sociology beginning from Ph. D. “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” is their verdict of guilty.

*            *
*

All the things cited here show that “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” also contains the answer to the following questions:

Why was not the economic reform of the age of N. Khrushchev with its system of «state public farms» designed to manage regional production systems justified?

Why did the reform of Kosygin of early 60-s of the 20^th century lose its way? Why did not it produce a beneficial effect on Socialism and Communism as well as the generation of pro-bourgeois dissidents of the sixties who did not manage to «snatch the time of their life» at once.

But the present generation of Russian reformers has no future either if they do not solve the problems posed directly or touched upon indirectly by J. Stalin. Consequently the general global crisis of Capitalism will continue to aggravate assuming new faces such as ecology, terrorism, epidemics of insanity, etc.

Besides the discussed issues there are some less important (in our view) problems in the work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”. We shall not broach them in the present work for they do not correspond to the subject matter. Alongside with examining problems that were to be solved J.V. Stalin expressed his opinion on admissible and inadmissible management decisions in the course of the USSR further approaching Communism. His opinion was mostly conditioned by the social and economic reality of the USSR of those years. His mind was inseparably linked with it. Khrushchev’s rule adopted a new policy to drive the country to elimination of the achievements of Stalin’s Bolshevism. As a result social and economic circumstances changed. Therefore J. Stalin’s opinion lost its topicality. Now it is interesting only from the point of view of history. That is why if anybody is interested in these questions he/she should turn to J. Stalin’s direction to Bolsheviks for the future.

However to all appearance J.V. Stalin went beyond publishing “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”. That was a work oriented towards the specific conditions of the USSR mainly. In 1952 in Madrid the «NOS» publishers released a book by a Josef Landovskiy called “The Red Symphony” (“Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor”) translated by Mauricio Carlavia. The after word written by the translator said that the manuscript had been found in the years of World War II in a hut in the suburbs of Leningrad with a dead body together with Josef Landovskiy’s documents. A Spanish man called «A.I.» found it. He was probably one from Franco’s «Blue Division» fighting on Hitler’s side at the front of Leningrad. Later he brought it to Spain.

One of the chapters called «Radiography of Revolution» was published in Russia in the journal «Molodaya Gvardiya» numbers 3 and 4 in 1992. Spanish edition number 9 released in Barcelona[425] was cited there. In the first Madrid edition this chapter is on pages 421 — 461. All in all the book consists of 488 pages. This chapter is about the examination of the Trotskyist G. Rakovskiy. It supposedly took place in a special cottage of People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs[426] (PCIA) in 1938. The examination was held as a talk over dinner. It is said that during the examination G. Rakovskiy was under a psychotropic that made him unable to restrain himself. Therefore he answered frankly to the questions asked speaking what he really had on his mind.

The fragment published in «Molodaya Gvardiya»[427] creates an impression that J. Stalin’s secret services did it to introduce certain information concerning Marxism and the «world backstage» to the public. So they produced a hoax novel inculcated it in the culture of the West. But for all that the character has a real Trotskyist’s name that is G. Rakovskiy, sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment in 1938. Everything that he says about Marxism and the World Revolution during the examination is true.

Here are some details of the story. Doctor Josef Landovskiy was involved in the work of the PCIA owing to his outstanding achievements in narcology and toxicology. He happened to be present at the examination. With his two hands and a typewriter he managed to make an extra copy of the record of the examination. Later he quitted working for the PCIA and the PCIA forgot about their bearer of a secret and lost track of him. Consequently during World War II he turned to be alone at the front of Leningrad with his personal files that he had brought secretly from the special place of the PCIA where he had lived working for them. So he violated sequentially the system of State secrets protection functioning in the USSR. Due to that his personal files full of secrets was found with the dead body. This story is certainly a hoax made up to explain credibly how this information that could not be a subject of public speculation either in the USSR or in the West gained publicity[428].

We do not insist that Joseph Dzhugashvili besides writing under the pseudonym of Joseph Stalin once published a book in Spain under the pseudonym of Joseph Landovskiy. But the fact that «the Red Symphony» appeared almost at the same time as “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” and that they add to each other’s themes is not just a senseless twist of fate, it is not pure chance. «Chance is a powerful momentary weapon of Providence»[429].

The Prospects of Bolshevism

One can use the following quotation from H. Ford to describe the fortunes of those who regret the break-up of the USSR:

«More men are beaten than fail. It is not wisdom they need or money, or brilliance, «pull», but just plain gristle and bone. This rude, simple, primitive power which we call «stick-to-it-iveness» is the uncrowned king of the world of endeavor. People are utterly wrong in their slant upon things. They see the successes that men have made and somehow they appear to be easy. But that is a world away from the facts. It is failure that is easy. Success is always hard. A man can fail in ease; he can succeed only by paying out all that he has and is». (“My Life and Work”, Henry Ford, chapter 15. “Why charity?”)

But the words which H. Ford continues the above quotation with can be addressed to «democratizes» and Russian «nouveau riche» sjids of all nationalities and races who think that they have defeated bolshevism in Russia and therefore have defeated it in the entire world:

«It is this which makes success so pitiable a thing if it be in lines that are not useful and uplifting».

In the autumn of 1991 in Moscow a Soviet-American symposium was held at the Academy of labor and social relations which was among others attended by the Japanese. This is how the Japanese billionaire Herosi Teravama answered the Soviet economists and sociologists who kept talking profusely about the «Japanese economic wonder»:

«You are not speaking about the main thing. About your leading role in the world. In 1939 you Russians were smart, and we Japanese, were fools. In 1949 you became even smarter, we were still fools. In 1955 we became smarter, you turned into 5-year old children. Our economic system is almost entirely a copy of yours <i.e. of the Stalin era>, the only difference is that we have capitalism, private businesses, and we could never achieve a more than 15 % growth. You had social ownership of production means and achieved 30 % and more. Your slogans from Stalin’s times are in the offices of all our companies» (A. Shabalov. “Eleven Blows of Comrade Stalin”, Rostov-on-Don, 1995).

A Japanese billionaire is in fact reproaching the insane Russian sociologists and economists — the pseudo-scientific consultants of the ruling regime — for abandoning the progressive conceptions of Stalin’s heritage. This is truly a sign that all the people who think on their own can co-operate in building communism on the principles of bolshevism no matter what country and what class they belong to.

In other words, the globalization based on the principles of Stalin’s bolshevism, is already taking place. Now that the public bolshevist initiative in Russia has worked out a social scientific theory and has gained conceptual power on its basis, making conceptual power available for anyone, the globalization based on the principles of crowd-“elitism” is doomed to fail.

Our cause is the right one. Victory will be ours, because we abide by God.

January 3 — July 15 2002

 

SUPPLEMENTS
1. The Biblical Doctrine of Global Slavery

 

«Do not charge your brother interest (your fellow Jew, as it follows from the context) whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner (i.e. a non-Jew) interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your god (i.e. the devil, if one judges the essence of usurious parasitism according to one’s conscience) bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess» (the latter refers not only to ancient times and not only to Palestine, the land promised to ancient Hebrews, because it is a quotation not from a transcript of the ancient roll found at the place of excavations but from a widely published book claimed by all Churches and a part of the intelligentsia as the eternal truth supposedly passed on from above) — Deuteronomy, 23:19, 20. «You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none», — Deuteronomy, 28:12. «Foreigners (i.e. subsequent generations of the non-Hebrews who have run into a debt which could be repaid by no means to the tribe of usurious coreligionists) will rebuild your walls (today many Arab families from Palestine are dependant on the opportunity of working in Israel) and their kings will serve you («I am the Jew of kings» — was the way one of the Rothschilds answered the unfortunate compliment of «You are the king of Jews»); Though in anger I struck you, in favor I will show you compassion. Your gates will always stand open, they will never by shut, day or night, so that men may bring you the wealth of their nations — their kings led in triumphal procession. For the nation or kingdom that will not serve you will perish; it will be utterly ruined» — Isaiah, 60:10 — 12.

The hierarchies of all the so-called Christian Churches, including Russian Orthodox, claim this abominable conception to be holy, while the canon of the New Testament which had been censored and edited as far back as prior to the Nikean council (325 AD) proclaims it in the name of Christ as the righteous Will of God for all the times to come having no grounds whatsoever to do so.

«Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished» — Matthew 5:17, 18.

This is the Bible’s concrete meaning (according to texts of Russian Orthodox Church’s Bible, including Septuagint) which governs the entire Biblical civilization. The rest of the Bible is unimportant or attendant to that conception.

*       *   *

It is clear from the above that this conception lies within the bounds of the general control weapon means’ fourth priority. Yet in the 20^th century the bosses of the Biblical project have used up all options of aggression by the means not higher than the fourth priority and decided to proceed up to the third priority.

There are two mutually dependent issues arising in social life which, depending on the way they are resolved, either provide the opportunity for personal, and hence social, development or deny that opportunity:

· providing public access to cultural achievements (works of art, science, technology, etc.) required for the people’s personal development which takes place while they become familiar with the cultural achievements of the past and take over this cultural progress;

· providing for the life of those who work in the field of art, science, technology and other fields of creative search.

Because creative search activities very often cannot be combined with profitably taking part in the socially common labor, the entire history of modern global civilization is full of people considered odd and idle by their contemporaries, who at least died in poverty even if they were not persecuted. Yet their descendants justly held them for outstanding creators, who were by decades or even centuries ahead of their contemporaries’.

Along with creators rejected by the crowd-“elitist” society there always are justly spurned graphorrea addicts who have nothing to say either to their contemporaries or descendants yet project an image of themselves as true creators. But this does not justify the society in escaping from practically addressing the two mutually dependent issues.

Let us make it clear once again: these are two different, though mutually dependent issues. They are by no means to be mixed up, and even more so it is unacceptable to pretend addressing the issue of providing for the people engaged in creative search activities while usurping the achievements in arts, science and technology and denying people access to them.

But it is exactly what is happening under conceptual power of the Biblical project’s bosses while the I-centric world understanding is dominant in the society.

A global control system of information distribution is being created. This is yet another system of the mafia regime oppressing the society based on the «laws on copyright and allied rights». When some have an exclusively high paying capacity and others are paupers owing to the organized corporate usury and stock exchange speculations, the following can happen:

· first the institution of «copyright and allied rights» is established legally under the pretext of protecting the interests of authors and enabling them to be remunerated when their work is used;

· then these laws and the practice of their application allows to buy up the works of art, inventions, technology and other information;

· at the last stage a system is formed which allows to control access to cultural achievements appropriated by means of corporate mafias, and consequently to control the direction of cultural development by means of disseminating some information and prosecuting those who disseminate other information under the pretext of breach of «copyright» or allied rights.

This is not our imagination. H. Ford confronted this system when he was defending in court his right to manufacture cars in spite of the patent issued to some man called G. Selden. H. Ford describes that as follows:

«The way was not easy. We were harried by a big suit brought against the company[430] to try to force us into line with an association of automobile manufactures, who were operating under the false principle that there was only a limited market for automobiles and that a monopoly of that market was essential. This was the famous Selden Patent suit. At times the support of our defense severely strained our resources. Mr. Selden, who has but recently died, had little to do with the suit. It was the association which sought a monopoly under the patent. The situation was this:

George B. Selden, a paten attorney, filed an application as far back as 1879 for a paten the object of which was stated to be «The production of a safe, simple. And cheap road locomotive, light in weight, easy to control, possessed of sufficient power to overcome an ordinary inclination». This application was kept alive in the Patent Office, by methods which are perfectly legal, until 1895, when the paten was granted. In 1879, when the application was filed, the automobile was practically unknown to the general public, but by the time the patent was issued everybody was familiar with self-propelled vehicles, and most of the men, including myself, who had been for years working on motor propulsion, were surprised to learn that what we had made practicable was covered by an application of years before, although the applicant had kept his idea merely as an idea. He had done nothing to put it into practice». (“My Life and Work”, Henry Ford, chapter 3 “Starting the real business”).

H. Ford won the case, that is why now we know about a car-manufacturing company called «Ford Motors». The business of «protecting» «copyright and allied rights» has moved very much forward. Let us turn to an interview given to the Pravda.ru web-site by the «World of Internet» magazine content editor and one of the founders of the iFREE[431] public initiative Alexander Sergeyev.

«A. Sergeyev: Under the pretext of protecting the interests of the author information distribution of all kinds is artificially limited by insurmountable financial and legal barriers, — says the iFREE manifesto. As a result, creation outside the corporate framework that provides legal and financial support is doomed to be either illegal or marginal.

(…)

Now on the threat to culture. Copyright strengthens the principal division of all people into authors and consumers of cultures. But such a division is contrary to the modern tendencies of cultural and scientific development.[432] Of course, traditional forms of authored creative activity will remain, yet a different, non-authored culture is becoming more and more significant in comparison to it. It includes fan clubs, happenings, joint musical performance, public discussions, teleconference, network projects with undefined or changing number of participants.[433]

Non-authored culture has always existed, for example, as folklore. Its main difference from authored culture is in having no strict division into consumers and authors. Rather, it has participants and leaders. With the introduction of book-printing, sound records, radio, television non-authored culture receded into the background, as only professional authors and editors were able to manage expensive printing space and no less expensive broadcast time properly.

The Internet creates entirely new opportunities for developing non-authored culture. But in the 500 years since the times of Guttenberg and especially in the 20^th century we have almost entirely forgotten that it exists. Modern copyright legislation provides authored culture many advantages over non-authored one. It creates an effective way of appropriating cultural values[434] and limits broad public access to them.

But the future belongs to non-authored culture. And one should not think that non-authored culture will be necessarily marginal. Professional authorship formed as a response to the challenge of publishers. The dominating form of cultural interaction is changing. After the era of broadcast we are entering the era of communication. And this must be certainly reflected in the legal procedures which regulate cultural activities. Above all the law on copyright — the main obstacle in the way of non-authored culture.

Question: Copyright has yet had little chance to go on the spree in post-Soviet countries. But it seems that Russia has prepared an analogue of Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DMCA) — the amendments to the RF Law «On copyright and allied rights». The bill on the amendments contains amenability for by-passing copyright protection hardware, as well as the ban on manufacturing and distributing devices used for by-passing or facilitating the by-pass of protection hardware… Among many other things. What will happen if the bill is passed?[435]

A. Sergeyev: If the bill is passed, our legislature will become even worse than that of America, which has almost reached the level of totalitarian regimes in the aspect of freedom of information distribution (put in bold type by the authors of the book). By the way, the next bill is being discussed in the US, concerning the ban on manufacture and sale of hardware and software not equipped with the means of copyright information control.[436]

The number of information activities and information relations is limitless. Any of them may appear unprofitable to someone. And if the corresponding lobby is powerful enough, this activity is banned. While the lobby of freedom is often the weaker side. Freedom is lost gradually, almost imperceptibly. Every such step in itself seems insignificant. But constant dropping wears away the stone.

Recently I received news — some companies are trying to prohibit through court placing links leading to pages other than the homepages of their sites as it may create a different impression with the user than the author originally intended. Even in the Soviet times[437] nobody thought of banning reference to particular pages of books. Yet now to someone this practice became unprofitable.

Actually, the more bans are introduced, the easier it is to make money on them. The scheme is a very simple one and has been known since the times of Inquisition: you introduce a public ban — a moral, legal, political one — and then you start selling pardons…»

Though the problem has been discovered by the society, it is clear that A. Sergeyev is speaking only about selling «pardons» to the end of making profit. The crucial issue has not been understood and clearly expressed. It has been left in silence, as it is necessary for the bosses of the Biblical project on enslaving the mankind:

A kind of mafia regime controlling the society is being formed and is becoming more powerful. Its power is exercised not by actual dictatorship, but indirectly — through controlling the distribution of information favorable to the Biblical project bosses and persecuting those who distribute unfavorable information, under the pretext of copyright breach. As an interim result, the direction of cultural development on the whole and of scientific and technological development in particular to a very large extent comes under legalized control of the international mafia of usurers who have started to buy up © copyrights.

Thus, substituting the issue of providing public access to all cultural accomplishments with the issue of presumably protecting the interests of creators from the attempts to parasitize on their work, the Biblical «world backstage» is trying to pursue its slave-owning ambition by new means.

The Russian idea of copyright is that it is the right of a person gifted by God to gift other people with the fruits of his or her work according with his genuine understanding of God’s Will. It is incompatible with the abominable Western conception of copyright and allied rights and the laws it is reflected in.

Ignore the laws on copyright and allied right for the benefit of all, and God speed you.

Only in a nightmare hallucination can one imagine Jesus as a pettifogger who defends in court his © copyright on the Gospel. But the very fact of the © copyright institution’s existence in the West explains that the West lives under the power of the New Testament which has been privatized and perverted by the mafia like the Testament given from the above through Moses had been privatized and perverted by mafia before.

---

Дата добавления: 2019-09-02; просмотров: 185; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

Поделиться с друзьями:

---

---

Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!