Part II Historical Experience of Bolshevism in 20th Century and its Prospects 5. Results of «Fordizm» as the American Attempt of Bolshevism in 20th Century
Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness · перевод (English) · раздел 24 из 42
Перевод исходного произведения; точность перевода оценивается отдельно.
Part II Historical Experience of Bolshevism in 20th Century and its Prospects 5. Results of «Fordizm» as the American Attempt of Bolshevism in 20th Century
H. Ford at the age of 59, being the person grown wise with experience, in his book “My Life and Work” in 1922 - in the year when the USSR was formed [174] - expressed a wish, which we already quoted in Part 4.4:
«In order to create a system which shall be as independent of the good-will of benevolent employers as of the ill-will of selfish ones, we shall have to find a basis in the actual facts of life itself».
His management of «Ford Motors» set an example that transition of the society to more effective way of production, aimed at satisfying vital needs of the majority (taking more or less conscientious part in work for the public good), is quite real and realizable task.
H. Ford proved this in practice at the level of microeconomy under conditions of biblical-and-talmudic degraded parasitic macroeconomy, built on the principles of mob-organized domination of usury and stock gambling, supported by the entire might of the state and its legal machine.
At all that H. Ford as an employer acted at the level of microeconomy; he had no authority to change legislation and state structure of the USA so that they complied with the principles of «Fordizm», the first American version of bolshevism in its essence. Understanding limited nature of such capabilities, H. Ford purchased newspaper “Dearborn Independent” in 1918 and from its pages he gave his views on historically formed organization of social, economical and political life of the USA and of the world. He opposed it to the principles of «Fordizm» as organizational principle of different way of life of the civilization, dependent on technosphere and manufacturing-and-distribution system.
However, Henry Ford did not succeed as the advocate of the ideas and leader of the public initiative of transformation of social life. Moreover, he was advised to stop his social and political activity under the threat of bankruptcy. Having published in the «Dearborn Independent» articles on social-and-political and economical issues and the part of the Jewry in them, H. Ford confronted with organized counteraction to the circulation of the newspaper and to the free discussion of the issues touched upon by him. This counteraction increased after publication of «International Jew», the book, compiling articles published in «Dearborn Independent» during the previous years. Campaign of baiting and pressure carried out against H. Ford continued during the 1920-s; after all, H. Ford stopped his public political activity, seeing lack of the contemporary society’s active support of social-and-political and economical opinions that he expressed.
Different things happened during this anti-Ford campaign. Thus, the owner of «ХХ Century Fox» wrote H. Ford a letter on behalf of the Jewish «community» of the USA. In this letter he offered him to stop his appearances on the «Jewish question», otherwise he promised to include in the released films pictures with solely Ford automobiles broken in the motor car accidents, accompanied by the relevant explanations of the number of the dead, injured, and technical reasons of the accident. And in the end of this campaign, H. Ford was given the text of abdication to be signed: he would renounce of everything he had published on the «Jewish question» and apologize to the Jewish «community».
«Details of renunciation and apology were worked out by his «H. Ford’s» two representatives and well-known Jewish figures: Lewis Marshall and congressman Nathan Perelman. Marshall wrote the text of renunciation, which, he expected, would be the basis for Ford’s apology to the Jewry and… expose the automobile titan to ridicule. “If I had his money, - said Marshall cynically during the conversation with his close friend, - I would not have signed such a humiliating statement even for 100 million dollars!” To the greatest Marshall ’s surprise, the letter of renunciation was published without a single correction and bore the Ford’s signature.
In this letter special emphasis was laid on “extreme busyness” of a big businessman, which prevented him from focusing due attention to the articles being published in “Dearborn Independent”. It was admitted that accusation brought against the Jews were of malicious, unjust and insincere character. “The Great Ford” humbly apologized to “the long-suffering Jewish people” for “unproved assertions and mistakes”, contained in his newspaper.
Ford’s renunciation was received by the “Jewish community” with unconcealed joy. “Anti-Semites of the world are mourning!” - Yiddishers’ [175] press was breathless with joy. And still, did the “proud American” really repent?
After Ford’s death it was discovered that he did not sign any apologia before the Jews. The signatures under the renunciation and letter of apology to Shapiro [176] were fabricated by his assistant, Harry Bennett, who told about it on the pages of magazine “True” in 1951: “I telephoned Ford. I told him that “the apologia is already inscribed”, and added, “it looks very badly”. I tried to read the text over the telephone, but he stopped me. Then I reproduced Ford’s signature on the document. I always could sign for him very plausibly. Then I presented the paper to Wintermeier and Marshall. The signature was certified, and the matter was settled”» (“The International Jew”, Moskvityanin”, 1993, pp. 22, 23 - publishers’ preface).
Because H. Ford made no actual renunciation, it is necessary to mention one more fact, cited in the preface to “The International Jew”:
«Thus, Bernard Baruch was called «by H. Ford» “the Judas’s consul in America ”, “the almighty Jew [177]” and “the most powerful man” in the days of the war «World War I of the 20th century». When American reporters asked Baruch to comment on the “titles” given to him, the closest advisor of all USA presidents of the first half of the 20th century (put in bold type by the authors) tried to joke off: “Do you think I shall deny anything?!» (“The International Jew”, the cited Russian edition, preface, p. 5).
Thus Bernard Baruch himself essentially proved by default Henry Ford’s assessment of the role of the Jewry (Hebrews) in making of the supragovernmental global policy, including organization of the World War I of the 20th century and revolutions in Russia and Germany, about which H. Ford wrote among other things.
However, mentioning numerous facts concerning the role of the Hebrews in making of the internal and the foreign policy of the European states and of the USA, as well as of the global policy, and resting upon the counterfeit “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” [178], H. Ford was not able to shed light on this role authentically. In our opinion, one of the causes of this was his ignorance of many facts of the mankind history, and incomprehension of its general course in the past and probable trend in the future (which were determined by this ignorance).
But besides that, from the text of an interview given by H. Ford to newspaper “New York Times”, one can understand that having misused H. Ford’s ignorance in the sphere of knowledge of global civilization history and lack of systematically-integral sociological notions, the «Hebrews» themselves involved H. Ford in the activities, which they later on called «anti-Semitic». In 1915 H. Ford attempted to stop World War I of the 20th century. He freighted a ship, on which he and a group of public figures of the USA set off to the European coasts to initiate peace negotiations. H. Ford’s peace initiative did not meet with success. But later on he told a correspondent of the “New York Times”:
«It was the Jews themselves who convinced me that there is direct connection between the international Jewry and the war. Onboard of our ship there were two righteous Jews. Before we could sail 200 miles they began to instill to me the idea that the Jews ruled the world due to their control of gold [179]. I was reluctant to believe them, but they went into detail while illustrating the means the Jews used to control the warfare… They spoke for so long and looked so competent in what they said that they convinced me» (“The International Jew”, the cited Russian edition, preface, p. 3).
They succeeded in H. Ford’s involving into «Jewish question» not only because of his ignorance in history and sociology, but because he understood organization and algorithms of system integrity of multiindustrial production and production distribution better than organization and algorithms of individual’s mentality or algorithms of collective mentality generated by them.
It does not mean that he did not feel peculiarities of the people’s mentality and thus could not organize people in their collective activities. If he was insensitive to people’s difference in organizing their mentality and to the nature of collective mentality generated by them (which controls collective activities), there would not be company «Ford Motors» in the history (or, at least the company as we know it now). Although H. Ford was rather an engineer of the machines, technologies and organization than «the engineer of the human souls» [180], he saw and expressed the essence, which characterized his contemporaries and compatriots:
«There is no difficulty in picking out men «candidates for promotion». They pick themselves out because - although one hears a great deal about the lack of opportunity for advancement - the average workman is more interested in a steady job than he is in advancement.
Scarcely more than five per cent of those who work for wages «i.e. of active adult population», while they have the desire to receive more money, have also the willingness to accept the additional responsibility and the additional work which goes with the higher places. Only about twenty-five per cent are even willing to be straw bosses, and most of them take that position because it carries with it more pay than working on a machine. Men of a more mechanical turn of mind, but with no desire for responsibility, go into the tool-making department where they receive considerably more pay than in production proper. But the vast majority of men want to stay put. THEY WANT TO BE LED. THEY WANT TO HAVE EVERYTHING DONE FOR THEM AND TO HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY «AND CONCERN» [181]. Therefore, in spite of the great mass of men, the difficulty is not to discover men to advance, but men who are willing to be advanced» (put in capitals by the authors, “My Life and Work”, Ch. 6. “Machines and Men”).
As is seen from H. Ford’s books, he did not try to discover the reasons of origination of irresponsibility and carelessness prevailing in the society and revealed by him. He did not try to discover the reasons of origination of associated parasitical, consumer attitude to all kinds of power and its carriers. And the matter concerns the USA, where (as is customary to consider):
· the social order is primordially more democratic than in monarchic Europe, which continued to support many traditions of class-and-caste order during the epoch of downfall of the monarchies (19th century - beginning of the 20th century), as well as during the post-monarchical epoch - due to the psychological inertia;
· every individual is primordially granted more freedom than in older countries of Europe and Asia, where the freedom of individual’s self-expression and creativity is somehow or other suppressed by historically formed traditions, rooted in the great antiquity;
· newly arrived population of the USA consisted of supposedly real freedom-lovers, who for the sake of freedom left their ethnic homeland, and they brought up their sons and grandsons, born and bred Americans of the first generation, also in the spirit of freedom [182].
But real freedom is, first of all, the person’s freedom of choice and his self-assignment of responsibility and care about the lots of the others and prosperity of everyone.
In other words, if, on the one part, the majority of Americans avoid undertaking responsibility and care (which was revealed by H. Ford), then this majority is not free, but is in the power of minority.
On the other part, H. Ford notices:
«We will always find Jews in the top-drawer society - where all the power is concentrated. This is the essence of the Jews question. How do they manage to get the top in all the countries? Who assists them?… What do they do when they get the top?… In every country where the Jews question is vital it becomes obvious that the root of the question comes from their ability to get hold of the power. Here, in the United States, the unquestionable fact is that in the last 50 years this minority has gained so much control while other, several dozen times bigger national groups failed to» (“The International Jew”, the cited Russian edition, preface, p. 9).
And in the other world understanding, the freedom is undertaking, first of all, by one’s own initiative, one or another quality, fullness or breadth of power.
However, depending on to which extent the undertaking of power is accompanied by responsibility and concern for other people’s fates and for everybody’s prosperity, and depending on how exactly the terms «prosperity of a person» and «prosperity of the society» are understood and what they mean, to that extent freedom is really freedom, but not permissiveness towards the people.
Usually, the society does not care who personally takes care about human community of all people. This particularly applies to the crowd, more or less satisfied by its consumer status and efforts for its provision. The issue of personal composition of power arises when some social groups (to the extent of the society majority) disagree about the power’s activities.
And it was this disagreement with historically formed social order and system of production and distribution peculiar to this order, which made H. Ford ready to be brought to the «Jewish question».
However, having confronted with it, he did not try to analyze the causes of appearance of psychological differences in behavior motivation of Hebrews and the rest of multinational (by its origin) American society. He just «registered» this (in general, well-known) fact.
The cause of the «Jewish question» is not in «Hebrews’ ability to retain the power under control», as Ford puts it, but in different circumstances, relating to the algorithms of person’s mentality, which he did not study, namely:
· purposefulness in undertaking of power or absence of such purposefulness;
· authoritative actions of the people, who have become familiar with one or another quality of power in its completeness and breadth, which distinguish them from authoritative actions of the representatives of other cultures within the same power in the same social-and-historical circumstances.
So-called «Hebrews’ ability to take power under control» is just the consequence of the causes, which were not revealed, understood or named by H. Ford - statistically expressed differences in algorithms of personal mentality of Hebrews and non-Hebrews.
The first cause of incessant arising of «Jewish question» in all crowd-“elitist” societies, where Jewish (Hebrews) diaspora exists, consists in the following: in situations, when overwhelming majority of non-Hebrews, as H. Ford noticed, evade from undertaking authoritative powers, the Hebrews do not evade from any power undertaking, moreover, they in many cases artificially create situations, when they could be able to take one power or another.
The second cause, in fact constituting the «Jewish question», matured for «massacre» of one or another kind, consists in the fact that the power, being under control of representatives of historically formed traditional Hebrews - due to specific character of actions, peculiar to it,determined by still more profound and ancient causes (generally not known even by the rabbinate, say nothing of common Jews) - is apprehended by the rest of the society as the hostile power, parasitizing [183] on it.
To reveal and understand these more profound causes, more ancient than historically real Jewry and its culture means to understand the beginnings of the «Jewish question» [184].
To solve the «Jewish question» it is necessary to find practical answer for the question:
Is it possible to change algorithms of Hebrews’ and non-Hebrews’ mentality (prevailing in the crowd-“elitist” society and expressed statistically) in such a way as to conclude the conflict, to establish harmony in people’s relations irrespective of their origin, and the society itself and each person was in harmony with the biosphere, Cosmos and the God? And if this is objectively possible, how should this be done practically?
However, without revealing the beginnings of the «Jewish question» H. Ford could not give vitally valid answer for it. Because H. Ford was more occupied with management of «Ford Motors», and concerned himself with sociological on the whole and historical in particular problems superficially, actually incidentally during his spare time, he did not reveal and did not call these more profound or ancient causes by their proper names. H. Ford could not understand or ground from the historical cause-and-effect point of view the behavior peculiarity of overwhelming majority of representatives of traditional Jewry (Hebrews), and he did not reveal any historical prospects that would be the alternative to their parasitic world domination.
This gave grounds to the Jewish leaders in the USA (in person of Bernard Baruch) to laugh at the newspapermen for a start: “Do you think I shall deny anything?!” - But what is it that Baruch would deny? - He (as any Hebrew (=Jewish) internazi) sincerely agreed with the opinion expressed by the «anti-Semite» H. Ford:
«The international Jew… rules not because he is rich, but because in a most marked degree he possesses the commercial and masterful genius of his race, and avails himself of a racial loyalty and solidarity the like of which exists in no other human group. In other words, transfer today the world-control of the international Jew to the hands of the highest commercially talented group of Gentiles, and the whole fabric of world-control would eventually fall to pieces, because the Gentile lacks a certain quality, be it human or divine, be it natural or acquired, that the Jew possesses» (“The International Jew”, v.1, “IV-The Jewish Question-Fact or Fancy?”).
H. Ford did not engage himself in searching answers to the questions: are certain qualities of Hebrews and non-Hebrews (historically actually expressed in statistics and distinguishing them from each other in their behavior) given genetically and permanently by God? or they are culturally conditioned and could be altered (with God’s help) by the goodwill of the people themselves?
Should H. Ford truly elucidate these problems, B. Baruch, his likes and their backstage masters were past laughter at the newspapermen and the readership, because the matter is not only in personal qualities, which these or those Hebrews have, and which these or those
non-Hebrews have not.
The point is that presence or lack of these personal qualities are mainly stipulated by the culture, formed and maintained within the channel of the doctrine of certain global policy. And at the same time, genetic apparatus and culture of the mankind and national societies are interconnected and influence each other [185].
The essence of biblical doctrine is that personal qualities of Hebrews and non-Hebrews are defined in it (see Supplement 1) and are somehow «programmable». Should H. Ford truly elucidate these problems, he would have to:
· either agree to the biblical doctrine and yield to it (they say, the nature of the races is objectively such and it is permanent, thus, it is necessary to yield),
· either develop some alternative for it.
Should he express even briefly the alternative (but necessarily global) doctrine, B. Baruch, his likes and the masters of the biblical project right away felt past laughter at the newspapermen and the readership (especially as the circulation of “Dearborn Independent” reached at times half a million copies, spread all over the USA). They would have a problem unsolvable within the channel of the biblical project. Its essence is that it is impossible either to buy opponents, or to sell themselves to them, or to agree with them about mutually beneficial cooperation in future global policy conduct within the channel of the biblical doctrine [186].
But since H. Ford could not do it, then, having laughed at him, at the newspapermen and at the readership, the leaders and the masters of the international Jewry started using H. Ford’s «anti-Semitism» and racism in the global project with conventional title «Moustache Clown» [187]. H. Ford got into it by himself because having not revealed and having not understood the beginnings of the «Jewish question», he did not differ objectively different phenomena of Marxism, bolshevism, socialism, communism and medley Zionism in their historically real interweaving. He (just like Hitler and many others hitherto) identified them into the single phenomenon, supposedly aimlessly and groundlessly named by different words.
Because of this misunderstanding H. Ford did not perceive A. Hitler as the provocateur, guided by the biblical «world backstage», - imitator of fight for freedom against Hebrews’ parasitism and supported Nazi party in Germany from its origination during 1920-s - 1930-s, erroneously perceiving it as the mouthpiece of German people’s free will.
And H. Ford’s services in project «Moustache Clown» were rewarded by the master in person of the Fuhrer of the Third Reich, A. Hitler, in July 1938: in commemoration of his 75th anniversary H. Ford was decorated with the Cross of German Eagle Supreme Order. After this decorating, the Hebrewish and leftist press again started anti-Ford campaign. H. Ford (according to one of his friend’s words) reacted this way:
«They (the Germans) awarded me a medal… They (the Jews) insist that I should return it; otherwise I will not be considered an American. It will not do! I will not reject it» (“The International Jew”, the cited Russian edition, Preface, p. 33).
It was about a year before the imitator of fight for freedom against Hebrewish parasitism started the war doomed to be worldwide. But
H. Ford was in captivity of his phantom general sociological and general historical notions, although it was he who wrote soon after the World War I of the XX century ended:
«An impartial investigation of the last war, of what preceded it and what has come out of it, would show beyond a doubt that there is in the world a group of man with vast powers of control, that prefers to remain unknown, that does not seek office or any of the tokens of power, that belongs to no nation whatever but is international - a force that uses every government, every widespread business organization, every agency of publicity, every resource of national psychology, to throw the world into a panic for the sake of getting still more power over the world. An old gambling trick used to be for the gambler to cry «Police!» when a lot of money was on the table, and, in panic that followed, to seize the money and run off with it. There is a power within the world which cries «War!» and in the confusion of the nations, the unrestrained sacrifice which people make for safety and peace runs off with the spoils of the panic.
The point to keep in mind is that, through we won the military contest, the world has not yet, quite succeeded in winning a complete victory over the promoter of war. We ought not to forget that wars are a purely manufactured evil and are made according to a definite technique. A campaign for war is made upon us definite lines as a campaign for any other purpose. First, the people are worked upon. By clever tales the people’s suspicions are aroused towards the nation against whom war is desired. Make the nation suspicions; make the other nation suspicions. All you need for this is a few agents with some cleverness and no conscience and a press whose interest is locked up with the interests that will be benefited by war. Then the «overt act» will soon appear. It is no trick at all to get an «overt act» once you work the hatred of two nations up to the proper pinch» (“My Life and Work”, Ch. 17. “Things in General”).
These events show that Bolshevistic trend objectively peculiar to H. Ford in his activities within «Ford Motors» was at his attempt to move it outside his company captured by the outer forces. They perverted it and carried it to an absurdity [188] in everything that exceeded the bounds of his professional activities as a technician and economist. The main reason of it is in personal H. Ford’s objective (but not declared) morality, which stipulated his world understanding. In the culture of modern global civilization one can discover two kinds of world understanding [189].
First world UNDERSTANDING - «the I-centric» one. In this world understanding the mental tree develops in different directions from the personal «I», which undertakes the part of reference system zero point. During the process of mental tree development its separate branches absorb newer and newer information pertaining to various areas of life and activities of the person and the contemporary society and the mankind as a whole. Consciousness level thinking represents the unity of flow of emotions and flow of language structures and figurative ideas (this could be called emotionally-notional structure of the soul). Emotions in their turn constitute an outlet to the level of consciousness in the form of ultimately generalized estimation of a “good” or a “bad” moodof realizably non-sensible morally stipulated results of activity of unconscious levels of the person’s psyche, which excel several times the level of consciousness in their abilities of information processing [190].
In case of the I-centric algorithms of mentality, the flow of emotions is stipulated by those circumstances, which directly affect the personality. This results in changes of proper perception of «the I». Therefore the success or failure in certain activities depends on the emotional mood of the person with the I-centric world understanding, performing these activities. And many processes are beyond his comprehension because during the time necessary for this comprehension his «zero point» (from which he builds up his mental tree) changes. Every time this zero point changes the mental process is destroyed, not having achieved the result or having achieved a wrong one. [191]
On the other hand, by having assessed the actual morality of the carrier of the I-centric mentality algorithms and controlling his emotions, he could be driven to certain views and prevented from coming to some other opinions, undesirable to the guardians.
This happened to H. Ford: when he tried to become a social and political leader, he fell under guardianship because he had the I-centric world understanding. We shall not engage in extensive and keen “psychoanalysis” trying to prove this fact. Suffice it to say that the I-centrism of H. Ford’s world understanding directly appeared in the title of his book: “My Life and Work”. If his world understanding was not the I-centric, the title of the book would be different, for example, “My Life and OUR(bold type supplied by the authors) Work”, because, as H. Ford himself says in this book, all the achievements of «Ford Motors» are not his personal achievements, but the achievements of the collective, which appeared and developed under his direction on the principles of people’s friendly relations, i.e. on the principles of Bolshevism. If H. Ford acted differently (as the majority of his contemporary businessmen did), there would not be the «Ford Motors» as it historically formed, and probably no one except his close relatives and friends would know who was Henry Ford.
The I-centric world understanding is characterized by certain kaleidoscopic effect, in the sense that different notions in it are separated, have no connections between each other; the same relates to interrelations of notions and objective phenomena. And it was this kaleidoscopic peculiarity in the I-centric outlook that prevented
H. Ford from noticing the said inadequacy between the title of the book (my achievements) and its contents (work of the collective and its achievements).
The I-centrism in algorithms of mentality and world understanding is peculiar to the children during the process of their personal becoming. But as the person grows up, he pays attention to the interrelations between notions in his mentality and between phenomena in life that seemed to him separated before. He starts looking for and developing an alternative to I-centrism (though he can do it without realizing this and knowing neither the name of phenomenon, which we called I-centrism, nor the name of its alternative). The search of the alternative results in the second world understanding.
second world UNDERSTANDING - God-centric world understanding. In this world understanding the mental tree develops in sequence:
God] Creature Universe] object of a person’s attention in interrelation of this object with all the rest of objects and subjects revealed by him during his lifetime.
In this world understanding, there is a «tuning fork» providing conformity of emotional and notional structures of a human soul. Of life as such:
God the Almighty makes no mistakes. Everything done is done the best possible way. But regarding the society, this is true with a reservation: under such dispositions and ethics, which are peculiar to the people [192].
Realization of this fact must be accompanied by joy - positive emotions and optimistic calmness. In such emotionally notional structure the algorithms of mentality works the best way during solving the problems that Life brings and eliminating the ones that it made in the past.
In God-centric world understanding, the kaleidoscopic effect is continually eliminated; the world is represented as still more detailed mosaic. Its «zero point» is basically objectively permanent, which is the steadfast basis for elimination of all the mistakes of world understanding and individual development of a person.
However, due to the culture of modern civilization, the I-centrism of mentality (to a greater or lesser extent) is reserved by the majority of the adults. Yet those who somehow converted to God-centric world understanding, sometimes fall down to the I-centrism under the influence of some mistakes of the formed morality, which are peculiar to them. But intellectual might of any individual in solving all the problems he is involved in, is always realized within the channel of certain world understanding: either the I-centric or God-centric.
Having preserved the I-centrism of psyche algorithms, H. Ford turned out to be groundless as sociologist and practical public figure (he did not realize as «ford» - the wade across an obstacle), although in one of the branches of his I-centric world understanding he managed to express organizational and economical principles of Bolshevism and socialism.