6.7. How to Protect the Future from the «World Backstage»
Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness · перевод (English) · раздел 33 из 42
Перевод исходного произведения; точность перевода оценивается отдельно.
6.7. How to Protect the Future from the «World Backstage»
Stalin’s whole life proves that he did not belong to the anthropoids who live by the principle «after us the deluge». Those who live by this principle and interpret this principle in their own personal ways through the facts of history have distorted the conception of life. This concerns both the history of our country (including Stalin’s epoch) as well as the history of mankind. That is why to understand the epoch of Stalin’s Bolshevism we need to plan and to take active steps to make life definitely more righteous than it was in the past and in our times. If we become definite about it and thus get rid of abstract humanism, which is supposedly addressed to everyone but in fact - to no one, then the events of the epoch of Stalin’s Bolshevism will acquire another meaning, different from that ascribed to them by the abstract humanists (psycho-Trotskyites of bourgeois-democratic or of internazi-socialist branch).
Many of Stalin’s contemporaries say that he was rather ironic about the cult of his personality dominating in the society. In private talks (all of which were talks on the vitally important issues for the country) he encouraged people to take on initiative and the responsibility for this initiative, encouraged this kind of initiative responsibility [296]. One can see it in his written inheritance. In publications as well as in the texts of speeches addressed to various audiences over the years (gathered in his Collected Works) he repeatedly calls for taking on initiative, care and responsibility in the people’s common Life. He also repeatedly notices that simple people’s respect and love of the Party and State leaders is one thing and worshiping the chiefs is a different thing and it should be rooted out in the socialist society.
Neither in Stalin’s oral speeches nor in his written works may you find anything even partially similar to Hitler’s discourses on the chief-Fuhrer and crowd relationships (like, for example, in “Mein Kampf”, for nowadays you may find it in Russian translation without any problem). Nor will you find Lev Gumilev’s discourses on the relationships between chiefs - «people with drive» and the rest of the society [297].
But for anti-Stalinist this only proves that Stalin was much more sly, guileful and hypocritical than Adolph Hitler (together with Lev Gumilev and other sociologists who propagated in other terms the doctrines of leaders and the weak-willed crowd). Nothing can persuade this kind of psycho-Trotskyites that Stalin was against cults of personality, his own cult inclusive. He longed for the society to live on the basis of different morals and comrade ethics, which excluded crowd-“elitism”.
It does not matter what the person subject to this cult worshipping in the crowd-“elitist” society thinks of it. The crowd-“elitist” society by its nature craves for a cult, looks for idols, creates them, gets disappointed in the former idols and sometimes even shifts to the cult of their condemnation, and constantly craves for new idols.
For the society not to be under the cult of any person there should not be any internal or external preconditions of its emergence.
To avoid them the crowd-“elitist” society should stop being crowd-“elitist” and should be based on comrade morals and ethics. The process of transfer from idol-creatingmorals and ethics of irresponsibility and parasitic smugness to the morals and ethics of initiative comrade care and responsibility for the fates of all and sundry takes historical time. This transfer can happen only through practical activity in solving various problems of life of the society coordinated with solving global problems. This transfer cannot happen through idleness, abstract contemplation and moralizing in churches, at public meetings (including party and trade union meetings), mass manifestations and table talks.
From this viewpoint, the fact that the next 19th regular Congress of the Communist Party took place only in early October 1952 (after the 18th Congress in mid March 1939) does not prove or illustrate that Stalin suppressed democracy in the Party and in the country on the whole. Although in times of Lenin and Bronstein (Trotsky) the Party Congresses took place every year (from the extraordinary 7th Congress in 1918 to 14th in 1925) and even during the Civil War (which anti-Stalinists like to repeat very much to prove the suppression of intra-party democracy), in fact the intra-party democracy did not exist even in those times (though it looked like it was formally maintained).
First, the Party was initially created to perform the political will of the narrow circle of its leaders or of one leader. For this purpose in its Charter there was a special principle of the so-called «democratic centralism» [298], which implies the submission of the minority to the majority and all regular party members’ unconditional execution of the decisions taken by superior party bodies. More and more sundry matters captured the attention of the Party and thus, various projects and their handling were carried out by the machinery under the guidance of a narrow circle of leaders. Maybe Stalin did liquidate the so-called intra-Party democracy but it was the mafia «democracy» of this circle of leaders acting behind the scene of the Central Committee and the rest of the Party, which he liquidated first. After this he liquidated the «leaders» themselves, whose convictions and self-discipline were incompatible with Bolshevism as well as with each other [299].
Second, by the year 1917 the Party was a party of leaders and the Party mass who followed the leaders. As a result of this all the following, Congresses of the Party bore the crowd-“elitist”, but not democratic character. This circumstance was beyond Stalin’s control.
Third, while the Party was becoming the structure to manage the social and economic life of the state, it demanded more and more professionalism and various knowledge from a delegate to start new serious proposals and to soundly criticize the draft projects prepared for the Congress by the Central Committee, which worked on a professional basis and was consulted by the leading specialists in any field of science and technology when necessary. Not to speak of the possibility to write a Five-year Plan of Social and Economic Development of the USSR in the free time as an amateur personal or group initiative.
In these circumstances the Congress was no longer performing the function of collective social creative work, which is the essence of democracy regardless through what procedures it is implemented. As a result of this and of the crowd-“elitist” character of the Party and society on the whole regular Congresses could perform only two functions:
· support the cult of the Party leaders in the Party and society;
· provide the Party leaders and members of the Central Committee with the information on the opinions of the Party members and non-Party people in the provinces.
While the first function was antidemocratic for the Party and the society on the whole and thus detrimental, the second function of the Party Congresses lost its urgency after illiteracy within the population had been overcome and the structures of the state administration were established. Those who trusted the Soviet statehood would write to the Central Committee, administration organs and to particular Party and State leaders on the issues they considered vital [300]. The opinions of those who did not trust the regime or was its opponent were known to the Party and State leaders either from the letters of those who trusted the Soviet statehood or from the reports of special services and other State and Party bodies.
In other words if the Party Congresses did not supply the information from the provinces any more and did not represent the collective social creative work there was no managerial need in them for creation of real socialism and communism [301]. However the emotional and excited atmosphere of the Congresses facilitated idol making and thus supported the crowd-“elitism” based on misunderstanding of the events and prospects by both the Congress delegates and other Party members. This provoked passivity, unconcern, and irresponsibility. Such a party cannot be the ruling party to build the society of just community because through its activity it substitutes the genuine democracy with formal democratic procedures.
Lev Bronstein (Trotsky) and others declaim their adherence to the ideals of socialism and communism and blame Stalin for destroying the intra-Party democracy and that of the Soviet government and replacing it with the power of red tape machinery, which supposedly prevented the ideals of socialism from coming to life. But their pathos about it may sound convincing only to those who either do not know Marxism or, knowing it, do not see the incompatibility of its conceptions and categories with real life. This incompatibility does not allow us to discover and solve social problems with the help of Marxist philosophy (which is also due to the incorrectly formulated «key question of philosophy» and to the defective wording of the dialectic laws [302]). The real business accounting has nothing to do with political economy and, thus, the national economy cannot be based on it [303]. Consequently, Marxist philosophy and political economy can only serve as a cover for a mafia tyranny, which will present itself as a model of formal democracy to its people but will never become a scientific and theoretical basis for real democracy, socialism and communism as the society of just community of free people. Therefore it is completely out of place to blame Stalin for «perverting» Marxism because Marxism itself is a fruit of perverted morals, intellect and psyche on the whole.
Taking into account these characteristics of Marxism and those of Lev Bronstein (Trotsky) and his successors, it was not democracy or its beginnings that Stalin destroyed (and for which the society and Party was not ready yet anyway). He suppressed the attempt to establish the besotting mafia tyranny under the cover of plausible lies of Marxism. The masters of the Trotskyites could (but not necessarily would) have observed the formal democratic procedures in case if they had preserved their power in the USSR.
That is why in the epoch of Stalin’s Bolshevism the USSR did not need the regular Congresses of the ACP (B.) (Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) and constant intra-Party disputes which only excited the emotional state of the Party and of the non-Party society. What the country needed was a good policy to overcome such gregarious psychological effects which are characteristic of crowd-“elitism” and which replicate it over and over again [304].
Thereafter a lapse of 13 years in the calling of congresses, that was also a period of the Great Patriotic War and a period of the after war recovery of the peaceful life and the economy of the country, objectively was useful. If not for the society as a whole, at least for the members of the leading communist party of Bolsheviks, so they could have time to digest the morals and ethics that for decades had been reigning in the soviet society after the Great October Revolution and gather for the next congress with a different attitude to the life of the country and the world, with a different attitude to the leaders of the party and the state, and the party comrades and non-partisan citizens.
Besides, any sovereignty of the people is a demonstration of freedom of the spirit of the people that belong to the society, demonstration of freedom of their feelings and comprehensive attitude to life. An individual acquires these qualities in the process of upbringing, starting from infancy, and also in the process of the individual personal development, maturing during his life. That is why it is impossible to introduce freedom and democracy by means of law or order and spread it with the help of force measures of the government: freedom and democracy should ripen, grow in the society and make itself known in the politics of the state.
But state measures may defuse pressure of many factors that pervert and suppress the process of attaining freedom of spirit and therefore - national spirit of each nation. This matter is very important for understanding the history of the USSR and the perspectives of the nations of Russia and other states that originated on the territory of the USSR.
Internazi character of the revolutions of 1905 - 1907 and 1917 wasn’t a secret for J.V. Stalin. He new many fact of the czarist history of the RSDPW (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) and other
r-r-revolution parties and of the post-revolution history of the USSR, facts from the history of foreign countries that were not published neither in papers nor in the textbooks on History, but that witnessed that this is the way it was. [305] Besides commonality have been experiencing everyday and countrywide oppressive influence of the Bible internazism upon the life of the USSR people during the whole history of the USSR existence. It still can be felt after the state downfall that happened as a result the bourgeois reforms of the next years.
That is why the whole history of the czarist Russia, history of the USSR and the modern Russia has an epiphenomenon that some people, dependent on this understanding, during the last couple of year prefer to call «anti-Semitism». They explain its existence in the society solely by the flaws of the «anti-Semites» themselves: ignorance, reluctance and inability to think and be organized, drunkards’ and idlers’ envy of Hebrews that are considered to be in the majority geniuses, just talented, hardworking, highly proficient, united and supportive to each other. In reality this symbolic frothy word «anti-Semitism» that characterize neither people personally nor a community as a whole is used due to the introduced in the culture stereotype to define natural people’s reaction to the doctrine that we describe in the Appendix at the end of the book, although they keep silent about the doctrine itself and ask for no definite attitude of Hebrews or non-Hebrews to it.
This reaction of a man and society to the enslavement at the realization of the Bible doctrine in life may be put in a very wide range:
· It can be purely personally-emotional, that does not express itself in the social theories by rejection of Hebrew (and/or Jews), each of who is “guilty” [306] firstly in the fact that according to the principals of the structure of the Bible doctrine he is destined to be a tool in its implementation and to be a means of its insinuation into the cultures of the non-Hebrewish national communities.
· Or it may be conceptually powerful all covering-alternative in respect to the Bible doctrine.
Just because of the wide range of the reactions to the Bible doctrine of enslavement of all, the word «anti-Semitism» is highly symbolic [307] and frothy in its essence. This allows to use it in advocating internazism, cultivating in society absolutely negative emotional tone in the vision of its meaning, depending on the circumstances.
According to this specification of the role of the word «anti-Semitism» and the spectrum of the phenomena in the life of society it describes, J.V. Stalin cannot be an «anti-Semite». But he was one of those, who not only knew many facts of the czarist history of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) and other r-r-revolution parties and of the post-revolution history of the USSR, facts from the history of foreign countries that revealed the demonstration of the Bible internazism, but had a system of the interpretation of the world that was rather congruous to life and also included a peculiar understanding of internazism. His reaction to it was conceptually powerful and alternative in respect to the Bible doctrine.
But it wasn’t alternative-all covering, because it was expressed in words, in terms of the historically formed Bible culture of the Russian empire and in terms of the frank international Marxism [308].
In them internazism has no unique name and connected with it characteristics of its demonstrations in life. That is why penetrating in other social phenomena that have more or less unique names and to which society has formed or was purposely induced to form consciously respectful and emotionally appealing attitude, internazism easily protected itself and is still protecting up to now, taking up their names.
Exactly according to this principal internazism in history is Christianity; and Communism; and Freedom and the rights of people in spite of national and social and class origin; and globalization as the structuring of culture, that peacefully unites all the nations and national cultures of humanity in tune with each other and Objective reality; and Zionism as an aspiration of the part of the Hebrews to settle in Palestine and live there their normal life as a state as all other people do, not being an international mafia [309] anymore; and emancipation of the Hebrews as the aspiration of the other part of the Hebrews not to be an international mafia and to become familiar with those nations that they live among and to consecrate their personal creative potential of a man to the service of their homeland - which is usually a multi-national society; and «internationalism» in Marxism where it is taught in the meaning of concord and agreement of all people no matter of their national and lineal origin; and cosmopolitism as a recognized by every normal person concern for the future fates of all human beings and the Earth…
It is very difficult to name at least something in the history of the present global civilization that wouldn’t be perverted or defaced the Bible internazism once entering it. The only thing it definitely could not pervert and deface is the ideal of life of the humanity in the God’s Kingdom on the Earth. Although internazism could cut out practical implementation of the ideal of the God’s Kingdom on the Earth from the life of society and states’ politics for a historically long period of time (according to the present parameters).
What was said - is a minimum of the political backgrounds, that is necessary to know and to understand, because without it after-war period in the history of the Stalin’s USSR can be viewed either as inscrutable nonsense or as the history of politics that expresses the will of the ill psycho who decided that he is an almighty immortal god on the Earth. But J.V. Stalin was neither a fool that aimlessly «ruled» the state to nowhere [310], nor a psycho that decided that he was an almighty immortal god on the Earth.
In the society of that time not all were viewless trimmers supporting any politics of the «upper crust» out of fear for themselves or out of career ambitions: they backed it up because they felt its practicability in connection to the aims that they considered theirs.