6.8. Stalin’s Directions for the Future to Bolsheviks 6.8.1. Refuse Marxism
Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness · перевод (English) · раздел 35 из 42
Перевод исходного произведения; точность перевода оценивается отдельно.
6.8. Stalin’s Directions for the Future to Bolsheviks 6.8.1. 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 published 1; 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, whichis directedtoward 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 matteris nothing butrelentless 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 thesense 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 naivetypractical 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.