Essence and Results of Stalin’s Bolshevism
6.1. Distinct Terminology is the Key
to Understanding the Epoch
Historians and sociologists (perhaps, with rare exceptions) agree that the revolutions of 1917 in Russia were followed by the attempt of building up a new society on the principles incompatible with the principles of organization and functioning of capitalism.
This perhaps is the only thing that historians and sociologists agree upon, because depending on the personal bias towards one or another way of social life organization they understand flow of events in pre-revolutionary period (the end of 19th — the beginning of 20th century) differently. They also understand differently the flow of events in the period of history of RSFSR — USSR after the revolution and Civil War, when the party and the state were headed by J. Stalin. And correspondingly, they assess the results of this period differently. Therefore they see different prospects and possibilities for both Russia and the mankind on the whole.
However, in spite of all mutually exclusive conclusions made by historians and sociologists (both in the past and at present) studying problems of that period of world history and of modern sociology, they all (perhaps with rare exclusions) have one thing in common:
For them, use of such terms as «communism» or «socialism», «communism», «Marxism», «Bolshevism» and their derivatives is stipulated mainly by their feeling of «pen craft», feeling of «euphony» of the text or oral speech, but not by the peculiarities of the meaning of each of these words, which, in its turn, is stipulated by the peculiarities of actual phenomena of social life, named by these words.
But using these words as the interchangeable synonyms (just like L. Bronstein (L. Trotsky), G. Zyuganov, E. Gaidar, I. Khakamada, G. Yavlinsky and the majority of politologists do) it is practically impossible to understand the history of Russia of the end of 19th — the beginning of 20th century. Things do not get better if we add to this nonsense one more group of synonyms built up on the basis of words «Zionism», «Judaism», «Jewry» (mostly meaning Hebrews indeed) etc[193], used by S. Nilus[194], A. Hitler, H. Ford and many others, including today’s «skinheads», biblically «Orthodox» «Russians» and other «patriots» and nationalists of all countries.
Yes, analytical assessments and political manipulations, resulting from such sort of thoughtless indifference to life and to the unique meaning of each word of the living languages of every folk, under some circumstances are capable to emotionally wind up the crowd, urging it to heroic construction or demolition of communism. But still all of them represent harmful senseless noise whatever pathos they bring about as a result of mendacity of pathos.
|
|
|
Therefore before we turn to the epoch of Stalin’s Bolshevism itself, let us define the terminology, which characterize the life of Soviet society and the rest of global civilization during that epoch.
* * *
National Self-Perception — perception of originality (uniqueness) of one’s nation (first of all, as the bearer of culture) and differences between one’s own culture and cultures of other nations, which also have originality and magnitude in the mankind history common to all nations.
Nationalism — perception of unique originality of one’s nation and its culture combined with denial (generally, thoughtless one) of uniqueness and magnitude of other cultures and nations (which bear these cultures in generation succession) for the mankind and its future.
Nazism — attempts to destroy other nations and/or cultures created by them.
Such interpretation of nationalism and Nazism means that they can exist in the society under monarchy or under republic (state systems), or under slave-owning system, or feudalism, or capitalism, or socialism (economic structures). Nationalism and Nazism can embrace either individual groups of population, or spread over the whole society.
Internazism — basically, the same as Nazism, but in mob-like execution of heterogeneous international diasporas (first of all, the Hebrewish Diaspora), but not in execution of some nation fallen into Nazism and state system supported by such nation.
Socialism as economic structure of social life assumes that many needs of any person and any family are guaranteed to be satisfied at the expense of direct and indirect reimbursement of corresponding costs by the state, which acts in the capacity of the representative of the whole society and the guarantor of person’s rights and freedoms in this society.
In more general meaning, socialism includes many non-economical peculiarities of life of the society on the whole and of the people within it. These, first of all, are morality and structure of mentality, world understanding and ethics stipulated by this morality and appearing in socialist economic structure; for them, it is the most convenient and safe for the life of the society and any person.
|
|
|
Orientation of production-and-consumption system toward guaranteed satisfaction of people’s needs primordially predetermines planned nature of socialist economy. Planned nature in the system of social production is accompanied by restrictions in some activities of private entrepreneurship on the basis of private property on means of production; some activities could be prohibited[195]. Under socialism, restrictions on maximum income level for the members of society are introduced inevitably. This measure is necessary to protect the social order and each citizen who is loyal to it from misuse from the part of non-loyal private employers and other persons whose high income is excessive with respect to state-declared level of expenses, motivated by vital needs of a person and family of this society.
Such restrictions in the course of time result in domination of state sector of economy, although its means of production could still be not in public, but in private corporative property. Due to private-corporative nature of property on means of production in the society that has not matured to the socialism morally and ethically (in the wider sense than just an economic structure), many restrictions of public-and-socialist economy express interests of public oligarchy and turn out to be socially non-righteous and no less harmful for the social development than capitalism based on element of private entrepreneurship — either individual, or oligarchic-and-corporative.
Communism — order of social life, in which parasitism of the minority on the majority will disappear, all the demands will be satisfied securely and free of charge on principle “each gives what he is able to, each gets what he needs” on the basis of righteousness’ rule in the society, by steadily reproduced culture in succession of generations. This will be possible because of general growth of production facilities in all branches as well as because of transformation of culture: new generations will have different mentality and morality. They will not be depressed by the necessity of labor, mastering of professional skills and knowledge, participation in labor activity of the society due to liberation of each person’s creative potential in transformed culture; now, this potential (speaking of the majority of adults) is enslaved by awkward and unjust upbringing. In the communist society, labor will not become the very first vital need, as stated the Marxian propaganda meaning that labor is always subordinate to the task of satisfaction people’s needs in food, clothes and other products and services. The very first need will be personal and social development and activities within the channel of God’s Providence, and necessary labor in this process will take its harmonious place.
|
|
|
Capitalism in its initial form is, first of all, the economic structure of social life with supremacy of bourgeois-individualistic (perhaps, corporative[196]) mode of production organization and distribution on the basis of the right on private property and formal equal protection of the law for all citizens. Solving of vital personal and family problems is mainly placed on the person itself, on the family and on various non-governmental funds and public organizations. As any other economical-and-social structure, capitalism is stipulated by the morality that prevails in the society, and expresses the I-centric world understanding.
Even progressive taxation under capitalism sets practically no limits for income and accumulation, which remain after payment of taxes provided by legislation, and public sector of economy plays auxiliary part with respect to the sector operating on the basis of private property on means of production. As a result, the state owns unrewarding and unprofitable under developed law of value branches and industries; however, the society cannot do without them.
National-Socialism — socialism in the sense of economic structure and legal status for certain (one or several) nations by name, but representatives of other nations and person of mixed parentage (members of the same multinational society) are not covered by guarantees and norms of national-socialism provided for the citizens of national-socialist state[197].
|
|
|
International-Socialism is not an alternative for the national-socialism, as Marxists-internazis claim, but «priority socialism» for mob-organized international diasporas in multi-national and externally (formally) socialist-organized state with equal personal rights. In other words, international-socialism is a kind of internazism.
An alternative for both national-socialism and international-socialism is the «multinational-socialism». It actually provides freedom of personal development and equality of rights of citizens of different ethnic origin in absence of mob-organized «priority socialism and communism» for international diasporas and «national minorities», where multinational society, having sunk into international-socialism, finds itself oppressed by mob-organized international diasporas of the minorities which parasitize on it. One of these diasporas act as a leader[198].
Marxism is the dogma of provocative-and-imitating nature, proclaiming inevitability of global-scale transition of mankind from «exploitation of a human by human» to the «kingdom of freedom», firstly, to socialism, and then, to communism.
The ideals of justice in socialist and communist society (as they are expressed in Marxism or expressed somehow differently) are attractive for the majority of people living by their own labor and oppressed by parasitism of ruling minority. Therefore, under certain historical conditions the crowd is responsive to the slogans, which it thinks are expressing its expectations of better life without any parasitism and oppression of the majority by the minority.
However the history shows that by no means all slogans are made a reality by those who throw them into the crowd, or by those who respond to the calls and sincerely works at making the slogans a reality. This happens not always because the ideals proclaimed by the slogans are objectively unrealizable, or the leaders are double-faced and hypocritical. This happens mostly because the leaders and the crowd in realization of proclaimed ideals are provocatively offered certainly unsuitable means by the backstage political script-writers, pursuing their own goals, and the leaders and the crowd can not reveal the unsuitability of those means in due time. This also relates to Marxism.
Imitation-and-provocative essence of Marxism is expressed in two facts. Firstly, in Marxist philosophy, the question of solving the problem of predictability of the multiversion future, which lies in the basis of any power and any government is replaced by the “fundamental” question of what is primary, either matter or consciousness. Secondly, Marxist political economy is metrologically inconsistent: in economical activity, it is impossible to bind it with accounting either on micro-level, or on macro-level of economics. Owing to these two peculiarities of Marxism of fundamental nature the crowd, which believes in Marxism, finds itself a hostage of the masters of Marxism, who possess certain «know-how» of exercising their ideological and economical power.
Trotskyism is not in the least one of the modifications of Marxism. The characteristic feature of Trotskyism in the communist movement, which occurred in the XX century «under the cotton wool» of Marxism, was complete deafness of Trotskyists to the essence of criticisms addressed to them[199]. Besides that, they tended to suppress in life declarations made by Trotskyists, had a system of preteritions, on the grounds of which they were actually acting, having united in the collective unconscious.
This means that Trotskyism is a psychic phenomenon. The conflict between individual psyche and both individual and collective (created by all Trotskyists in aggregate) unconscious is peculiar to Trotskyism in sincere expression of loyalty by its followers. And in this conflict, the collective unconscious of the Trotskyists darkly triumphs, oppressing personally realized loyalty of each of them by the aggregate of the deeds of them all.
This is the peculiarity of mentality of those who managed to become a Trotskyist, but not the peculiarity of one or another specific ideology. Psychical type of a «Trotskyist» could be accompanied by various ideologies. And for this reason (of purely psychic nature) equitable relations with Trotskyism and Trotskyists personally on a level of intellectual discussion, arguments and counterarguments are fruitless and dangerous[200] for those who consider Trotskyism as one of the ideologies[201] and do not see its real UNDER-ideological hidden motive, independent of the enveloping ideology, which psycho-Trotskyist may change frankly many times throughout his lifetime[202].
Intellect, which one turns to during the dispute trying to reason his interlocutor, or to reveal together with him the truth, which would help to overcome the former problems in communication with him, is just one component of the psyche as a whole. But psyche as a whole (in case it is Trotskyist-type) does not allow the psycho-Trotskyist to process the information intellectually, if this information can change the doctrine which is presently being the subject of the ideologically-formed branch of Trotskyism (one of the many), which psychologically the individual Trotskyism belongs to.
This psychical peculiarity[203] of many individuals is historically more ancient phenomenon than historically real Marxian Trotskyism in the communist movement of 20th century. In the past, they could not find any other word beside the term «obsession». And in the epoch of materialistic worldview dominance, they could not find such a word to name this phenomenon so that it corresponded to this type of mental degeneration. This phenomenon was named anew, but not in accordance with its essence, but after the pseudonym of one of its most striking representatives of Trotskyism in the communist movement of 20th century.
In its essence, Trotskyism is a schizophrenic, aggressive politically active psyche, which could cover itself with any ideology and any sociological doctrine.
That is why Marxism is basically the expression of psychical Trotskyism. K. Marx and F. Engels were psycho-Trotskyists. Hitler was a psycho-Trotskyist too: on identity in relations of Hitlerism and Trotskyist-version Marxism to many phenomena of social life see the USSR IP’s work “Look Back in Anger…” At the USSR’s decline, the psycho-Trotskyists of anti-communist trend were dissidents. And now, the psycho-Trotskyists are the majority of the activists of pro-bourgeois reforms in Russia and their opponents from the ranks of various patriotic parties and all supposedly communist parties, unable to abandon Marxism.
Bolshevism, as the history of the CPSU teaches us, appeared in 1903 at II congress of Russian Social Democratic Labor Party as one of the party fractions. As its opponents claimed, Bolsheviks never represented real majority[204] of the Marxian party until 1917, therefore Bolsheviks’ opponents always protested against their self-denomination. But such opinion was caused by heterogeneous Mensheviks’ misunderstanding of the essence of Bolshevism.
Bolshevism is neither a Russian modification of Marxism, nor a party membership. And the most senseless is the word combination «Jewish Bolshevism», used by Hitler in “Mein Kampf”, because Bolshevism is the phenomenon of spirit of the Russian civilization, but not of the spirit of the bearers of doctrine of biblical global slavery on the racial basis.
Bolshevism existed before Marxism; it somehow exists now. And it will exist henceforth.
As the Bolsheviks members of the Marxian party of Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) claimed, it was them who expressed in politics strategic interests of the working majority of population of the multinational Russia, therefore only them could be called Bolsheviks. How faultless were Bolsheviks expressing the strategic interests of the working majority and to what extent this majority itself realizes its interests and is faithful to these interests in real life does not change the next. T he essence of Bolshevism is not in numerical superiority of the followers of some ideas over the followers of other ideas and the thoughtless crowd, but in the following:
in sincere attempt to express and to make a reality of long-term strategic interests of the working majority, wishing that nobody parasitized on its labor and life. In other words, historically real essence of Bolshevism in each epoch is in support of transition process from historically formed crowd-“elitism” to the multinational humanity of the Earth of the future era.
Menshevism is, correspondingly, the opposite of Bolshevism, because it objectively expresses tendency of parasitism of all considering themselves “elite” on labor and life of the common people, the majority. Marxism is also Menshevism, and not only psychic Trotskyism; and psychic Trotskyism is always Menshevism.
Fascism is a kind of culture of social government, which is possible exclusively in crowd-“elitist” society. Fascism is one of the kinds of psychic Trotskyism.
The essence of fascism as such (irrespective of how it is named or which ideas it covers itself with and by which means it performs its power in the society) is in active support by the crowd of «small people» — under influence of their own ideological conviction — the system of abuse of power by “elitist” oligarchy[205], which:
· represents unrighteousness as true «righteousness», and, on this basis, having perverted people’s world understanding, by all its subject might cultivates unrighteousness in the society, preventing people from becoming human;
· suppresses (under various pretences and by all its subject might) one and all, who doubts its righteousness and the righteousness of its policy, as well as those whom it suspects in this.
Crowd, by V.G. Belinsky’s definition, is the “gathering of people who live by the legends and reason by authority” (by A.S. Pushkin’s definition, «reasonless people»[206]), i.e. crowd is the multitude of individuals who live unscrupulously and, essentially, thoughtlessly, either automatically or under control from the outside. And no matter whether the ruling oligarchy acts publicly and ceremonially, exalting itself over society; or it exalts by reticence or in non-aware pride, publicly expressing humility and service to the crowd, naming it «people»; or it acts secretly, assuring the society of its supposed non-existence and, due to non-existence, in its inactivity, which results in supposedly spontaneous way of life of the society, and social life is not ruled by the scripts of conceptually masterful curators of oligarchy[207].
This definition-description of fascism does not include frightening and striking features of its activities: symbolism; ideology, calling to violence and destruction of those whom fascist masters determined as incorrigible social evil; appeals to create political party with strict discipline and system of terror, fighting detachments, etc.
Since 1945, a lot was said about misanthropic nature of fascism on the grounds of the lesson that German fascism taught everybody. Due to the horrors of German fascism of 1933 — 1945 (which become negative-and-cultist), one might find the given definition superficial, estranged from the real life (abstract), and therefore irrelevant to the task of protection of the future from the threat of fascism.
But in fact, this definition is the definition of fascism by nature, and not by the place of its origination or peculiarities of its development and manifestation in the life of society, which distinguishes it qualitatively from the majority of the «definitions» of «fascism» given in different thesauruses and encyclopedias.
* *
*
Given definitions is not just an exercise in casuistry. The matter is that different phenomena of social life should be defined in such manner that their differences and interconnections were clear, and thus they should have different names. These definitions, which distinguish different phenomena of social life, allow us to have a different look at the events that took place in the USSR during Stalin’s epoch, where:
· according to public opinion, new social structure, different from all historically known by that time, was built and named «socialist» directing its efforts towards communist prospective;
· Marxism was the theoretical basis of its development; moreover, it was its cult basis.
The first condition as such does not cause any disputes. The attempt of new society development is admitted by everyone, although the ideals, which sincere followers of socialism tried to make a reality during 1917 — 1953 are evaluated differently by different people. Some people say, it is an unrealizable chimera, adverse to the human nature, and therefore the attempt to carry it out is the evil and brings nothing but violence and suffering; in short, it is the slave barrack, a kind of fascism, a mistake of history. Other people say, it is objectively possible best future of the whole mankind, which, to be realized, requires subjective factors — development of culture and purposeful work, where mistakes or misuses could occur, sometimes with very grave consequences for both contemporaries and offspring.
Those who support the idea that USSR was created in 1917 as the result of the mistake of the history, and the whole its history was a mistake, would not be interested in discussion of circumstances connected with the Marxism as such and its interpretation by Stalin in his many-sided activities.
Instead, those who think that history did not make a mistake in 1917, having started open practice of building socialism and communism in the USSR and all over the world[208], are arguing about who was the true Marxist and communist in the USSR: J.V. Stalin and his associates? or L.D. Bronstein (better known under the nickname «Trotsky») and his associates? Relating to the present time, this dispute among the followers of Marxism results in the following question: to recommence building of communism means to continue work of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky? or to continue work of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin?
The answer to this question is many-sided and consists in the fact that:
· L.D. Bronstein was a true Marxist, and due to managerial inconsistency of philosophy and political economy of Marxism he was a pseudo-communist and died as a hostage of falsity of Marxism that he did not realize;
· V.I. Lenin (Ulyanov) was a true communist as much as he had capabilities not to be a psycho-Trotskyist, true to the canons of Marxism in steadfast readiness to press the stream of life in accordance with them;
· J.V. Stalin was a true Bolshevik and communist, therefore, he was not a Marxist;
· J.V. Stalin was not the successor of Marx — Engels — Lenin’s tack, but the successor of Bolshevistic tack of Stephan Razin — Lenin (in such its constituent, when V.I. Lenin stepped over Marxism), since V.I. Lenin under the cover of Marxism was building Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) as an instrument for realization of political will of Bolshevism, which in principle could become conceptually autocratic (what actually happened when J.V. Stalin had headed the ruling party and State system of the USSR), and afterwards to exceed the bounds of Marxism.
The first one to sense it was L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky). In his work “Our Political Tasks” (written as early as in 1904) he assessed V.I. Lenin’s attitude to Marxism as follows:
«Indeed, it is impossible to treat the best legacy of proletariat more cynically than Lenin does! To him, Marxism is not the method of scientific research, inflicting serious theoretical obligations; it is… a mop, when he needs to wipe out his tracks, a white screen, when he needs to display his grandeur, folding rule, when he needs to produce his party conscience!» (L.D. Trotsky, “On the History of Russian Revolution”, collected works of L.D. Bronstein edited by N.A. Vasetsky, Moscow, “Politizdat”, 1990, p. 77).
And that is not the whole story. From V.I.Lenin’s pen came some equivocal statements, fraught with failure of Marxism by its nature. Here is one of them:
«We do not take Marx’s theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are sure that it only placed the corner stones of the science, which the socialists should advance further in all directions unless they want to be behind the times» (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, 5th edition, vol. 4, p. 184).
But if it turns out that the «corner stone» is unsuitable for the intended course, another «corner stone» will be found inevitably, this is just a matter of time. And this happened during the development of Bolshevism. However, neither L.D. Bronstein, nor his associates or successors and continuators of his work could find any means to suppress development of Bolshevism in the society.
Дата добавления: 2019-09-02; просмотров: 212; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!