But this is the ideal version.

In practice actions of all three of the above-mentioned types can be characteristic of the same people when taken in different time and under different circumstances. This is possible owing to the customs and the mentality of the crowd-“elitist” society. This concerns both the sundry rulers implementing the declarations of building the new society and the masses controlled by these rulers. Thus, the personal mistakes and abuse of power by the repression machine workers were made objectively inevitable[246]. Besides, in real life the government can be truly mistaken about the vision of socialism and the methods of building it. As a result, it was those having less misunderstanding about socialism that were bound to become the victims of the repression machine simply because they were unable to convince the party and its machinery of their viewpoint. This is what predetermined personal and subjective mistakes by the top leaders of the party to become the system errors in the social self-government.

That is why one should not think that the history of Russia-USSR in the first half of the twentieth century could have been less mean and sanguinary had L. Bronstein or any another of the protagonists of any kind of socialism been at the head of the Party and the state after Lenin’s disease. Neither would it be so if Soviet government had admitted that Russia was not ready for socialism and thus it had introduced a multi-party system in the country[247]. As a result of this, the state machinery would fall under the control of the advocates of the class-caste-based regime or of those relying on the civil society of capitalism, based on the hierarchy of the purses. Everything happened in the best possible way anyway, taking into consideration the customs of the society and the ethics pertaining to it[248].

But at that moment Russia was still expecting to solve the conceptual uncertainty in the society and the culture: either the righteous communal life, or however you may call it, where your personal development is ensured and where everyone is protected against parasitism on his or her labor and life; or the hierarchy of mutual oppression and claims to oppress the neighbors, where parasitism on one another and on the biosphere altogether is inevitable. These two conceptions cannot coexist in one society under any circumstances. It only depends on by what means they struggle against each other.

It is appropriate to draw the utterance of Decembrist Pavel Pestel[249] as far as the policy of the Soviet State during the period of Stalin’s real socialism building is concerned:

«The experience of all centuries and of all the states proved that the people are <or, to be more exact, become> shaped by the government and by the laws under which they live».

Although Pestel speaks of the government and the laws, what is meant here is the bearers of the conceptual power who arbitrarily shape the society, for they control the state government, lawmaking (as a component of the state power) and partly the execution of the laws, which are expressing a certain conception of social order as well as people’s attitude towards it and towards the conceptual power, which initializes this order. The real and potential differences between the various governments and laws, proposed by Pestel, which determine the peoples of countries as well as a particular people of a certain country viewed over different periods, inevitably implies differences in the conceptions, some of which may even be mutually exclusive within one national or multi-national society; or within the humanity — if taken on the global scale.

Having said this we may pass over to the analysis of the achievements and underachievements of Bolshevism in Stalin’s epoch.

6.5. «Social Realism»
as a Means of Overcoming the Power of Marxism

If building socialism is regarded as establishing a social order (i.e. in a broader sense of the word than the definition for economic structure given in chapter 6.1) it includes three interconnected and mutually dependant processes:

· personal development of people belonging to actively living adult generations. It ensures that they re-define their attitude to life, become a part of socialism which is being built and turn into its advocates. They join the socialist society in a natural process, freeing themselves from the norms of crowd-“elitist” culture they have been imposed on in their childhood and adolescence in the course of up-bringing and education, which norms are characteristic of certain social groups in non-socialist social and economic structures;

· development of the society’s culture on the whole and of its subcultures. It forms the basis and means of molding the morals, ethics and world understanding of future generations which would make the ideals of righteous community (socialism and communism) their natural life ideals and would render crowd-“elitism”, along with oppression of human beings and parasitism on life and labor, impossible in their society, neither in overt (openly proclaimed) nor in covert (when people are not aware of them) forms;

· implementing the principles of socialism into the economic production and consumption activity of the technical civilization, carried out with the state’s support (first of all, planned economy directed towards safeguarding the demographically grounded needs of the population in the succession of generations).

Though it is the third issue which is the most visible phenomenon in social life, the priority of importance corresponds to the order in which the above-mentioned processes have been listed. (This priority is understood in terms of the irreversible nature of consequences for the society’s life which happen during the time period of one social development cycle. This cycle corresponds to the interval between one point at which the past is provided a new understanding and plans for the future are worked out and the next such point)

In other words, personal development is the main thing in building socialism. And because socialism in the broad sense of the word is an image of the society’s life, building socialism achieves the greater success, the more people are active in their personal development in accordance to God’s Will.

This is true because cultural development means that there appears something new and socially useful in it — useful in terms of failing to support degraded parasitic processes or prompt people to support them. At that development of culture is a way of expressing personal development and creativity in the course of God’s Will available to all the people of the actively living generations. And production and consumption activity, principles on which it is organized and the means which those principles are realized by (including the relations between people in terms of production and consumption) are a part of cultural development.[250]

In any multinational or national culture, as well as in subcultures of individual social groups, three more or less developed movements can be discovered (meaning that culture on the whole is something like a vector in multidimensional space which is defined through movements which cannot be expressed through each other):

· conservative — objectively aimed at reproducing the existing life-style in future generations without changes and innovations;

· nihilistic — putting up the slogan of «everything’s bad! We can’t live a life like this!» yet providing no alternative (or the means to work out an alternative and realize its ideals);

· aspiring to the future — aiming at implementing a certain ideal of how people should live within society and how society should live within the biosphere of the Earth in the future.

The number of representatives of each of the above-mentioned movements and their contents in terms of ideas define the society’s prospects.

Thus, in 19^th century Russia the ruling classes consisted mainly of people representing the conservative movement who paid no heed to the problems of their era and the need to resolve them. More or less educated young people who were psychically unstable or emotionally over-excited represented nihilism. The void created by the absence of those aspiring to realize in future a certain original Russian ideal[251] was filled up by Marxism. As it gained more popularity, Marxism encouraged thoughtless nihilists to join the internazi revolutionary movement. It offered the socialist ideal to those people who were unhappy with living in the conditions of contemporary Russia while limiting their control over themselves and over social processes by means of Marxist philosophy, conception of global historic process[252] and political economy.

Along with the above-mentioned movements there are subcultures existing in societies. They can be called «relic» movements. Their bearers who are statistically small in number live their lives following a motto «it used to be better before!» and act politically under the slogan «back to the past!» They go as far as trying to impose the stone age of modern global civilization or even the customs of Atlantis which led to its downfall on the future (during the entire history of the Biblical civilization sjid-masonry has been working to achieve it).

Most of the «relics» existing today used to be fairly widely spread some time in the past, but they have given up their position and became the lot of social minority as a result of a long-term gradual evolution of culture on the whole and as a result of short-term changes in life which occurred in the course of revolutions, reforms, conquests, peaceful integration into other cultures, etc. Yet it would be wrong to say that such relics have had their last day.[253] They exist due to mistakes committed by society in the course of its past cultural development and disclose through all or some of their aspects the defectiveness (incompleteness) and viciousness of the society’s culture and subcultures which succeeded in domination to the ones that became «relics».

«Relics» disappear and cease to be a living reproach for two reasons. Both the subcultures and culture on the whole dominating in the society take from them everything viable that they had previously rejected; or, because people have creatively developed the dominating subcultures and culture on the whole, they get over the defectiveness and viciousness characteristic of them at some historic stages independently.[254]

In the periods of transition from one culture dominating the crowd-“elitist” society to another, the former dominating culture does not yet take up the position of a «relic» because its bearers are yet the representatives of the conservative movement of the former dominating culture, large in number, including many the former nihilists scared by the changes which are taking place (or have taken place). In other words, in the period preceding short-term changes in the life of a crowd-“elitist” society, the conservative cultural movement and partially the nihilistic cultural movement, become the reactionary cultural movement. Its political activity is determined both by the nature of the subculture that has become a reactionary one, and the way it is influenced by bearers of other subcultures. When the period of transition comes to an end, the reactionary movement either disappears completely, having given everything valuable to the new dominating culture on the whole and to the subculture prevailing in it, or turns into one of the «relics».

But it is typical of transition periods to have their own «conservative» and «nihilistic» movements. Conservatism of a transition period acts according to the slogan «the goal in itself is nothing! Moving towards it is everything!», though this slogan is not always proclaimed in public. This movement in the culture of a transition period is supported by a part of former nihilists, as well as by those for whom the «era of endless changes» creates an opportunity of «fishing in troubled waters». Conservatives of a transition period are not interested in the goals of the reforms and the means of accomplishing them. They approve of any reform which does not endanger (in their opinion) their personal welfare and security and which provides a cover to conceal their shady dealings and frauds. Unlike them, nihilists of a transition period tend to be sincere in claiming their faithfulness to the goals of reforms, yet they do not always accept the means and methods of accomplishing the goals of reforms, the individuals who are in charge of reforms and who carry out reforms. It could also well be that they are not capable of doing anything practical and have to pretend to criticize out of principles — for the sake of fighting for the truth — simply because they are incapable of doing anything well.

Most conservatives of a transition period and most nihilists of a transition period deliberately or unknowingly put on a mask of advocating the movement of aspiring to the future whose true representatives are really bent on realizing the ideals proclaimed as goals of social life transformation.

Beside the above-mentioned movements in the transition period culture there is a smaller or a greater number of confused people. Some of them perish because they lost their purpose in life, though the ways leading to their death can vary; some of them form a «personnel reserve» for active movements of the transition period culture. After they get over the initial confusion, they join the reactionaries, conservatives or nihilists of the transition period or the sincere advocates of the goals proclaimed for the reforms being carried out in the society who aspire to the future. Many confused people become a sort of nomads traveling from one movement to another or support different movements of the transition period culture by different aspects of their activities.

There is no national culture that is devoid of arts. In the life of any society civilized enough artistic work, arts are closely connected with philosophy, history and social science which in their turn influence creative work and arts to the extent that their accomplishments are mastered by the men of arts due to the general development of the society’s culture or in the course of self-education. There are several important circumstances in the interaction of arts and sciences.

In the crowd-“elitist” society arts in most cases surpass philosophy and social sciences in the capability to reveal the problems of today and the perspective of the society’s life and development.

The works of philosophy and social science address almost exclusively the intellectual level of psyche of those who encounter them, their direct impact on the emotional component of psyche is at a minimum — emotions arise as a secondary reaction of subconscious levels to the meaning of a scientific work, which the consciousness has grasped. And grasping the meaning of a scientific work in any case requires a sufficient level of preliminary education, both in terms of knowing certain data and possessing the skill of concentrating one’s attention and intellect on the subject of a scientific work. Hence many are incapable of understanding scientific treatises of no matter what subject they pursue or how high the level of research described in them is.

As to works of art, they appeal directly both to the level of consciousness and to the subconscious levels of human psyche. Because works of art appeal directly to the subconscious levels of psyche, they turn out to produce a more or less strong effect on anyone who encounters them voluntarily or involuntarily, requiring virtually no preliminary knowledge.[255]

The time between the end of the Civil War in 1920 and the murder of J.V. Stalin in 1953 is the transition period.

Therefore any cultural conceptions which do not distinguish between the above-mentioned cultural movements existing in the pre-revolutionary era and in the time of socialist building and the essence of each one of them; the conceptions which do not perceive the nature of transition of said cultural movements past the borderline of the revolution and the Civil War; the conceptions which do not perceive their nature and interaction in the time of building socialism in an individual country led by J.V. Stalin when that country was in a hostile capitalist surrounding; the conceptions which do not see the differences in the nature of scientific philosophical and social works and the works of art, as well as the difference in the ways they are perceived by people — such conceptions are useless and contribute nothing but factual knowledge for our understanding of that era.

Moreover, nowadays many analysts expressing their opinion on that era, as well as the public which believes those condemnations, tend to forget that our generations are the product and heirs of that era. Consequently we perceive things which had not been usual for social life before that era and which had been introduced exactly due to its coming as natural and customary. The customary nature of what has been passed over to us and what we have become familiar with in our childhood and adolescence as readily available is the reason why nowadays many active politicians, philosophy and social science scholars, men of arts thoughtlessly continue the above-mentioned movements of the transition period culture. Because they thoughtlessly and mechanically reproduce the cultural movements of those years and of even earlier times under new historical circumstances, fifty years after J.V. Stalin was assassinated our society has not managed to pass the next borderline of re-defining its understanding of the past and of working out plans for the future. In other words, to use the slang of computer engineers, the process of transition is buzzing. Therefore it is necessary to compare what is customary and natural for us with what was customary and natural in the era preceding the transition period.

It is natural for us to know how to read and write, though many people have learned that skill without ever learning to feel Life and think about its sense independently. For 1917 Russia it was natural that 85 % of the population could not read or write for which reason they were entirely denied access to written culture. As a consequence, they were limited in acquiring any new knowledge or skill to taking them over by way of demonstration and oral explanation of those who possessed that knowledge or skill. Under such circumstances the society was incapable either of a moral and ethic or spiritual development or scientific and technological progress. To be more precise, the speed at which the society could master and process information was so low that it was doomed to perish under the burden of various problems it itself created and could not resolve in time.

In the very first decade after the end of the Civil War illiteracy among the adult population was eliminated[256]. Also, homeless children who lost their parents during the revolution and the Civil War were provided for. At the same time, the system of popular schooling was being developed. Every year more students were taken in, and the quality of universal compulsory education was gradually improved reaching a standard that allowed people to enter universities and technical schools. At that time many young people had no opportunity to get an education while being fully provided for by their family or society and had to start working while still in their teens. But many of them dreamed of getting a job, which required a specialized secondary or higher education. The Soviet government helped them make that dream come true, creating a system of «rabfaks» (workers’ faculties, many of which were established at universities), where young workers and country people could prepare themselves for entering a college. At some of rabfaks students were freed from work and received state scholarships. At other rabfaks students continued to work and used their spare time for studying. Also, a system of evening schools, technical schools, night and correspondence education at universities was developed for those who had started to work before acquiring the education desired.

Thanks to the opportunities of getting a specialized secondary (a technical school) or higher professional education created by the Soviet government, a large number of young people entered the field of science, technology and art. Prior to 1917 they were denied this opportunity[257] due to the order of castes and classes where the hierarchy of unrighteously made fortunes prevailed. On this basis new schools of science, design and engineering started to spring up and old ones began developing in the USSR as early as the 1920-s. It was the support of scientific and RD schools that outstanding Russian scientists and inventors lacked in the pre-revolutionary years, because starting from the middle of the 19^th century science and engineering were becoming the field for collective activity where a man of genius having no support of highly qualified and educated associates was going to accomplish nothing on his own.

As a result of this policy, as far back as the early 1950-s the educational level of the USSR’s population (i.e. of workers and farmers — the most numerous classes of that era) came to be the highest in the world. The USSR was also leading in the number of university students per one thousand of population, by far exceeding advanced capitalist countries in terms of this characteristic. One should also keep in mind, that in the early 1950-s our secondary education (which became compulsory at the end of the USSR’s existence) and higher education conformed to the highest standards on the world scale when educational system of different states were compared.[258]

Owing to the accomplishments of scientific and engineering design schools developing on the basis of the immense personnel resource encompassing the entire people, by the early 1950s the Soviet Union became independent from foreign science and technology in the sense that our science and industry became capable of developing and producing on their own everything that was necessary for the state which in many aspects worked for the interests of the majority of workers. One has to admit though that the share of pioneering developments (ones which are first in the world) was small in that period, because in the 1920-s — 1940-s the Soviet Union was mostly assimilating foreign accomplishments in order to bridge the educational gap between Russia and advanced countries and to break free from the dependence of almost all the branches of industry and science on them inherited from the Russian empire.

All these factors combined created objective prerequisites for the USSR to continue developing culturally, scientifically and technically at a faster pace than advanced capitalist states. Yet the educational system created at the time had one fundamental flaw:

The Marxist cult existing in the society perverted the entire complex of philosophic and social sciences and psychology, impeded the proper development of biology and medicine which is based on general biology.[259]

Owing to the perverted nature of the complex of sciences on man and society, a discord between sciences, first of all philosophy and social science, and creative work in all arts was unavoidable in the USSR.[260] Yet given the dominant position of Marxism within the educational system this discord was beneficial for the society and its future perspective, because in a crowd-“elitist” society arts and creative work in most cases surpass philosophy and social science in revealing the society’s current problems and future life and development prospects.[261] Of course, this statement holds true in respect of not every work of art and not every scientific work. It holds true in respect of heterogeneous creative work on the whole as a type of activity and of science as a type of activity.

Therefore, without understanding that there existed a discord between artistic work and philosophy and social science it is impossible to understand the essence of that artistic style which was later termed «socialist realism». And it is equally impossible to understand the essence and role of the so-called «avant-gardism and modernism» in all of its manifestations, which were inherited by the transition period era from the pre-revolutionary times.

First of all, after the Soviet state was established, a revision of the Empire’s artistic heritage was begun. The works of pre-revolutionary conservative and reactionary movements were no longer being published (literature, art) or reproduced (music, plays). Some were banned, part of them destroyed, part hidden in the depositories of museums, archives and libraries. In our era the works of the pre-revolutionary nihilistic movement are known as works of «critical realism» [262] and the works of all sorts of «avant-gardism» in literature, theatre, art and music.

One should also keep in mind, that in every era «avant-gardism and modernism» is not a homogeneous phenomenon. Along with pursuit of new forms and ways to express a meaning in works of art, there is the morally and psychically unhealthy constituent in it which either reflects the delirium of mentally ill people, or the demonically unhealthy ambition of a person who has nothing to say or show people yet is awfully keen on asserting him or herself by becoming known as a great artist, actor, poet or musician. And in the times of social crisis «avant-gardism» is represented mostly by works of art reflecting moral and psychic morbidity or aggressive striving for self-assertion or the demonic ambition of fame. This applies to the overwhelming majority of «avant-garde» “masterpieces” of the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary times.

It was the course of history that by the time of the revolution the authors of «critical realism» works were either dead or managed to join the consuming “elite” of the empire.

Those of the men of arts belonging to this movement who had survived the revolution refused to accept the new regime not only because they were afraid of repressions. To a large extent the reason was their unwillingness to lose that hard-won “elite” status. As a result, many of them left for foreign countries (I. Bunin, I. Repin, A. Gorky). When life in the USSR became stable, some of them agreed to return to their motherland. Here those who returned continued working but performed different roles (A. Tolstoy and A. Gorky: A. Tolstoy was an active socialist realist writer, while A. Gorky was considered to be the founder and personification of socialist realism, though he was rather a devoted nihilist than a realist aspiring to the future).

The others died abroad (I. Repin, I. Bunin), refusing to return to their homeland and thereby to «serve the regime» which would employ their creative work or authority (so they thought), the regime where national bolshevism and anti-national Marxist psychic Trotskyism — equally alien to them — were intertwined. Yet actually they refused to serve not the regime but their people because they refused to contribute their artistic work to the cause of separating bolshevism and psychic Trotskyism in all fields of people’s life, and thereby they refused to contribute to the cause of liberating the country and people from the power of psychic Trotskyism.

The conservative cultural movement existing in the USSR of the period of transition to socialism consists of permanent revolutionary Marxist psychic Trotskyites from the ideological point of view, and from the artistic style point of view — of all sorts of abstractionist avant-gardism which is the expression of psychic Trotskyism. In other words, in psychic Trotskyism there was no conflict between its social science and art. But there was a conflict between psychic Trotskyism and life. That is why many who genuinely searched for new forms and ways to express the sense of Life in art and aspired to the future could not survive in that environment. One of them was V. Mayakovsky who became known as an avant-garde futurist[263] poet as far back as the pre-revolutionary years. There were also many others who were hunted down by the members of RAPP[264] and of other associations of r-r-revolutionary artists.

The bolshevist leadership of the USSR headed by J.V. Stalin was not mistaken[265] in equating the political fraction of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) led by L. Bronstein (Trotsky) which formed the opposition to bolshevists and the avant-gardism in the post-revolutionary art, though many men of arts did not understand then and do not understand now the reasons for the bolshevists to reject avant-gardism and the goals of suppressing it.

The reality is that most of mentally ill people are not aware of their illness. It is mainly schizophrenic people and dopers who applaud to schizophrenia and ravings stimulated by dopes (from cigarettes and alcohol to heavier drugs) expressed in artistic work. What schizophrenic and delirious art, especially the one produced by men of great talent, evokes from mentally healthy people is mainly pity. But apart from complete mental cases — those who have a more or less acute mental disease, there are quite a lot of people in a crowd-“elitist” society whose psychic stability and self-control leave much to be desired. And such people, depending on what circumstances they find themselves in, what kind of art (above all, music, art, cinema and in future computer interactive[266] games and virtual plays) they are influenced by, can either become mentally ill or escape this unfortunate lot which is dangerous both for themselves and their fellow citizens.

Therefore one must distinguish suppressing nihilistic avant-gardism, which does not care about the people’s future destiny from oppressing a creative search of novel artistic forms and means of expressing the sense of Life in art. Suppressing nihilistic avant-gardism is objectively the means of protecting teenagers whose psyche is still being molded, as well as many adult mentally unstable people, preventing them from becoming more or less mad owing to the influence of avant-garde art. This is a means of protecting the society’s moral and psychic health[267], though since it cannot substitute the rest of such means it isn’t self-sufficient.

During the last two decades of the USSR’s existence the intelligentsia (mostly people with I-centric individualist or individualist-corporate cast of psyche) has been making lots of fun over «socialist realism». It has been the custom to accuse it of creative barrenness, servility towards the ruling regime which caused socialist realist artists do nothing but embellish, decorate and create a false impression of the «foul socialist» reality.

Everyone got their share: M. Sholohov for “Virgin Soil Upturned” and for the alleged plagiarism of “The Quiet Don”[268], A. Gorky for being at the head of the team of authors who wrote the book “The Stalin Channel”[269] about how the White sea — Baltic sea channel was designed and built between 1929 and 1932 by prisoners of the NKVD’s GULAG (special prisoner servitude camps). But it was the cinema that received the largest share of condemnation, as cinema in the USSR was a state monopoly serving the state’s policy from the very beginning. Due to the exclusively state nature of cinema in the USSR it must be considered the most prominent manifestation of socialist realism both at its best and at its worst.

Let us therefore turn to cinema. “The Kuban Cossacks” movie alone suffered hundreds of attacks and accusations from the democratisers for its false bombast (affluence in a kolkhoz in the days of crops failure and famine of the 1949), for embellishing and «embroidering» the reality. Yet at the time this film had many fans, including people in Kuban. The critics of the democratic wing explain such examples of socialist realist arts’ popularity by saying that people escaped from the dreadful Soviet reality into a world of dreams.

They seem to be sure that Bolsheviks, the advocates of socialism and communism, have nothing to disprove that assumption with. But those who think so actually enter an intellectual blind alley, because that assumption leads to a very simple question:

What was it that people returned with back to the world of Soviet reality from the world of dreams created in socialist realist movies and other arts?

The most general answer would be that they returned from the world of Soviet movie-dreams with something completely different from what modern teenagers come back with from the world of Hollywood movie-dreams and what drunkards and other drug addicts of all times including the times of bourgeois reforms in Russia come back with from their drug-dreams.

Of course, socialist realism altogether was not a homogeneous phenomenon. It did have servility to the regime amounting to vindication of all abuses committed by officials and attempts to prove them non-existent, as well as claiming any accusations directed against those officials to be calumny. But there was also something else, something which makes the answer to the question about the way of coming back from the world of dreams evoked by socialist realism to the social and historic reality to be the answer to the question about the true nature of socialist realism and its historic momentum which is very much different from the opinions of the dissident intelligentsia. This statement cannot be proven logically. But art speaks for itself, not depending on the manner in which it is presented by the critics and what terms they use to define its styles and genres. Let us then turn to facts.

A film festival showing 37 Soviet films, beginning from the times of Stalin and ending with the early 1960-s, took place in 2000 in New-York. All the local critics who had by that time no reasons to be afraid of the military and economic might of the «superstate № 2» and to perform the order of their country’s authorities, declared unanimously and rapturously: «This is some kind of a different civilization!»

And this was the essentially correct assessment of true socialist realism. In order to understand the reasons why the Americans having a huge experience in film industry responded so rapturously to old films of the Soviet era (which also had technical drawbacks in comparison to Hollywood technical masterpieces of the late 20^th century), we should turn to another occurrence which has a thematic relationship to that film festival.

In the middle 1990-s an exhibition of art and sculpture of the Stalin’s bolshevism era was held in Europe with triumphant success. The show also visited Russia: it was exhibited in the Russian museum (St. Petersburg) under the title “The Campaign for Happiness”. This aspiration for the bright and happy future for all laborers is the core essence of true socialist realism of the Stalin bolshevism era preserved by the leading artists of all the Soviet republics in the later years.

Having watched the 37 Soviet movies, Americans responded not just to propaganda of strange ideas, they responded to the campaign for the happiness of each and every member of society organized on different moral and ethic principles. While they were scared of the USSR earlier, those principles expressed in the behavior of film characters not only frightened them no more, they became attractive for many of them when its might ceased to pose a threat.[270] Hence the rapturous and essentially correct response: «This is some kind of a different civilization».

Yes, it is a different — new global civilization, which is to come. Its moral and ethics were demonstrated in the best works of socialist realist arts which utilized the means of the techno sphere of the 20^th century’s 1^st half. And this essence — the campaign for happiness which is really possible, which is to be achieved in life through the labor of people themselves, through their moral and ethics — is what is beyond the comprehension of the morally perverted people who denounce socialist realism of the Soviet era on the whole and of the Stalin bolshevist era in particular.

This campaign for happiness is essentially much more positive and creative than the whole lot of Hollywood fights on Earth and in space, sex and devilry which is poured daily into the minds of Russians and Americans from all the TV channels and which is nothing else than a campaign for disasters and permanent unhappiness led in the crowd-“elitist” society.

US criminalists have for a long time known that this is true because the deliberate imitation of movie rascals and heroes driven into a corner by the circumstances set by the script is manifested in all the spheres of crime statistics.

And there is also the unintentional reproduction of screen horrors (both individual and collective), which enter people’s lives as a result of programming of the individual and social psyche performed by the films.[271] The terror attacks of September 11^th, 2001 are among other things the culmination of the influence American movie business has had on the life of American society. It was not therefore caused by chance that right after September 11^th the horrified Americans chose not to distribute many films containing violence or having a Satanist, criminal or terrorist theme. Yet their patience will not last long: under the circumstances of bourgeois «liberalism» the profit of a private business is more important than social life security, therefore art criticism and art direction within the course of a certain state policy are out of competence of US top governmental bodies and special services[272], unlike the USSR (particularly the USSR of the Stalin bolshevist period).

In the times of Stalin’s bolshevism the society was influenced by the art of «critical realism» which concentrated on how bad a life of a common man is under crowd-“elitism” [273], as well as by the art of «socialist realism» which was supposed to show the proper way of establishing such relationships between people in everyday life and in work (collective work because there is no other within the historically formed technosphere) that every person working conscientiously could live happily.

This is the theme of the films «Counter-plan» (about working enthusiasm), «The Kuban Cossacks», «The Tale of Siberian Land», «The Big Family» (based on a novel by V. Kochetov «The Zhurbins»), «The Work You Serve», «My Dear Man» (based on the novels by Yu. German), «Volunteers», «Valery Chkalov» and others. There were also movies about how one should love and protect one’s own Soviet government and socialism — the people’s power, achieved by the common people through much suffering and blood in the course of the Great October socialist revolution and the Civil War («Ironclad «Potyomkin», «Chapayev», «An Optimistic Tragedy», «The Quiet Don», «How Steel Was Hardened», «The Dagger») and defended in the Great Patriotic war («The Story of a Real Man», «The Youth Guards», «In the Trenches of Stalingrad», «Two Captains»).[274]

Another question which arises in connection to the essence of socialist realism is the following one: how could such films as «Peter I», «Alexander Nevsky», «Ivan the Terrible» appear in its framework contrary to the Marxist ideas of the so-called «proletarian internationalism» and «world revolution»? One of the popular opinion is that as soon as J.V. Stalin «felt the smell of fire» (as soon as he became aware of the threat from Hitler’s Germany), he forgot immediately about K. Marx, «proletarian internationalism», «world revolution», «classless society» and other kinds of ideological cover used to disguise his personal dictatorship, and decided to produce an artistic representation of imperial patriotism which he personally needed to cynically retain his power for the sake of power.

But the point is that J.V. Stalin acted not according to immediate circumstances but according to a long-term political strategy, and his regime was not power for the sake of personal power as many have thought it to be and still do so now. Those were not the films about the imperial crowd-“elitist” patriotism in the spirit of «for faith, for the tsar and for country» and about the right of the sovereign who is obsessed with lies and flattery of his associates to execute or grant pardon to loyal subjects and traitors alike. These are films about the bolshevist nation-wide civilizational building[275] in the past and about the mistakes committed in the course of that building which resulted in countless victims and ruined lives of many generations.

In other words the essence of genuine artistic work within the style of so-called «socialist realism» is its being objectively aspired to the righteous future. And the era of Stalin’s bolshevism is the era when this artistic movement was lent purposeful support by the state for the first time in history.

This kind of state support was effective to the extent to which the state’s officials who were more or less involved in lending that support acted to their good will and understood the problems and prospects of the society, — on the one hand. And on the other hand, its effectiveness was justified by how sincerely artists themselves were devoted to the ideal and the cause of achieving a social happiness for everyone who refuse to acknowledge the right of others to act parasites either on themselves or on others. It was also determined by how much yielding to circumstances the unscrupulous yet talented time-servers were expressing that ideal and its practicability by their works in such a way that the society and above all the younger generations would respond.

Notwithstanding the mistakes and deliberate perversion of this artistic and political line by statesmen and the artists’ prostitution on the system of their work’s state support, it was the art of socialist realism that in the times of Stalin’s bolshevism gave the society what philosophy and social science could not give — the feeling that happiness on Earth is possible and that the cause of bolshevism is objectively a right one, the feeling of a safe future.

Thanks to the masterpieces created by socialist realism art in the era of Stalin’s bolshevism and later, the cause of bolshevism survived Stalin’s death, survived Khrushchev’s times, «zastoi» (stagnation), perestroika (reconstruction) and the bourgeois reforms of the 1990-s.

It was the art of socialist realism that enabled the society to bridge the gap between science and artistic work. The final and supreme achievement of socialist realism was the science-fiction novel by Ivan Antonovitch[276] Yefremov “The Hour of the Bull”. The gap between science and art is not yet bridged in that novel, but Ivan Antonovitch did approach in it the borderline by crossing which one will eliminate that gap once and for all.

The novel could have become a work of global momentum. After it was published and became widely known, Stanley Kubrick, the American film director among whose works are such well-known and popular movies as “Spartac” and “Space Odyssey 2001”, suggested making a screen version of the novel. But the psychic Trotskyite party and state officials of the USSR rejected the project out of hand, and it was never fulfilled.

It was also thanks to socialist realism that the USSR under the leadership of J.V. Stalin was prepared to Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941 — 1945 and was indeed victorious. The generation born in the years of 1905 — 1914 played a special role in that victory. Their childhood passed in the pre-revolutionary period, but their personal development as teenagers took place while socialism and the culture of the new society were being practically established, and many of them took part in that process.

Unlike the older generations they were young when the revolution and the Civil War broke out and were open in their feelings and understanding, and unlike younger generations they had a personal and distinctly remembered experience of pre-revolutionary life, not some abstract notions based on incomplete stories told by elders, books and other works of art. Besides, their personal development as teenagers was taking place in a period when the Soviet party and state crowd-“elitism” had not yet time enough to develop. Later it grew to the extent enabling it to turn some teenagers (the minority) into demons permanently opposed to any regime, and some of them (the majority) — into zombies, programmed by Marxist ideology, which has paralyzed their will. This is what happened to people of younger generations with minor exceptions.

Owing to the above-mentioned reasons the people born in the years of 1905 — 1914 were active in building and defending socialism in the USSR and therefore considered the Soviet power to be truly their own — the power of the working people which they were a part of.

The Soviet party and state crowd-“elitism” was created by another generation — the one whose youth, not the teens fell on the Civil War period. It was this generation that produced active bureaucrats and time-servers who used the Soviet governmental bodies and the party as a means to pursue their personal, family and clan interests, who advocated the ideas of socialism and social justice only to the extent which conformed to their end of remaining in power. The theme of this hypocrisy in respect to the ideals of revolution and communism was also reflected in the epochal work of socialist realism — the novel by N. Ostrovsky (1904 — 1936) “How Steel Was Hardened”.

It was the generation born in 1905 — 1914 that many outstanding figures in the field of art, science, education, military belonged to. Yet most of them did not make a bright career because the generation of activists who emerged during the Civil War was still young and refused to give up their hard-earned top posts in the party and governmental bodies and professional corporations.

While the generation of Bolsheviks born in 1905 — 1914 was still active and numerous, those bent on restoring capitalism simply had no personnel reserves to recruit the executors of their plans. That is why nothing like the restoration of capitalism carried out openly in 1985 could occur while they lived actively, even though this generation of Bolsheviks was demoralized by the lies of the 20^th and 22^nd Conventions of the CPSU.[277]

This was possible because that generation believed in Marxism which they had only a superficial (skin-deep) knowledge of. As a result, they misunderstood the cause-and-effect relations within historic processes. Besides, this superficial knowledge of Marxism was accompanied by the belief that all the three sources, all the three constituents of Marxism were true (the theory of socialism, philosophy, political economy). And firmest was the belief in its philosophy and political economy as scientific grounds of socialism and communism. If one shares this belief, then L. Bronstein (Trotsky) appears to be a true communist and idealist, an uncompromising romantic revolutionary. Consequently all his accusations and similar accusations brought by Khrushchev’s nomenclature against J.V. Stalin for perversion of Soviet power, oppressing democracy within the party and in the society appear to be just.[278] The falsehood of these assertions is exposed only when Marxist philosophy and political economy are proven inconsistent, and L. Bronstein proclaimed his faithfulness to Marxism until the very end of his days.

But if one does not know that Marxism is inconsistent and dooms Marxists to the inescapable discrepancy of their unpractical words and their actual doings, judging from words one is led to believe that L. Bronstein is right, he and other Marxist of «Lenin guards» are victims while J.V. Stalin is a power-greedy tyrant, usurper, who perverted the scientific ideas and the practice of building communism.

Without going into the essence of Marxist philosophy and political economy it is impossible to counter Marxism and its well-meaning bombast and disclosures of actual and imaginary wrongs of Stalin’s bolshevism by intellectual rational means — on the basis of language culture.

Modern Marxist psychic Trotskyism and its political organization called «IV International» are supported by the universal ignorance of what Marxist philosophy and political economy are practically. In order to break free one must imagine that one is personally solving the problems of running a country on the basis of Marxism. Then many things will become clear: the basic question of philosophy is a «wrong» one and is useless from the managerial point of view, that political economy and accounting are different things, that the pattern of production exchange between branches of economy cannot be brought down to the first and second divisions distinguished in Marxism.

But nobody from among the so-called communists gets involved in it — almost everyone thinks it enough for him and for the cause of communism to support the leaders of a certain party. This gives the leaders an opportunity to shepherd the mob of the believers in communism on the basis of Marxism.

The same explains the victory of psychic Trotskyism at the 20^th and 22^nd CPSU Conventions which served as one of the reasons of the lifeless «freedom-loving» cherished by the «men of the sixties» (the generation, which mentality was formed by Khrushchev’s policies of the 1960s) who lapsed into kitchen intrigues, drunken poetry-making and raging non-conformity, of zastoi (stagnation), of emergence of perestroika in 1985 and of the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

6.6. The «World Backstage» and Soviet Bolshevism in the Second World War of the 20^th Century

On the whole by late 1930-s the success of the USSR in the matter of building a new system of inter-social relationship in one country was indisputable, although the economic aspect of the new civilization was based upon the forced technical and technological support of developed capitalist countries which I have already mentioned in the previous chapters.

Here it’s appropriate to remind that «world backstage» was going to spread the achievements of the social experiment in the USSR into other countries. That is why during the whole process of the socialistic building from World Was I to World War II various authoritative representatives of the western intelligentsia were coming to Russia, traveling around the country communicating with simple people in their work and rest and with sundry nomenclature “elite”, and even attending public trials over the enemies of the people etc. Although there were different comments[279], on the whole the non-state propaganda on behalf of the authoritative representatives of the western intelligentsia was of pro-Soviet character rather that of anti-Soviet character and it contributed to forming the favorable attitude in the bourgeois democracy countries to the social experiment in USSR.

In those years the general public (especially the educated and enlightened part of it) was more afraid of a Hitler dictatorship rather that of a Stalin dictatorship especially since «anti-Semitism» was considered an especially dangerous crime in the USSR and the «persistent anti-Semites» could pay with their lives since the criminal codes of different Union republics provided different punishment for it up to death by shooting (supposedly due to the extent of anti-Semitism there).

The implementation of the world socialist revolution was still on the global scenario by «world backstage» in those years, it only was to happen under the new historical conditions. The transition to socialism was meant to happen after the liberation of continental Europe from Hitler’s yoke (at the first stage) during the liberation campaign of the Red Army to Europe.

V.B.Rezun (pen-name — V.Suvorov) passionately defends this supposition in his books “Icebreaker”, “The M-Day” and others, but he ascribes this scenario to Josef Stalin himself rather than to the world supra-government «backstage» which he is reluctant to either notice directly or to deduce its existence by applying the analytical methods for various social statistic figures; methods well-known to him from his work in the intelligence service. That is why this is not «world backstage» working through the western sjid-masonry which V. Suvorov claims to be the aggressor, but the USSR, attacked by the other aggressor — fascist Germany — in order to forestall the soviet assault which was supposedly to have come in approximately two weeks[280].

But in fact, the biblical «world backstage» had begun its existence long before Josef Stalin took the lead of the USSR. Throughout the whole biblical epoch of the global civilization it was making the global political scenarios in order to fulfill their doctrine (enclosed in the Appendix at the end of this book). Meanwhile in 1941 according to the global political scenario of «world backstage» the USSR was not to initialize the war anymore, even under the pretext of liberating Europe from Hitler’s yoke.

Firstly, the public opinion of the majority in Europe and America did not see the direction of the global historical process, but considered the history of the states to be only a sequence of incoherent and meaningless fortuities. Hence, the public opinion was utterly unfavorable towards the attempt to restore the Soviet power in Finland[281] during the winter war of 1939 — 1940, when the USSR was assigned to the position of the aggressor. Besides this, the inclusion of the Baltic bourgeois democracies into the USSR due to the exported revolutions and pro-Soviet upheavals in late August 1940, carried out by the local periphery of Comintern from within the countries, caused an utmost negative response, too. And it did not matter that by that time it had been almost a year since the Second World War began and entering the USSR provided the Baltic States with objective protection from Hitler’s occupation[282]. Moreover, it geographically improved the fronts’ configuration of the future anti-Hitler coalition, which had already become an objective necessity for its time and was due to be created in the nearest future.

Secondly, it was not only the pro-Marxist international-socialistic opposition which was present in the western bourgeois-democratic states and confronted the historically developed social and economic systems, which were completely dominated by the supragovernment usury of the Jewish clans. In each of the bourgeois democratic countries there was also a rather powerful nationalist opposition. Depending on the internal conditions, the opposition to the bourgeois democracy was either purely oligarchic or national-socialistic. But either variant of it presented a historically real pro-Hitler «Fifth column», which played a role in Hitler’s occupation of all European countries; and which was ready to betray the historically developed regimes in all the countries[283] which for this or that reason Hitler did not have a chance to invade.

It was the to nationalist opposition which Rudolf Hess appealed when coming to Great Britain in May 1941, with some peace proposals, which remain classified to this day. In the US there was also a strong national-socialist and other pro-German opposition, which was already mentioned in the previous chapter. As for Argentina it was about to be the South-American branch of the Third Reich in the years before the War.

To neutralize the internal nationalist opposition in the western countries of bourgeois democracy and to deprive its activists of the support of the politically inert general public it was necessary for the «world backstage» to discredit the idea of national self-consciousness. For these purposes Hitler had to lead Germany to Nazism and to sacrifice the country to the world socialist revolution by assaulting the USSR. Moreover, Germany’s warfare had to become a savage and brutal campaign of cleansing the territory of its population, unlike the moderate police occupation of Europe before 1941[284]. Such a war was supposed to finish with the crushing defeat of Germany, especially with the western countries supporting the USSR.

Besides, as it has already been mentioned above, for the achievements of the social experiment in the USSR to be introduced in other countries without further resistance, the USSR had to acquire an attractive and desirable image, while the other countries’ own bourgeois regimes which were performing the policy of indulging and encouraging Hitlerism throughout 1930-s were supposed to become loathsome. For these purposes the USSR had to stop being just the abstract cult symbol of the bright future it had always been in the eyes of the left intelligentsia in 1930-s. It had to represent the last feasible hope for the general public frightened by the nazi atrocities; the hope that only the power of the Soviet Union which could protect mankind from subjugation to the German fascism. For this sake and in order to make the European liberation campaign by the Red Army universally and impeccably justified in the respect of the morals, and thus heartily welcomed in the countries occupied by Hitler, the USSR also had to become the victim of the fascist Germany aggression.

In the middle of the twentieth century, as well as in the beginning of it, there again was a need to organize a world war to implement the project of «the World Socialist Revolution» under the banners of Marxism.

The political scenarios of Trotskyite Marxists did not meet this scenario at all:

· they were still obsessed with the idea to begin the revolutionary war in order to liberate the working people which would turn a lot of people away from the idea of socialist rearrangement of the world;

· the scenario of overthrowing Bolshevik Stalin who had significantly subdued the bureaucratic machine of the party and of the state — overthrow of the ruling regime resulting from the war defeat, like it happened in the Russian-Japanese War or in the First World War — this scenario directly contradicted the global political scenario and the scenario of the Second World War by «world backstage». Squaring accounts personally with Stalin was postponed to the postwar period by «world backstage».

That is why the «world backstage» not only did not impede the liquidation of Leon Bronstein, but also assisted in doing away with his followers in the USSR and in the Comintern, who didn’t catch the spirit of the times. As a result during the invasion in the USSR the support of the Hitler aggression by the «fifth column» was reduced to only to several episodes[285].

On assaulting Poland on September1^st, 1939, Germany found itself involved in a world war that she was not ready to win. After that, the only chance for her to escape the lot of the sacrifice to the «world socialist revolution» project was to hold sacred the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939, and to carry out the “Sea-Lion” operation in 1941. The latter would let Germany quit the war in spite of the position of the ruling “elite” of Great Britain[286], which refused the peace proposed through Rudolf Hess. Germany could then revise its racist sociologic doctrine in the spirit of multinational Bolshevism in order to unite the peoples of the USSR, Germany, and other countries within the conception of multi-national socialism building, for Germany had already been freed from the power of Marxism while the USSR war still to solve this problem.

In 1941 the treaty was the only means for Germany to make the «world backstage» reconsider their global political scenarios including those for Germany itself. Stalin left this opportunity open for Germany until June 22, 1941, inclusive[287]. But the Germans transferred all the attorney personally to Hitler, who after a good deal of nervousness and hesitation in the evening of June 21, 1941, still made the decision to invade the USSR the next morning according to Barbarossa plan. And the “Sea-Lion” plan for invading into Great Britain, which was developed simultaneously with Barbarossa, later acquired the meaning of a successful strategic disinformation[288].

Thus as a result of the Germans’ horrific shortsightedness and weak will and because of Hitler’s adherence to «world backstage», Germany was routed and the idea of national self-consciousness was identified with nazism, fascism, and racism and became desecrated for many decades ahead in the majority of the cultures on the earth.

As a result of Germany’s utter rout, the USSR acquired tremendous moral authority, which was indisputable up until the so-called «Caribbean Crisis»[289] in 1962. Besides, the socialist planned economy of the USSR proved its efficiency in the years of preparation to win the war, during the war itself, as well as in the post-war period of rehabilitation of the economy. This was obvious both from the manufacture growth figures and from the characteristics of the cultural development of the society.

However, virtually right after the completion of the Second World War the «world backstage» began supporting anti-Soviet forces throughout the part of the world not controlled by the USSR. In addition, it was not only the state structure of the USSR which was condemned. According to the state propaganda of the bourgeois democracies, the very idea of socialism as the basis of social life structure was announced a variety of the personality suppressing «totalitarian tyranny».

But at the same time, these same countries of bourgeois democracies began introducing many of the socialist elements of the economic and social order, which proved themselves efficient in the USSR and Hitler’s Germany: planning and regulating activities of the state on the macro-economic level, development of the social security for the youth as well as the adults and the elderly people who lost their health, etc[290]. And in most of the higher educational establishments the bourgeois democratic state system would shut its eyes to the propaganda among the students of the Trotskyite trend of Marxism.

Along with this, there was a qualitative change in the character of economic and cultural relations between the USSR and the West as compared to both the period of cooperation of the «united nations» in their struggle against Hitlerism during World War II and as compared to the prewar years when on quite a legal basis scientific and technical designs and technologies were flowing from Europe and the USA (which were more advanced in this respect) over to the USSR (although this aspect was not covered by Soviet historians neither in text-books of history nor in any general public oriented publications). After the Second World War «the Iron Curtain» appeared, which actually did not exist even after the Revolution of 1917, during the Civil War or in the years of diplomatic isolation, when for a long time the USSR was not recognized by the many developed capitalist countries.

This circumstance suggests the idea that something happened inside the USSR that the «world backstage» considered as a menace to its absolute global power.

In our viewpoint it was still in the pre-war years that the «world backstage» had reasons to expect the USSR could go beyond its control, when in the first half of the twentieth century it was operating under the ideology of introduced Marxism and in the organizational form of a Marxist party. Since this misgiving was not groundless, the main problem for the «world backstage» became to restrain, suppress and root out Bolshevism in the USSR, but not to extend its socialist culture to other countries. The latter would not go further than simply adopting certain elements of socialism and allowing the propaganda of Trotskyism trend Marxism among the students.

To ground the statement that in the age of Stalin’s Bolshevism the USSR went beyond the control of the «world backstage» we will first say that:

Under the political situation of the summer of 1939 the Soviet-German Non-Aggression pact was not only unnecessary, but also potentially dangerous for implementation of «the world socialist revolution» scenario.

The matter is that in both of the countries there were active generations who saw the reality and the consequences of the past war between Russia and Germany. Thus they were true supporters of good neighborly relations and cultural connections between the two countries. Throughout history it became obvious that the best periods of living in both of the countries were in times of their alliance, reciprocal trade relations, and cultural exchange. The creative potential of the people, longing to avoid a new armed conflict, was a reality in both the states. It only should be called for and supported on the state policy level.

That is why for the «world backstage», mainly based on the power of the USA, the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact presented an opportunity for unacceptable change in the global distribution of economic and military power into blocks of allied states. This would breach the «backstage’s» major «divide-and-rule» principle of global management.

Before the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 there were:

«The US and Great Britain» as the force determining the victory of one of the parties in the pair: «Germany and its allies» on the one side of the front line and the USSR without almost any allies, on the other side of the front line.

The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact made it as follows:

There emerged a potential duel situation: the US against the united Eurasian block headed by Bolshevist USSR and Germany (which could probably unite into one allied state). It was another question which political leaders from both the states would survive this scenario and who would sink into political or physical oblivion.

Observation of the treaty between the political leaders of the two countries would open the door just for this variant[291]. If Germany and the USSR developed in this direction, the global situation would go beyond the control of the «world backstage». That was why when describing how much Stalin needed the non-aggression treaty with Germany in order to make the first attack himself, Victor Rezun was presenting the «world backstage» as organizing and inspiring the First and the Second World Wars.

Although this scenario-maximum did not work out in the twentieth century, the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact still limited the freedom of the political maneuver of the «world backstage» and thus provided a victory of Bolshevism in global politics.

Without this treaty the German invasion into Poland[292], which had become imminent by that time could automatically develop into military conflict between the USSR and Germany. The USSR could take under its protection the western regions of Belarus and the Ukraine, which were occupied by Poland after the dissolution of the Russian Empire, or a part of the Polish troops could try to cross the Soviet boundaries to get interned.

This scenario of the Soviet-German conflict was bound to automatically develop if in August 1939, the USSR concluded the treaty of alliance with Great Britain and France instead of the non-aggression pact with Germany. The draft project of the treaty proposed by France and Great Britain did not oblige them to coordinate their military operations with the USSR within certain terms after the USSR’s enter in case of the German invasion into one of them or into Poland. Also, Poland refused to let the Soviet troops through its territory to come into military contact with German forces in the case of a German invasion into Poland.

It was idiotic of the ruling bourgeois regimes of Great Britain and France to pursue this policy. Their governments still cherished hopes to preserve historical capitalism and the global colonial system. For the sake of this they were determined in their effort to use German National Socialism to protect themselves from Marxism and Soviet Bolshevism, together with using Marxism and Soviet Bolshevism as protection from German National Socialism. Poland was made a sacrifice to this desire in 1939, as well as Austria and Czechoslovakia had been in 1938, whose fate nonetheless did not teach the “wise men” in Warsaw anything.

Thus the bourgeois democracies of the West fit the «world backstage’s» scenario to initiate the war between Germany and the USSR in 1939 (or in 1940 at latest).

As the following events proved, it was right of Stalin to refuse Franco-British treaty of alliance. France and Great Britain were perfidious to Poland when Germany assaulted it. Poland fell under the attack of Wehrmacht because France and Great Britain violated their treaty by not initiating the military actions against Germany to the extent and within the period stipulated in the treaty. This conduct of Poland’s allies allowed Wehrmacht to rout Germany’s enemies one by one: first concentrating all its forces against Poland and after its defeat — against France and expedition forces of Great Britain on the continent. This lead to the partial occupation of France with the creation of a puppet pro-Hitler regime there, while Great Britain was put on the verge of military and economic catastrophe in 1940.

There was no reason to suppose that the bourgeois governments of France and Great Britain should have been more conscientious at meeting their obligations to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics than they were at «meeting» them with bourgeois Poland.

The Soviet non-aggression treaty with Germany, which was ripe for aggression against Poland, excluded the possibility to automatically involve the USSR into the war with Germany and her allies given the position of observation of France and Great Britain. This really postponed the war by almost two years and gave the opportunity to rearm and reorganize the Soviet army. The Soviet-German treaty of 1939 was a shame for the USSR if we pretend that the «world backstage» does not exist. However, if we keep in mind the global supra-government political scenarios of the biblical «world backstage» then it was justified, for it was the first step to liberate the humanity from the tyranny of the biblical «world backstage».

The most important point for the USSR is that thanks to the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty the Western bourgeois democracies happened to be at war with Germany earlier than the USSR. That is why with the beginning of the war between the USSR and Germany, the USSR automatically turned out to be a de-facto ally of all states at war with Germany and its allies, no matter whether the ally relations with each of them bore the juridical character.

If the Second World War had begun as the war between the USSR and the Germany repeating the scenario of the First World War, the «world backstage» would have had a chance to choose at what time and on whose side to join the war of bourgeois democracies of the West, since it had its own view of the future and because both the parties at war were loyal to them. Thus they would exert their decisive influence upon the completion of the war and on the postwar system of international relations.

Another sign — ominous as well from the viewpoint of the «world backstage» — happened in a short while after the capitulation of Germany. It was the Parade of Victory on Red Square in Moscow on June 4, 1945.

From the viewpoint of a simple soviet person who is not acquainted with the Masons’ addiction to the rituals and the legends, it would be logical if the Parade of Victory would had taken place on June, 22 for the German invasion began on June, 22. It would be very symbolic: you wanted June 22? — Fine, here’s the June, 22, the Parade of our Victory.

However, the parade took place not on June 22, but on June 24, seemingly for no reason at all. But if we keep in mind the symbolism and the adherence to the rites of the Free Masons we will know that June 24^th is John the Baptist Day, and one of the branches of the
sjid-masonry bares the name of this saint. Every year June 24^th is the day of the order in John’s Masonry. Consequently, dating the parade to June 24^th points at the real initiators of the war, which wished to achieve their own political goals through the help of the war.

Where did the initiative to date the Victory Parade to June 24^th come from? From the «world backstage» representatives or from Stalin? This question is still open and we come across no publications on this account. However, it was significant that Stalin withdrew from taking a salute at the parade on John the Baptist Masonry Day. There are two reasons proposed for his withdrawal.

The first one, as they say, was he wanted to take the salute of the parade himself, but when getting ready for this he fell from his horse in the riding-hall. They could not provide him with a calmer horse. Supposedly, under these insuperable circumstances Stalin would grit his teeth because of the lost opportunity to parade himself, but nonetheless would hand the honor and glory of taking the salute at the Victory Parade over to the Marshal of the Soviet Union, Georgiy Zhukov. The latter was originally a cavalryman in the army[293].

The second version was proposed by VictorRezun during an interview on «Svoboda» radio station in 2002. The essence of it can be rendered as follows.

Since the USSR could not occupy all the Europe, the plans of the world socialist revolution were ruined, which in Rezun’s view destined the USSR to decay and downfall[294]. As he claimed, Stalin was of the same opinion and believed that the USSR lost the war, in which Stalin intended to include all the European states into the USSR. At first, Hitler’s «preventive» strike on the USSR did not allow Stalin to carry out this scenario. After that, the presence of the allies in Europe in 1945 deprived Stalin of the chance to include even the East-European countries that had been freed from Hitlerism.

Supposedly reluctant to admit this personal loss in public, Stalin withdrew from taking the salute at the Victory Parade and allowed Marshal Zhukov to please his ambitions. Since Zhukov did not understand anything in global politics and in the «world revolution», just as none of the narrow specialists or general public did.

If Stalin felt that he won the victory in the sense he expected to, he would have taken the salute himself. Even if there were no quiet horses for him, he would have taken the salute from a jeep, from a tank or from a limousine (which became normal in the following epochs when less and less military men could ride horses).

Along with this, Rezun draws one more sign that in his view speaks of the failure of the global idea of establishing the Soviet power and socialism worldwide, which resulted from World War II. After Christ the Savior Cathedral was demolished in 1935, the Palace of Soviets was being built on its place until 1941. It was supposed to become a skyscraper with a gigantic figure of Lenin on its top several dozen meters tall.

In this Palace the last remaining state was supposed to join the USSR as a socialist republic, concluding the world socialist revolution and give the USSR worldwide statehood status.

With the beginning of the Great Patriotic War the construction was temporarily closed down and not long before the victory over Germany the decision was made to abandon it. After the war the swimming pool “Moscow” was built in place of the destroyed Cathedral and the might-have-been Palace of Soviets. In its turn, swimming pool “Moscow” was liquidated in the reforms years and an operating model of the former Christ the Savior Cathedral[295] was erected and sanctified by 2001.

But there is the third version as well.

If on June 24^th, the Day of John the Baptist’s Masonry, the Head of the state and Commander-in-chief Josef Stalin observes the parade from the outside, then objectively this is at least a demonstration of disloyalty to the biblical «world backstage». Or else it means that Stalin, as the leader of the Bolshevist government of the USSR, possesses the same or even a higher inter-social rank than the «world backstage» leaders, while being opposed to them (as his postwar activity shows).

This version is also supported by the fact that the Victory Day became a national holiday only in 1965 when the state and the party were lead by the imitators of Bolshevism. But for the real Bolsheviks the victory over the puppet, artificially nurtured Hitler’s Nazism, which was gained in alliance with the puppets of the «world backstage», was only a victory in one of the battles. It was not yet the grand total victory in the struggle for liberation of the global civilization from the tyranny of the «world backstage». The struggle for the opportunity to establish a global civilization of humaneness was not over yet. That is why:

We still have to do a lot of things to make May 9^th holiday a real Victory Day of the peoples of the USSR in the imposed war of 1941 — 1945, which became the Great Patriotic War. We won this war in terms of the sixth priority of the basic social control means, but in terms of higher priorities the Great Patriotic war against the tyranny of the «world backstage» is still going on.

*   *   *

EXPLANATION OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH

The rather «The Sufficiently common theory of control» observes a society in the historically long periods of time and distinguishes the following means of influence on a society, which if applied with skill are able to control its life and death:

 1. Information of the worldview character. The methodology which helps people to build (individually and socially) their «standard automatic mechanisms» of recognition of the particular processes in the unity of Life and which specifies their hierarchy rank in the perception of the complex events. This information plays a key role in the culture of thinking and in the management activity, particularly in the extent of inter-social power.

 2. Information of annalistic, chronological character from all the branches of Culture and Knowledge. This one allows to see the trend of the processes and to correlate particular branches of Knowledge and Culture on the whole with each other. Together with the worldview, conformable with the Life and based on the sense of proportion, this information allows one to distinguish particular processes by directing the «chaotic» stream of facts and events through the worldview sieve — the subjective human measure of recognition.

 3. Information of Fact-descriptive character. The description of particular processes and their interrelation is the essence of the third priority information. Religious cults’ dogmas, secular ideologies, technologies and factologies of all scientific branches pertain to this kind.

 4. Economic processes. Economic processes as a means of influence are subordinate to the purely informational means of influence through the finances (money), which are an ultimately generalized type of economic information.

 5. Means of genocide, which strike not only the living people but also the following generations. These destroy the genetic potential of the people to learn and develop the cultural inheritance of their ancestors. These means include: nuclear blackmailing — threat of its usage; alcohol, tobacco and other narcotic genocide, food supplements, all ecological pollutants, some medications, cosmetics perfumery — real usage of it; «genetic engineering» and «biotechnologies» — potential threat.

 6. Other means of influence (mainly of force influence). The weapon (in the traditional understanding of this word), which kills and cripples people, destroys material and technical objects of the civilization, objects of culture, and the bearers of the spirit.

There is no unequivocal differentiation between the means of influence because many of the possess qualities which can be related to different priorities. But nonetheless this hierarchy structured classification allows one to distinguish the domineering influence factors which can be used as management means in particular for the purposes of suppression and destruction of the social phenomena which are unacceptable from the point of view of managing conception.

When used within one social system these will function as its generalized management means. However, when they are used by one social system (or social group) towards others, in the case when the systems’ managing conceptions differ, these function as the generalized weapons, or the weapons of war in the general sense of this word. In case the managing conceptions of both the systems coincide, these function as the means of self-government support in the target social system.

The order specified depicts the class priority of the above-mentioned means of social influence. The society condition changes to a much greater extent under the influence of the higher priority means than under the that of the lower priority means, although the changes caused by higher priorities means are slower and go without “sound effects”. Thus, in the historically long time intervals the operating speed of the means grows from the first priority to the sixth, while the irreversibility of their results — which is significant in solving social problems for one and all — decreases.

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-creating morals 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 19^th regular Congress of the Communist Party took place only in early October 1952 (after the 18^th 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 7^th Congress in 1918 to 14^th 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.

*            *
*

Indeed J.V. Stalin knew that he gave much of his health to the victory in the Great Patriotic War. He knew that he went through his first (not serious according to their consequences) apoplexies actually not being out of control over the state and party matters. Indeed he knew that his surrounding — an internal party mafia — for several decades simply let no young Bolsheviks in, one of whom with the time could get into the swing of general party and state work and impose the highest party and state authority on himself, letting J.V. Stalin retire as any of the citizens of the USSR. That is why he used some means of screening of his true intentions from his closest surrounding that he had a right not to trust, justly seeing in them either executers of the will of the leader or viewless trimmers, but not initiative thinking creatively Bolsheviks, his comrades, servants of the ideal of Communism.

It would be a vile slander and absurdity to state that J.V. Stalin did nothing so that after his death the Bolsheviks’ work on the transfer to the true Communism — a society of the righteous common living of free people on a global scale — was continued and strengthened. But what he did does not get along with the dependant ideas of the communist crowd about what the true leader of the communists should do before passing away.

A crowd, consumptively non-initiatively disposed towards their leader, imaging the delegation of authority to the follower-successor in the light of a historically formed monarchy tradition:

· In one of its variants the leader while alive should appoint a successor, teach him and bring him up, let him into the different secrets of his work and then delegate his duties — this is the way the authority is delegated in the monarch dynasties, with the only difference that they prepare for that from babyhood only one elder son of the leader, not the stranger;

· The other variant is when after the death of the leader or after his resignation, «conclave» of the fellow-fighters chooses the next leader — as cardinals choose the Pope.

But here it is necessary to stress that in both variants of the succession of leadership not entire authority is passed, but only the duties[311] that are usually acclaimed by the rest of the society or by its large powerful part on the basis of the written laws and unwritten traditions. But once authority is delegated, every successor places on himself the concern and the responsibility for the work — according to his morally conditioned understanding and self-discipline.

If to put outside the brackets the accompanying historical circumstances, then all crushes in history monarchies (hereditary and non- hereditary dictatorships) failed only due to the only reason, common for all of them — placing the duty and authority upon himself for the work he is the head of, according to his duties, the successor of the leader turned out not to be ready for the full circle of the concern and the responsibility that correspond with the entire intrasocial power. Thereupon the error of the management accumulated in the actions of the succession of the leaders changing each other and then the system collapsed.

The core difference between the crowd-“elitism” and bolshevism is in the following: in the crowd-“elitism” for the deed actualization duties, acclaimed by more or less wide layers of society on the basis of the law or tradition, is significant and therefore primary. In Bolshevism initiative placing upon oneself the concern and the responsibility for work is significant and therefore primary, as for the duties, they are secondary in respect to this voluntarily chosen autocracy in the common work. The duties are formed and acclaimed by the rest of Bolsheviks depending on how well the candidate for the post of the leader suits the aims of Bolshevism.

Consequently in Bolshevism a man shouldn’t engineer himself in all cases to the formed structures of the duties and algorithmic of their functioning, but the structures of the duties, pretty much, if not completely, engineer according to the interpersonal delegation of the concern and the responsibility for the common work between the participants. This delegation is formed on the bases of the acquired by each of them skills and knowledge. That is why the architecture of the structures of the duties should be flexible enough and be purposely engineered by the participants for the possibilities of the specific people to answer their personal development and changes in the personal structure, that equally entails the change of the character of the delegation of the concern and the responsibility for the common work between the people.

In other words it means that J.V. Stalin could delegate his authority to the one he chose as a follower-successor or it could be taken over by his «fellow-fighters» — candidates for power, — which actually happened.

But somebody was to voluntarily lay the concern and the responsibility for work that J.V. Stalin served to, independently of the procedure of the delegation of authority by J.V. Stalin to someone else. By his actions J.V. Stalin could only create conditions for the successors to take upon themselves the concern and the responsibility for the Bolsheviks’ idea, not less than Stalin’s.

All this said about the delegation of authority in the form of concern and responsibility for work and about the delegation of duties and the difference between the real power and duties, J.V. Stalin himself experienced, partly knew from history and somehow understood it in his peculiar system of conceptions. Because in the period of 1945 — 1952 he actually created the conditions when his followers-successors could take upon themselves the concern and the responsibility for the Bolsheviks’ idea, not less than Stalin’s and accordingly could change, if necessary, the architectural structure of the duties and algorithmic of their functioning. He passed away only after creating all these conditions.[312]

Let’s start with the fact that the post-war period of the history of the Stalin’s USSR is characterized by the Hebrew (Jews indeed) commentators and non-Hebrew commentators that lost the perception of complicity to the fate of the simple people as a period when the politics of the «state anti-Semitism» was pursued. It is the time when many Hebrew public organizations[313] were shut down; it is the time of struggle against cosmopolitism and groveling before the West, against Zionism that affected many Hebrews and non-Hebrews. The exposure of the pseudonyms of the cultural workers that uncovered their true last names that in majority were Hebrewish. «Doctor’s Case» that preceded the elimination of J.V. Stalin by the scared «associates» and the rumors about the resettlement of the Hebrews to the Jewish autonomic region[314] at the Far East that was never realized due to the Stalin’s death.

But essentially it was a politics of the «state anti-Semitism» that was carried out only to suppress the rights and the freedoms of people on the basis of their Hebrewish ancestry. It was the first (after the victory of internazis in the state take-over of 1917) open[315] try of the state to suppress the activity of the consciously purposeful and spontaneously unconscious internazi in the Soviet society.

It was as effective as it was possible in terms of the historically formed at that time culture and Marxist sociology to single out internazi in the general flow of events of the past and present history of the humanity on the whole and particularly in Russia. It was as effective as it was possible for the society to comprehend such an interpretation of the Marxist and intercultural terminology. As effective as the people of the society and first of all administrators of the governmental authorities were self-disciplined in questions of abuse of their possibilities and staying away from the participation in the gregarious effects of the political activity of the crowd that live according to the traditions and thinks according to the authority[316]. It was as effective as the Hebrews were able to reveal in themselves and in others internazism so typical for their culture and in this or that way for each of them, as a consequence of the influence of the culture, since without the revealing of the essence of the internazism in the culture and in people, it is impossible to part with it and liberated from its power.

It was not the politics of the «state anti-Semitism», that was carried out only to suppress the rights and the freedoms of people on basis of their Hebrewish ancestry and giving others some privileges on the basis of the absence of the Hebrews among their ancestors.

It was the state measures of reducing pressure of the internazism which for decades after the state upheaval in 1917 had been suppressing the spirit of people with all its power of the Marxist ideology and state, at this abusing the power of the punitive bodies of special services. It suppressed the national spirit of all the nations of the USSR, but also the Hebrewish Diaspora, preventing the spiritual emancipation of the society and formation informal freedoms in it and sovereignty of people that is typically for the humanity.

Although the word «internazism» at that time was not introduced in the political vocabulary and in the culture of the society, but the words «Zionism», «cosmopolitism», «groveling before the West» in official Stalin’s propaganda were interpreted exactly according to the features of the demonstration of this global historical phenomenon, which in the terms of the IP (Internal-Predict) of the USSR is called internazism.

So under the term «Zionism» they saw not the aspiration of the Hebrews to settle in Palestine and create their state, but the exploitative ideology of the large Jewish international bourgeois, enslaving in the essence in respect to others, including Jews. Under the term «cosmopolitism» they saw not the concern of a man for the fates of the human beings and the Earth, but the refusal of the concern and the responsibility for the fates of the people of their homeland and other countries, that in fact made such kind of “cosmopolites” common to the local “elite” anti-national periphery of the «world backstage». The same is true about the «groveling before the West»[317].

But even these peculiarities of the interpretation of the sense of the mentioned words of Stalin’s propaganda are regarded by anti-Stalinists, internazis and the slaves of anti-Nazism as another demonstration of Stalin’s hypocrisy and ideological screen of anti-Hebrewish racism of Stalin’s regime. But it would be just and therefore better for them to address their claims not to J.V. Stalin but to the mentioned in one of the footnotes of Chapter 6.3 Yu. Larin, (M.A. Lurie) — the author of the book «Jews[318] and anti-Semitism in the USSR» and such like «researchers» and «enlighteners». He and others like him, seeing internazism through the phenomena that it could penetrate through and the form which it took, avoid and still do the true reasons and the algorithmic of the coming into existence of the so-called «anti-Semitism». This contributed and contributes to the anti-Hebrew racism remaining in society — which is the hostile attitude towards other people, emanating from the true or false supposition of belonging to Hebrews and being part of them. Such kind of anti-Hebrew racism was spread out due to the implementation by J.V. Stalin of the state measures on suppressing internazism, and put on a mask of the latter.

All that are afraid of the so-called «anti-Semitism» in all its manifestations should know:

The so-called «anti-Semitism» appears not where Hebrews are, but where the Bible doctrine of the enslavement of all is being implemented in the form of the tradition of taboo on the discussion of the essence of the «Jew problem» or where it is presented as a Providential good.

What you call «anti-Semitism» in its foundation has the righteous denial of the Bible internazism. Only under the pressure of internazism that you bear, or under the pressure of Nazism that is born by the national “elites” this tendency to freedom and humanism is being perverted and presented as anti-Hebrew racism, fruitless and cruelly antihuman[319] as any other racism, including yours — internazi.

The politics of the state suppression of internazism in the post-war period of the history of the Stalin’s Bolshevism was a background for the whole public and political life of the country. One of the important events of the public and political life of the Soviet society, that is forgotten by many contemporaries of those events now, was the discussions of different problems of life in the soviet society and the development of its culture that were published. These discussions are also referred to by the anti-Stalinists as demonstrations of Stalin’s hypocrisy that provoked the illusion of freedom of words and thoughts in the opposition to the regime to be openly expressed so that later cruelly to be done away with.

At this, critics of the post-war politics of Stalin’s Bolshevism prefer not to get into the essence of the opinions expressed during the discussion, in spite of the fact that they are the cores of those public discussions. The opinions stated by different people were the criteria that characterized the development of the culture of the comprehension of the world in the soviet society. The culture of the comprehension of the world in the depths of its subcultures represents what in many ways anticipates the further fates of the society. That is why anti-Stalinists, who did not get into the essence of these opinions stated during the discussions of that epoch, are being also hypocrites or show their narrow-mindedness, which is actually the same.

These discussions where the first manifestations of the cruel fight that took place between Bolshevism and local “elite” mafia periphery of the «world backstage» for the state power in the multinational Russian regional civilization.

One of the discussions of those years was devoted to the problems of the sociology on the whole, that nevertheless were viewed through the problematic of the development of the economical science as theoretical basis for managing the development of the national economy of the soviet society. Since everybody wants to eat, live comfortably, have healthy children, get an education, be well-to-do when old, etc. and this is provided exactly by the economical bases of the society, then the economical problematic is able to raise a wider interest than purely philosophical, that is considered by many to be remote from real problems of life by simple abstraction.[320] According to this understanding of the priority of the economical conditionality prevailing in society (under the pressure of the historical materialism and the cult of Marxism on the whole), J.V. Stalin himself drew the bottom-line of the discussion of the economical problems.

All what in his opinion was necessary and what he could say in that summery and assessment of the potentials for the further development of the socialism in the USSR and in the world was in 1952 published in the collection of the articles and answer letters to the participants of that discussion under the common name “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, which was many times cited here and mentioned in the above chapters and that we are specifically going to analyze in the next chapter. The last of the letters of J.V. Stalin inserted in this book is dated September 29, 1952. In a week 19^th Congress of the ACP (B) (All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks) was held and the party was renamed as CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). This abbreviation remained ambiguous. The history proved the competence of the following interpretation: Capitulator Party of the Self-liquidation of Socialism.

19^th Congress took place in Moscow in October 5 — 14, 1952. There a new membership of the Central Party Committee was elected. To understand why the history proved such a competence of the abbreviation CPSU we need to turn to a not well-know episode of the work of the Central Committee that was elected at the XIX congress.

After the Congress held on October 16, a Central Committee plenary session took place. J.V. Stalin spoke at the plenary session. His speech was a surprise for the participants: the surprise was not that no one expected it, but its contents. This Stalin’s speech benumbed the plenary session.

There were two reasons for it:

· First, J.V. Stalin bluntly warned the plenary session participants about the fact that those who are regarded his closest faithful associates, and if necessary — successors, were ready for betrayal of justice, bourgeois degeneration and joining in a conspiracy with imperialism. Thus J.V. Stalin openly expressed his distrust to V. Molotov and A. Mikoyan.

· Secondly, J.V. Stalin reported to the Central Committee members, — what they could have guessed themselves: that he had already become old and tired, therefore soon the time would come when he wouldn’t be able to rule the country, hence they were to think about and elect in advance another person to be the ruling party Central Committee Secretary General.

One could content oneself with this information about J. Stalin’s speech and go on to the further consideration of the problems. But it’s better to turn to one of the plenary session participant’s evidence, otherwise someone could consider our conclusion concerning attitude of the participants of the plenary session a groundless slander.

K. Simonov, who was a famous and influential writer and poet, respected in the Soviet society for decades, — became a candidate member for C.P.S.U. Central Committee, elected by the 19^th Congress. In his memoirs, which he recorded on a tape-recorder not long before his death, and which were deciphered and published under the name “With the Eyes of a Man of My Generation” after he had passed away, he reports about the plenary session held on October 16, 1952, the following:

«In the March 1953 record1 I didn’t expatiate on the plenary session for many reasons. Nevertheless first I’ll cite the short recording of that time, and then I’ll decipher some points, to decipher which now, 27 years after, will be a less sin2 than to consign them to oblivion.

Here is the record in the original form:

«Of course, I have no right to record everything what happened at the Central Committee plenary session 3 , but I still want to record some details not touching upon the issues of the plenary session.

When the plenary session began precisely at the appointed time, everyone was in his place. And when Stalin together with the other Politburo members came out from the back door and approached the presidium table, the people gathered in the Sverdlov Hall applauded him. Stalin came in, his face being very serious and concentrated, and casting a quick glance at the hall he made a gesture with his hand — from his chest towards us. And in this gesture he expressed that he understands our feelings to him and that we should understand that this is a Central Committee plenary session, where we should work <bold type supplied by the authors>.

One of the Central Committee members speaking from the rostrum said in the end of his speech that he was Stalin’s faithful disciple. Stalin, who had been listening to the speech very attentively sitting in the presidium behind speakers, shortly remarked: «We are all Lenin’s followers» [321] .

In his speech talking about need for steadfastness and intrepidity Stalin began to speak about Lenin and the intrepidity he showed in 1918, about the incredibly hard situation of that time and how strong enemies were.

And what about Lenin? — Stalin asked. — And Lenin — reread, what he said and wrote then. He thundered in that incredibly hard situation, thundered, wasn’t afraid of anyone. Thundered.

Stalin repeated this word «Thundered!» [322] twice or thrice.

Then in connection with one of the questions [323] emerged at the plenary session talking about his duties Stalin said:

As far as I am entrusted with it, I am doing it. It doesn’t mean it’s just meant for me. I’m brought up in another way, — he said the last phrase in a very sharp way» (the italics is supplied by the authors in order to separate the diary record of 1953 given by K. Simonov from the memoirs of 1979).

So, what happened and what did I mean by that short record made in 1953? I’ll try to remember and explain in the way I can.

(…)

I don’t want to take a sin upon my soul and try to recollect the details of the plenary session, which I remembered but didn’t record. I’ll just talk about what is really etched in my mind, what is a hard and even tragic recollection[324].

I think, the plenary session lasted for 2 hours or a bit more time, from which Stalin’s speech took half an hour and Molotov’s and Mikoyan’s speeches and elections of the Central Committee executive office in the end of the plenary session took the rest of the time. As far as I remember while Stalin was speaking Malenkov presided over the plenary session, the rest of the time Stalin himself presided over it. Almost after the beginning Malenkov gave Stalin the floor, and the latter walking behind the presidium table descended to the rostrum, which was several stairs lower than the table, in the middle as respects to it. From the beginning to the end he was talking in a harsh way without any humor, there were no sheets of paper in front of him[325]. During his speech he intently, tenaciously and somehow severely peered into the hall, as though he tried to penetrate into the thoughts of the people who were sitting in front and behind of him. The tone of his speech, the way he was speaking grasping the hall with his eyes, — everything benumbed the sitting, I also experienced that torpor. The main idea of his speech (if not textually, then according to the train of thought) was that he was old, and the time was coming when others would have to continue what he had been doing, that the situation in the world was hard and the struggle with the capitalist camp would be very difficult, and that is the most dangerous in that struggle was to waver, take fright, retreat, capitulate. This was the main idea he wanted not only to express, but also to inculcate into the present[326], which in its turn was connected with the theme of his own old age and probable departure.

All this was said in a tough and at times more than tough, almost fierce way. Probably in some points his speech included elements of game and account, but still one could feel true alarm[327] not without tragic hidden motive. It was in connection with danger of concessions, fear and capitulation, that Stalin appealed to Lenin in the phrases, which I have already quoted in my record of that time <the one of 1953, with which we began citing K. Simonov’s memoirs>. Now, in fact, the speech concerned Stalin himself, who could leave, and those who could stay after his departure. But he wasn’t talking about himself; instead he was talking about Lenin and his intrepidity in the face of any conditions.

The main peculiarity of Stalin’s speech was that he didn’t consider it necessary to talk about courage or fear, resolution or defeatism. Everything he said about it he connected with two certain members of the Politburo, who were sitting in the same hall two meters behind him. As for me, I never expected to hear about these two people something Stalin was talking about them.

First he assailed Molotov with all these accusations and suspicions, accusations of unfaithfulness, suspicions of cowardice, defeatism. It was so unexpected, that fist I just couldn’t believe my ears, I thought I had misheard or misunderstood. But it proved to be just so. From Stalin’s speech it was evident that the most suspicious man who was capable of defeatism, and the most dangerous one for Stalin that evening, that plenary session was nobody else, but Molotov. He was talking about Molotov grimly for a long time. He gave some examples (which I don’t remember) of Molotov’s erroneous actions[328] mainly connected with the time when Stalin had been on leave, and Molotov had deputized for him solving some problems incorrectly, which he had had to solve in another way. I don’t remember what the problems were, probably partly for the reason that Stalin spoke to the audience, which was conversant with the political cobweb connected with the problems better than me. I didn’t always understand what he was talking about. Another reason for it could be the fact that his accusations were somehow reserved, vague and dim, at least I perceived it in that way.

I never understood what was Molotov’s fault. I just understood that Stalin accused him of a number of actions he had done in the after-war period. Stalin accused him in such a towering temper, which seemed to be connected with a direct danger for Molotov, with a direct threat to make final conclusions, which could be quite expected from Stalin, as the past proved. In fact, the main part of his speech, all the accusations of cowardice and defeatism, and the appeal to Lenin’s courage and rigidity Stalin connected with Molotov’s figure: he accused him of all the sins, which could not take place in the party, if the time had its effect and Stalin would no more be the leader of the party[329].

For all Stalin’s rage, which sometimes smacked of incontinence, in what he said there was the iron structure peculiar to him. The same structure was also present in the next part of his speech dedicated to Mikoyan, which was shorter, but more angry and disrespectful[330].

It was dreadfully silent in the hall. I didn’t look back at my neighbors. But I saw all the four Politburo members sitting behind Stalin, who stood at the rostrum and spoke. I saw all of them having hardened, strained, motionless faces. They as well as we didn’t know where and when Stalin would stop, whether after Molotov and Mikoyan he would pass on somebody else. They didn’t know what they were to hear about others or probably about themselves. Molotov’s and Mikoyan’s faces were white and lifeless. Their faces still were white and lifeless when Stalin finished, came back and sat at the table, and they — first Molotov and then Mikoyan — one after the other descended to the rostrum. There — Molotov for a longer time, and Mikoyan for a shorter one — they tried to explain their actions and conduct to Stalin, justify themselves, tell him that they had been neither cowards nor defeatists and wouldn’t fear new collisions with the capitalist camp and wouldn’t capitulate[331].

After the cruelty and rage, which sounded in Stalin’s speech when he spoke about them, both the speakers seemed to be defendants taking the final plea and pleading no guilty in all the points, but could hardly hope for a change in their fate, which had been determined by Stalin. I had a strange feeling, which I remembered then: they were speaking and it seemed to me that they were not the people whom I had seen so often not very far from me, but white masks put on their faces and which looked very much alike with the faces, and at the same time they were somehow absolutely different, lifeless[332]. I don’t know whether I’ve expressed myself precisely enough, but I had this very feeling, and I don’t exaggerate it antedate.

I don’t know why Stalin in his final speech at the Central Committee plenary session chose Molotov and Mikoyan as the two main objects for distrust. It was doubtless that he obviously wanted to compromise both of them, humble them, bereave ones of the most important historic figures after him of aureole. He wanted to make them small; especially he wanted to humble Molotov, to bring to nothing the aureole Molotov had[333], in spite of the fact that in the recent years he had been removed from the work to a great extent, in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was already run by Vyshinsky, in spite of the fact that his wife was in prison[334], — in spite of all this many-many people said or remembered Molotov’s name right after Stalin’s one. This was probably what Stalin didn’t want. This he tried to bring home to everyone who had gathered at the plenary session, to all the old and young Central Committee members and candidates, to all the old and new members of the Central Committee executive office, which was to be elected yet. But for some reason he didn’t want Molotov to stay after him the first figure in the state and the party. And his speech excluded such an opportunity.

(…)

And there’s one more thing. I don’t remember exactly whether in this speech before giving the floor to Molotov and Mikoyan, or after it, in another his speech, which preceded the elections of the Central Committee executive office — I’m even afraid to affirm that the second speech took place, probably everything was said in different parts of the first one, — standing at the rostrum and looking into the hall Stalin began talking about his old age and that he was unable to fulfill all the duties he is entrusted with. He could act as the chairman of Council of Ministers; he could also hold Politburo sessions as he had used to; but he was unable to hold Central Committee sessions as the Secretary General. That’s why he asked to exempt him from the latter post, comply with his request. I reproduce it almost in the way it was said. But this is not the matter of the words he said. Saying them Stalin was looking into the hall, and behind him the Politburo was sitting, and Malenkov, who hold the session while Stalin was speaking, was standing at the table. And I saw a horrible expression at Malenkov’s face — that was not fright, but such an expression that showed that the man had realized the mortal danger, which threatened everyone, and which the others hadn’t realized yet: one mustn’t agree with comrade Stalin’s request, one mustn’t let him resign from the last of his three commissions. Malenkov’s face, his gestures, his significantly raised hands were an outspoken entreaty to all the present to refuse Stalin’s request immediately and decidedly[335]. And then the words: «No, please, stay!» (or something like that), which sounded behind Stalin, were drowned by the buzz in the hall: «No! No! Please, stay! We beg you to withdraw your request!» I don’t presume to cite all the words and cries, but on the whole the people understood something, and probably, most of them had understood it before I did. In the first moment[336] all this seemed quite natural to me: Stalin would be the politburo chairman and the chairman of the council of Ministers, and somebody else would act as the Central Committee Secretary General, the way it had been under Lenin[337]. But what I didn’t understand at once, many others understood immediately or almost immediately, and Malenkov, who was responsible more than others as he was presiding at that moment, realized right away that Stalin wasn’t going to resign the post of the Secretary General, that it was a test, reconnaissance of the attitude to the problem posed by him — whether they, the sitting behind him in the presidium and in front of him in the hall, were ready to let him, Stalin, resign the post of the Secretary General because he was old, tired and wasn’t able to fulfill this third duty of his.

When the hall began buzzing and crying that Stalin had to stay at the post of the Secretary General and hold the Central Committee Office, Malenkov’s face (I remember it very well) was the face of a man who had escaped a direct, real mortal danger, as this was he who had made the summary report at the party Congress, who had been holding almost all the Central Committee Office sessions and who was presiding at this plenary session. This was he who in case of another reaction to Stalin’s request would have been the only candidate[338] to the third post of comrade Stalin, who said he wanted to resign from it because of his old age and fatigue. And in case Stalin had felt that behind his back or in front of his eyes there were people who could agree with his request, I think, Malenkov would have been the first to pay for it with his life. It’s difficult to imagine what it would come to» (K. Simonov, «With the Eyes of a Man of My Generation. Reflections on J. Stalin», Moscow, News Agencies publishers, 1988, p. 239 — 246 minus the parts of the text, the sites of which are marked with omission points in brackets).

In fact, this episode shows that J. Stalin’s initiative — to delegate his commission of the party Central Committee Secretary General to a successor on the basis of open nomination of candidates, their discussions at the plenary session and election of a new Secretary General in a quite democratic way,- was carelessly and irresponsibly rejected by the Central Committee members, who had been elected at the 19^th Congress, and who let one of the state machine leaders — G. Malenkov, who was presiding the plenary session, — push themselves around. This is uncontradicted evidence that even 13 years after that crowd-“elitist” 18^th Congress, the crowd-“elitist” character of the party and its Central Committee members still remained[339]. Though as K. Simonov wrote in 1953, he understood that the Congress and the plenary session were summoned for work and not for their participants to express their feelings to J.V. Stalin (this confession of his we set off in bold type when citing).

Anti-Stalinists, whose impudent resourcefulness of their “astuteness” and “intellectual might” has no limits, affirm in their commentaries to this episode (as well as K. Simonov) that the plenary session presidium members sitting behind J.V. Stalin and the Central Committee members sitting in the hall suspected at once that guileful Stalin was looking for the next «party favorite», who could take his place with time — the place of the «mundane god» (i.e. as if immortal) — the post of the leader of the state and the party. And what’s more, anti-Stalinists affirm that Stalin was looking for that «party favorite» in order to begin a new wave of «unjustified» repressions.

We believe that everything was simpler: J.V. Stalin was the only Bolshevik in the hall, the rest were cowardly, self-seeking, and thus shameless and careless frightened time-servers, lackeys by their psychology, who after the Great October Socialistic Revolution formed a new haughty class and considered themselves the true “elite” of the soviet society.

This lackey-careless attitude to the Motherland with claims on haughtiness is not only seen in K. Simonov’s description of the plenary session, but is also obvious from his personal attitude to life during the post-Stalin period. In fact we have cited such a huge extract in order make our assertion not unfounded, and for readers to feel the spirit of the frightened party-nomenclature servility conveyed by K. Simonov, which became apparent at that plenary session.

What J.V. Stalin thought about the results of the plenary session only he and God could know. The intra-system mafia members frightened of Stalin’s first illegitimate (as they thought) attempt to delegate his commission of the Central Committee Secretary General, decided not to wait for further initiative demonstration of Stalin and the party in this course and «eliminated» J.V. Stalin in less than half a year, carrying out «coup d’etat».

But as a result of such a conduct of the plenary session — of its every participant-bolshevism deserted the CPSU organizational structures during the next decade, the way it had deserted the hierarchy structures of the Russian Orthodox biblical church before.

Bolshevism really deserted the CPSU organizational structures, but didn’t disappear from the society. And it won’t appear in the organizational structures of any other party, construction organizational principles of which prevent personal development of a man.

J. Stalin’s speech at the Central Committee plenary session in October 1952 was published neither when he was alive, nor after his death. Due to this fact in many respects the myth about J. Stalin’s dictatorial absolute power and about his thirst for power for the sake of power could exist. Someone may think that J.V. Stalin didn’t want to publish his speech himself. But such a supposition would mean that J.V. Stalin was a defeatist, coward himself, i.e. it’s controversial to K. Simonov’s evidence concerning the events at the plenary session.

Many things indicate that during all his activity as the party and the state leader J.V. Stalin was surrounded by the system mafia, which used his name and Socialism and Communism slogans as a cover for its self-seeking activity[340]. This situation still remained in 1952, that’s why the speech without any prepared text delivered at the Central Committee plenary session was unexpected for the State machinery and the «guardians» present at it. This speech was nearly the only opportunity for J.V. Stalin to run the informational blockade and let the rest of the society[341] know (through the Central Committee members and candidates) his true opinion, which he expressed directly and not with the help of hints or by implication.

But as for opportunities to publish his speeches, there existed a multilevel system of self-censorship of the crowd-“elitist” society: from direct official bans and direct collusion of the «world backstage» periphery to the pressure upon the minds of individuals and gregarious effects begotten in the society by the cult of Marxism and cult of J.V. Stalin’s personality, owing to which false ideas about him were developed. J.V. Stalin had no power over this multilevel censorship system, thus he had to adapt himself to it and evade it, as well as all other ones in his public activity.

The difference in this timeserving between J.V. Stalin and the majority of other time-servers to the system was in the fact that J.V. Stalin adapted himself to it directing his efforts to the strategy of transformation of the global civilization life on the basis of the ideals of the righteous liberal society — communism. And the majority of time-servers pursued their selfish ends of the present day and near-term outlook: their minimum aims were to survive in the system and the maximum ones — to join to the system “elite” by way of repressing other people’s lives[342].

The story concerning the cessation of the edition of his collected works also confirms the fact that J.V. Stalin had no opportunity to be published. From 1941 through 1951 the first 13 volumes including his books, articles and speeches up to 1934 inclusive were published. But the edition of the 14^th — 16^th volumes took so much time that it can be considered that edition of J.V. Stalin’s collected works was actually ceased in 1951 — when the supposedly «all-powerful dictator» was still alive. There were no announcements about the cessation of the editions of the works of the soviet people leader. There was just an inexplicable delay in the edition of the regular volumes of the subscription publication[343]. The only explanation of the delay is that the work at the edition was ceased by retardation and corrective action as though to improve it[344].

J.V. Stalin impeded the «world backstage», because he was an authoritative politician-Bolshevik who acted conceptually beginning from the after-war years[345]. After the Great Patriotic War the course of political life in the USSR acquired a stable trend toward irreversible liberation from the power of the «world backstage» internazism. Thus the «world backstage» had to begin curbing the USSR and solving the problem of minimization of the damage caused by J. Stalin’s bolshevist activity during several decades. One more hindrance for the «world backstage» to carry out its political scenarios would be further publication of his works, which were to be included into the 14^th — 16^th volumes of the collected works. They could bring Stalin’s view of the flow of events in 1934 — 1952 home to contemporaries and descendants in a concentrated form[346]. Publication of J. Stalin’s speeches, articles and letters referring to these years would have essentially impeded and even made neo-Trotskyite policy of N. Khrushchev’s regime impossible, in case the edition had been published in 1951 — 1953 and included 14^th — 16^th volumes of the collected works.

Correspondingly, having taken the decision to annihilate J. Stalin[347], the «world backstage» gave the instruction to slow down the edition of his works, having assumed that if it had established under its control a new regime in the USSR after his removal, the crowd wouldn’t have dared to demand to continue edition of his collected works. They believed that as far as the crowd would have been conceptually powerless, it wouldn’t have been able to assure the continuation of Stalin’s political course. Indeed it happened so: the composed type of the 14^th — 16^th volumes and sample copies were destroyed when the new N. Khrushchev’s psycho-Trotskyist anti-Bolshevist regime came to power in the USSR. And as it’s well known the question of continuation of edition of J. Stalin’s works never arose at plenary sessions and Congresses of the defeatist party of Socialism self-destruction, and was never raised by the broad «masses»[348]: in the USSR only «dissidents» of probourgeois-individualistic trend belonging to the class of grovellers to the West were active.

That’s why nothing really says that in 1952 omitting the hierarchical multilevel self-censorship of crowd-“elitism”, which was beyond his control, J.V. Stalin could say directly to the society through the USSR mass media and scientific press what he thought. Nothing really says he could give instructions to publish his speech at the October Central Committee plenary session or any other one, which would overstep the limits of the society’s capacity for perceiving its meaning adequately[349]. Discussions concerning different problems, which were held in the press during after-war years, letters, which were addressed to the Central Committee, to the Government and to his name, gave a good idea of the society’s worldview and ideology, of what it could accept and understand, and what it would reject taking no trouble to re-comprehend the life and the said. This is clearly seen in the “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”.

Judging from the reconstruction of the algorithmic model of the soviet society’s collective mentality of that time (including the analyses of the contemporaries’ evidences), only his single works and speeches could escape the censorship (which was beyond J. Stalin’s control) in the press and in other mass media. These works and speeches were to be done in such a linguistic style, that even formally according to the Marxism linguistic culture dominating in the USSR, they were not apprehended as a danger by the State machinery mafia. And even if the «world backstage» could understand the danger of the said to its policy, its periphery just had no time to respond to separate «leakages» of conceptually alien information (for it) into the society.

In such conditions succession of the Bolshevism conceptual power was ensured: “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” is J. Stalin’s report about achievements during his leadership of the party and the state; it’s a report about unsolved problems and a farewell speech to Bolsheviks. These collected works were published in 1952 as a separate edition.

And though after J. Stalin’s death his works were withdrawn from library stocks of common access, and from school and college curricula of philosophical and social sciences, still copies of the small brochure outlived Khrushchevism and the depression on the shelves of family libraries and were called for by successors-continuers, who belonged to new generations of Bolsheviks.

«Stalin hasn’t become a thing of the past, he has dissolved in our future»[350] — however sad it may be for many people, who are lackeys at heart, even if they pretend to be slave-owners and masters.

---

Дата добавления: 2019-09-02; просмотров: 203; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

Поделиться с друзьями:

---

---

Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!