Страница 118 из 120
As the saying goes, guilty conscience needs no accuser. So the Big Soviet Encyclopedia tries to justify the Soviet Party bureaucracy of Khrushchev and Brezhnev periods mainly to continue «explaining» the point:
«This definition was given by V. Lenin referring to classes of an antagonist society. Their relationship leads to class struggle inevitably. Yet classes still exist in socialist society that has eliminated exploitation of <people by parasites>…»
This was to be understood in the following way: there are only single manifestations of some officers’ bureaucracy that make semblance of bureaucracy really existing. There is no parasitic bureaucracy but a body of managers who come of common people and who are still a socially useful working group of population.
V. Lenin made a vitally valid definition of the term «social class». Besides even before the Russian Revolution in his book «State and Revolution» he wrote (with G. Apfelbaum-Zinoviev as his co-author) openly that bureaucracy was hostile to the essence of the Soviet power. It was so fair and persuasive that during the period after Stalin’s rule corresponding fragments were never discussed at party studies or within courses of social science in higher educational establishments. If anybody referred to them in the course of a seminar on his/her own initiative the leader would fall into tedium and try to change the subject immediately, to go on break or to close the seminar:
«By the example of the Commune <of Paris, 1871> Marx showed that under socialism officials are not «bureaucrats», «officers» any longer as any time replacement alongside with appointment by election is introduced, as WAGES RAE BROUGHT TO AN AVERAGE OPERATING LEVEL and parliament institutions are replaced by working ones <parliament: parler (Fr) — to speak, i.e. parliament is a speaking club, mostly speaking to no purpose>, i.e. making laws and carrying them into effect. […] In practical measures of the Commune Marx saw THE TURNING POINT THAT OPPORTUNISTS ARE AFRAID OF AND DO NOT WANT TO ADMIT BECAUSE OF THEIR COWARDICE AND UNWILLINGNES TO BREAK UP WITH BOURGEOISIE...» (put in capital letters by the authors).
We would like to draw your attention to the fact that practical measures of the Commune of Paris are basic to their description by classics of Marxism, i.e. they also come from life, not from Marxism. From the standpoint of the Sufficiently common theory of control reducing managers’ wages to the average level in productive industries the Commune of Paris tried to close feedback of social management on the working majority, turning them to high-yielding groups of “elite”, both national and transnational. The Commune crashed, because people who agreed to run the management on the offered conditions did not have the necessary qualification, while those who had it demonstrated arrogance of the “elite” and regarded Paris workers as rowdy crowd to be brought to their level. So they turned MORALLY UNREADY to manage society by concerns of the majority’s life and at the same time to live as an average family.
Some people can argue that Stalin made no reference of the kind and never said openly that bureaucracy was an exploiter class, therefore we again attribute wisdom to him post factum. But crowd-“elitism” society is able to maintain a campaign with the slogan «A
Besides in the USSR under Stalin and in the following years «State and Revolution» and Lenin’s works that give the definition of the term «social class» used to be cult works. Thus nothing except indifference to the lot of Motherland or cowardice could prevent a schoolchild, a student or a Party member in the course of party studies from behaving according to real historic circumstances reform as Bolsheviks.
But bureaucracy in Russia is still a social class, a parasite exploiter class hostile to all the society and to itself. There is no place for bureaucracy in the future. Let the bureaucracy know and remember about it…
Fighting bureaucracy is always either “a fu
[413] However the Soviet bureaucracy of 1920 — 1930’s also deserves thanks. This thoughtless and weak-willed monster overridden by J.V. Stalin appeared good enough for stopping the open mafia pseudo-democratic absolute power of Marxist psycho-Trotskyism in 1920 — 1930’s. But by the end of 1940’s it stood in the way of the further development of the USSR.
[414] It is not a question of adding badly constructed aircraft to the armory but of providing the troops with production bundle that does not meet the standards and approved technical demands.
[415] Bureaucratic management style of various products «life cycle» is one of the implicit mediate reasons of almost all the known man-caused disasters. It concerns both: great and slight ones, from spontaneous inflammation of color TV-sets (the «epidemic» of 1970’s) to the Chernobyl disaster and the submarine «Kursk» wreck and many other incidents that remain unknown or unrecognized as disasters.
[416] «Becoming active makers of social development» implies conceptual authority of common people (called «lower classes» in terms of crowd-“elitism”) and absolute subordination of the state organization to it. That is not what despots, tyrants and power-seeking people appeal to.
[417] J.V. Stalin virtually proved that macroeconomy of a state could work stably in the regime of systematic pla
That is what the «World backstage» and its henchmen (financial and stock-exchange tycoons and their tame pressmen and social «science») ca
[418] In this case Stalin per se would not have been in history, there would have been a more successful person than L. Bronstein, another «Trotsky» by spirit, i.e. by his mind and morals.
[419] Referring to the aforementioned anecdote, we can say that «world backstage» has made a mistake in their attempt to charge «the bargain» to Stalin. They did it but the «bargain» became the national property owing to Stalin and together with him dissolved in the future where there was no room for «world backstage» …
Sjids of all nationalities really have reasons to feel angry with Stalin.