An interesting view on reasons of the socialist society degeneration
Super-Individualism
What everything began with
Are modern Russians collectivists? The question looks like rhythoric and the answer seems to be unambiguous: yes, they are. But somebody considers it good, somebody considers it bad. The Russian community is well-known to have existed up to the beginning of the XXth century and even in the XXth century under the name of “collective farm”; it is well-known... Nothing more is well-known exactly. Nothing more appears to confirm the version that Russians are collectivists “by nature”. All the other confirmations are Russian classics’ texts who sympathized socialism and peasants’ community patriarchal society and so presented a peasant as a communal collectivist. But the Russian landowner with the Swedish name Engelgardt mentioned in his “Letters from the village” that in a peasants’ hut where a large genus lived each woman washed only that part of the table where her husband and children and she had dinner and took care not to wash a neighbour section – each for herself; but during those years inteeligencia explained it simply and optimistically that autocracy prevented peasant women’s solidarity. Now we have a hundred more years of experience so we may say sadly that autocracy isn’t the matter. But people are. But people may be either collectivists or individualists according to the circumstances. Individualism and collectivism are not genetically inherited features, they are nothing more than behaviour models used by men for best adaptation to life conditions. The British are considered to be individualists. But they managed to submit a quarter of the planet in the XIXth century including strong and high-developed countries as India and China. To submit such vast territories one needs mutual solidarity, unselfishness, ability to sacrifice one’s own profits nad even life in the name of the society’s interests – in brief, the British revealed collectivist features at that time. But what about their individualist reputation? There is a fine Russian proverb: “Have in common salt and bread, but see to your own cigarette”. While the life is hard and dangerous the collectivist behaviour model comes forward; while the life is easy and pleasant being an individualist is more profitable. There is nothing strange or unnatural. A different matter is that Western people had to dispart “cigarettes” so their individualist features were more evident for researchers, but Eastern people, the Russians in particular, had to dispart “bread” more often, so their collectivist features were more notable.
So the Russians are not “genetic” collectivists. Their hard and dangerous life, their eternal struggle against enemies’ invasions and hunger threat made them collectivists, If these threats disappeared Russian inhabitants’ collectivism should fall into oblivion. That happened in the Soviet era.
What threats to people’s lofe did the Soviet power eliminate? Having created the well-adjusted law-enforcement machine the Soviet power has eliminated the criminal threat. Having created the most powerful Army, having constructed thousands of tanks, airplanes, cannons, surface ships and submarines, having placed military bases all over the Earth and having encircled the country with a stockade of air defense, ballistic and cruising missiles the Soviet power has eliminated the threat of an external invasion. By large high commodity mechanized agriculture the Soviet power has solved the problem of hunger. As soon as citizens appeared to wish more meat the Soviet power resorted to virgin lands reclaiming and purchasing feeder grain (i.e. corn for feeding cattle) abroad. As a result the Soviet power appears to have eliminated ALL the threats to human life. All systematic, permanent threats. Of course, there remained inevitable ones like age death or occasional ones like an icicle fallen at one’s head – but there’s nothing to be done. The essence is that the permanent threat to human life was annihilated. Is it good? Maybe yes, but it were threats and dangers, the knowledge of these existing threats and dangers that solidated for centuries Slavs, and Russians, and Soviets... The Soviet power based on collectivism has created such a society where collectivism was no more necessary for surviving and individualism proved to be the most advantageous behaviour model. It proved malicious – the Soviet regime has raised its own grave-digger. It had assigned the task to improve life – but as soon as people’s life became enough comfortable the people faced away scornfully. The reason is quite clear: the comfortable and quiet life conditions, the absence of threats which otherwise people would have to fight themselves, people fell out of a habit to think, but official propaganda was hostile to it. Often only hardships are known to make people think (the main works by More, Campanella, Lenin, Marx, Machiavelli were written not in luxurious apartments but in prison, in exile, in expulsion) but comfortable life of Soviet citizens didn’t encourage their intellectual process.
S.G.Kara-Murza mentions an “image hunger”. Maybe it is one of the reasons. Enormous enlightening work of the Soviet power at the first stages of its development is also worth mentioning – as well as quite unconcerned attitude towards it during the “stagnation” – that was the time when there was no evidence of threats and dangers solidating the society and therefore this work was particular important. Remind the film “Chapaev”. There the White general sending his subordinate colonel to crush Chapaev’s headquarters voices all due high-flown words and adds afterwards: “Probably you are aware that the Allied Command has promised 50 thousands on Chapaev’s head?” The coloned answers at once: “Your Excellency, the Allied Command might set more. Guriev is behind, and oil is in Guriev”. That’s how soft-corely and cleverly action of forces ruling the world was explained to the population. And what did the stagnation films teach? To “be softer to people and take broader view of problems”? By the way, that’s important information, too, but not of enlightening but of manipulation kind.
In brief, the Soviet power has grown up individualists instead of collectivists and was crushed by their weight. The Soviet Union was being destroyed with individualistic slogans. The demand of privatisation – everyone wished to snip his piece, the fight against gray-out – are actions of a typical individualist who doesn’t want to share the results of his labour with the society. There is no matter if this gray-out really existed, it is important that it was used actively and effectively as an ideological stamp in the struggle against the USSR. A typical revelation of individualism is birth rate decreasing within high level of wealth – the wish to live for one’s own pleasure.
Results
The individualist motives of the elite during the USSR breakdown are well-known. But our analysts – those who are published by open press – don’t want to recognize that the overwhelming mass of the population was led by the same motives. It is clear: the enemy analysts have no reason to show their cards but patriot ones are hurt painfully by losing their favourite chimeras because having realized that an average Russian is not a collectivists (that’s the ground for all their predictions) but an individualist they lose all their hopes and world outlook.
The slogan “Every man for himself” was introduced after the USSR breakdown. This slogan has caught on fertile soil – the minds of stupid individualists, so individualism has grown into super-individualism. That’s very dangerous because as soon as collectivism and individualism are only behaviour models, each with its own advantages and disadvantages – neither people nor society can cure super-individualism themselves. I.e. super-individualism is hypertrophic individualism which cannot be transferred no anything else without external influence. Manifestation of this disease is more than clear. While oligarchs and the government were robbing the people during the privatisation it certainly caused indignation. But it was indignation was by word of mouth and never in practice. At least, there were no serious attempts to find out what was going on and to correct the situation. Why? Everyone was robbed! That’s because “everyone” understood that oligarchs had had luck but they hadn’t and if they had found themselves in the same situation they would have behaved in the same way as oligarchs or even worse. It is not the attitude to take a rifle and to go to barricades. It is the attitude to envy the more lucky men but not to fight for one’s rights. These people – a miserable engineer and a super-rich oligarch – have the same ideas, the same souls. They have the same spirit. And how to lift one’s hand against a like-minded man?
That’s why the being predicted burst of anger against those who had plundered all-people’s property doesn’t occur. A modern Russian doesn’t equate himself with the people! Notions of “family”, “relatives”, “colleagues”, “neighbours” may have some sense for him but the word “compatriots” is a mere name for him.
An interesting confirmation of it was published in the “Criminal Chronicle” newspaper in summer 2004. There was a large article about “ethnic hazing in the military” – how Dagestan soldiers at a military base cantoned at Stavropol terrirory forced Russian soldiers to fulfil nasty job in the barracks, punished physically or materially for violation of “concepts” invented by them and humbled them in different ways. Local “soldiers’ mothers” proved to be clever women: before taking out a process against the base command they decided to examine the situation themselves. The scene was extremely humiliating for Russians. There were not more than 20-30% Dagestans in rotas and even two persons in one of them; but they all stood one by one through thick and thin. Situations happened often that even 2-3 Dagestans “punished” one Russian and 15 Russians more were waiting for their turn for the execution. Why? Russians are not cowards, and the Chechen war confirmed it! The elderly in Cossack villages still remember ten Russians breaking up a crowd of 30 Chechens armed with knives by claws only! The matter is super-individualism. While an enemy (a Dagestan, a Chechen, I don’t want even to think about Americans) stands face to face against a modern Russian – the enemy knows that his people, several million persons, backs him. At the same moment the Russian thinks he is alone against the whole hostile Universe, and nobody comes to his aid, and to submit on his knees is not cowardness but prudence. But once a Russian knew, too, that if 0,6 million Chechens backed a Chechen – he was backed by 130 million Russians. A Chechen knew it, too, and everybody realized who should obey. Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya could state that we Soviets were 180 million and all cannot be hung by fascists. But this statement is incorrect now. A super-individualist is alone, always alone. He can’t rely upon others, join them for common case, he doesn’t believe unselfishness may be useful or it may be necessary to cede his interests in order to save his honour, dignity, his life. Super-individualism is the most terrible disease of our people. If we are not cured we’ll die off.
So we found out modern Russians are not collectivists at all. In the mass they are individualists, sometimes pathological ones, and collectivist slogans are not relevant for them. Now we should only answer the question: who was the first to come to this conclusion (maybe having formulated it in another way or even in another language)? I’d like to be mistaken but on my mind if not the first then among the first were Americans many years ago, not later than late 1995 – early 1996.
The task was set to make Yeltsin, the less prohibitive favourite of all the candidates (maybe except for Martin Lucianovich Shakkum – but the name, second name and surname got the citizen into trouble, otherwise he could expect for a rather good result: he had a reasonable program and nice agitation) win or even get such a rating that could allow the voting falsification pass smoothly and make the society trust it. Tatyana Dyachenko has invited a group of American political strategists and settled them in the “President Hotel”. The American took their bearings quickly. Having used the lemming instinct they launched an idea of alternativeless Yeltsin and launched a slogan “Vote or you’ll lose!” to affirm this idea. Even 8 years later Russian political strategists consider this slogan classic. It may sound clumsily, stupidly and hardly Russian – but it has brought the victory, so it is a clever slogan. The only thing is not spoken about: it is an individualistic slogan, not an engineer’s slogan, not a scientist’s, not a worker’s, not a military man’s – but a casino player’s one. Its mindbending success means that a very significant amount of Russians not depending on their occupation or social status consider themselves casino players where everyone is for himself but not a representative of people doing a common case.
American political strategists used then individualistic, to be exact – super-individualistic people’s attitude towards society. Of course we want to deny effectiveness of such approach but it is impossible. They have won.
What to do?
Just so: what to do? Because an attempt to answer the question “Who is guilty?” would take too much time and resources and, that is crucial, brings the next dissociation which turns to our enemies’ advantage only. Here we may cite Parshev: “I think the details to be revealed later, during show trials. Otherwise deep-six to all – either left or right”. So there is reason to wait for show trials but now think what to do further. The answer is rather simple: all the agitation and propaganda should speak not about robbing of the PEOPLE but about the robbing of a single person. Moreover, “robbing” but not “fraud”. The term “defrauded investors” was of a great importance in the information war against us. We’ll examine this question certainly but not here.
Many people ask a rhythoric question: how could any oligarch (many of them even don’t remember the surname Abramovich) get money for 3 (three) yachts each cost $120 million? A propagandist should have a ready answer: he has stolen it FROM YOU, TAKEN FROM YOUR POCKET! All modern Russians don’t care a groat about the people but they care a lot about their pocket. It is necessary remember Machiavelli’s statement: a man would rather forgive his father’s death than a loss of his property. It is necessary to realize: an individualist deserves an individualistic approach. And don’t confuse an agitated person with talks about “all-people’s property”. As soon as he wises up he understands it himself, etc.
However, there are some people of such kind which are not subjected even to such propaganda. These are people looking at their life like at a casino game. Any idea of justice is hostile to them as well as any struggle for justice. They think Lady Luck may smile on them at any time and only on annoying occasion it hasn’t happened yet. They are typical victims of democratic propaganda; they are sick with super-individualism. Rational arguments are useless in discussion with them, calling upon emotion is the only possibility.
Never forget that social problems, global problems – we can’t say they don’t bother an average person, maybe they bother him but he IS NOT ABLE TO PERCEIVE THEM! To perceive adequately and sharply, not at the level of a football match.
A propagandist should speak not for mythic heroic people but for existing one, i.e. for individualists. Perhaps then they will change their mind and see people around whose interests coincide with their own. What to do otherwise? Otherwise we’ll die off.
It is necessary to address to a concrete person, i.e. it is reasonable to use the pronoun “thou” instead of “you” in leaflets and posters. By the way, pay your attention at advertisers: they practically never use the word “you”. As usual: “THOU buy”, “THOU invest”, “THOU do”... They address to a concrete person but not to a community. That’s not in vain. As it seems to be told in the TV program “Puppets” on December, 12, 1995: “Guy, you don’t believe people in vain! These bastards know what they tell!” So it is necessary to defer.
It is necessary to know the society we live in. I have drawn out some profile of this society and told a little what our enemies know about it. It is necessary to know. And to act according to this knowledge. Only then we’ll see enthusiastically the only great Victory arising from many small failures.
A.V.Tsygankov
On individualism and collectivism
A.V.Tsygankov’s article “What everything began with” was published in the newspaper “Moscow. Sadovoe Koltso” No. 2 (117), 2006. In it comrade Tsygankov “has thrown on some profile” of our present society and introduced his view on what Russian communists should do nowadays. We don’t know if the whole editorial board of the newspaper or some comrades in Russia share Tsygankov’s point of view. Nevertheless we cannot agree with statements expressed in the given article.
In the very beginning Tsygankov rises an inelaborate question: “Are modern Russian collectivists?” And writes further: “The question looks rhythoric, and the answer looks unambiguous – yes”. First, we can’t understand why this question seemed rhythoric to Tsygankov and why the answer may be unambiguous here. For example, we don’t consider modern Russians collectivists and not even absolute individualists. It is impossible to take everybody and call collectivists or individualists unambiguously. In fact at certain historical moments in a country taken separately the majority of its citizens may be either collectivists or individualists. But let me give details on it later.
Tsygankov writes further: “The Russian community is well-known to have existed up to the beginning of the XXth century and even in the XXth century under the name of “collective farm”; it is well-known... Nothing more is well-known exactly...” Let us not to point if a collective farm is a community or not. From our point of view, equation of a collective farm to a community is, to be soft, not quite correct. Let’s note something else. The author is wrong in the following. In this or that way, much is known about the notorious communality and collegiality of Russian people. Take for example Lenin’s work “Capitalism development in Russia” where he gave a brilliant rebuff to all populists represented by Vorontsovs, Danielsky, etc. who tried particularly to show the communality of the Russian peasantry, its “national mentality” as it is called nowadays which would bring it, before other peoples or perhaps the only one, to Russian socialism. On the basis of irrefutable facts Lenin comes to the following conclusion: “ The structure of socioeconomic relations within the peasantry (farmery and communal) shows us the existence of all the contradictions typical for any commodity economy and any capitalism: competition, struggle for economic independence, interjection of land (purchased and leased), concentration of manufacture in the hands of the minority, pushing the majority to the rows of proletariat, its exploitation by the minority, be trade capital and hiring of farm labourers. There is no economic phenomenon in peasantry which escapes this contradictive form specifically inherent to capitalist formation, i.e. which doesn’t express the struggle and discord of interests which doesn’t mean plus for somebody and minus for others... That’s these contradictions which show us evidently and irrefutably that the formation of economic relation in the “communal” village is not a special form (“people’s manufacture, etc.) but a common petty bourgeois form” (the Complete Set of Works, vol.3, p.164-165). As a result, the Russian communality is a myth of Russian nationalism like myths of German fascism. We agree with Tsygankov that a Russian cannot be a collectivist “by nature”. But we add that there is no nation a particular feature of which is individualism or collectivism as well as there are no “the best” or “the worst” nations.
But why can’t some people break away from the individualism morass and why do others grow up to collectivists? What is the reason? According to Tsygankov, the reason is in the people themselves. “But people may be either collectivists or individualists according to the circumstances”, the author of the article states. We disagree emphatically with such opinion. When a communist says “people are the matter” by this way he puts a bold end to all his communism. That’s not scientific socialism but subjective idealism. Not people may be such-and-such “depending on circumstances” but people become such-and-such because of circumstances, to be exact, the production relations dominating in this or that historical period. “To become” and “possibility to be” – that’s quite different. But we’ll note that later, too.
Further the author puts forward the following statement: “While the life is hard and dangerous the collectivist behaviour model comes forward; while the life is easy and pleasant being an individualist is more profitable. There is nothing strange or unnatural”. And he continues: “So the Russians are not “genetic” collectivists. Their hard and dangerous life, their eternal struggle against enemies’ invasions and hunger threat made them collectivists, If these threats disappeared Russian inhabitants’ collectivism should fall into oblivion. That happened in the Soviet era”. According to these theses Tsygankov has painted all the Soviet history and modern situation in Russia amazingly. The alleged essence is that when life bacame good and fine during the Soviet era such Soviet individualists appeared everywhere like mushrooms after summer rains who took the most active part in the USSR destruction. The same is philosophizing on the topic “only hardships make people think...” (believe, dear comrade Tsygankov, Marx and Engels have come to their great teaching not because of personal hardships) and addresses to a famous demagogue S.G.Kara-Murza, etc. Once the malodour of Russian nationalism smelt. In brief, we can’t agree with the above listed anyway.
Finally Tsygankov gave us a formula how to agitate to reach the victory. It proves to be necessary only to THOU but not to YOU citizens in leaflets and different agitation materials. Then the victory will be guaranteed. But we considered propaganda as a good and necessary matter but not determinative for the working people’s victory, we considered certain premisses necessary for appearance of a revolutionary situation.
Now, let us determine our interpretation of “individualist” and “collectivist”. What is individualism and collectivism? For each orthodox (outbrave this word!) communist these are two margins of two consciences fighting eternally with each other in class societies: the bourgeois one, on one hand, and socialist, communist, on the other. What generates individualism, i.e. bourgeois capitalist conscience? Appearingly, its birth was given by Lady Private Property herself and the very production relations within which Mr.Capital has got his dominating position. The robber capitalist, landowner or narrow-minded property owner peasant (of course, not a farm labourer and not a poor man), avid merchant, phrase-monger intellectual, etc. infection – all these are revelations of one margin of the bourgeois conscience. It took place before the October revolution, it was beginning to take place in the post-Stalin USSR and particularly came to blossom nowadays again. Why is collectivism one of the grounds of socialist, communist conscience? Socialist conscience is proletarian conscience. In this or that way the proletariat is a class of collectivists as soon as it is an inprivileged class, it hasn’t got its own dear, untouchable private property. “Proletarians have nothing to lose except their chains!” That’s why, because of possessing nothing except his own manpower but not because of his hard life a worker carries this collective inception. Of course black sheep occur among proletarians, too. But the majority of the working class retains its socialist, collectivist nature even nowadays. Although the bourgeois conscience aspires to penetrate workers’ environment hourly, minutely (with current possibilities, of course!). Further, why was collectivism and heroic enthusiasm so great and strong during the first three decades of the Soviet era? On our opinion, the reason was that proletarians and poor peasantry had taken all the state power in their hands for the first time in the human history that had resulted into private property annihilation and establishment of public property based on collective inceptions, of workers’ power recording and control over all production, into liberation from the capital yoke and landowners’ slavery. In fact the working people realized then that all this belonged to them, not to each of them separately but to all the oppressed and wretched. “The villeinage organization of public labour held on baculine discipline within extreme ignorance and timidity of working people being robbed and humiliated by a sprinkling of landowners. The capitalist organization of labour held on hunger discipline, and a great mass of working people in the most advanced, civilized and democratic republics in spite of all the progress of bourgeois culture and bourgeois democracy remained an ignorant and gruggy mass of hired slaves or oppressed peasants robbed and humiliated by a sprinkling of capitalists. The communist organization of labour the first step to which is socialism would more hold on free and conscious discipline of the working people themselves who had overthrown the yoke of either landowners or capitalists” (V.I.Lenin, the Complete Set of Works, vol.39, p.14, my italics). While there is no slavery, no merchantry, no private property – there is no place for individualism. Even the most crusty intelligencia member or kulak will inevitably join a collective and will have to accept collectivism. “As great, as inevitable are petty bourgeois lurches and hesitations of non-proletarian and semi-proletarians masses of working population behind, towards bourgeois “order”, under the wing of bougeoisie, however they can’t reject the moral authority of proletariat which does not only overthrow exploiters and suppresses their resistance but which also constructs new, higher public connection, public discipline: the discipline of conscious and united workers having no yoke and no power over them except the power of their own association, their own, more conscious, brave, consolidated, revolutionary, consistent vanguard” (the same, p.17, my italics). That’s how we look at the nature of the “collective” and the “individual”.
Iskrovets [Spark Man], Ufa
A reply to an intelligencia man’s thinking
My article “Super-individualism” was published in the issue No.2 (117), 2006 (the first publication in the newspaper “Duel”, No. 40 (388), October, 5, 2004). Naturally, I am very glad that many people did not sit back and somebody has even expressed his thoughts on my text in press. I am very grateful to comrade Iskrovets from Ufa for his critical notes. The editorial board of the “Moscow – Sadovoe Koltso” newspaper has kindly given me an opportunity to comment the statements expressed in comrade Iskrovets’ article. It would be stupid not to use this opportunity. Here go.
First, it is not good to misquote for the first time already. I haven’t “thrown on some profile but have drawn out. “Drawn” means a text on a paper, “thrown” means a loop on a neck. Further, the essence.
“It is impossible to take everybody and call collectivists or individualists unambiguously. In fact at certain historical moments in a country taken separately the majority of its citizens may be either collectivists or individualists”. Don’t you know what I am speaking about? Why to force an open door?
“But why can’t some people break away from the individualism morass and why do others grow up to collectivists? What is the reason? According to Tsygankov, the reason is in the people themselves. “But people may be either collectivists or individualists according to the circumstances”, the author of the article states. We disagree emphatically with such opinion”.
Dear comrade Iskrovets! Aren’t you on occasion an intelligencia member? Yes, I write that “...people may be either collectivists or individualists according to the circumstances”. You can’t agree with this opinion emphatically but before it you state solemnly and proudly that “at certain historical moments in a country taken separately the majority of its citizens may be either collectivists or individualists”.
There is a famous Soviet anecdote:
– Have you got an opinion on this question?
– Yes, I have but I disagree with it emphatically!
Only an intelligencia member can misunderstand the essence of what he has written himself, only an intelligencia member can’t pull out one idea through two pages without mutually exclusive statements.
“When a communist says “people are the matter” by this way he puts a bold end to all his communism. That’s not scientific socialism but subjective idealism”.
By the way, the first to pronounce the phrase “people are the matter” was a Georgian many years go with some other words. At that time it sounded: “Cadres are decisive for everything”. Comrade Iskrovets has brought me into line with Stalin! It is evident I am not worth such honour, nevertheless that’s pleasant.
“Not people may be such-and-such “depending on circumstances” but people become such-and-such because of circumstances, to be exact, the production relations dominating in this or that historical period. “To become” and “possibility to be” – that’s quite different”.
I know, I have heard it. It’s like a theatre story of an actor who emphasized not the word “yourselves” but the word “help” in the phrase “help yourselves”. It’s a fresh idea, indeed.
In fact the author wants to say something else, of course, but what? Indeed “depending to curcumstances” means “in view of circumstances”, i.e. “because of circumstances”. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Besides such a pleasant and nice thing as the freedom of choice there is an unpleasant and gloomy notion – the structure of choice, i.e. a set of variants to choose. For example, a person is offered to choose of a scaffold and an electric chair. The freedom of choice is present but the structure of choice guarantees quite an unambiguous result.
“Further the author puts forward the following statement: “While the life is hard and dangerous the collectivist behaviour model comes forward; while the life is easy and pleasant being an individualist is more profitable. There is nothing strange or unnatural”. And he continues: “So the Russians are not “genetic” collectivists. Their hard and dangerous life, their eternal struggle against enemies’ invasions and hunger threat made them collectivists, If these threats disappeared Russian inhabitants’ collectivism should fall into oblivion. That happened in the Soviet era”. According to these theses Tsygankov has painted all the Soviet history and modern situation in Russia amazingly. The alleged essence is that when life bacame good and fine during the Soviet era such Soviet individualists appeared everywhere like mushrooms after summer rains who took the most active part in the USSR destruction”.
Well, wasn’t it so indeed?
The matter wasn’t that all the Soviet individualists without any exception “took the most active part in the USSR destruction”. Their indifference to the fate of the state and the people was quite sufficient, the notion of common interests was alien to them, the notion of common tasks was alien to them, the notion of common fate was alien to them, the philosophy “I am not my brother's keeper” was twin to them, so as a result of their indifference, of their super-individualism a small group of traitors has easily destroyed the Soviet Union, as a result of the Russian population’s super-individualism public enemies and destroyers of the state didn’t meet and don’t meet any obstacles on their way.
“The same is philosophizing on the topic “only hardships make people think...” (believe, dear comrade Tsygankov, Marx and Engels have come to their great teaching not because of personal hardships) and addresses to a famous demagogue S.G.Kara-Murza, etc. Once the malodour of Russian nationalism smelt. In brief, we can’t agree with the above listed anyway”.
So, what would you agree with – that Marx and Engels were working out their teaching not because the surrounding situation didn’t serve their turn and they wanted to understand it in detail in order to know what to change and in what direction – but because green devils had whispered something to them – those which come together with delirium tremens, or extramundane voices caused by maniacal-paranoidal shizophrenia?
And why to offend S.G.Kara-Murza?
Naturally, “once” the “malodour of Russian nationalism” is mentioned. How can it be otherwise? Isn’t it too sharp, comrade Iskrovets? Marx and Engels are crazy jerks inventing teachings for something to do, Kara-Murza is a demagogue, I have only to keep silence about myself, Iskrovets is the only in white suit. I have to ask the question again: comrade Ikrovets, aren’t you on occasion an intelligencia member? Such hypertrophic self-esteem with full absence of wish to grasp the essence of the question and inability to express their idea clearly is quite typical for them. It is clear that the author disagrees with my interpretation of the reasons of the USSR breakdown – but he can’t explain what he dislikes, nothing remains to him but to offend S.G.Kara-Murza and to discourse about the “malodour”. I’d say, comrade Iskrovets, nothing smelt before you.
“Finally Tsygankov gave us a formula how to agitate to reach the victory. It proves to be necessary only to THOU but not to YOU citizens in leaflets and different agitation materials. Then the victory will be guaranteed”.
By the way, my formula is not HOW to address the agitated person (“thou” or “you”) but to address the very agitated person but not a mythic character arising as a result of reading of old books. To see the very interlocutor in your interlocutor but not Pavel Korchagin or Plokhish [the Bad Boy]. And to construct your speech according to circumstances.
“But we considered propaganda as a good and necessary matter but not determinative for the working people’s victory, we considered certain premisses necessary for appearance of a revolutionary situation”.
“But we considered...” According to your writing, personally you, Iskrovets, considered nothing. You wished to pique me. You have heard a wise phrase – “certain premisses necessary for appearance of a revolutionary situation”. You have decided to chop it in to look wise. You failed. Answer a simple question – at least to yourselves: what to do until there are no “premisses”? To join “NASHI” [“OURS”]?
“What is individualism and collectivism? For each orthodox (outbrave this word!) communist these are two margins of two consciences fighting eternally with each other in class societies: the bourgeois one, on one hand, and socialist, communist, on the other. What generates individualism, i.e. bourgeois capitalist conscience? Appearingly, its birth was given by Lady Private Property herself and the very production relations within which Mr.Capital has got his dominating position”.
Why is individualism a capitalist feature exceptionally? Out-of-limit development of individualism in the Roman Empire was one of the reasons of its breakdown – but was there any capitalism at that time? Was there any “bourgeois conscience”? Nevertheless, individualism was flourishing.
“Why is collectivism one of the grounds of socialist, communist conscience? Socialist conscience is proletarian conscience. In this or that way the proletariat is a class of collectivists as soon as it is an inprivileged class, it hasn’t got its own dear, untouchable private property. “Proletarians have nothing to lose except their chains!” That’s why, because of possessing nothing except his own manpower but not because of his hard life a worker carries this collective inception”.
The end.
The first version: the ideal of a collectivist for Iskrovets is a homeless person. It is a homeless person who has no property indeed. As seen, Iskrovets considers a homeless person’s life, a poor man’s, a farm labourer’s or (at worst) a pauper’s life optimal. It is better to be sick and poor than healthy and rich, isn’t it? I don’t think Marx or Engels would like such a mutation of their teaching.
The second version: Iskrovets is confusing reasons and consequences, is confusing private and personal property, is confusing conscience and existence and much else. Having such rubbish in his head he has a good chance to take a place near personalities like Novodvorskaya in the Russian political Cabinet of curiosities. But I hope sincerely my prediction is wrong. Probably Iskrovets is not hopeless. Merely – less incomprehensible words, less boffinry, more think what you read and what you write – maybe something constructive comes out.
“...the majority of the working class retains its socialist, collectivist nature even nowadays. Although the bourgeois conscience aspires to penetrate workers’ environment hourly, minutely (with current possibilities, of course!)”.
Unfortunately vice versa. A modern poor man doesn’t aspire to retain his proletarian position and world outlook, on the contrary, he wants to be a bourgeois – or, at worst, to seem a bourgeois.
The common backward of thinkers like Iskrovets – they stand for their misbeliefs too firmly, they like nice but fusty and misunderstood stamps too much, they look at the window too rarely.
(A quotation from Lenin) “The communist organization of labour the first step to which is socialism would more hold on free and conscious discipline of the working people themselves who had overthrown the yoke of either landowners or capitalists” (V.I.Lenin, the Complete Set of Works, vol.39, p.14).
Did it hold on?
Lenin was a clever man so he cannot be reproached of inability to predict events for more than half a century frontwards. But the true approach for the early 1920es, the approach right for people of the early 1920es cannot be absolutely applicable to the people of the late 1980es. Moreover, it can be absolutely inapplicable to these people.
(One more quotation from Lenin) “As great, as inevitable are petty bourgeois lurches and hesitations of non-proletarian and semi-proletarians masses of working population behind, towards bourgeois “order”, under the wing of bougeoisie, however they can’t reject the moral authority of proletariat which does not only overthrow exploiters and suppresses their resistance but which also constructs new, higher public connection, public discipline: the discipline of conscious and united workers having no yoke and no power over them except the power of their own association, their own, more conscious, brave, consolidated, revolutionary, consistent vanguard” (the same, p.17) That’s how we look at the nature of the “collective” and the “individual”.
Iskrovets, it is good of you to quote Lenin so abundantly. It is bad of you to quote him not as a creative person but as a textualist.
You read a great book “Capitalism development in Russia”. Why haven’t you taken from this book neither exact description of the peasants’ community destruction nor extra-actual for modern time information on connection of per capita consumption level to level of economy monetization – why have you taken only the conclusion which being unambiguous itself turns into a claptrap in your context?
You quote Lenin’s statements on the role of the proletariat as the revolutionary vanguard – give at least one example for the recent 20 years. What has the society done under the influence of the proletariat and what has it done under the influence of, for example, Alla Pugacheva? Whose voice is more significant for modern society?
“That’s how we look at the nature of the “collective” and the “individual”. Well, good men you are that you “look at it in such way”. And what is the practical way out? To learn Lenin by heart like a rabbi learns Torah? Our aim is not an empty opinions exchange but search, grounding and further implementation of a project able to save the people and the state. On my mind, one such quite sensible and promising project is offered by Yu.Mukhin and the People’s Will Army (published in even-numbered issues of the “Duel” newspaper). Its discussion (in terms of implementation) could be a real matter. Anyway, comrade Iskrovets, it would be more useful than arrogant sitting in an ivory tower. Unambiguously, that is the most useless of possible variants.
A.V.Tsygankov
On the Article "What Everything Began with" in the “Moscow. Sadovoe Koltso” newspaper No. 2 (117), 01.09.2006
Dear comrades! I disagree with the author’s opinion. I.e. he is certainly right stating that people’s individualism and profit motive increased compared to the Soviet era but “homos sovieticus” haven’t become any super-individualists and their present political passivity is to be explained in other way.
People’s passivity is caused by total intimidation and paralysing fear.
A common person feels his complete helplessness and insecurity in this society. He lives in a permanent fear of dismissal from work, of consequent lack of money to pay for his apartment and eviction from home! Lord forbid – a hardball scopes on you or your nearest and dearest, then there is no rescue, nobody sticks up. The authorities are anti-people’s. they won’t defend you but will even suppress you by any ways, all your protests will either be ignored or oppressed brutally, with shots and tortures. Fundamentally the authorities have shown it clearly – in October 1993 and in Ukraine in 2002 (in the pretext of the case No.144) and dozens and hundreds of times on small points. So everybody who needed it realized to whom Putin’s threat to “get in the toilet” is addressed indeed and whom the permission to use torture against “suspects of terrorism” “on an exceptional basis” will enlarge upon.
So a person concludes quite reasonably that any protest is a waste of time at its best and a senseless suicide at worst. In 1993 people took the streets because they hoped deep in their mind that troops wouldn’t shoot like in 1991. Now everybody has realized that they would. All the talks about “freedoms” and “rights”, all accusations bolsheviks of “atrocities” were a hypocrisy from the very beginning. We try to explain it to people but they understand it already but make quite certain conclusions: be quiet, “hide your face” – and PERHAPS you live a day more. It is not a greedy cynic’s psychology, it is the psychology of an intimided victim to whose head a gangster has put a pistol and takes off his purse. It’s a shame, he regrets for the purse, but the life is more expensive!
That’s why appeals like “thou have been robbed!” will be as ineffective as appeals of marxist or patriotic trend.
There is one way out as always in similar cases. It is necessary to show the people vividly that the enemy is not allmighty, not invincible, that a real force exists to support in order to defend themselves and their nearest and dearest, and then they raise from knees. Remind the film “Lark”. The bourgeois understand it very well, that’s why each report about losses in Iraq is accompanied with affirmations that “the helicopter broke down because of technical defects” or “because of the pilot’s mistake” but a successful terroristic act was “a provocation organized by secret services on purpose” indeed. As a marxist I am not a supporter of terrorism like a method of political struggle but if this feeling of fear and helplessness is not dispelled in people they will still remain a butch of pricks which organized butchers may treat as they like. And it is not impossible that we’ll have to begin with something like this like in Strugatskys’ story “An Inhabited Island”.
Sergey Ivanov
|
