*
Given definitions is not just an exercise in casuistry. The matter is that different phenomena of social life should be defined in such manner that their differences and interconnections were clear, and thus they should have different names. These definitions, which distinguish different phenomena of social life, allow us to have a different look at the events that took place in the USSR during Stalin’s epoch, where:
according to public opinion, new social structure, different from all historically known by that time, was built and named «socialist» directing its efforts towards communist prospective;
Marxism was the theoretical basis of its development; moreover, it was its cult basis.
The first condition as such does not cause any disputes. The attempt of new society development is admitted by everyone, although the ideals, which sincere followers of socialism tried to make a reality during 1917 — 1953 are evaluated differently by different people. Some people say, it is an unrealizable chimera, adverse to the human nature, and therefore the attempt to carry it out is the evil and brings nothing but violence and suffering; in short, it is the slave barrack, a kind of fascism, a mistake of history. Other people say, it is objectively possible best future of the whole mankind, which, to be realized, requires subjective factors — development of culture and purposeful work, where mistakes or misuses could occur, sometimes with very grave consequences for both contemporaries and offspring.
Those who support the idea that USSR was created in 1917 as the result of the mistake of the history, and the whole its history was a mistake, would not be interested in discussion of circumstances connected with the Marxism as such and its interpretation by Stalin in his many-sided activities.
Instead, those who think that history did not make a mistake in 1917, having started open practice of building socialism and communism in the USSR and all over the world[208], are arguing about who was the true Marxist and communist in the USSR: J.V. Stalin and his associates? or L.D. Bronstein (better known under the nickname «Trotsky») and his associates? Relating to the present time, this dispute among the followers of Marxism results in the following question: to recommence building of communism means to continue work of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky? or to continue work of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin?
The answer to this question is many-sided and consists in the fact that:
L.D. Bronstein was a true Marxist, and due to managerial inconsistency of philosophy and political economy of Marxism he was a pseudo-communist and died as a hostage of falsity of Marxism that he did not realize;
V.I. Lenin (Ulyanov) was a true communist as much as he had capabilities not to be a psycho-Trotskyist, true to the canons of Marxism in steadfast readiness to press the stream of life in accordance with them;
J.V. Stalin was a true Bolshevik and communist, therefore, he was not a Marxist;
J.V. Stalin was not the successor of Marx — Engels — Lenin’s tack, but the successor of Bolshevistic tack of Stephan Razin — Lenin (in such its constituent, when V.I. Lenin stepped over Marxism), since V.I. Lenin under the cover of Marxism was building Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) as an instrument for realization of political will of Bolshevism, which in principle could become conceptually autocratic (what actually happened when J.V. Stalin had headed the ruling party and State system of the USSR), and afterwards to exceed the bounds of Marxism.
The first one to sense it was L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky). In his work “Our Political Tasks” (written as early as in 1904) he assessed V.I. Lenin’s attitude to Marxism as follows:
«Indeed, it is impossible to treat the best legacy of proletariat more cynically than Lenin does! To him, Marxism is not the method of scientific research, inflicting serious theoretical obligations; it is… a mop, when he needs to wipe out his tracks, a white screen, when he needs to display his grandeur, folding rule, when he needs to produce his party conscience!» (L.D. Trotsky, “On the History of Russian Revolution”, collected works of L.D. Bronstein edited by N.A. Vasetsky, Moscow, “Politizdat”, 1990, p. 77).
And that is not the whole story. From V.I.Lenin’s pen came some equivocal statements, fraught with failure of Marxism by its nature. Here is one of them:
«We do not take Marx’s theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are sure that it only placed the corner stones of the science, which the socialists should advance further in all directions unless they want to be behind the times» (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, 5th edition, vol. 4, p. 184).
But if it turns out that the «corner stone» is unsuitable for the intended course, another «corner stone» will be found inevitably, this is just a matter of time. And this happened during the development of Bolshevism. However, neither L.D. Bronstein, nor his associates or successors and continuators of his work could find any means to suppress development of Bolshevism in the society.
6.2. On Hidden Motive of Revolutions of 1917
But to see this, it is necessary to understand how the interests of various heterogeneous inner ant outer political forces collided in Russia in revolutions of 1917. These forces were characterized by different degrees of orderliness and understanding of the current events, understanding of probability of realization of their interests (moreover, not all of them were aware of these), and, above all, which were characterized by interpenetration.
Let us start with the interior of the empire. Life of the major part of the population in Russia left much to be desired notwithstanding how it is idealized nowadays by the «patriots» of biblical-«Orthodox Church» monarchic persuasion. On the eve of the revolution of 1905, the life of Russia was characterized by the following factors: lack of land among the peasants of the European part of the country and decline of the soil fertility due to low culture of aeromechanics; stratification of rural population into kulaks and field-hands, caused not by exceptional diligence of ones and laziness of the others, but by economical and moral-and-psychological legacy of serfdom and by free market self-regulation in the epoch after the serfdom cancellation; 12 — 14-hour working day in industry without social security in old age, without the system of operational safety, health insurance and occupational accident insurance; under conditions of Mason-filled bureaucracy’s sabotage and misinterpretation of governmental measures of relaxation interclass tension and resolution of interclass contradictions[209]; the majority of population was unable to provide education for their children, and, sometimes, the adults did not understand the necessity of education; infringement of the God-given rights of the majority of population of the country due to the legislation peculiar to estate-and-caste structure, and economical circumstances that accompanied it; as consequence of low educational standard of the majority of population, technical-and-technological dependence of Russia on other countries and foreign private and mob-and-corporative capital.
In other words, the potential for riot in Russia was created by centuries-old policy of the ruling class — Russian nobility, which was the personnel basis for formation of state administrative machine and command staff of army and navy. Besides that, previously created potential of riot was developed by long-tern activity of various «new Russians» of those days, «nouveau riches», upper bourgeoisie of Russia, which grew rich without God, who grew by leaps and bounds in the epoch after serfdom cancellation, when there appeared the market of cheap manpower because the poor from the village started out for the town in search of a job.
The «world backstage», performing the biblical project of the total enslavement, differs from the overwhelming majority of those malcontent with it: it is quite a good estimator of the God’s connivance in respect of its opponents. And in overwhelming majority of cases known in the History, its opponents could not oppose it anything besides their arrogant complacency, ignorance, and unwillingness to think independently instead of «reasoning by authority» of some writ or chieftain. Therefore they could not solve the imminent problems (which could happen in any society) beforehand in accordance with their own political scenarios; this cleared the way for resolution or aggravation of these problems according to the scenarios introduced in collective psyche of the society by the «world backstage».