A.A. Bogdanov, and the author of the paper in question made it his 5th thesis:
«5. Different forms of common mentality in this or that extent are inhere the organizational view of the world. Largely what is said refers to Philosophy, which is nonetheless “did not realize its dependence on the reality of life” (p. 64). Impediment to the true learning of the organizational experience is the specialization of sciences that prohibits “integral formulation of the question” (p. 65). It is high time to overcome this impediment. “New, universal organizing science we are going to call «tectology», its … translation from Greek means «discipline about building»” (p. 66)» «48 Thesis of “Tectology” by А.А. Bogdanov»).
The thing is that in the morally petrified “general” organizational science there is no place for Psychology, that directly or indirectly deals with morals of people and collectives and changes of morals under the pressure of circumstances and under the influence of will of the people themselves as a result of their reconsidering the life and in their applied appendix — with the adjustment and disorder of algorithms of peoples mind, collectives, societies and the global civilization in the whole. As an addition to this case — in «tectology» there is no place for History as well, because historical science, insensible to moral-esthetic changes, turns into a senseless in its nature, closed-up «bookkeeping» of archeological memorials, texts, facts. Thereof:
Universal Organizing Science may be only relatively right moral-conditioned theory of social control, which has ways out, connections with Psychology in entity of specific life of psychological theory and psychological practice, and with History, and consequently (and this is the main thing) with the political script-writing for future.
Only in this case knowledge and skills, that make up the essence of the private sciences and crafts, become an attachment to the single for all human core of any personality and do not change the core of the personality, which dissociate the society, sciences, crafts and all kinds of people’s activities in the social life, including family, generating many conflicts. But «tectology» due to being morally petrified is not able to overcome this dissociation; otherwise those scientists who were morally petrified would not have referred to it as the deceased academician N.N. Moiseev.
Stalin thinking of comrade Yaroshenko’s ideas as of the kind of «tectology», accuses him basically for the same — for rejecting the role of the productive, economical relations of people: «intellectuals» that do not use right-brain always forget that political economical theories always deal with the interaction of people, with their morals and ethics. Exactly in the result of such obvious and unobvious putting people’s moral and God’s righteousness[386] beyond the scope of research instead of political economy and sociology in the whole, that are clearly morally conditioned, we get a lopsided and fleshless technology and mechanical organization of production and consumption. It is expressed in a more broad way in the phrase:
How many of these beasts do we need and how much do these beasts need so that we could have all to our hearts’ content?
But this anti-humane nature of morals and ethics of sociologists, economists, public and backstage politics may be veiled for its evident foolishness or hypocritical cynicism by rather goodly speculations on «human rights», «socially-oriented market economy», «civil society», etc.
Some may still think that due to his intellectual primitivism and ignorance (that are assigned to him by permissively-individualistic, so-called «liberal» tradition of interpretation of the world) Stalin was not able to comprehend the heights of the tectological thought, that is expressed in such a literary language:
«17. Desingression is something opposite to ingression. “In the ingression of activity, those that were not connected before — connect, forming ‘a bond’ of conjugating complexes; in desgression they are mutually paralyzed, what leads to the establishing a ‘border’, i.e. separation” (p. 121, footnote). At the full neutralization of activity there is a full desingression that is accompanied with the establishing of tectological border and dissociation of complexes. Medium elements are implanted on lines of cyclic resistance between the complexes»[387] (aforementioned paperwork «48 Theses of “Tectology” by A.A. Bogdanov»).
But Stalin’s evaluation of different kinds of morally petrified «tectological» approaches to the economical life of society is the case when morally-conditioned, right in its essence result is important; no matter whether it is accomplished as a bottom-line of long accumulation and study of facts, formulation and apperceiving of terminological conceptual and on their basis reasoning in the course of some intellectual activity culture or it is accomplished momentarily as an effulgent flash of intuition.
As any person in all his activity Stalin had a border that limited what he understood clearly and what were beyond his understanding and were conditioned by interaction of his mentality on the subconscious levels with aggregors[388] with the mentality of others subjects, guidance from Above[389]. This deals with accomplished events (including the evaluation of «tectology»), as well as present events and providence.
But no matter where was the boarder in the Stalin’s activity, he expressed God’s Providence[390] supporting Bolsheviks in a couple of phrases in the pseudo-Marxist text where he preprogrammed the end of the Marxism and in a matrix way excided the possibility of the future need of Bolsheviks of some morally petrified atheistic «general» organizational science.
6.8.3. To solve the problems.
Having cleared out these principal worldview issues, let us get back to the essence of Stalin’s work in question. J.V. Stalin is precise about choosing its title “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” avoiding phrases like “Guidance on Managing the Socialist Economy on the Way to Communism”. This very subject-matter of UNSOLVED PROBLEMS including inappropriate Marxism and Tectology which prevent the further establishment of socialism and communism is the core of “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”.
What J.V. Stalin in his “Remarks” says seems enough if we base our world understanding on Marxism. But having once stated his standpoint on the problem in the “Remarks” he repeats himself twice in his answers to A. Notkin’s letter and A. Sanina and V. Venzher’s letter. That is why if you aim at understanding economic procedures and their management while reading “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” it is inevitable that the following question arises:
What was the purpose for Stalin’s including his answers to the two letters into the book? He just repeats the ideas stated quite clearly in the «Comments on the Economic Problems…» often quoting himself.
The answer to this question which is of great importance nowadays can be given neither on the basis of Marxism with its restrictions nor on the basis of the I-centered proprietorial world understanding of Capitalism. It cannot be given without consideration of the text of “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” from a historical point of view either.
To answer the question one should exceed the bounds of Marxism, for on the ground of its “elitist”-Marxist «esoteric» world understanding, the problems that J.V. Stalin writes about seem detached from real economic life. They appear to be of any importance only for the system of propaganda as a system of suppressing members of society’s mind and political will with certain opinions. That is the foundation of the ruling oligarchy in any crowd-“elitism”. Based on the world understanding of a crowd sincerely believing in Marxism, these problems seem to be solved by J. Stalin, the great leader and wise teacher of the Soviet people. From the position of the I-centered world understanding and the worldview of proprietorial capitalist entrepreneurs, the things that Stalin calls problems can be taken as defeatism and impossibility for socialist ideals and later on for communist ones to come true. They might be morally and ethically unprepared to solve such problems. It is this possibility that Stalin’s warning against risk of defeatism, made at the Central Committee plenum of October 1952, correlates with: