«Question: Was “Pravda”[403] right to open a free discussion over the issues of linguistics?
Answer: It was right.
The way the problems of linguistics will be solved shall become clear by the end of the discussion. Now we can be sure that the discussion has brought much good.
First of all the discussion showed that in linguistics institutions both in the center and in republics there ruled a regime that in not characteristic of science and scientists. The slightest criticism of the present situation in the Soviet linguistics, even the most fragile attempts to criticize the so-called “new teaching” in linguistics were persecuted by the ruling linguistic groups. Valued researchers would be ousted or demoted for their critics of the heritage of N. Marr, for a slightest dissent with his teaching. Linguists used to be promoted not by their professional qualities, but by their implicit recognition of N. Marr’s teaching.
It is universally acknowledged that no science can develop and succeed without divergence of opinions and the freedom of critics. But this universally acknowledged rule was ignored and violated most impudently. There appeared a group of leaders without a sin that began to act willfully and outrageously, having secured themselves against any critics». — Here we cite the final pages of J. Stalin’s work “Marxism and questions of linguistics”[404] (“Pravda”, June 20, 1950), where he summed up another social and political discussion.
So it would be a lie to argue that J.V. Stalin was admiring himself for the progress the state he governed had made or for his own progress in his career. It would also be wrong to say that he did not see the problem of management inefficiency of the growing and turning bourgeois bureaucracy or did not try to find means and ways of solving this problem.
Here in chapter 6.7 we cited K. Simonov’s story about J. Stalin’s speech on the plenum of the Central Committee of October, 1952. It was belated and contained some libelous estimations of J.V. Stalin in the spirit of Khrushchev’s period imposing an idiotic «understanding» of history on everybody. The story was also one of the showings that J. Stalin was satisfied with neither anti-communist movements that grew stronger, nor with his personal position and his «associates» who belonged to parasitically regenerating[405] bureaucracy, inefficient from the point of view of management. Besides from the middle of 1920s till the end of 1930s L. Trotsky[406] constantly pointed to the bureaucratization of life in the USSR. No matter how Stalin treated Marxism in general, but being well-read in Marxism literature he knew that Marx was right giving his definition of bureaucracy as a phenomenon of life of crowd-“elitism” but for the last phrase. Here is this sociology term definition given by K. Marx:
«Bureaucracy is a circle that nobody can escape from. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The upper stratum relies in lower ones when the matter concerns knowledge of particulars. Lower strata rely on the upper one when it concerns general understanding, so they mislead each other mutually.[…] the universal spirit of bureaucracy is a secret, a sacrament. Complying with this sacrament is secured in its own environment by the hierarchic organization. Regarding the outward world <society> it is secured by its exclusive corporate organization. Therefore open mind of the state and national thinking seem to bureaucracy a betrayal of the secret. Thus authority is the principle of knowledge, and idolizing the authority[407] is the way of thinking[408]. […] As for a bureaucrat, a state goal becomes his personal goal, his rush for ranks, his career making». (bold type is supplied by the authors) (K. Marx. “To the Critics of Hegel’s Legal Philosophy”. K. Marx and F. Engels’s works. The second edition[409], volume 1, pp. 271 — 272.)
However concerning a single bureaucrat K. Marx is not right. It is just on the opposite: it is not the goal of the state that becomes personal for a bureaucrat (that would be any state’s dream), but wants to present his personal or family clannish purpose as a national necessity. It can happen because a bureaucrat is often a toady[410] or a subordinate to clans of high position in a certain sphere of society life. If he cannot do it he tries and does it as a secret to society. It is on the basis of this aspiration that bureaucracy forms as a mafia corporation[411] that is «a circle that nobody can escape from» alone and so on by Marx, except for his view on the essence of a bureaucrat activity as a phenomenon of the crowd-“elitism” society life that we have rejected[412].
According to this proactive warning J.V. Stalin knew that bureaucracy could not provide production management and distribution in society in compliance with the needs of Socialism and Communism building[413]. He regarded bureaucracy and every single bureaucrat as enemies of the idea and mission that he carried out sincerely.
Even during the Great Patriotic War it became clear that the warning was correct, but «one should never swap horses while crossing the stream» but for emergency cases. According to this fact after the war officers of high rank of the air forces and aircraft industry stood trial for malfeasance in office during the war. Both the parties mutually agreed that the air forces got from the aircraft industry defective equipment[414]; as a result many aviation accidents happened where pilots were injured and or died without being involved in operations.
Recent years this episode if the USSR history has been presented by mass media as an example of the supposedly «unjustified repressions» that took place in the post-war period. Yet it is not the only case of bureaucracy showing its anti-national essence. It just happened to be the most well-known one out of a great number of similar cases of the Soviet age that accompanied the bureaucratic management style in production development all over the history of Russia, from the rule of Peter the great to the present moment[415].
Slips made by the Soviet bureaucrats in the field of national economy management are also mentioned in “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”. We shall come back to it further on.
In order not to carry the yoke of the global biblical or another oligarchy of witch-doctors again the USSR peoples had to begin solving the problems of the unfinished building of Socialism. In life there is a certain correspondence in the system «aims — problems that have to be solved to achieve the aims». In other words «certain aims involve certain problems, other aims involve other problems». In “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” J.V. Stalin pointed out the aims of a regular stage of the USSR social development definitely and accurately:
«It is necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of society as will secure for all members of society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members of society may be in a position to receive an education sufficient to enable them to be active agents of social development[416], and in a position freely to choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives, owing to the existing division of labour, to some one occupation.
What is required for this?
It would be wrong to think that such a substantial advance in the cultural standard of the members of society can be brought about without substantial changes in the present status of labour. For this, it is necessary, first of all, to shorten the working day at least to six, and subsequently to five hours. This is needed in order that the members of society might have the necessary free time to receive an all round education. It is necessary, further, to introduce universal compulsory polytechnical education, which is required in order that the members of society might be able freely to choose their occupations and not be tied to some one occupation all their lives. It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods (put in bold type by the authors)[417].