We do not need new politicans; we need a new form of government

Марк БОЙКОВ | Публицистика

Variations on the topic of progress.

                    Construction and Industry newspaper «Razvitie» (Development)

No. 31, 32. July-August 1992.

Foreword to No. 31.

Look at the publication date. It took place during the period between the unsuccessful State Committee of the State of Emergency and Yeltsin’s successful shooting at the White House. It was a time, when all kinds of opponents were striving for power on the crumbling ruins of the country, believing themselves to be the thinking elite, worthy of replacing the bored members of the Central Committee and the Politburo.

However, at that time everybody had common, basic, communist education, inspired by the differences in understanding Marxism-Leninism. There was not yet the distinct demarcation. All of them grew up on common, way long unkempt field, where the liberals arrived, clothing themselves in freethinking and at the same time wearing out pretty well turned garments. I carried my idea of a new driving force from one editor’s office to another, and even «Inventor & Rationalizer» only supported me morally. Then, in Furkasov alley, the one near the Biblio-Globus bookstore, I got into the «Razvitie» newspaper editors office!

…They heard me out and suggested I leave the copies. And, thanks to two people, department supervisor Illarionov and chief editor Chekalin -cherished memory of them!- I teamed up with the minister of economy of the Russian Federation at that time, Andrey Nechayev, and we produced my first in-depth publication about the life-saving role of innovative movements for Russia. Here it is. On the first page, right after the Open letter to the PRESIDENT

In the double issue of «Development» in July (No. 25-26), a discussion-conversation between Andrey Shusharin was published, the newspaper columnist, and academician Leonid Abalkin. It undoubtedly caught the readers’ attention.

«I thoroughly enjoyed reading your works», wrote Mark Boykov from Moscow (a philosopher, MIP teacher, and as he describes himself: he has no phone at his flat) writes to Shusharin, «I’d like to get involved in your pursuit of «crazy ideas», and even suggest some of my own. They may even suit Abalkin, who is looking for «people with programmes».

Boikov brought a big article to the editor’s office. There may be many bones to pick from it, which could even keep it from the columns. But, apart from infinite petty discussions about the market and plan, some big idea is desired. So,

We do not need new politicans; we need a new form of government


Gorbachev entered our history as Danko, who decided to lead people out of utter swamps of stagnation. But ended up in it like Herostratus, having burnt the entire country. It was clear, that he wanted to become Prometheus, but he failed to understand, that the heat is not the key element of fire, not the burning temperature, but… the light of truth. Danko did not take the right course.

Not having understood the causes of the people’s distress, Gorbachev succeeded in doubling their slow progress. Perestroika turned out to be a road to nowhere, and the scale of its destructive effects surpassed the wildest predictions. But that’s not all.

Gorbachev’s main rival, Boris Yeltsin wrestled the torch from his hands. The way to nowhere has become a backwards turn. Capitalization of the whole country. From Moscow to the very Kuril Islands.

Yes, the inner circle played the same joke with Yeltsin as he did with Gorbachev. Tell me, dear President, who your team is, and I will tell you, who you are! We are fatally unlucky in terms of kings, and secretary-generals. They start out smiling, but end up crying.

However, our rue does not depend on presidents. We should not rely on a smart leader, democrat or dictator alike. On the contrary, we should consider a form of government, which system would bring to naught the value of the subjective factor of a separately taken leading personality. Because, even a good person is not guaranteed to become a good leader. That’s the problem!

Essentially, at the same time, while radicals are in favour democracy and communists’ argue about the socio-historical choice, about ways of social development, the problem concerning the method of governance continues to face our society. That is all!

An exchange took place: instead of an issue on forms of governance, the issue on forms of society has been put forth.

However, we have suffered not at the hands of socialism (of which we have yet to see an authentic form), but from heartless, anti-humane, unscientific forms of governing it, which bound the development forces, strangled the search, beginning, initiatives, perverted the very notion of socialism. Therefore, instead of giving the patient a cure, we decided to kill it. Instead of overthrowing the disfiguring socialist forms of government, we began destroying society itself, its basis, and all productive relations.

But forgive me; communism was not invented by Marx. Nor was it the party goal of AUCP(b). Not even a dream of the poor and miserable. It’s them, the wealthy ones, they live by principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Naturally, at the expense of others, labour exploitation of other people, whereas various productive forces of society are still underdeveloped. Practically, all of history is the development of communism. From its primitive to its civilized form. From communism of all to the communism for the few, and from it, through the increase of the number of the rich from age to age, through slavery, feudalism, capitalism, again to communism for all. To cut it short, communism is the objective historical pattern. History strives to it as to its highest justice. The thing that was taken from society by a few, history is now trying to make available for all.

For this reason, when the democratic defenders of the people, having exposed the party state nomenclature, that, as the former masters of life, had arranged communism only for themselves, removed them from power, they acted in line with the historical justice. But, altogether having taken communism upon themselves, they surpassed the limits of the essential, and condemned themselves to rebirth. Their appetites turned out to far from little, but the authority remained — the same feeding-trough.

What must be done with this authority, in order for it to correspond with society and live with its interests, not the interests of people who seized it?

Alas! It doesn’t need democracy, but… sequential elimination. E-li-mi-na-tion! So says Marxism, the one we forgot to apply to ourselves.

In 1919, on VIII RCP(b) congress adopted a development by Lenin’s Program of construction of classless society (V. I. Lenin. Omnibus Edition, vol. 38, pp. 86, 105, 419). Our classic, whom we very much esteemed, but barely read, stated:

«A society, which still incorporates class diversion between a worker and a peasant, is neither communist nor socialist» (same source, vol. 38, p. 353).

«While the workers and peasants exist, until then socialism remains unachievable» (same source, vol. 40, p. 304).

«Socialism comes only then, when there are no classes, when all of the implements of production are in the hands of workers» (same source, vol. 42, p. 307).

«First, there will be dictatorship of the proletariat. Then comes the classless society» (same source, vol. 43, p. 100).

«Now, passing your hall, my eyes caught a poster saying: «There will be no end to the kingdom of workers and peasants». And… upon reading this strange poster, I thought: considering which commonplace truths and basic things we are unable to comprehend or understand. Indeed, if the kingdom of workers and peasants had never ended, this would have meant that there never would be any socialism, because socialism means the destruction of classes. And as long as there are workers and peasants, there are different classes, hence; there can never be complete socialism»(same source, vol. 43, p. 130).

However, J. Stalin perverted this «commonplace and basic thing», revised the program of the party’s goal to create a society without classes. Having proclaimed the victory of socialism in the 1936 Constitution, he nevertheless, introduced socialism as «class society» with «totally new classes», to preserve the dictatorship of proletariat as a personal authority support. (J. Stalin. Questions of Leninism. SPHPL, 1952, p. 548-550). Specifically at this point, and not from the socialistic revolution, began our misfortunes.

Critics of Stalinism often distil everything down to the evil will of Stalin and his inner circle. In fact, on the contrary, the produced theoretical forgery allowed the «will» (and not only of Stalin, but, also of many ordinary members of society) to become «evil».

If socialism, in accordance with the logic of historical development and teachings of Marxism, were recognized as a classless society, then the superstructure must be changed accordingly. A classless society must meet the classless superstructure. This meant total democratization of life from bottom to top, on a level never dreamt of by a bourgeois democracy. The switch to self-governance of the people became necessary.

But Stalin, having imposed the opinion of «classhood» of socialism, thereby «justified» preserving of proletariat dictatorship. In other words, he transferred the state of transitional period beyond the boundaries of historical designation: a state, designed for the class struggle (with all its authoritative violence and repression, ideological intransigence, command-administrative methods of leadership, political system of control etc.) he extracted onto classless soil, where it naturally appeared the complete opposition to its incorporated sense. Sense the enemy was gone; his entire machine fell upon itself — the working people. The dictatorship of the proletariat, ending up without proletariat as a class easily turned into a dictatorship of an individual with the drive belt in the form of the party.

Thus, since its inception, socialism has been aggravated with a self-inappropriate superstructure. It turned out to be unfinished as a socio-economic formation. While, the social structure of the society has changed (the workers and peasants, together with the intellectuals, become equal working layers, due to continuing social division of labour), people continued to be controlled as classes. They were constantly encouraged to fight, instead of letting them develop and display themselves as workers and individuals. Political loyalty, devotion meant more than business acumen, professionalism, competence, than just abilities.

Starting in 1961, the construction of communism, Khrushchev called the then available superstructure a «public government» (on the tip from one of the developers of the third Program of the CPSU D. I. Chesnokov), but in reality he only changed the tags, for he upheld all the main bodies of outdated statehood. The personality cult has changed the name, the repressions changed their form, and the «dictatorship of the proletariat» kept going. Alas, the time of stagnation was laid by Khrushchev.

When Gorbachev took us up, he merely needed to finish building socialism, not rebuild it. He needed to supply the corresponding socialist basis with a superstructure, and eliminate the «dictatorship of the proletariat». But, instead of eliminating the source of injustice, he took a hold of the instigation of the liberal intellectuals, the building of the so-called «legal state». In the image and likeness of the bourgeois democracy, i.e. historically passed for us type of a state. In addition to one superstructure, he began to construct another one. He joined the one who violated rights, to the one that was intended to protect them. It turned out, of course, to be not a legal state, but the monster of two gnawing heads, which, in the end, clashed in August 1991. But, neither more rights, nor more freedom resulted from this.

And, it couldn’t have. The «democrats» just owned the «dictatorship of proletariat» for themselves. They reformed it as they saw fit, in the context of their ideology. They didn’t begin aligning the superstructure to the existing basis, but breaking it, capitalizing it to, on the contrary, align it to the superstructure, naturally, changing the «dictatorship of the proletariat» to the dictatorship of artificially nascent bourgeoisie.

And, nevertheless, we have to thank the «democrats» for the removing of the false communist nomenclature from power. Scientific communists would have spent years doing so, if even managing to do so at all. But «democrats» are greatly mistaken, in thinking that change can be so simple, taking power in order to reverse history. Destroy the country and the society — Yes. Reverse it back — No. The great subversives of the political corpses, they too, like the Communists, were unable to really dissociate themselves from Stalinism. And professed the same Stalinist ideas concerning social structure and its changes. If he thought that classes could be destroyed by extermination of people, they believe that bourgeoisie can be created by a simple partition and distribution of property. They have already begun to call current «entrepreneurs» a class. In fact, with rare exceptions, as respectable as they may seem, they are simply «shadows», officials-bribe-takers, embezzlers, crooks, schemers, who have profited from the plunder or abuse of official positions (and other sources, apart from acquaintanceship and family relationships, they could not have come to power). These are people capable of making and spending money, but incapable of conducting manufacturing in the future. They have no roots, traditions or even principles. They are not a formed subject to be a class. This «bourgeoisie» would disappear in one day, if the democratic authority really took up the «declaration of incomes». In the upcoming recovery revolution, it won’t be the subject of expropriation, but just of basic criminal responsibility.

But the Communists themselves are the biggest threat to communism. The democratic powers now hang on a thread. Y. Gaidar confidently leads them to the economic thrombophlebitis. The victory of communists is inevitable. And this is scary! No, not via dictatorship. Dictatorship of order is better than dictatorship of chaos and decay. The new communists have the anti-crisis programs, and they will work. They will save the people from bastard capitalism, from extinction. But…

They have no programs for the future. Recovery revolution, no matter how one tries to get more from it, most likely will lead to the restoration of Stalin’s pragmatic socialism, with its inherent methods of control. And it doesn’t remove the development problems.

Therefore, the communists should prove that they are struggling for the people, not for themselves. Moreover, for this, they need to switch from Stalin to a Marxist-Leninist position. That is, to recognize socialism as a classless society and eliminate the state as way of domination of any class. This means that if there are no classes, therefore, there should be no policy as a way of governing the country. Science should take its place. Not pursuing someone else’s interests at the expense of others, but pursuing the fundamental interests of society in its entirety, based on a deeper foundation — an objective knowledge of the subject in all its internal and external relations, and therefore, the one, taking account of both the immediate and more distant consequences in their universal value. We do not need new politicians, but a new form of government. A classless society needs other leaders – scientists.

And to select them (regardless of ranks and titles) and yet not mess things up, one needs a actual freedom of speech, and for all (regardless of age, social class, educational qualifications). That is why the media as radio, television, and publishing industry should be transferred to the people as their property, under the jurisdiction of new bodies of power and local self-government. Thus, a printed word is converted into a continuous folk gathering of the people, not involved in the formation of public opinion, as it was done by the politicians, but in the search and the continuous deepening of the truth.

Enough of brainwashing. On the contrary, we need to give people the opportunity to develop spiritually, to grow wiser, morally and to improve professionally. Then the press will serve not to discord, but to unite society. Then, the value of each individual will become a reality. In the self-governance of the people, and not in a theoretical class democracy.

The KGB and presidential power will have to resign. For they won’t be needed anymore! The self-governing people need neither collective nor sole dictators.

Bourgeois-ministerial administration of production is also not suitable for socialism. Here, that, previously offered by A. N. Kosygin, is more expedient, but with an adjustment for our time: The committee of directors by industrial feature (and the directors should be elected by committees of labour collectives). That is, there has to be development of the Soviet form of governance, both at the level of political power, and the economy. The form is functioning in the opposite movement from bottom to top of the flows of information and decisions, and therefore receptive to requests and ideas. The Supreme Scientific Council (also elected) that combines coordination (instead of management) and forecasting (instead of planning) would probably crown this system.

There will be no place for parties in the country’s government, because they, from the political organizations, will be transformed into public movements that reflect the difference of the of social thought currents, not the distinction of class interests. The communists, anticipating this, must join with other patriotic movements; they should take power in order to give it to the people, not for the division or appropriation. Political unions, which have already begun dividing future portfolios, and creating «shadow cabinets», should be aware that their appearance to the people in the form of new saviours requires a temporary installation mode.

Thus, coming to a society without a state, we should pass through a stage of a state without politics. That is, a state controlled not by authorities, but a truly democratic one — controlled by the people themselves. With the help of science produced by the whole world in the free press on the basis of free practice in relation to each participant of social life and production. A state without policy is the state of self-governing people, the semi-state, state, belonging to all, and not to some political clique, speculating on the interests of the people for the sake of the their own progress. Only when the state by parts, as F. Engels wrote, is transferred into the «museum of antiquities», the society will indeed become legal. The smaller the state, the more rights and freedom.

The so-called «legal state» is utterly an untrue and false idea. While the state is classically classful, i.e. an instrument of domination (or leading role) of any class, it cannot entirely be legal. Rule-of-law is only possible through society and in the absence of a state. That is the very essence of the Marxist ideal of social structure. It is just that the false democratic windbags, passionate about creating a class society, with the democracy for the elite, do not actually know or understand Marxism. They want a demonstration of rights for the people and, primarily do everything for themselves, in order that people would turn out to be rightless.

No, not the CPSU party on behalf of the proletariat, nor «democrats» on behalf of the people, but self-governance of the people themselves — that is the real path of liberation and civilization of our society. The law of the superstructure correspondence to the economic basis is not a whim of Marxism. This is the reality of historical development. Every formation resulted in its own form of control. And socialism is not an exception.

That’s why we must not fool ourselves. To return to progress, it is necessary to remove the straight jacket that Stalin placed on society, which neither Khrushchev nor Gorbachev were able to do, and which the «democrats» succeeded in simply repainting a different colour. In which case, of course, it has not ceased to be straight. Only after bringing the superstructure in accordance with the basis, governance in accordance with the social structure – can we talk about progress. But that’s not enough. Progress is always a change of driving forces in the vanguard of history. The feudalism corrupted and bourgeoisie came instead. Capitalism reinforced its oppression, tyrannized the nations with wars and the proletariat raised its own agenda of liberation. The military barrack socialism went bankrupt, and increases its activity…


No driving force has ever played its progressive role in history twice. In each situation there is often progress in the ascent stage, once performed, it turns into a conservative or openly reactionary force. It is an objective process, such is the dialectics. This was specifically the Achilles heel of the third Program of the CPSU. It attributed the new historical task to the old driving force, the proletariat, which could in no way build communism, even if it strongly desired to do so. Firstly, there cannot be a controlling force, which simply does not exist. There is no such working class. Second, while the physical labourer (be it a worker or a peasant) stays in the framework of the classical division of labour, they do not and cannot create the highest productivity, the «most important thing», as defined by Lenin, «for the victory of a new social order» (V. I. Lenin, Omnibus Edition, vol. 39, p. 21). And it cannot be due to one very simple reason. In his own opinion, the labourer can be a very progressive person. But in their sheer dimension, in work, even at the highest skill level they remain conservative.

They work on a once set of routine samples, endlessly repeating the same physical movements, replicating the past, reproducing the historically descending forms of labour. They can, say, give twice as much products than before. But, respectively, they will exhaust themselves and the machine twice as fast. If the output is doubled, the physical energy used will also be doubled. And things the labourer benefits from at one point, with the inexorability of law, will be lost at the next point. Due to the wear, there will correspondingly be a higher likelihood of illness, and likelihood in machine malfunction, requiring increased repair.

This kind of labour doesn’t save energy, doesn’t create anything new. It’s aimed to the past. And the more diligent it is, the more conservative it becomes. It is no accident that the Program of the CPSU introduced the movement to communism as a mere expansion of socialism quantitative indicators, that, in fact, a traditional physical worker is only capable of, but that could not be put into the foundation of communism, as a qualitatively new stage of society development. The cost of such a movement is extremely high: it exhausts the people, deprives them of happiness, and the people themselves just come to a halt in their development, for it has been relegated to the status of a simple mechanical force.

With the same theoretical vices, the communists of the new wave are almost infected. Their perceptions of social structure remain unchanged since Stalin’s time. The same absolutization of the class struggle (but, with whom?) and the leading role of the proletariat (whether not in relation to intellectuals?). What kind of struggle is this, that never ends, and nothing changes in society. Such loyalty to Marxism stands in inverse relation to historical process. And that’s what scares, worries, not some dictatorship, but the power-hungry «democrats» who deliberately scare the people.

There really will be no more of past socialism; the communists themselves do not want that. Again, there may not be any further moving forward. And without this, history will stagnate, coiling into instability, fluctuations, disaster and tragedy for the common people, blocking their horizons with yet another rallying of leadership. In such a situation, it’s easy to go completely insane and degenerate.

In fact, when a society is headed for destruction, it, nonetheless, possesses certain forces ready, capable of raising it out of chaos and leading it into new horizons of development. We also have this force. But it hasn’t been noticed by either the communists, continuing to bet on the proletariat, or the radical democrats, betting on the bourgeoisie, who are being artificially revived.

This force is the innovators of the social production. Innovators and inventors are creative people, those, who apply the highest human abilities to produce. The people that develop the very substance of ownership, that perfect the means of production that raise them to a qualitatively new level. They personally show that to be the owner of the means of production is not just to own them, but to constantly and actively develop them, thereby providing the production, the technical progress, and boosting its performance. If all other layers and groups of the population act as the consumers of the manufactured and expropriated property, then the innovators (there were about 14 million of them at the beginning of perestroika) act as its creators. Their relation to the means of production is revolutionary in its essence: they found the future of development; they change the mode of production.

Historically they therefore act as the successors of the proletariat. The difference being that at the dawn of the Soviet governance, the means of production represented the purpose for their expropriation into public property, now they are the target for their continuous development. The social revolution of the proletariat, therefore, becomes a prologue to the innovative revolution of the masses. In turn, the innovative movement of the masses acts as the heir to the liberation agenda of the proletariat in its historical form. If the working class fought for the liberation of the working masses from social oppression, then the innovators are struggling for the same liberation of labour from the physical oppression of the machines, which are becoming morally and physically obsolescent. If the proletariat’s task was the destruction of classes, then the innovative movement solves the problem of the destruction of the social division of labour, life-long binding of the individual to one type of work.

As a separate, private individual, as a natural handymen, innovator and inventor appear in all times and among all nations. But as a regular, mass phenomenon, as a social movement, they appear as a naturalistically historic acquisition of socialism, as the driving force, leading directly to communism. They work at a factory and home, in an obligatory and self-creative order; they pursue not only personal, but also societal goals. They are happy not by taking, but by giving away. Thus, for the first time in the history, appears such a force, that improves its position not by redistribution, as the others did, and not by alienation (by robbery), as does our newly born, basically, criminal bourgeoisie, but by improving it for all the workers. But, ironically, it was this force that more than any other suffered from command-administrative system of governance; from military barrack socialism. Since its strivings and aspirations did not fit into the planned economy, and its efforts remained either unclaimed or running across a hollow foundation. Even if something was implemented, only in the line with the planned targets. It was the force most interested in the renewal of socialism. Which was interested not consumerwise, but creatively. When a pie is being cut, no one remembers its author. People fight for power and property, paying no attention to those on which everything depends and from whom they receive nourishment.

Meanwhile, even the experience of the developed capitalist countries, which has swept our «poor economists» off their feet, shows that it’s not the market that raised Japan from the ruins, and created the South Korean miracle, and that not the talents of the bourgeoisie itself create the image of the prosperous USA, Canada, Germany and others. No, it’s the relentless, intense forcing and application of innovative developments, advanced technologies, innovative search and continual enhancements of everything that compiles the technological progress, which fantastically increases productivity of labour and reduces the cost of production. The bourgeoisie of these countries realized long ago that innovative talents, technical and technological creativity bring incomparable profits, and made a real race for the minds, for the soonest implementation of development, and we…

We decided to busy ourselves with property division, parenting sense of ownership, while, millions and millions of innovators showed, and continue to show it constantly in practice. We got caught up in talking about property and ignored the people who developed it, promising billions in daily profits. And it’s all because some want to develop and work for it, and others want to rule and prosper in it.

…Of course, having conducted (via elections e.g.) socialist recovery revolution, we will have to directly address the new driving force in the form of inventors and innovators to use the built-in historical potential we possess. In order for this to happen we must establish a search for individuals in each area of expertise, both technical creativity of the masses, and, respectively, pay for it as for labour. That is to introduce to the basic wage of a worker and innovator a relatively permanent, partial, proportionate to the economic efficiency and the duration of the technical innovations supplementary monetary contribution in their favour, paying it as long as the idea brings income to society. In other words, not a one-time reward should be paid, not for an idea, but a quite legitimate, regular payment for already invested labour. Because income from an idea is a process, the contribution for it should be a onetime action, but appropriate in the duration to the processes in the life of the author. This will be just. For an incentive award only evaluates the idea, but does not take into account that whole long painful process of its cherishing, i.e. the labour process possessing its own space and time.

This will not only enhance interest, but will more importantly create conditions for the reproduction of creative activity in people. If today an innovator, having received and expended an award was soon after forced to work in a primary workplace, and in addition (after creative initiative) mode, and live only on one salary, then with the introduction of a relatively constant and commensurate with the effect contribution, their total labour costs will be paid cumulatively. Then the creative work will receive a foundation to be continued.

In addition, a one-time bonus system of remuneration reduces the interest of the innovator to a purely quantitative expression. The more awards you want, the more often you produce ideas. And this leads to the rush and strain of people, it exhausts more than develops their abilities. Also, it reduces the time required to replenish and deepen their knowledge. Often, therefore, the number of proposals comes to the detriment of their quality and the very incentive rebels against its own goals. At that, proposals often come as smaller, less valuable, but more malleable in design and easy in implementation. As a result of this, the creative search is directed to the surface and not the underlying problems of the scientific-technical revolution.

Under the new form of payment, the interest of the innovator will be oriented, on the contrary, on the development of more fundamental projects with higher economic and moral capacity, since the latter would mean more significant and long lasting contributions to the author. Therefore, it should be assumed that sooner or later these additional payments in their growth will greatly exceed the sizes of a basic salary received from their primary work, and… will make it simply redundant. Accordingly, they will work redundantly.

Thus, if a person can live on the contributions from existing innovations, then, if desired, they will have the option to be exempted from mandatory shift employment at the workplace, with the right of free and independent visiting the work facilities of their creative work. This is the second, naturally following the first, important condition of the development of the creative activity of people. The release here is expected not from the work in general, but from labour in the old compulsory form. That will allow the innovator to completely devote themselves to the activity that expresses them most fully and significantly.

Then people will work freely, self-regulating and self-governing just as artists, writers and composers do. With the implementation of the same abilities, but in their specific field. The unproductive use of people as a simple draft power will no longer be a problem, while their talent may repay the community infinitely more valuable things. Their work, thanks to this release, will turn into initiative, which our great classics predicted. And exactly out of compulsion and external regulation, human labour will immensely increase its efficiency and effectiveness. Then people will have opportunities for free self-education, contact with nature, sports, and master other activities. In short, for all-round and deep development of themselves as workers and humans. They will become richer both materially and spiritually, become more harmonious personalities. All their creative incarnations will be further developed.

Moreover, liberation from a rigid binding to a specific workplace automatically provides people with the proper conditions for the third radical development, that is, access and freedom to visit not only their original workplace but also any other, in order to evoke genuine creative interest. In this case, the personal right will finally be brought in line with the social character of ownership and the long suggested superiority of socialism will be put into action.

Thanks to this, everyday disunity, division and alienation of human existence by industries, firms, plants, and territories, caused by the social division of labour will begin to recede into the past. And then we will see a boost of development in universal communication among people, unprecedented exchange, gaining of experience and knowledge, and the emergence of groups by interest. People will cease to treat guests as strangers and will perceive them as partners in their labour and success. The very climate of relationships will undergo change. The social nature of labour will be clearly expressed. Joint creativity will grow immensely.

All these measures, of course, will lead to a quick increase of the number of rich people in the country. But rich thanks to their own work, not someone else’s. Not by robbing, but by creation. The point is not how much a person gets, either too much, or too little, but in result of WHAT. As deserved and justly or unjustly as a thief. However, even in this case the innovators do not seem in some way elite, opposed to the other categories of social groups, for example, present «entrepreneurs».

As inventors and innovators, receiving payment, will consume a certain portion, but not all the cost created by them, insomuch as the rest of it will be passed on to the consumption of other workers in an increasing amount. Or through higher wages or through a reduction of prices for goods of mass demand.

Anyway, the key wealth is not in the quantity of money or things in consumption. The wealth of the future society, as Marx wrote, will be measured by the amount of the free time people have. And that’s true!

When modernized or newly invented machines replace a dozen older ones, a new line or technology being introduced, that replaces tens, hundreds or thousands of labourers, this immediately exacerbates the problem of excess personnel. The capitalists solve it quite simply, by firing the redundant employables. The use of creative talents of some people leads to a mass ejection of others into the street. Our society could solve the issue differently. There would remain the same number of workers and employees (or even doubled, tripled, quadrupled) at workplaces and institutions, but they would be divided into a generous amount of shifts. And then their employment would be not in 8 hours in three shifts, or 6 hours in four shifts, but in 4 hours in six shifts, and 3 hours in eight, with the subsequent reduction and the number of working days a week.

In other words, if people do not fit a certain position they should not be dropped, but simply shifted to a different position, resulting in an approach that is more humane to the matter. Moreover, with the growth of labour productivity, within the period of 4 hours, we will be able to produce the same as we do today in 8 hours. Such an increase of material wealth and free time will create the conditions for the personal development for the rest of the workers. And involvement in creative activity will be increased in the industrial and humanitarian spheres, or else for widespread enjoyment or self-affirmation. Thus, gradually, all of the labouring population will be joining the pioneering initiative, and, after the pioneers, almost everyone will strive to the self-deliverance of production, even as it takes place when children play. So, the release of the innovator from a workplace foretells the final release of all by the law of changes of labour and activities.

Therefore, the future communistic mode of production appears lacking in compulsory employment in the workplace, which, as it should be mentioned, not always existed in history. Capitalism introduced this employment by its factorial system of organization. This will be destroyed by the original, genuine scientific socialism, applying creative talents to millions, and turning its workers into free and harmonious developing people.

And this is not in some way fiction. All of history from the primitive times shows us this trend in growth: production time reduces; free time increases, changing in mutual ratio.

However, this does not mean that work activity ceases in general. It simply changes its form and its organization accordingly. Each socio-economic formation generated, was once supported by its own type of worker. Socialism as the first phase of communism generates innovators as a backbone for the future, communist civilization for whom the free creativity becomes the main way of life. In this case, the question arises concerning the destiny of the physical labourer.

The latter does not disappear completely, but rather restores to an even greater extent and on a more meaningful level in… the physical culture and in mass sport, as in specifically humane ways of improving people’s health, their harmonic and flexible improvement. Physical labour in its older form, doing the very opposite as it should of oppressing rather than developing, caused imbalances in development, rapid outwear and aging of an individual, and therefore, requires, and comes to, historical change. Becoming a narrow, one-sided, mechanical form of machinery. Under the new form of labour, we will see a broad and free, universal and creative approach (which actually can be a kind of sport), it will continue the historic mission of physical labour and will lead the individual to a new level of physical progress.

If, at the dawn of human society, the work of an instrument begot physical work, then at the origins of the new civilization, destroying its old form, at the same time, it revives it into a new one. The deliverance of innovators from production, the reduction of positions for the remaining workers, and their further going beyond the scope of industry will appear as the growing reality of physical labour in this new capacity, which is more worthy of people. Hence, the intellectual, spiritual, and physical appearance will undergo a significant transformation, defined in a new harmony. So don’t be afraid of the coming of communism. On the contrary, there is every reason to speed up its arrival.

Religion: a Question for the UN

No religion, directed to the heavens or the earth below is completely true. The multiplicity and successiveness of gods in human history proves the absence of each of them separately and all taken together from the outset. The present situation of passive protection of states’ secularity leads to constant radicalization of all religions and ISIS in particular, positioning itself above all religions, all nations, and putting itself above human justice.

In this situation, in order to protect all people on Earth, the United Nations Organization must deploy a deliberate separation of all churches from the state, with the help from the churches themselves and their ministers, and insure their refusal to penetrate schools or the Army. It is also necessary to make them acknowledge the lack of proof of all religious concepts, emphasizing the autonomy and inviolability of the human person.

Believers themselves, competing in idolatry, are unable to maintain a stable immunity and neutrality toward other religions or unbelievers. This should be done by religious teachers themselves, renouncing imposed postulates of faith. If humanity is not cleansed of religious dope and will be zealous in all social turns and overturns, the world will come to universal death.

Indulgence to religions must be stopped and condemned by the United Nations and the governments of all countries and nations.

Response to Atsyukovsky Concerning Marxism Again and Again

Response to V.A. Atsyukovsky: Conserning Marxism Again and Again



In his article “Is Marxism obsolete?” («EFG» No. 45(833), November 2010) honorary member of almost all Academies, V.A. Atsyukovsky ends with a very pretentious deduction, “Today, the paramount task of Communists is the creation of a modern Marxist theory based on the provisions of Marxism-Leninism.” This is unusual. Can Marxism, if it really is Marxism, become obsolete or old-fashioned? After all, it embraces the dialectic of development from the emergence of human society to its full communist bloom.

It is nothing more than a tautology, to create a new theory on old grounds. Perhaps, it concerns the development of Marxism-Leninism itself in relation to the present times. After all, the world is developing, and not always in accordance with Marxism.

But did this problem arise today? Did it not arise in 1960, before the adoption of the Program for the Construction of Communism, or at least at the moment of exposing Stalin’s personality cult, in 1956? And to be fair, did we truly live according to Lenin’s will after his death, when he had warned about Stalin’s non-compliance with his post, saying that «… this is not a trifle, or it is such a trifle that can be significant» (Collected works, vol. 45, 346)?

Any deviation, even in a great cause, begins with a trifle. It continues as accumulation of trifles. Do we really need to create our own Marxism, because it allegedly was not realized, was not confirmed, or its original variant became obsolete?

Perhaps it would be more correct to look again at Marxism in order to understand fully what exactly happened and is happening to us. Maybe Marxism is not to blame? If Marxism had been an actual force, not just an icon, we could have avoided the destruction of socialism and the annihilation of the USSR, which for some reason are called “collapse”, as if they were a natural force.

The question, therefore, is not whether Marxism has become obsolete, but rather what it really is. It has become very popular to blame, correct or reject Marxism, even among the Communists. However, during the Soviet period, hundreds of thousands of masters of science and doctors of philosophy, supposedly qualified theoreticians, managed to mix up the truth so much that they disoriented and disarmed the government and the entire Soviet people in their hopes and aspirations for communism.

When material incentive and subordination of degrees and titles were introduced in the ideological science (1930s), philosophy began to sag, substituted by accusation and citation, often curtailed and selective. Things, that were impossible in the natural sciences, built on formulas, flourished in philosophical disciplines. The struggle of opinions became manageable outside party affiliation and democracy. The criterion of truth was replaced by complaisance to power. Those who managed to break free from conscience and honor were published and promoted more often than others. Even Marx could not have defended his views in these circumstances. Material calculation became a powerful engine for the successful distortion of the great theory.

Vladimir A. Atsyukovsky, speaking of the difficulties of the twentieth century, notes that ideologists are divided into dogmatists and revisionists, thereby insuring the defeat of communist ideology.

“Marxism-Leninism had no creative development,” he adds. “The exception was the works of J. Stalin, in which, we must give credit, the provisions of Marxism and Leninism developed in relation to the current situation and the immediate future. But that was clearly not enough.”

Alas, I cannot agree with the author. Rather, on the contrary, that would have been enough if Stalin had not distorted one of the most basic and cornerstone questions of Marxism-Leninism — the question of classes that, according to dialectics, emerge and disappear together.

Let us take a closer look at it. Even before 1934, Stalin supported the standpoint of Marxism and Lenin’s Program of the CPSU (B) in 1919 on the classlessness of socialism under construction. In 1936, when adopting the socialist Constitution, he announced the abolition of exploiting classes only and the preservation of workers and peasants as “a labor class”. It is true, working people remained, but not as classes, but as labor strata, along with the laboring, socialist intelligentsia that was born at that time. The society changed qualitatively, and acquired uniformity. And that had to be acknowledged and approved.

Socialism, according to Marxism, is the first phase of communism, a socially homogeneous society of equal working layers and therefore communist, without exploiters. This brings it closer to the highest phase, which comes later in the process of erasing the social division of labor, eliminating the differences between mental and physical, industrial and agricultural types of labor. Classes, ceasing to exist, are transformed into layers, and the layers disappear after differences are erased.

But Stalin did not want to part with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which elevated him to the top of power, and he declared socialism a “class” society in order to preserve dictatorship as his personal support. The dictatorship of the proletariat prolonged beyond the transition period, designed to eliminate classes, however, turned into a tragedy. The repressions that had taken place before have now became massive, attacking all sectors of society, by wholesale.

According to dialectics, everything in the world that outlives its usefulness turns into its own opposite. The weapon in the name of working people turned out to be a punishing sword for them.

Dialectics does not tolerate subjectivism. Accepting the victory of socialism, it was necessary to abolish dictatorship, to establish the power not only of the layer, but of the whole people.

Thus, the perversion of Marxism-Leninism, the imposed transfer of the dictatorship of the proletariat outside the framework allotted to it by history, became precisely that “trifle” that acquired “decisive importance.” The newly born socialism was subjected to a terrible deviation. Otherwise, we would have defeated German fascism much faster and with much less bloodshed. Death because of repressions, especially of talented people, spread the seas of blood in the war. All this gave trump cards to our critics and enemies. Without Stalin’s deviation of communism, there would not have been a later Yeltsin’s coup, which exploited the natural discontent of the working masses, which V.A. Atsyukovsky qualifies as a “counter-revolution”.

In fact, the nation expressed their will in 1991 to confirm the reality of Marxism: they threw off the bankrupt establishment that did not correspond to the developed production relations. On the other hand, the nomenclature of the «second echelon», pursuing its promotion, took advantage of the people’s democratic uprising.

To put an end to the marasmatic chatter about “classes” under socialism and ”classes” in today’s Russia, we need to move away from the existing “kitchen talk” concepts and think about the scientific definition of classes given by V. Lenin:

“Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labor of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.” (“The Great Beginning”, Collected Works, Vol.39, p.15).

“… The division of society into classes means a division into groups of people, some of which one can permanently appropriate the labor of others, where some people exploit others.” («On the State», Collected Works, Vol. 39, p.69).

“… Our goal, the goal of world socialism, is the abolition of classes, and classes are groups, of which one can live by the labor of another, one appropriates another’s labor” (“Concluding speech at the closing of the congress on December 9”, Vol.39, p.433).

“And what are classes in general? It is what allows one part of society to appropriate the labor of another” (“The Tasks of the Youth Leagues”, Collective Works, vol. 41, p.310).

Now ask yourself, were there classes under socialism? If you think there were — take and read in the Lenin Library the collection of works under the eloquent title “On the Elimination of Classes in the USSR” (in the positive meaning of this fact), published by “Azcherizdat” in Rostov-on-Don in 1936, on the eve of the adoption of the Stalin Constitution.

I foresee many readers who will make a beeline to argue that today’s entrepreneurs appropriate the labor of others. Yes, they do, but not as a class, but as thieves, thieves of public property, natural wealth and the labor of others, with the help of the government that betrayed the nation, merging with them in ecstasy of mutual enrichment. Corruption is a proof of this.

Thieves take possession of things, but, according to the laws of the developed countries, stolen goods cannot be considered their property and must be returned to the original owner. Because it is not stealing, but labor that creates property. And our “businessmen”, buying their own lands and islands, teams and clubs, building record yachts and palaces, have not created anything themselves, and alienate someone else’s property through collusion and raiding, auctions and resale, financial fraud, securing and protecting stolen goods, and … buying parties and votes to legalize their actions and deceitful rights.

Their theft, which began with the shooting of the White House, is not continuous exploitation, as in a class society, it is a one-time alienation, albeit in several ways. Therefore, we should not think about a repeat socialist revolution, according to Atsyukovsky, but anti-criminal, without blood on the streets, and with trial in courts, but, of course, not in the courts created by the Yeltsin camarilla and the liberal epigones, but in the people’s courts, with the participation of workers and public accountability.

In fact, none of the provisions of Marxism is outdated. Everything developed according to the laws established by it, only in a negative projection. That is, the degradation of the country was not due to Marxism’s flaws, but due to its misrepresentation by the government and widespread abuse of dialectics. Unfortunately, Atsyukovsky does not see that, tries to fix up Marxism-Leninism right off the boat, and does not attempt to correct the skewed practice, instead of exposing the recent fellow travelers who call “to abandon Marxism-Leninism, and create social science doctrines anew”.

But, alas, what he said out of good intentions about the “differences between socialism and communism”, the preservation of “the state for ages”, the transition of “the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of the working people», “a social revolution in general”, one cannot read without tears of emotion. It is eclecticism and nothing more, because these speculations pour water on the mill of “bad infinity”, actually rejected by historical development.

History is not a polygon of mechanical repetition. It is a qualitative ascent from one step to another, despite occasional temporary breaks in the line of progress. The paths of progress are tortuous, but invincible. And they always give signals!


Such signals appeared in our society too. But they were not noticed: it was a difficult time, with many other concerns. Atsyukovsky did not notice them either, although, being a representative of the cohort of inventors, he should have done so and should have acknowledged their significance. It was done not by him, but by writer Vladimir Dudintsev, who wrote the book “Not by bread alone” — about the passion and toil of lone fighters, rationalizers and inventors, who engage in battle with the party-state machine in order to achieve technical progress and a better life for the people.

The dynamics of the growth in the number of these people is interesting. In the 1940s and 1950s, the approximate number was 526 and 555 thousand people, respectively. In 1955, there were already 1,139,000 people. In 1965, there were 2,935,000. In 1975, there were 4,336,000. By the mid-1980s, by the time Gorbachev came to power, there were 14 million (according to the Central Council of All-Russian Society of Inventors and Innovators). It was a new formation of people, proving by their birth the real victory of socialism, from all society layers, beyond the notorious class affiliation.

Innovators, rationalizers and inventors appeared as individuals at all times and ages. Actually, the very human society emerged owing to them, starting with overcoming the animal reflex and the invention of the first primitive tools. But it was the victory of socialism that insured its forthcoming as a driving force.

No social and political system had ever been acquainted with such unique of their kind, people on a mass scale. It was necessary to take ownership of the means of production, so that the workers began to apply their creative talents on them. Those who once created a stone ax, mastered fire, sawed a slice from a tree trunk to make a wheel; they sewed a sail out of capes to navigate a raft. If the first blind revolutionary spirit of slaves was manifested in the destruction of the instruments of labor, the highest revolutionary character of workers, who had freed themselves from the oppression, was expressed, on the contrary, in the improvement of those tools.

Creative abilities were not the class affiliation of the elect, but a generic feature of a person. Innovation, therefore, is an heir to the transformational efforts of labor and a direct successor of revolutionary aspirations of the proletariat, historically combining the two, moving from the transformation of society to the transformation of machines, tools, appliances and themselves, too.

Marxist theory of the development of society on the basis of a materialistic view of nature and society was correct. And we must not revise it, but continue. Socialism obliged us to take the next step to the materialistic view of man. In the very definition of the subject of philosophy, man found himself outside the brackets.

“Philosophy,” it says, “is the science of the most general laws governing the development of nature, society and human thought.” Human thought was separated from its subject; it was considered only from the point of view of social conditionality, whereas being individual, it has its own different degrees of freedom and dependence. The difference in thinking is determined not only by the difference in social conditions, but also by the difference of its carriers themselves under the same conditions. It is therefore necessary to reach an understanding of man in society as its starting cell, i.e., build materialism up to the top.

  1. Marx lays down premises of such understanding in the communist principle of a future society, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (K. Marx and F. Engels. “Critique of the Gotha Program” Collected works, Vol.19, p.20).

Abilities and needs are the real propulsion of man. Not “soul and body”, as Plato used to say, but a creative and consumer principle, mutually implying and denying one another, consisting in contradictions to each other.

But the question is, where they come from. They come from nature, of course. Any biological individual (microbe, plant, animal) has them in embryonic form as adaptive abilities and organic needs, the developing interaction between which is the law of its survival and the improvement of the species as a whole.

How did biological individuals acquire them? Naturally, they came from inanimate matter. Remember in physics: the increase (decrease) in energy in one place is equal to the decrease (increase) in energy in another place, both in the micro- and the macrocosm. No particle, body or system is formed other than via the use of other particles, bodies or systems. Every development process moves in opposition to “creation” and “consumption”, where one is the reverse side of the other. The cycle of substances in the world is an expression of their unity.

“Creation” and “consumption”, therefore, it is the universal law of the universe. The point here is in the essence, the connection, not the verbal designation of things. The man acts as a concentrated carrier of this cross-cutting, core contradiction of all matter, being (he, not God) the top in its pyramid, but, suitably, in a more developed form, in view of the fact that creation and consumption are represented in him in extreme isolation and contradiction, because of the highest goal opposition of the concepts. A person is not separated from the world; he is its prominent continuation.

Because those two concepts are not balanced, either the creator or the consumer takes over in a person. This is the baseline.

In ancient times, when people were developing into who they are, they began to be divided into creators and consumers, unconsciously. Primitive communism, as a socially homogeneous, unstructured society, potentially already contained in its core the impending split into classes: slaves and slaveholders, which determined the future development for centuries. Consumers got rich and turned into rulers and oppressors. Creators, growing poor, turned into workers and servants.

This same division spontaneously manifested itself further. It made its way into family. Socialism did not escape it either. The man remained the same, with the same reactor in his head. But some scooped in, conveniently positioned in administrative structures, while others, below, deliberately or forcedly worked for society. During perestroika and at the time of liberal reforms, that evil practice once again took on monstrous forms. The proclaimed priority of personal interest and consumer ambitions, freed from restrictions, penetrated all pores and layers of population, forming ugly spikes in the division and specifications of “labor”. A professor could become a gang leader, and a gang leader could become a regional governor. A more striking example of that were servants of Themis who protected crime and arbitrariness, maneuvering between the law and their own interests.

Alas, communism, once emerged, never ended. It was simply taken away from the working people by consumers, which also happens today with some monkeys, which says more about the origin of man than anything else. While sociologists are busy with absurd polls, the society is rotting, and the two great “imitators” with an intelligent countenance do not know what they are doing.

Marx was a thousand times right when he spoke of the abolition of the bourgeois state via a socialist revolution, and of its complete withering away during the transformation of socialism into communism: “the transition from the management of people to the management of production processes”.

However, stopping at the very threshold of a materialistic view of man, he could not presume that the state after the elimination of classes that would become a convenient refuge for bellicose consumers and power lovers, like Stalin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, together with henchmen such as Beria, Yakovlev, Gaidar, Burbulis, Migranyan, Shakhray, Chubais, Yasin, Livshits, Kostikov, Satarov and many others. Countless people were interested in preserving the state, avoiding every thought of its withering away. Therefore, now it is a question of its gradual abolition, and not about its withering away or “strengthening for ages”.

The militant shooting from Khrushchev and Yeltsin and the relapse of the Stalinist pacification of nations revealed a problem that was not visible in Marx’s time. K. Marx considered appropriation, accumulation and oppression to be a class feature, but they turned out to be universal. A simple worker can become a despot and an oppressor if he is a self-seeker by nature.

Now humanity has reached such horizons that a spontaneous flow of contradictions can end in an overall catastrophe. These fears are confirmed by the scientific concept of Porshnev-Didenko defined in the second half of the 20th century about four congenital, reproduced subtypes of the human race. They are: superanimals (vicious predators, nonhumans); suggestors (insidious opportunists, pseudo-men); diffusive (amorphous laborers) and neoanthropes (creative prospectors). The first two psychophysical types start forming as applicants and fighters for power, future tyrants and criminals already at birth. The other two types are suppressed mass and ​​creative artisans with concern for values. Power usually belongs to the former, and the latter are toilers.

We are surprised today at having unfortunate managers and officials, insatiable oligarchs and thieves. It all goes back to primeval times. The form of man has changed (it has become civil), but not his essence. People, therefore, should not be categorized by what they want to appear, but by what motivates them: abilities or needs. The view of a person from the standpoint of “class”, party or clan belonging that have already disappeared and worn out, is not helpful, but only confusing.

In this regard, for the initial cleansing of the state, appropriate reforms must be made. Since there are no classes, there should not be any parties that allegedly express their interests. In reality, they do not exist. Therefore, it is better to dissolve them all at once, by a presidential decree, and avoid creating fake farcical “fronts” and “coalitions” from sham parties, in which every snide consumer plutocracy, getting comfortable behind the party screen, will engage in all sorts of fetishes and phantoms, fanning endless scammers. Hidden deception and oppression of the lower classes secretly moved by inertia through centuries.

Power structures should not be occupied by pretentious little gods, but by people, who dedicate themselves to work for the improvement of people’s lives, put forward by social movements. Such people, operating inside local organizations, are more sensitive to other people’s grievances, sufferings and aspirations. They can also be easily withdrawn if they betray the cause.

It is be necessary to inaugurate an examination for professional aptitude with the help of a lie detector for state officials prior to their assumption of office, which would determine the existence of any concealed thoughts of the applicant, aside from his own will.

Besides, the ownership of mass media should be transferred from private owners and companies to power structures and state funding. It is necessary to clear the habitat for the normal inhabitants of the country and the carriers of progress.


If we come to an understanding of what a human being is, the task of building absolute communism can be solved.

It is known that all pro-consumer figures immediately took up arms against the communist principle put forward by Marx, mocking it, reproving it for its utopianism. Now, however, most Communists also do not believe in its feasibility, as if they “sobered up”!

However, people, if they are people, differ among themselves, first of all, and from all living by their abilities, not by their needs. A human, therefore, is so much a human as he is a creator. Needs, on the contrary, equal him to animals, and concentrating on them gives rise to brutality, leading to crime. When a person’s needs are in the first place, they diminish his personality and deform his abilities, orienting him to struggle, not create. We therefore have a mass of well-educated beasts seated in the management chairs, positioning themselves as “middle class”, which rule over working people and poison their self-consciousness.

However, abilities are a true criterion of a genuine human being. The concept of freedom, therefore, must be applied, first of all, to abilities, creativity, and not consuming. Everything is upside down in our society.

It is necessary to penetrate deeper into the dialectical spiral of human contradiction in order to understand what overall success depends on. Creativity, like a person himself, is also divided into mental and physical abilities. Having discovered the decisive importance of abilities, we understand that mental ones play the leading role, because they make physical strength skillful and qualified: even in a fistfight, it is not the bully that wins, but the smart fighter.

This means that it is necessary to develop a person’s abilities from his birth, not his needs. Mental abilities are a priority, because physical gifts are given by nature. How does one develop his mental abilities? They can also be differentiated.

There are merely reflexive mental faculties, applied automatically (mathematic calculation, logical stereotype, ingrained habit, i.e. conditioned reflex) and there are uniquely human creative abilities. These are the ones that should be developed in the first place, although the school system aims at developing mechanical intelligence, stuffing students’ heads with knowledge.

Dialectics, however, differentiates creative abilities. According to their specialization, abilities are divided into criticizing and constructive, mutually suggesting and opposing each other, as applied to both an individual and public.

You can, for example, recall how our art intelligentsia (actors, directors, journalists, artists) during the transition from perestroika to reforms, when it was getting really tough, rushed to vilify everything related to the Soviet Union or socialism to be in favor, while using, due to the lack of positive approach, their ability to criticize only. This added to the tragedy of the people.

And we can recall, on the other hand, an innovative movement in the Soviet era characterized by constructive approach, but inhibited by the ruling elite due to the lack of self-criticism and proper constructive thinking. Innovators and inventors who, responding to their historical vocation, began to build communism by themselves, ignoring the stagnant policy of the Politburo.

Lenin wrote, “The productivity of labor is the most important, the most crucial factor in the victory of a new social system”. But a simple worker or a peasant, having taken power into his hands and adhering to physical labor, does not and can not achieve the highest productivity of labor. Perhaps, he can produce twice as much as before through overexertion. Consequently, he will expend both himself and his machine twice as much. The overall balance between work and the final output will remain unchanged. Such approach to labor does not lessen, but increases the total costs per unit of output, because it does not actually change the mode of production.

Of course, we created research institutes, design bureaus, which were often at feud with free inventors. However, they also worked on the principle of increasing the volume of produce and intensification of labor. That is why the whole country worked with great overstrain, instead of relying on constructive creativity with a decrease in costs and efforts to achieve a greater and better result.

However, the situation changed when the worker himself transferred his attention from the end to the beginning of production, from the product to the means of production, and began to improve his tools. Thus, he became the true master of production, implementing positive constructive changes in it. Therefore, bypassing authorities, independently, he entered into “the management of things and production processes”, becoming the destroyer of the state.

The paradox, however, was that these institutions and establishments, feeling suspicious, threw obstacles in his way to recognition and implementation. The matter, however, resulted in a mutual agreement, if the initiator expanded the list of people involved in the project, and they, accordingly, were included in the distribution relations.

This is not the legacy of the recent Communists, which can be of use to liberal dog-knights, hating commies with the same animal hatred as the latter hate their antipodes. This is the legacy of the primitive communism and the state, pretending to dictate its will forever. But it is wrong to benefit from your position only. It is immoral and anti-human.

If we understand what human abilities have effect on the future, we should entrust our life and production not to officials who seek profit, but to innovators who improve the world. We do not need Skolkovo, the Silicon Valley, Dubna, Queen or Zelenograd. This is a repetition of the past, i.e. infusion of funds not so much by talent as by position. What is needed is not “modernization”, which relies on individual achievements of individual eggheads, but constant activity of a new driving force that encompasses all aspects of productive activity and absorbs all new talents in all spheres and in the name of all people.

To do this, very few things are needed: to establish a partial, permanent, additional monetary compensation for the rationalizer or inventor in a certain percentage of the economic effect of his invention, to pay him as long as the idea brings profit. That is, to move from a bonus system to a constant payment for permanent work, not for the sake of support, but in the name of justice.

Note, not a dime of preliminary investments will be needed here; profits will flow. Because deposits of talents are not comparable to any natural resources, which only melt with intensive extraction, but here, on the contrary, the more they are used, the faster they grow and blossom.

It is understood that with such kind of payment, innovators will be interested in submitting more rare fundamental developments promising a more significant economic and prolonged effect, rather than a multitude of small inventions that promise an easy but short time return.

Thus, the innovators will realize and increase their interest in deepening old knowledge and acquiring new one. Consequently, it will be necessary to create consulting points and allow free attendance at institutions of higher education, which are often with half-empty audiences. They will not need to take exams or acquire a profession; their knowledge will be enhanced in direct application. It will no longer be private, but will become a universal means of production, as it has been since ancient times.

After several large projects with high efficiency are implemented in different regions of the country, the innovator (laboring innovators are the ones that should become rich, not thieves) may well be let sail at large, exempted from compulsory attendance of his work place, with a mandate to access other enterprises, where his innovative initiative can be useful. Then, in a free exchange with local innovators and workers, collective creativity and universal communication of people will begin to develop.

Since innovators will receive part of the income brought by their inventions, the other, large and growing part will be directed at raising wages to other workers. There will also be a decline in prices for goods of mass demand, the cost price of which, moreover, will be reduced due to the rationalization of production, creating an increasingly large purchasing power of the ruble. Over time, money will become redundant.

Besides, shifting employment will begin to shorten. There will come a time when it will not last 8 hours per 3 shifts, or 6 hours per 4 shifts, but 4-3-2 hours per day, followed by a lesser number of working days per week. And this increasing freedom for other workers will provide conditions for them to become innovators. Creative work (not just ability, as is the case now) will become universal.

Physical labor will be replaced by physical education and sports. The relations in the family will be in harmony, and children will become happier. A human will become taller, more beautiful, healthier and more moral. The state in this case will actually begin to wither away, transitioning from the management of people to the management of things.

Naturally, a new government corresponding to historical demands should be elected in order to bring it about. A socialist revolution with the expropriation of the means of production will not be necessary, but a reversion of property, i.e. its return to its original creator and owner, restoring historical justice, exposing at the same time Stalin’s falsification of Marxism-Leninism and the outrage of the people by the Yeltsin reformation.

What should be done with thieves and conmen? Some must be put in jail, some must be banished from the country, and some will run away. And some managers and specialists can be employed at their old place with a higher salary due to higher complexity and qualification of work, if they surrender the captured goods voluntary. The allotted time for fleeing abroad with stolen funds is not more than a month.

We do not need to fear a reaction from foreign countries. It is foreseeable. And it will be positive.

The influx of large donated capital will save both the dollar and euro zone from the deepening crisis and a possible collapse of the entire capitalist system. We therefore have nothing to regret. We would have lost much more if the CPSU and the State Emergency Committee had continued to rule the country as before, in the old way, because stupidity is most costly, and concentrated stupidity is catastrophic. But as our development process was interrupted, we avoided the 3rd World War, and are safe from it in the future.

High productivity of labor will make us friends with all countries of the world and help us “defeat” capitalism, which, in the end, will be a beneficial to all. Mankind cannot achieve the distribution “according to his needs”, if it does not realize the principle “from each according to his ability”.

About the author:

Mark Boykov, was born on the 12th of September 1938 in a village called Pistsovo, Komsomolsky district of Ivanovskaya Oblast. He was raised in an orphanage, throughout WWII, until 1947, when he was adopted into a family of a stepmother and a stepfather, the 1st group physically challenged veteran of WWII.

In 1950, he entered Suvorov Military School in Gorky, which he finished in Moscow due to redeployment in 1958. In 1960, he was exempted from military service from Odessa Higher All-Troops Command College for health reasons.

He received a professional education from the faculty of Philosophy at Lomonosov Moscow State University from 1961 to 1966. He worked as a teacher of philosophy in Moscow and Volgograd (by assignment) higher education institutions.

Рассказать о прочитанном в социальных сетях:

Подписка на обновления интернет-версии журнала «Российский колокол»:

Читатели @roskolokol
Подписка через почту

Введите ваш email: