From the past to transition History of governments

To comprehensively carry out this critique of bourgeois political economy, it was not enough to become familiar with the capitalist form of production, exchange, and distribution. It was also necessary, at least in general terms, to investigate and involve in comparison the forms that preceded it, or those that still exist next to it in less developed countries" ("Anti-D;ring").

There were few societies that were fair to their citizens, and even fewer were rational societies. Why should we throw away the general vector of development of human consciousness in the direction of civil carelessness and tyranny of the ruling elites or accept as the main goal of our existence a certain image that, in fact, like a stone on a murky ocean floor, is gradually honed by the sand of time, until the current carries it to the seashore, presenting us as an unusual creation of nature - the greatest architect?
This question occupied many philosophers, ranging from Aristotle, Plato and Democritus, and ending with philosophers of modern times, in particular Rousseau, Montesquieu, Holbach, as well as, in fact, Marxist classics, Engels, Lenin, who associated the emergence of states with one or another form of economic structure and the system of ownership of the tools of production.
But, one should not discount the very first, intra-clan and clan forms of interaction that Engels reproached, for example, Karl Witvogel, pointing out that some of the first societies of the Bronze Age, such as the Sumerian Kingdom and Egypt, had a state even before the primary right to own the land of certain owners. The divine owner was considered a single representative of the gods on earth, he also received income from land plots, as a priest, performing together with administrative, priestly and judicial functions. Basically, this theory is still based on the coincidence of clan interests. The experience of komtursts, knightly associations is built on more mechanistic principles, no less than on the principles of mystical, namely on the possibility of a separate castle to expose knights to protect the territory. The political, ideological structure of the ballei was even less important than the original one. Naturally, the top leadership of the orders justified their claims to the leading positions in a mystical way, although in the period up to the 16th century, in addition to there were moments of penetration to the holy throne of people not appointed by the church hierarchy, the motives were more pragmatic, if we look at the causes of the Fifth Lateran Council, the War of Urbino, it turns out that the ecclesiastical, missionary dogmas at that time lost their decisive importance in the conduct of affairs by the Holy See. This is a period of imposition of elites and subordination to their single, bourgeois system, with all their internal dissimilarity. The roots of imperialism were contained precisely in this, non-state component, which held together the systems and even had the instruments of a single economic economy, namely, the aviso system, which had limited effect for its knights. This is somewhat reminiscent of the current structure of the EU, with only one important difference. There was a unified political concept of the built-up, a moral justification for the power of both the church and its anointed ones.
Of course, in times of war and strife, the ability to cooperate with each other on infrastructure and logistical issues becomes more important than the issues of democracy and the imperative mandate. The question of wars in its turnIn the construction of bourgeois markets, it is a single system of forces, checks and balances directly connected with the economy, which over time began to be abused, hiding behind the ideological screen of imaginary interests, even not directly articulated and not prescribed, instead of the interests of real societies and communities, which we see in our current system.
The moral foundations of the state, a separate topic for consideration. What is virtue, who is the conductor of it and what are the stages of its embodiment in society? Is the regulation of coordinated and effective work sufficient for society, as it was in Rome around the year 200 BC under Croton, when the regulations for the work of slaves were developed, or should we be guided by the issues of general progress? Or maybe it is worth dwelling on a system that, in addition to providing a certain set of benefits for its citizens, leads to a balance of markets, preventing internecine strife and wars? This and other questions were already considered by the same students of Plato, in Japanese philosophical literature. Is it worth considering the theories about the so-called humanity as the basic, cornerstone principle of the preservation and organization of the country during its class structure (whether it is bourgeois or socialist structure)?
Let me remind you that the system of humanity, as a philosophical concept of general humanism, first appears in the works of Cicero, provides as a model, the education of an extreme idealist-individualist, who at the same time gives an example of life to the general mass, is inextricably linked with it by something internal, human, but still differs in the degree of development. There is certainly already a contradiction in this, if we consider the quality inherent in the majority to be a determining quality, then what super-lying quality can be more inherent in this mass if we consider the case as a whole, or even if we see the process guided by the principle of historicism or stadiality?
The authors of this concept, such as Pico de Mirandola (society as a single body, with its interactions and analogies, the idea of gathering philosophers for the sake of the unity of the philosophical school and the derivation of a kind of philosophical common, unified scepter of Zeus) Savonarola, Erasmus of Rotterdam, relied in their fabrications on the image of a pure, righteous man, despite the confrontation of classes, the difference in economic structures and ideological constructions, even on the fact that that human nature includes the possibility of the creation of evil, and if man is a measure, then the non-human is measured only by the human. The morality of human society, at the first stages of development, in reproach to those who declare the goodness of returning to the origins, was also far from ideal. V.I. Ivanov (1866-1949), N. Kuzansky (man as a microcosm, which is a semblance of a macrocosm in an undeveloped form), as well as Western philosophers such as Montaigne, a supporter of the "experience of the usefulness of studying natural processes" who, nevertheless, recognized egoism as fundamental to human nature, L;vi-Strauss, who took as a model only the experiments of ancient antiquity, pre-literate eras and civilizations of the East, in contrast to the concept of proletarian humanism, operate with relativistic concepts. the highest value of an abstract person, where all material and immaterial resources are aimed at making him, this abstract citizen happy, and his life comfortable. Within the same framework are all the constructions of the philosophers More and Campanella, who provided for the eternal and forever good, hidden.e in a unified approach to building society, like a frozen avalanche of magma.
In contrast, socialist humanism sees the highest value in the benefits of the collective, in overcoming alienation and its self-interest and laziness for the sake of the well-being of the workers-builders of society and the economic prosperity of society itself.
This is where the great power, the human reflection that motivates him to develop, and not to be satisfied, to be in constant search of new forms of existence personally and society as a whole, which should invariably become the fundamental motive of every citizen, manifests itself.


Initially, the state ancient system provided for the selection of senators, or other representatives from the ergasteria (settlements with the number of slaves of the master in the amount of 10-12-100-500, with the corresponding importance of the owner), as it was, for example, during the Salon and the Greek hill of Pnyx and the eclessia (ancient assemblies of the inhabitants) and later the Areopagus, when the elected authorities, declaring power as a community of equals, nevertheless, were the conductors of the basic ideas of inequality, when, for example, the land, formally being at the mercy of the community, distributed this land to managers, helots, all non-military crafts were considered insignificant, practically in the service of usurers-money changers (trapezites) there was also a priestly service, which denoted goods that were bought later by the parishioners of the temple, thus influencing the commodity market. Note this feature, it will later be implemented in our days.
It was positive that the issues of peace and war, the issues of ransom from foreign captivity of fellow tribesmen sold earlier, as in the days of the same Salon in 594 BC were decided by the general assembly. Luxury, silver and gold money was not encouraged then, it was banned. Which again, on the one hand, equalized different segments of the population, on the other hand, developed militaristic tendencies in society, as the only way to show your ego. Plus, which was introduced at this time - the method of the so-called blind voting, when everything was decided by cast lot, 50 representatives from 10 filas were elected according to the number. Elements of the review were not provided, which again promoted the ideas of pan-Hellenism and tyranny. When the power of the Demagogues could be removed by a tyrant who ruled until the next term (see Ancient Rome).
It is according to this philosophical tradition that already in the time of Aristotle (384-322) there began to be a division into economics and chrematistics, as a useful set of goods necessary for a particular economy and unnatural to it. Later, in the days of bourgeois economics, this was articulated as mercantilism, the main economists promoting this idea were Moncretien and Adam Smith.
The same Aristotle stated that where the state in the form of a supreme power arrogates the right to arbitrarily change laws, it ceases to be a state. The aristocracy was still divided into the opolitia (the best, most glorified people among the people), eugenia (noble offspring) and calgates (influential to the acquired). And only the virtuous and educated passed on their rights by inheritance.
These divisions had already given rise to all sorts of troubles, in particular the famous Kylon Troubles (640 BC) when the private army of the Olympian (at that time and concepts of the favorite of the gods) Cylon, captured the Athenian Acropolis, guided by the opinion of the Athenians, who, meanwhile, did not support him, and organized themselves under the lead.Archons and Megacles, and later surrounded Cylon and his warriors, who were tied with ropes to the statue of the goddess Artemis, but the rope weakened, and Megacles, again deciding that the goddess had denied Cylon protection, killed the rebels.
The problem of idealistic communities is vividly presented to us if we consider further the history of this society, built on the foundation of three principles, namely, isopolitics, isegoria, and isolomy.
Isopolitics provided that there was a certain treaty between the polis of ancient Greece, by mutual agreement between the cities, or by a separate decree.
A similar can be seen in the system of magnates and gentry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where the king was still a technical collector of taxes and troops, but there this principle was elevated to a common system and was not sporadic. This system, which certainly has the right to exist in the interwar and peaceful periods of the existence of the state, has both its advantages and unconditional disadvantages regarding delays in the adoption of any everyday issues that have not been resolved in the lower hierarchies of power.
The second fundamental principle, isegoria, concerned the right of everyone to raise his or her voice in a debate and to present it to the whole of society. At the time of public meetings, this was certainly significant at that time, but it could not reveal a complete representation of all opinions existing in society, for purely physical reasons. There was also the concept of parchesia, which appeared as an internal criticism proper, for the sake of subsequent changes. In our time, both the first and second principles are certainly positive, another thing is how and through implement these proposals and criticisms.
The third principle is the equal application of laws to all citizens of the republic. It did not take into account the proportionality of the penalty imposed by a particular person, and was certainly, as Lenin wrote about it, unequal in substance, not in letter.
There were other examples in ancient societies.
Thus, an interesting experience of a direct imperative mandate, of course, are the ancient assemblies of the Tingi and their Slavic counterparts Veche Tagi and Tingi, as a rule, had not only legislative powers, but also the right to elect chiefs or kings. Under Scandinavian influence, the Tings appeared in northern England and on the Isle of Man.
Quoting Tacitus, "On the Origin of the Germans and the Location of Germany":
11. On matters of less importance, their elders confer, on the more significant ones, all; however, the elders also discuss in advance such matters, the decision of which belongs only to the people.
This experience, in the future, was adopted in the system of government of the USSR, when, in the intervals between party congresses, the political management or the central committee took over the management.
This is how Tacitus described the course of this meeting:
The priests tell them to observe silence, while having the right to punish the disobedient. Then the king and elders are listened to according to their age, depending on nobility, depending on military glory, depending on eloquence, more influenced by persuasion than by having the power to order. If their proposals are not met with sympathy, the participants in the meeting noisily reject them; if, on the contrary, they like them, they swing the frames raised up: after all, to give praise with weapons, in their opinion, is the most honorable kind of approval.
Had these assemblies and judicial functions:
12. At such a people's assembly, charges may also be brought and sentenced to death. The severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the crime: they hang traitors and defectors on trees, cowards and misspelled in battle, as well as those who dishonored their bodies - drown in the mud and swamp, throwing a log on top. The difference in the methods of killing is based on the fact that atrocities and punishment for them should, in their opinion, be flaunted, and shameful acts should be hidden. But even with milder offenses, the punishment is commensurate with their importance: a certain number of horses and sheep are recovered from the exposed. Part of the penalty imposed on them is transferred to the king or tribe, part to the victim or his relatives. The same assemblies also elect elders to administer justice in the districts and villages; each of them is given a guard of one hundred men from the common people — both the council they have and the power on which they rely.
A similar system is practiced today, for example, in Iceland, where the parliament is still called the Althingi.
The advantages of this system are the unconditional involvement of the entire population in making essential economic and political decisions, but technically it became a very clumsy colossus that could not quickly and clearly respond to new problems and correspond to constantly changing alignments and realities. Issues of friendship and war, which sometimes required an immediate response, became in practice a private matter of clans, families, as well as private mercenaries. Naturally, this constantly, again, led to discord and skirmishes.
The mechanism, fortunately, even if only described was, but we will touch on it in the conclusion of this work.
Let's turn to the nearest neighbors and their historical experience.
In Russia, initially there was a unified decision-making system. Initially, it was believed by historians that this system was based on the fact that at moments significant for the whole people, whether it was general disdain, peace, war, or the accession of another prince, the veche gathered, and could decide something by its decision.
Later, historians came to the conclusion that in large cities, such as Murom or Novgorod, there was an order in which the Ulichanskoye (from the word street) delegated authority to the Konchak veche (from the word end of the city, to the cardinal points).
In written sources, the Novgorod veche was first mentioned in 1016, when it was convened by Yaroslav the Wise. It existed until the middle of the 16th century.
V. L. Yanin characterizes the Novgorod vechevoy system as an example of feudal democracy in its Russian boyar version. Of course, such "meetings", in addition to the possibility of "own" voting and voting for the benefit of the "benefactor", whether it is a fist, a merchant or someone else, there was also a technical incident already mentioned by us, associated with the inability to put to the vote all decisions, and even more so to discuss them.
Let us now turn to the experience of the USSR, mainly touching only on the negative aspects of the experience of building power in this state.
Here, in my opinion, the system of party committees, the bodies that initially managed monopolies and trusts, except for some areas, and which, later, were merged into ministries, is worthy of consideration. Questions of general development, strategy of the movement of economics and politics, alas, were lost, as I.V. Stalin wrote in his time, in his article
Bukharin saidThat with the abolition of capitalism, political economy must be destroyed. Comrade Yaroshenko does not say this, but he does it by eliminating the political economy of socialism. True, at the same time he pretends that he does not quite agree with Bukharin, but this is a trick, while the trick is penny. In fact, he does what Bukharin preached and what Lenin opposed.
This happened primarily because, on the one hand, the division into the actual projective part of economic planning (political, class, urban issues were essentially decided by the same body) in its progressive moment and the existing economic system in its currently existing existence, which has become quite malleable as butter, obeying, as a result, the desires of regional and parochial "tsars", was discarded. who, however, were no longer satisfied with this, preferring a contract with shadowy "economists" and political intriguers. There was no alternative, the institution of trust and the inclusion of private popular initiative in it was discarded. On the other hand, this system bore the irresistible stamp of political corruption, the leaching of the theorists of Marxism-Leninism from practical life, ideologically savvy people from the management of the country.
In general, N. Khrushchev at the 22nd Party Congress, he abolished the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat, changing it to the so-called "nationwide state", and in fact, hung a sign on what was already in fact turning from a people's state into something else, and without thinking to develop to the end and implement the mechanism proposed by V.I. Lenin. There was only a change in the ideological sign.
The authorities were divorced from the people's aspirations, the mechanism for transmitting the wills was even more difficult than that of the above-mentioned ting and veche of golden belts. And where the people do not have the opportunity to influence the adoption of fundamental decisions, they lose their sense of personal responsibility for both the political and economic construction of the country.

Having briefly touched upon the practice and accompanying mistakes of the socialist state of the USSR, let us turn to the last phase of state constructions, which was given to us by the philosophical thought before socialism, namely the bourgeois concept of management, and slightly moving away from the historical sequence, it is worth turning to the experience of the United States and its closest allies, without the bayonets of which, according to the founding fathers, the state army would look like a crowd of ragged people, namely, bourgeois France. Consider a few examples of both the partial-positive and negative aspects of these political systems.
France, having overcome the initial period of capital accumulation, the imaginary sole proprietorship of Louis the 14th after the collapse of the Royal Council of Mazarin, where in reality the financier, the genius of the monetary and banknote system J.B. Colbert became the head of the new council, power passed to a kind of mixed form of state administration, when the merchant and administrative powers merged into a single organ of administration, endowed with a judicial and supervisory function, which existed in the old territory of the Frankish Occupation and neighboring lands (Artois, Flanders, Amiens arrondissement, Ponthieu)
After the Rouen institutions, this system cooperated with a complex system of councils, and the Eshaven were members of one of the colleges.
Basically there were six to twelve of them and performed their duties from three to six years, sometimes, as in Lille after the reform of 1235.lifelong.
The Eshavens were appointed seigneur, chosen from among the townspeople. Not being a fiefdom court, they were not, in the full sense of the word, a communal court. Meanwhile, they formed commissions, which were headed by the prevost, the mayor.
The courts of the Eshavens had several additional functions at different times, ranging from the execution of the highest measure, and ending with the expulsion from the city.
Much more interesting is the experience of revolutionary power transformations in France after the failure of the Girondins uprising of 1793 (Rabeau-J.P. de Villeneuve, Dumourier; Robespierre, Marat)
The creation of the Convention implied the transfer of power to the Legislative Corps, the elections to which were approved by the plebescite of 1793, but in fact, in connection with these events, did not take place. Free ownership of land, a new calendar, all this promised to be serious and for a long time, but, nevertheless, the Montagnards, radicals, who had previously overthrown the Girondins, were replaced by moderates already in 1794. It paid off.
So again there were very important concepts for us, which came with the destruction of the old order, like a plebiscite, the separation of powers, the separation of the state from the church, as the bearer of the only moral imperative.
Plebiscites and out of dominance, by the way, is not a generally positive factor, in my opinion. The system that is now practiced in Switzerland, when in individual state entities, cantons, important decisions, as well as admission to citizenship and some other things are made by local referendum, is cumbersome and has a lot of imperfections.
However, during the time of the French Republic, the limited right of plebescite was supplemented by such an ancient Roman concept as a senate.
(Latin: senatus consultum, abbreviated - S.c.) -1) an integral part of Roman law, a decision of the Senate, adopted at the request of the magistrate and binding. Famous s. k of the republican period were: S. s. de Bacchanalibus - S.k. on bacchanals (186 BC), on the prohibition of bacchanals during the feast of Dionysus, coping according to foreign ritual; S. s. de philosophis et rhetoribus - on the expulsion of the Greek philosophers (161 BC); S. s. ultimum - according to which, in case of danger to the state, consuls were granted emergency powers (for the first time this took place in 133 BC, then in 121, in 100 and 63 BC). The decisions of the Senate of the Empire's time concerned primarily certain aspects of private law law, such as questions of inheritance rights (S. c. Trebelliamum 56 AD; S. s. Neromanum 57 AD; S. s. Pegasianum c. 73 AD; S.c.Tertullianum (under Hadrian); S.s. Orfitianum, 178 AD), and also questions of family and personal law (S. s. Claudianum, 47 and 52 AD
during the period of the Consulate, the First and Second Empires in France - acts amending or supplementing the constitution by the will of the consul, the emperor and published on behalf of the Senate. The most striking examples from a number of S.C., issued by Napoleon I and Napoleon S., were the S.-C. of Napoleon Bonaparte of August 4, 1802 (16 Thermidor 10), who changed the constitution of 8 and established a consulate for life for Napoleon; his own S.-K. 18 May 1804 (28 February 12), establishing a hereditary empire in France with Napoleon as emperor; S.-K. Napoleon III of November 7, 1852, by which, after the December coup of 1851, the empire was restored in France. (1)
Worth to note both the negative aspects of this approach, which undoubtedly contribute to the promotion of the interests of the bourgeois class, and some positive ones. Thus, the Senate Council could act only with the full consent of the members of the advisory council, without the absence of special contradictions, which obliged the authorities making these decisions to negotiate with everyone involved in the development of the project.
The system of expert opinion, as a system of confidential voting to electors, in the election of the president of the country, is also used in America, for example.
So, the system of the consulship, the expert council, is certainly designed to resolve issues corresponding to their powers as professionally as possible, and these issues, of course, should be put to a general vote of representatives, in addition, these representatives should provide feedback to the people on the implementation of certain instructions from places approved by all, of course, such representatives.
Let's note some of the undoubtedly positive developments in this area that have been developed during the entire period of our research, and look at the very system that gave rise to them, the very evil that, as we know, sometimes strives to distinguish itself in the field of good, in the service, in fact, the correction of its own image, which has already been tarnished by wars and bloodshed, more than once. Let's imagine what the apologists of this model offer us, how, in their opinion, society should develop further?
Let's not touch on the small details that sink into the abyss of secret philosophical clubs, take what they left on the surface, and what is already almost clear to any person who thinks a little.

The bourgeoisie usually prioritizes the vague rights of economic freedom, while at the same time glossing over the question of political equality. In fact, the more this particular society lives according to the model of competition and economic confrontation of clans hidden from human eyes, replacing, but not abolishing political and ideological associations, the clearer becomes the replacement of democracy with ochlocracy (mob power, which is competently led) of direct rule by the hidden and behind-the-scenes, the rule of invisible associations of rich and influential bourgeois, which at the same time are also driven by their own, albeit ephemeral and idealistic goals. This idea of two-headed government, economic (large landowners, merchants, bourgeois) and religious (the church, its local branches connected by a single mystical and ritual principle, was entirely developed until its theorization and articulation by Cosimo (the Old) Medici, his apologist and follower of Machiavelli, existed with a variable advantage of the management of one or another beginning until the 18th century in different countries. On the other hand, regressive controls, the influence of old money as an economic justification for hidden rule and indulgence in one or another open force, exists now. And it opens up huge opportunities for these forces, due to their importance.
Monetary influence on the choice of the electorate (in fact, only the next promises of payments and indulgences), the possibility of connecting their PR mechanisms of the network, the deprivation of society of personal freedoms by imaginary, democratic societies by ochlocratic, driven not by laws, but by implied concepts and rules, in addition, the substitution of people by virtual avatars, the imposition of goods, already directly, through the gradual introduction of control over monetary sweatsAnd social technologies, the removal of consciousness from the level of the real economy to a projective economy, connected within the framework of one chain of private corporations, the imposition of trends in society, connections, play a decisive role here. Real money is replaced by virtual money, customer cards and bank cards are replaced by citizen cards with generalized data for each person in any of his incarnations, as a visitor, as a buyer, as a creator and a politically active citizen.
At this point, the groups usually cooperate, creating an environment of the most favored nation, which necessarily, according to the main law of the market, leads to degeneration and the desire for authoritarian and dictatorial ways of controlling the masses. Also, groups use the methods of technocracy, namely, technocracy in its lowest sense, as the technologization and control of the results of knowledge obtained by a person and their correlation with the course necessary for grouping. The immediate success of a person is expressed in the ability to adapt and catch up with the "general mass", a concept that is artificially promoted and imposed by the ruling circles.
The question of the good of the population existing in a given country, in this case, is usually replaced by the good of the nation or the course of a select group of people, usually connected to each other on an ephemeral political basis, or, as, for example, in the case of Hitler, by mystical blood ties in general, inevitably leading to ethnocentric centripetal motives. This is our fate under the current economic system. Let's look at it in perspective. The complete destruction of the individual, contrary to the initial messages of the supporters of the "free society", in the future, a direct impact on the human brain, with the aim, on the one hand, to control both the location, purchases, and the actual thoughts of a person, which are combined into a single metaset.
Now we understand that nothing reassuring awaits us in the world of capitalist, and in fact already now authoritarian rule, awaits us.
On the other hand, any sane leftist will not leave this matter to the mercy of fate, as, for example, great utopians like Fresco and his bequeath to us. Who, having adopted the armor of Marxism, refused to take his sword, namely the socialization, in one way or another, of the means of production. Namely, the possession of the means of production allows you to improve, rationalize, promote progressive mechanisms and ideas.
Any Marxist dialectician who is all the more close to the concept of dialectical materialism will immediately ask himself. "And what does the coming day have in store for us?" Naturally, only if the left forces can still take revenge. How will they, these very leftists, be able not only to win the trust of the already beginning to worry masses of the people, but also, taking advantage of the ongoing actions of the ruling clique, to induce people to a sound reasoning on the topic that not only people serve the state, but also the state - only improving from year to year, from the stage of development to its other stage, a mechanism for facilitating people's lives, until complete dissolution and absorption by society in the process of transition to full automation and ensuring the safety, development and well-being of citizens, in the process of performing their necessary social functions.
And immediately we must derive the first criterion for assessing the effectiveness of our application of a particular model for the implementation of management functions, namely, the effectiveness of communication between the authorities and society. By and large, it is the absence of this component that affects both uprisings and dictatorships, which was already shown in the first part of the article.
The essential issues of society must be approved by the whole society in one way or another, but referendums are not quite thought out, in this case, mechanism.
The Senate as a system, meanwhile, despite its ancient "origin", is quite an effective mechanism. Of course, the committee, one or another, without receiving inscribations, objections on fundamental issues of the strategy, can make technical decisions on certain issues independently. Only the decision-making process at the level of public discussion and the mechanism of feedback are important.
The problem of education and motivation of personnel is of paramount importance here. And, of course, in order to avoid demagogues falling into power, the very process of nominating and making decisions should be both transparent and responsible from the representative composition of the parliament.
Although, for the most part, in this case, we are dealing more with a technical body than with an organ of self-promotion, as it is now.
Meanwhile, an effective model of such representation was briefly described by Lenin in his article On Democratic Centralism. Yeah, exactly. The current mechanism was described at that time, and, as our hourglass showed us, the mechanism was not something that was honed and worked out, due to changes (including purely technical properties) of the surrounding world, but its task became unclear to many. The footage, designed to show the way and explain it, was incapable of doing so. Let's not be like them,
the Party has become a haven for all kinds of careerists. The speech of such figures became boring. It degenerated into a boring soup set of phrases about freedom, equality, fraternity and the onset of communism by a certain year (complacency to a complete stop of activity), while Marx himself characterized the movement towards a classless society as a "movement" and Stalin, saw it as a constantly renewed process of creativity of the masses. And that's not an empty metaphor.
Let's turn to Lenin. Let me remind you that at that time there were several centers of power of the Bolshevik organizations. Both, conditionally, the center abroad, and domestic. Let me remind you that Lenin, in his work Amending the Clause of the Charter on The Centers, emphasized the need to divide the strategic, internal center of decision-making and implementation of the party's decisions into two centers, internal and external. And it wasn't for nothing. I am sure that in our situation, it will be equally true to separate and isolate the inner circle of issues from the external one.
And of course, this is where the question of the primary importance of the Central Organ of the Party, before the Central Committee, comes to light. And first of all, as a body responsible for monitoring and reporting at all stages of decision-making, and for its implementation when transferring to committees. In this regard, one can better understand the logic of Stalin and Zinoviev in the matter of the controlling and leading role of the party. The first, in this case, advocated general party control, while the second closed control and accountability to the leading circles of the party, and not to the general class of the proletariat, thereby eliminating the broad proletarian strata from this process.
The question of the purpose of the process should also be raised acutely.
Let's see what our Marxist comrade Rinat Bashkin writes, having publishedIn the newspaper "Zavtra" his work "On Democratic Centralism":
"The goal itself cannot become a leader, i.e. it is impossible to say which of the comrades is individually closer to the goal. Only the ability to be active can bestow a person with temporary (short-term, or long-term) leadership in solving a task. Even if there is a collective appointment of a person who has to be checked, then the organization is already spending a lot of org. resources for the wrong purposes. The activity is always personalized and it is important that a person checks himself, takes the feasible cases for him and sets tasks. "
And in this matter, of course, I am on the side of this comrade.With only one caveat that individual responsibility and initiative are good in a particular job, after making a single, consolidated decision. Individual decisions in the field of strategic issues for the country sometimes turn into both quarrelsomeness within the party and misunderstanding of the broad masses of the people. Naturally, this is a destructive process in party building.
You can't say, "Do what you want, and be what you will!" both in terms of governance infrastructure and ideology. Otherwise, the party will turn into a bazaar, where everyone calls to his corner in order to "sell" his ideas more profitably for the seller.
I am not talking about the lack of democracy in the discussion of decisions. No, and once again no. On the contrary, each decision should be voiced and carried out through the entire system of party notification, so that this is exactly the solution of the question, the "Senate", not in the bourgeois sense, when the landowners and the aristocracy decide on the issues of the city and the world, with its structure and division, but such that where the broad masses of the working people put on the agenda the issues relevant to them, while the party bodies at the level from the Central Committee to the Central Committee are engaged in their elaboration and implementation on one scale or another. Not everywhere you need the same thing.
And here, the most important question of Lenin, about the education of a person comes to the fore. To involve any proletarian in the matter of the structure of the country, district, city, the central task on this path.
This, of course, forces you to be responsible and gain the necessary knowledge. Yes, because real knowledge is gained. Hard work and effort.
In Lenin's time, due to the underdevelopment of technology, the speed of bringing the decisions of the party and controlling their implementation to the broad masses of the people suffered.
Alas, in the future this led to the "cornering" of the party and the Zinoviev-Trotskyist, managerial approach to the development of the current agenda.
Now, this issue is easily solved. And it is decided precisely by the creation of such a Central Organ of the Party (it is in this connection that Lenin emphasized its importance), which, starting from the grassroots initiative, and until fully submitted for discussion to the councils and committees, which thus turn into a technical body for the implementation of the will of the working class.
Let's move on to the role of each individual MP in this process. No one can embrace the immensity. Therefore, deputies of specific regions and territories should both work out and defend the opinion of their voters in a reasoned manner.
Because of this certainly not small employment, their plans for cadence should be limited to the development of eleven to twelve topical issues that will be formed by their party groups, and put forward as a program of action for which they will have to report back.Use the mechanisms described above.
People should see both the discussion of their issue by the party, and subsequent edits, objections, arguments. Naturally, the emerging topical issues should be considered by the party activists separately and submitted, again, through the Central Office for discussion.
Only by putting into practice, having previously explained the benefits of this Leninist, truly the only approach that works for the benefit of the working class, in opposition to the predatory plans of the bourgeoisie, will we be able to achieve success on the path of human liberation, the progress of mankind and the triumph of the brotherhood of the working people of all countries.







1. Economics and Law: A Dictionary-Reference.