The ideology of adjustment does not come from nowhere. It is born from real experience of the masses to update the socialism of the real cases, of the struggle for perestroika. And in this struggle will inevitably return to the experience of the past. The lessons of Lenin, was to be. "One day, - wrote in his memoirs about VI Lenin American journalist Albert Rhys Williams - his delegation visited the workers in connection with a they have a question: Could he decreed the nationalization of their businesses. - Of course - said Lenin and picked up a blank form - if everything depended on me, then everything would be solved very simply. It was enough for me to take these forms and this is where to put down your business name, sign here, but at this point to specify the name of the relevant Commissioner. The workers were very happy and said: - Well, that's fine. - But before you sign this form - Lenin went on - I must ask you a few questions. First of all, do you know where to get raw materials for your business? Delegates reluctantly agreed, they do not know. - Can you keep books? - Lenin went. - Have you developed ways to increase output? The workers said they had not and found that they, considering it a minor matter, did not give him a serious matter.
- Finally, comrades, let me ask you, have you found a market for selling their products? Again they answered "no."
- So, comrades, - said the Chairman of the CPC - Do not you think that you are not yet ready to take the plant right now in their hands? Come back home and start over all this work. It will not be easy, you'll sometimes be wrong, but gain the knowledge and experience. A few months later come back, and then we can revisit the issue of nationalizing your plant ... " Such is the remarkable was the conversation. Now, after 70 years, we can summarize how it was executed, this Leninist council workers: do not delude formal socialization of the means of production become the real owners, ie socialize it in practice. Or, in other words, according to the rules of the science of communism - to build a complete socialism. Find an answer to this question and tried to Andreev, the author of "Causes and Consequences. Disputes on the subject of inevitable. But one thing is certain: The author undertook the rehabilitation of the class approach to socialism. And this is - a real feat of civil, if judged by the standards of today. And here's why. To put it bluntly, this approach is in front of our social consciousness is strongly compromised. With the help of the whole system "argument." What is it? Yes, here they are. Argument one: we are building communism. Communism - a classless society. Therefore, the closer we are to social homogeneity, the more distant from the class approach. For erasing class distinctions - it does not class struggle. Argument Two: History tells us that the birth of class society and European civilization was due to excesses. Of them, say, hit and founder of the Spartan state legislator Lycurgus. One day his father, raznimaya fighting citizens got hit with a kitchen knife and died. Hence the conclusion: if the class struggle in human history occurred in the form of stabbing, the "knife fight" in its essence and is the class struggle. And what a decent person favors stabbing! So what to choose: either a class approach, or humanism. Argument Three: if worker owns his Marxist-Leninist ideology, it is - a man conscious. Conscious whoever culture. And as a culture by its very professional position has an intellectual. Consequently, it is best known intellectuals, as it is and how best to equip our socialism. Argument four: to use a class approach, you must be a graduate, the social scientist. If someone is not being what it is, suddenly dares to use a class approach to life "without permission", then it immediately fall broadside, suspicion and stigmatization. Well, such as "subjective method in sociology", the call to "crush" non-class and non-party (see, for example, an article of Professor VG Nesterov "The democratic culture and the culture of democracy" in the newspaper Ural worker " on March 15, 1988.) Meanwhile, use a class approach - it means simply to think. That is, the various facts to see the unity of the whole. Behind the words - thoughts. The thoughts - the case, and for business - interests. Do not hesitate when followers say differently. But make no mistake, if people with obviously different interests alike say. Literate class approach - not the same thing as "an approach certified. Apply it correctly - it means to distinguish between people on the facts, their actions, not by "labels". But just on a solid factual basis and built the entire journal article. Now on the results. You can criticize them differently. Can be "left", but you can "right." Right = a itself an attempt to class analysis of socialism or for the fact that this analysis is "no demand". Left - because this analysis performed consistently enough, not properly, or else because he was not held until the end. I will say this: under the pressure of the facts of real life the author was largely correct results. But was not so much how much contrary to his method of analysis. And evidence of this fact is the apparent contradiction of the author himself as himself. So, insisting on the class status of the existing current production and management staff, the author rightly observes: "fused together managers and engineering staff of production currently is not separated from each other, like Siamese twins with the general circulation." But here's a short time later he makes an unexpected conclusion: "The intelligentsia is not a class." A reasonable question arises: is not an intellectual, technical and engineering employees? And is a professional manager - is also not an intellectual? Is not belong to the intelligentsia password to log into the bosom of its two largest units, which combined, according to the very same author, a distinct class interest. Here the author's answer: "Intellectuals therefore can not be a single class, that its disparate groups occupy different places in the production system." Than a response that does not satisfy us? Yes, that argument about whether it can be a single class, spoofed the most interesting question: whether a class of herself? If it is not a "single class", what prevents it from being the "class nonuniqueness? Or, conversely, helps her to be. I do not know how readers, and it reminds me so that's a logical move: if the porridge is edible, the food here is edible is not ... Each of the "twins" (porridge and meat, an engineer and an intellectual) has received here, as it were his own "logical circulation. Or that the same part and the whole were not logically related to each other as "Siamese twins". Social (and political) consequences of this logic are as follows: insisting on the class status of workers and peasants, the author takes the intelligentsia out of the loop of class analysis, taking off her class responsible for its contribution to socialism. And since this responsibility is removed from the intelligentsia as such, then eventually - and with this her squad, as administrators and technical managers. Does this mean that the former can, as an approach requires a class, evaluate the cases and the latter ... well, even though the words? And there are not rehabilitated involuntarily such an understanding of the class approach, where it mixes with the name calling? Explain these apparent contradictions in the concept of the author may be only one: to conduct a class approach he lacked what Marx called "the power of abstraction in the analysis of forms of social life. But not enough that's why. Of course, the classes - a large group of people. This - according to Lenin, and it - like that. However, "large groups of people" is not necessarily and not always will be a class. Growing population of pensioners, for instance ... That is one important manifestation of the class effect, Andreev tied for first place and, therefore, accept as the essence. Therefore, countermeasures and propose appropriate: "The number of Managers will be reduced so that it will not have to play a role klassovoobrazuyuschego trait. I must say that Lenin's definition of the classes given in the article is an expanded definition of what is said about it in his Anti-Duhring Engels: "The basis of division into classes is the law of division of labor." That is, to work mentally and physically, town and village, purposeful and tseleispolnyayuschy, live and experience, work as a means to live and work as the first requirement to live. "It is clear that for a complete abolition of classes, - he wrote - is necessary not only to overthrow the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, not only to cancel their property, it is necessary to cancel more and all private ownership of means of production, it is necessary to destroy the distinction between town and country and the distinction between manual and intellectual work in human beings. " In other words (and it is today infinitely important!), Private ownership of means of production is merely a special case of private ownership of human capabilities - the social division of labor, ie, private property as such. How to teach for twenty-five centuries of its existence, Philosophy, the ability of all human abilities and is culture. Simply put, culture is nothing like the ability to be able to .... The essence of the culture is such that to master it, you have to be simply a man, and by anyone. In view of this it - essentially a common property of all people. But the social division of labor, as long as it is, creates a situation fundamentally different. For example, when you possess the culture not simply because you're a man, but just because you - "intellectual". From a strictly sociological point of view (rather than the moral and psychological) to be intellectual - it means to have private ownership of culture. That's why the last bastion of private property according to Lenin, will fall only after disappear, say, the difference between a work visa and a graduate of UPI (Upper Iset Plant and the Ural Polytechnic Institute in Sverdlovsk). That is all right to deliberate on the general case. Of course, not every intelligent - a manager and not just a manager - a bureaucrat. But what exactly makes one fact, and that - that? The distinction between formal and real socialization of the means of production under socialism. That Delphic "hiatus" from which, under certain conditions, from the intellectual and can get a bureaucrat. So what do you do? - After the author ask ourselves the question. The answer is known: put the process of socialization of the workers under control themselves as organized labor. A form of self long ago suggested to us by life itself. Economically - it is a working or self-supporting team contract. Social - is a collective in a row. When the row Brigadier translated under the control of workers and the manager, and ideology, and an engineer. Politically - is the Council of the personnel, the organ of economic and political self-government workers in the enterprise. This is the replacement of people's control - the control of workers. It is, finally, re-emerged today on the lips of many Leninist Workers'. Ideologically - is the ability to see the contradictions of life from the perspective of the working class and with the same point of learning to resolve them. For, as Lenin said, who in our time talking about non-class socialism, that should be put in a cage and show how some Australian kangaroo. Molchanov, PhD Ural », № 10, 1988. Circulation 90000.
- Finally, comrades, let me ask you, have you found a market for selling their products? Again they answered "no."
- So, comrades, - said the Chairman of the CPC - Do not you think that you are not yet ready to take the plant right now in their hands? Come back home and start over all this work. It will not be easy, you'll sometimes be wrong, but gain the knowledge and experience. A few months later come back, and then we can revisit the issue of nationalizing your plant ... " Such is the remarkable was the conversation. Now, after 70 years, we can summarize how it was executed, this Leninist council workers: do not delude formal socialization of the means of production become the real owners, ie socialize it in practice. Or, in other words, according to the rules of the science of communism - to build a complete socialism. Find an answer to this question and tried to Andreev, the author of "Causes and Consequences. Disputes on the subject of inevitable. But one thing is certain: The author undertook the rehabilitation of the class approach to socialism. And this is - a real feat of civil, if judged by the standards of today. And here's why. To put it bluntly, this approach is in front of our social consciousness is strongly compromised. With the help of the whole system "argument." What is it? Yes, here they are. Argument one: we are building communism. Communism - a classless society. Therefore, the closer we are to social homogeneity, the more distant from the class approach. For erasing class distinctions - it does not class struggle. Argument Two: History tells us that the birth of class society and European civilization was due to excesses. Of them, say, hit and founder of the Spartan state legislator Lycurgus. One day his father, raznimaya fighting citizens got hit with a kitchen knife and died. Hence the conclusion: if the class struggle in human history occurred in the form of stabbing, the "knife fight" in its essence and is the class struggle. And what a decent person favors stabbing! So what to choose: either a class approach, or humanism. Argument Three: if worker owns his Marxist-Leninist ideology, it is - a man conscious. Conscious whoever culture. And as a culture by its very professional position has an intellectual. Consequently, it is best known intellectuals, as it is and how best to equip our socialism. Argument four: to use a class approach, you must be a graduate, the social scientist. If someone is not being what it is, suddenly dares to use a class approach to life "without permission", then it immediately fall broadside, suspicion and stigmatization. Well, such as "subjective method in sociology", the call to "crush" non-class and non-party (see, for example, an article of Professor VG Nesterov "The democratic culture and the culture of democracy" in the newspaper Ural worker " on March 15, 1988.) Meanwhile, use a class approach - it means simply to think. That is, the various facts to see the unity of the whole. Behind the words - thoughts. The thoughts - the case, and for business - interests. Do not hesitate when followers say differently. But make no mistake, if people with obviously different interests alike say. Literate class approach - not the same thing as "an approach certified. Apply it correctly - it means to distinguish between people on the facts, their actions, not by "labels". But just on a solid factual basis and built the entire journal article. Now on the results. You can criticize them differently. Can be "left", but you can "right." Right = a itself an attempt to class analysis of socialism or for the fact that this analysis is "no demand". Left - because this analysis performed consistently enough, not properly, or else because he was not held until the end. I will say this: under the pressure of the facts of real life the author was largely correct results. But was not so much how much contrary to his method of analysis. And evidence of this fact is the apparent contradiction of the author himself as himself. So, insisting on the class status of the existing current production and management staff, the author rightly observes: "fused together managers and engineering staff of production currently is not separated from each other, like Siamese twins with the general circulation." But here's a short time later he makes an unexpected conclusion: "The intelligentsia is not a class." A reasonable question arises: is not an intellectual, technical and engineering employees? And is a professional manager - is also not an intellectual? Is not belong to the intelligentsia password to log into the bosom of its two largest units, which combined, according to the very same author, a distinct class interest. Here the author's answer: "Intellectuals therefore can not be a single class, that its disparate groups occupy different places in the production system." Than a response that does not satisfy us? Yes, that argument about whether it can be a single class, spoofed the most interesting question: whether a class of herself? If it is not a "single class", what prevents it from being the "class nonuniqueness? Or, conversely, helps her to be. I do not know how readers, and it reminds me so that's a logical move: if the porridge is edible, the food here is edible is not ... Each of the "twins" (porridge and meat, an engineer and an intellectual) has received here, as it were his own "logical circulation. Or that the same part and the whole were not logically related to each other as "Siamese twins". Social (and political) consequences of this logic are as follows: insisting on the class status of workers and peasants, the author takes the intelligentsia out of the loop of class analysis, taking off her class responsible for its contribution to socialism. And since this responsibility is removed from the intelligentsia as such, then eventually - and with this her squad, as administrators and technical managers. Does this mean that the former can, as an approach requires a class, evaluate the cases and the latter ... well, even though the words? And there are not rehabilitated involuntarily such an understanding of the class approach, where it mixes with the name calling? Explain these apparent contradictions in the concept of the author may be only one: to conduct a class approach he lacked what Marx called "the power of abstraction in the analysis of forms of social life. But not enough that's why. Of course, the classes - a large group of people. This - according to Lenin, and it - like that. However, "large groups of people" is not necessarily and not always will be a class. Growing population of pensioners, for instance ... That is one important manifestation of the class effect, Andreev tied for first place and, therefore, accept as the essence. Therefore, countermeasures and propose appropriate: "The number of Managers will be reduced so that it will not have to play a role klassovoobrazuyuschego trait. I must say that Lenin's definition of the classes given in the article is an expanded definition of what is said about it in his Anti-Duhring Engels: "The basis of division into classes is the law of division of labor." That is, to work mentally and physically, town and village, purposeful and tseleispolnyayuschy, live and experience, work as a means to live and work as the first requirement to live. "It is clear that for a complete abolition of classes, - he wrote - is necessary not only to overthrow the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, not only to cancel their property, it is necessary to cancel more and all private ownership of means of production, it is necessary to destroy the distinction between town and country and the distinction between manual and intellectual work in human beings. " In other words (and it is today infinitely important!), Private ownership of means of production is merely a special case of private ownership of human capabilities - the social division of labor, ie, private property as such. How to teach for twenty-five centuries of its existence, Philosophy, the ability of all human abilities and is culture. Simply put, culture is nothing like the ability to be able to .... The essence of the culture is such that to master it, you have to be simply a man, and by anyone. In view of this it - essentially a common property of all people. But the social division of labor, as long as it is, creates a situation fundamentally different. For example, when you possess the culture not simply because you're a man, but just because you - "intellectual". From a strictly sociological point of view (rather than the moral and psychological) to be intellectual - it means to have private ownership of culture. That's why the last bastion of private property according to Lenin, will fall only after disappear, say, the difference between a work visa and a graduate of UPI (Upper Iset Plant and the Ural Polytechnic Institute in Sverdlovsk). That is all right to deliberate on the general case. Of course, not every intelligent - a manager and not just a manager - a bureaucrat. But what exactly makes one fact, and that - that? The distinction between formal and real socialization of the means of production under socialism. That Delphic "hiatus" from which, under certain conditions, from the intellectual and can get a bureaucrat. So what do you do? - After the author ask ourselves the question. The answer is known: put the process of socialization of the workers under control themselves as organized labor. A form of self long ago suggested to us by life itself. Economically - it is a working or self-supporting team contract. Social - is a collective in a row. When the row Brigadier translated under the control of workers and the manager, and ideology, and an engineer. Politically - is the Council of the personnel, the organ of economic and political self-government workers in the enterprise. This is the replacement of people's control - the control of workers. It is, finally, re-emerged today on the lips of many Leninist Workers'. Ideologically - is the ability to see the contradictions of life from the perspective of the working class and with the same point of learning to resolve them. For, as Lenin said, who in our time talking about non-class socialism, that should be put in a cage and show how some Australian kangaroo. Molchanov, PhD Ural », № 10, 1988. Circulation 90000.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий