Ordinary manager

From the editorial office. On December 18-19, a conference was held at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, dedicated to the 125th anniversary of the birth of I.V. Stalin and dedicated to the creative heritage of the leader. The philosopher Zinoviev stigmatized the Westnism, the communist Tulkin stigmatized the communist Zyuganov for the betrayal of ideals, the deputy chairman of the Belgian Communist Party read out the report on behalf of his chef, apologizing to the audience for the fact that Comrade Martens himself could not arrive, as he was in the Congois comrades in the national consumption struggle against the American imperialism and its Rwandian hires.

In the backdrop in the conference hall, in the place where the icon of Lenin is usually in such meetings, this time a huge image of the leader of the peoples hung. However, it is not a canonical portrait of the 30s, but a photograph taken in young years, with which the unshaven face of Caucasian nationality looked into the hall with prickly evil eyes. And under it right on the fabric of the curtains of the primotan are lonely cloves with threads.

This text is also dedicated to the anniversary of Stalin. Although, probably, his main task is not so much again to recall on the occasion about the person who turned out to be a politician ╧1 of the outgoing century as to open a new topic. To talk about the fact that his image in the 21st century will probably have nothing to do with those cliches that the past rewarded with - no matter what kind of sign.

Whether we want it or not, but Dzhugashvili -Stalin, undoubtedly, is one of the iconic figures of Russian history. One publicist spoke out somehow that "Stalin is a promoted brand, the demand for which will not disappear soon." I do not agree. Demand for Stalin in some form will always exist. Our man is still interested in the personality of Ivan the Terrible, although how many centuries have passed. Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin is not just historical figures, these are symbols. And, as it happens with any symbol, no longer real characters, but mythological.

The cult of the personality of Stalin was revived thanks to his "revelations" in the perestroika period. Stalin was declared the embodiment of absolute evil. He became a universal cause of all our hardships and disasters, just like a Mongol-Tatar yoke. For this last, over the past years, it is difficult to blame for all the misfortunes of Russia, but on Stalin - just right. And although the carrier of the sadomasochistic anti -Stalinism of our intelligentsia has already passed, so far many historians and publicists cannot write about Stalin without emotions. They are still under the charm of this person. After all, the villain can also impress. In this regard, many Stalinists are much more frank than anti -Stalinists. They do not hide that in Stalin they are attracted by political cunning, cruelty, merciless, will to power. Anti -Stalinists attract the same thing, only they are ashamed to admit it.

The popularity of Stalin with a plus sign has increased according to the law of counteraction, due to the reproach to which his name has been subjected to recent decades. But - an amazing thing! - Stalinists use the image of Stalin, created by his critics, only try to give him a positive shade. On Stalin, not historical addictions, not political ideologies came together on Stalin. In Stalin, swords of various worldviews are honed - which seems evil to one, the other is seen by good. And very rarely, someone has the question so far: maybe Stalin is not at all the same? And although the liberation from the cult of the personality of Stalin is already noticeable for some unbiased research of recent years (see, e.g., Yu.V. Emelyanov. Stalin: the path to power. M., 2003; his own. Stalin: at the top of the authorities. M., 2003), it has not yet become the property of most writing and reading public.

Yes, and it is unlikely to become. Stalin is really a brand, whatever you say. How many historians will not prove with the facts in their hands that there it was not at all the same as they imagined, there will always be those who ignore the obvious truth and will chew the old tyaglemotin about the “great tyrant” or “great leaders” (but every time about the great!), About “millions of innocently killed” or about “inspirers of all our victories”. The business of such entities is to artificially maintain public interest in the object of their attention, created by their imagination.

If Stalin had not been in our history, he would have been invented anyway. Just as Karamzin came up with the dramatic image of Ivan the Terrible in teaching future sovereigns. In history, as in literature, everything should be clear and beautiful, otherwise people will not perceive this. There are heroes and anti -Heroes, black black without lumen, and white should shine with an unseducked whiteness. Black and white bearers can be rearranged in places, but the essence of the moralizing will not change from this.

The Manichaean way of thinking was so rooted in our minds that the majority somehow do not perceive facts that do not fit into the usual image of the embodiment of evil. And historians who mines these facts hardly find their place, they say about them casually, hints, or give a knowingly no -term explanation of the type: "In principle, this is good, but because Stalin did it is bad."

The directive of Stalin of June 29, 1941, which really inspired the country to a selfless struggle with the enemy, was not so fashionable to interpret as a "order on scorched land", allegedly condemning millions of civilians to death death under the German occupation. But the order of Stalin, who ordered not to take the necessary agricultural inventory, food supplies, personal cattle and poultry from the population remaining in the occupied territory, is very rare. Historians mentioned him once (in the 4th volume of the Great Patriotic War. M., 1998) and forgot.

They also rarely recall that Stalin was an opponent of the unconditional surrender of Germany and at the Tehran Conference raised this question before the allies, but they did not want to hear. Still: after all, the whole severity of losses carried the Soviet people. The adoption of Stalin’s proposal would save millions of human lives. But if they talk about this, then as a rule in the way that Stalin de secretly sympathized with Hitler ... It is known that Stalin was by no means the most zealous supporter of the quick collectivization, that he was the only one at the Politburo against deaths to many “pests” and “enemies of the people”, that he was a consistent of international legitimacy and completely abandoned the “world revolution” that he was in advance. Alternative elections to the Supreme Council ... Well, how can it be, because Stalin is a priori bad.

That's who turned out to be more alive than all the living! Not only that, he also multiplied. Now two Stalin live - bad and good. Well, just like Peter the Great - Antichrist and converter. One Stalin is woven entirely of negative facts, the other from the facts of the above genus. And it will be difficult for them to merge together!

Stalin, to some extent, the victim of his own cult, created not by him, but the people who always want to see at the top of power the center of all virtues. In that era, the massive stress expectation of a fair leader reached an exaltation. All - the Bolsheviks, and the townsfolk, and the hidden "enemies of the people" are equally exhausted by the continuous revolution, which lasted from 1905 to 1933, turned their hope to the ruler, in which the apparent reassurance finally occurred. The object of the personality cult was not Stalin, but the ideal best qualities of the leader, with which the popular performance endowed the leader of the Bolshevik party, because there was no one else to project them on. The cult of the personality of Stalin is a product of the myth -free myths of the people, and the myth -making myth -hearted, childish, beautiful, beautiful in their spiritual simplicity.

Was Stalin a really good leader and organizer? Stalinists and anti -Stalinists, of course, have no need to ask about this. Both those and others will call to look according to the results. At the same time, some will point out the superpower, the won war, the powerful industry, the atomic bomb, and finally at the UN (although a really useless organization, the fruit of the dream of the kingdom of God on earth; but this dream, perhaps, characterizes Stalin most brightly). Others will just as correctly say about ruined agriculture, failures of five -year -olds, miscalculations in preparation for the war, the absence of a prepared successor. It was both. But how much of this was all the result of Stalin's acts?

The scale of time and space is overwhelmed by the personal qualities of the leader. The philistine illusion - as if the leader of a huge country has huge opportunities to influence the situation. The gardener in his garden is much more omnipotent than the dictator in the state. The will of the leader is distorted exactly as many times as the atoms-human units perform it. The qualities of the leader are more clearly manifested in the work of a small one, in a low post, where it is precisely the work of a person is visible, and not the vague geological movement of the gigantic layers of human masses.

The rise of Stalin in the party began with the creation of him in 1909-10. A powerful Bolshevik organization in Baku. But before the revolution, the theorists were mainly enjoyed by recognition of the RSDLP. The 1917 revolution requested practitioners. Stalin was not such a deep theorist and tactician of the revolution as Lenin, such an inspirer of masses as Trotsky. He was a zealous performer, and only within the framework that the position allowed him to show initiative and independence. But he turned out to be really conscientious and hardworking, and the further, the more the party entrusted him with posts. In the early 20s, Stalin combined three positions at once, and all-an organizational and technical nature. Is this not the recognition of his qualities of the leader? When Lenin's associates began a bite for power, taking advantage of the habits of the revolutionary era, Stalin did what he was familiar - routine bureaucratic work. It happened that it was precisely such a work that was in place and time. The ordinary party mass, tired of the revolution, turned away from the noisy Trotsky and Zinovievs with their locomotive organizational efficiency and went to serve with the amplifying, modest, demanding, but qualified manager of the construction of socialism in a single country.

I will take the courage to argue that few of the figures of the revolution could make a career in a stable time. Lenin tried to become a lawyer - a lawyer came out of him mediocre. Trotsky could not become a successful businessman. Most professional revolutionaries flew off like a husk, as soon as Russia had a revolutionary fever. They did not need a company, and the general manager, excuse me - the Secretary General, fired them. Well, the form in which the dismissal took place was, you must agree, provided for by the contract.

Who could Stalin be in today's Russia? I think that his qualities could well provide him with a career in some large company. His ability to innovative introduction, analysis and forecast would allow him to occupy a prominent senior post on which he would look much less demonic than, say, Chubais. He could fulfill his mother’s order and make a spiritual career, reaching by the end of the life of San Metropolitan. He could have become a deputy of the State Duma on some party list, but he would hardly have been broken into the heads of the state. He would be wiped with people who are much more unprincipled in the struggle for power. Stalin was a grandmaster of Kelena and hardware policy, but the element of public democracy with its wolf laws was not for him.

An idle lesson - to calculate what Stalin had more - success or miscalculations, as well as weigh the evil and genius of this person. Who needs, his deeds have long been balanced, as a result of which Stalin’s soul is always found where the eyes of living people have been ordered.