Date
Author
Сергей ПАШИН; Заслуженный Юрист Рф; Кандидат Юридических Наук; Профессор Института Экономики; Политики И Права
Source
Preserved copy
Translated material
Not just a curiosity
Professor V.A. Drozhzhin dedicated the textbook, addressed to students, graduate students, adjuncts and teachers of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, to the last years of Soviet power (1985-1991), which included Gorbachev's perestroika, the collapse of the socialist camp and the USSR. “The origins of this major event,” the author asserts, “go back to the end of the 19th century, which became the beginning of the confrontation between two ideologies - Zionism and Bolshevism” (p. 6).
Academic liberties, returned to the legal community by glasnost, allow the professor, to express himself, to amuse himself with fairy tales. However, the spread of toxic hypotheses among law enforcement officers is dangerous for their professional development, and therefore cannot go unanswered. The scientists who gave the green light to such a manuscript also need feedback.
Manuscript by V.A. Drozhzhina was published in the genre of a textbook for residents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Typically, in this kind of work, cadets, students and graduate students are presented with established, indisputable views, on which their self-awareness as professionals and cultured people should be formed from a young age. The author, however, embarked on speculations that were not shared, at least openly, by the majority of his colleagues.
It is doubtful that future investigators, detectives and teachers of police science will learn from Professor V.A.’s manual. Drozhzhina's lesson on fidelity to the oath. Employees of the Russian internal affairs bodies swear, “without sparing their lives, to protect the legal order established by the Constitution and laws of Russia.” The legal provisions and human rights that the professor attacked are the cornerstones of the constitutional system of our Fatherland.
Alas, the manual does not serve as an example of scientific correctness. The professor cites the most important normative acts of the USSR and union republics, without taking the trouble to refer to official sources of their publication, preferring, if not tabloid, then publications that are far from jurisprudence (pp. 46, 47). Such sloppiness is not encouraged even in student coursework. Much worse, however, is that V.A. Drozhzhin consistently hides the primary sources of information, slipping in texts taken from third and fourth hands. So, putting out his Mephistophelian beard, he calls “in the circle of his like-minded people” L.D. Trotsky (Bronstein) “turn Russia into a desert inhabited by white blacks” (p. 7). But we know about this historical speech not from Lev Davidovich and not from his henchmen, but through three other authors, three of whose works in turn are referred to by V.A. Drozhzhin. And did these “sources” of his copy from each other? And which of them talked with L.D.’s listeners? Trotsky or read the corresponding authentic transcript?
Referring to A.I. Solzhenitsyn, a professor, having mentioned the well-known “doctors’ case,” apparently agrees that “the release from custody and the extrajudicial acquittal of the doctors were perceived by the older generation of Soviet Jews as a repetition of the Purim miracle.” Many Orthodox people, including my grandmother Ekaterina Nikolaevna Lukina, prayed in those days for the sending of this miracle. She then worked at the Institute. Serbian. I remember her story from my school days. When one of her bosses, Dr. V., returned from prison, the institute's medical staff surrounded him. Someone asked why he, an innocent man, confessed during the investigation. The doctor did not answer, he only extended his hands forward with torn nails under which needles were driven.
The book, which claims to be a scientific analysis of historical facts, is similar to a police baton - straight, blunt-ended, black and white. The author’s position is expressed by two main theses: 1) Soviet society “reached its highest development in the period preceding “perestroika”,” and therefore did not need perestroika (pp. 4, 27); 2) the collapse of the USSR “managed to accomplish world Zionism” (p. 55). Any person who remembers kilometer-long queues, “sausage” trains, registration according to the limit, censorship, elections without choice, “Pravda” without news and “Izvestia” without truth, the arbitrariness of the competent authorities, star-bearing and tongue-tied leaders will not agree with the first statement. The second statement relies mainly on a retelling of the genealogy of Garber's comrade, called Gorbachev (p. 19). The text mixes up the destructive plans of “world Zionism,” “US political intelligence,” the CIA and the Freemasons. The Council on Foreign Relations, which operated in the United States during the Second World War, is referred to by the professor, not in a rhetorical frenzy, but quite seriously, as a Masonic lodge (p. 14).
Taking an excursion into the selected historical period, V.A. Drozhzhin leads the reader along a tortuous and inscrutable path, stumbling every minute, especially when the professor proceeds to analyze legislation. “The subsequent activities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR were aimed at the disintegration of the country,” writes V.A. Drozhzhin. - ...Attention should be paid to the unprecedented destructive power of laws and other acts adopted by the highest bodies of power and administration” (p. 43, 56). And then, as examples of such murderous acts, ... laws on people's freedoms are given: on the procedure for appealing to the court against unlawful actions of state bodies and officials; on the procedure for organizing rallies and demonstrations; on citizenship of the USSR; about printing; about public associations; about individual labor activity; about property. Tremble, fellow citizens: it turns out that, according to the professor, harmful, “The USSR Law... of December 26, 1990 allowed benefits for certain categories of citizens only on the basis of the law” (it smelled of deprivation of the “Kremlin” and special distributors); “From December 1, 1990...the amount of state child care benefits increased to the level of the minimum wage.” This is still nothing. And what kind of a villain do you have to be in order to abolish in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR “articles on violating the rules of the passport system and engaging in vagrancy”, and also reduce the number of “crimes for which the death penalty was provided”!
I confess, working in the Legislation Committee of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, it was I who prepared amendments to the Criminal Code, adopted on December 5, 1991, and they stopped shooting people for non-violent crimes and putting people in prison for not having a stamp in their passport. In Russia, which was taken from us in 1917, there was no death penalty even for murder, and gallows were not erected for “guild workers” and currency exchangers. As for the tramps, compassionate Russian juries everywhere acquitted the violators of passport rules, and cases of “crimes against the order of government” had to be removed from the jurisdiction of the jury.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the rights of Soviet citizens, for whom legal guarantees were belatedly created in the laws condemned by the professor, were formally recognized both in the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 and in the ratified International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which entered into force in 1976, and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It turns out that as soon as the Soviet government kept some of its promises, the system of state suppression began to crack at all the seams, and then turned to dust...
They say that literature is not a medicine, but a pain. In the book by V.A. Yeast has a lot of pain, hatred and powerless threats. She is not just a curiosity, but truly a benefit. For social psychologists.