The Resurrection of Titanic. Mark Boykov

of this struggle, bellows, blowing from the personal plans and calculations, to try to temper the excessive heat of the battles. But Stalin himself was an ardent fighter, often exceeding the integrity for the sake of intransigence.

      Certainly, he could not completely stop this struggle: it still would have continued. But, as the supreme leader, he had to keep it under control to avoid natural expansion and toughening, transfer to the «class», controlled by somebody else, course. Fighting the enemies and the struggle between the comrades in the party /for the best performance, for personal success/ are two different things. But in this fight, when leaders became rivals, they began to think more about themselves than about the people. And this was natural. They did it not out of malice, not out of blood lust. They did it not to fall, not to be supine, to have more influence and greater protection from a higher level.

      The person just cannot be his/her own enemy. And he/she cannot wait when the main leaders of the country comprehend the problems of the new society. And he/she works with everybody to find solutions to common tasks. So, this happened not because the communists were bad, but because they did not know about the crossing and the pitfalls on their way. However, the present liberals, who want to turn history backward, also do not know this.

      And this is not a tragedy yet. When did the leaders /especially the appointed ones/ think more about people than about themselves? So: only a few of them, and sometimes. And only exceptions suffered for people. For example, Christ. Therefore, the masses were worshiping him. Those, who are from the lower class, and not from the upper class, usually think more about people. But when human needs are growing, and «benefactors» are going crazy of consumer ambitions, then the people are coming out to the barricades. Call-signs to the barricades of 1991 were set, strangely enough, in 1936 with the adoption of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, which was proposed by Stalin at the Extraordinary VIII Congress of Soviets of the Soviet Union, reporting on the victory of socialism.

      The thing is, and it is necessary to pay special attention to it, that according to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, socialism is created from the transitional period by the classless society. In confirmation, not referring to new sources, for continuity of reading, I shall again cite at least a few sound quotes to avert reproaches or suspicion of a defect of the problem. This has been discussed for decades, but there is no response. Nobody supports or refutes, i.e. everybody remain silent. It is a matter of principle. As if one can get away from the truth, having put up with the conscience!

      K. Marx in his letter to J. Weydemeyer wrote: «…the dictatorship itself makes the only transition to the destruction of classes and society without classes» (2). It has been discussed already but it still gives food for thought! That is, after the dictatorship of the proletariat, the society becomes classless.

      F. Engels: «The proletariat takes the state power and turns the means of production first into the state property. Thereby the proletariat destroys itself as a proletariat, and it destroys all class distinctions and class contrasts, as well as the state as a state» (3). In short, it is alleged that the seizure of power and the socialization of the means of production – the process of complete, including in «itself», destruction of classes.

      And here is what the Marxist Ulyanov (Lenin) wrote on this account:

      «Everyone knows that Marxism is a theoretical justification of the destruction of classes» (4). Like this: no more, no less. The final definition!

      «The dominance of van guard of all the workers and the exploited ones, i.e. the proletariat, is necessary at this transitional period for the complete destruction of classes…» (5). Note: for complete, not for partial. How can any class be left after the «complete» destruction?

      «Society, which still has the class difference between a worker and a peasant, is neither communist nor socialist» (6). What more can one say here? Lenin was very accurate and eloquent.

      «We have the class struggle, and our goal is to destroy classes. As long as we have workers and peasants, socialism will remain unfulfilled» (7).

      «…Socialism will be possible only when there will be no classes when all the means of production are in the hands of the workers» (8). This is, in fact, the criterion of the classless society! Socialism accepts a society with no classes.

      «There will be the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then there will be the classless society» (9).

      In one of his speeches before the workers Lenin expressed himself even more categorically: «When passing your room, I saw the poster with the inscription: «The kingdom of workers and peasants will last forever». And… when I read this strange poster, I thought: there are our misinterpretations and misunderstandings here with on some elementary and fundamental things. In fact, if the kingdom of workers and peasants lasted forever, it would mean that there would never be socialism. As socialism means the destruction of classes, and as long as workers and peasants remain, different classes will be too, and, therefore, there may not be complete socialism» (10).

      And it was written in the Program of the Party in 1919. (V. I. Lenin. Complete Works, vol. 38, p. 86, 105, 419). Stalin himself supported it. In his article «Problems of Leninism» in 1926 he called the dictatorship of the proletariat «the power… for the destruction of classes, for the transition to the classless society, to the socialist society» (11). He mentioned this in «Report to the Seventeenth Party Congress on January 26, 1934»: «Let's take, for example, the problem of building a classless socialist society. The Seventeenth Party Congress said that we were going to create a classless, socialist society» (12).

      Everything seemed to be going well, according to the program and in agreement with the historical logic. In fact, if one destroys the slaveholder as a class, can one keep a slave? Certainly, no. Whose slave is he/she going to become, if there is no a slaveholder?… If the serfdom is abolished, can one save the landlord and peasantry as classes? No! The peasants will remain, but will no longer be the class of the feudal society. They will form the layer, disintegrating on farm workers and kulaks. In their own way, they will segregate, become declassed, and the landlords will find another place in the changing society. Well, if the capitalists are eliminated, can one save the wage work as a class? No! Workers will remain not as a class but one of the layers of the work force. The recruitment, as the clerical act, cannot be confused with wage work in the sense of social status.

      If the exploiting classes are eliminated, the exploited ones will be automatically eliminated too. The destruction of classes is not the destruction of people, as it may seem. This is a change in ownership relations. It was discussed and described by the Marxist science. The classes appear and disappear together from the historical scene. They are formed from layers, consist of layers, and turn into layers at the end of their existence. That is the dialectic! It was captured by the Marxist science in its programs. Humankind has infinitely suffered from class divisions, class oppression, and class battles in its history, and has envisioned the coming revolution as the freedom from classes, with subsequent harmonization of human relations.

      And suddenly, after the Seventh Party Congress, Stalin announced the winning socialism to be the «class society»: with the «brand new working class», the «new Soviet peasantry», and the layer of «new work intelligentsia». What is it? How? What for? Why?…

      Everything becomes clear through the analysis of further events in the country: Stalin needed classes to retain the dictatorship of the proletariat and, consequently its position at the top. If he admitted, as was required by Marxism and the Leninist party program, socialism as a classless society, then the dictatorship of the proletariat /or at least its part: NKVD, the political surveillance, the investigation, the correctional camps/ were supposed to be dismantled, and the state of the transitional period – to be rebuilt in accordance with the requirements of the new society. As the classless society cannot be controlled like the class one. New phase – new ways of organizing society and its life.

      With the victory of socialism, according to the canons of the Marxist science, the state will have to die off /not the classes, but the state, on the basis of the absence of classes/, giving way to the general democratization and development of self-government.

      There are no classes – there is nobody to be suppressed, and there is no need to do this.