Who was Lenin Roosevelt
Stalin and Roosevelt. A comparison of plan and project for the transformation of nature
Scientific article, 2015
Marxism, which proclaimed a universal proletarian revolution in the middle of the 19th century as a result of the industrial revolution in the "German Ideology" written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels around the turn of the year 1845/46, almost two years later in writing " Principles of Communism "by Engels alone, at least in the four most advanced countries (England, France, America, Germany), saw themselves turned upside down by Leninism. On the basis of his analysis of imperialism, which showed an unevenness in the economic and thus also political development of the countries, Lenin considered the outbreak of a proletarian revolution in only one country to be the typical case. In the last seven years of his life he had to witness how the proletarian revolution he longed for took place in a large, but economically very backward agricultural country with a high rate of illiteracy, especially among the peasants who formed the vast majority of the people. Perhaps more than once Lenin may have remembered Alexander Herz’s sentence that the man of the future is the peasant in Russia as he is the worker in France. 1. In order to build a socialist economy, state capitalism was resorted to as a makeshift in the NEP period, but not to a classic, but to something completely new, a state capitalism under communism. Logically, in the political report at the XI. Party congress of the KPR (B) from the fact that we do not find a single word and not a single quote in Marx about a state capitalism of this kind. "So now we have to try to help ourselves". XXX Lenin, Political Report on the XI. Party convention of the KPR (B), in: Lenin, Selected Works Volume 2, Verlag für foreignsprachige Literatur, Moscow 1947,927 XXX In the middle of the 20th century, when Mao proclaimed the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949, the heavyweight The proletarian revolution once again fell into a rural mass movement in a large empire, through which, as in the Russian October Revolution, the criterion of a successful revolution set up by Marx against Bakunin at the turn of 1874/75, that the proletariat occupy an important position in the mass of the people must, was not fulfilled. Lenin's famous sentence from his political report at the XI was valid for both China and Russia. Party conference of the KPR (B), which took place in 1922: "The communists are a drop in the sea, a drop in the sea of people". (Lenin, Political Report on the XI. Parteritag of the KPR (B), in: Lenin, Aisgewandte Werke, Volume 2, Publishing House for Foreign Language Literature, Moscow, 1947,938). However, both the shift of the revolutionary focus to the East and its heavy formation through the rural element attack the core substance of Marxism itself, which very essentially also consists in the interlinked development of industrial and social revolution. As modern industry develops and grows, workers' coalitions become stronger. “This is so much the case today that the degree of development of the coalitions in a country indicates precisely the position that it occupies in the hierarchy of the world market. England, where industry is most developed, has the largest and best organized coalitions ”. 2. In view of the awakening of the peoples in the East, the thesis was called into question that a certain level of industrial productive forces is to be regarded as decisive for the success of a proletarian revolution. After the outbreak of the Hungarian revolution, Lenin assigned it a greater role model function for the Western proletariat than the Russian one. In 1931, Wittfogel in his work “Economy and Society of China” described Russia and China as “hydraulic dictatorships” in connection with his theory of Asian despotism. As dictatorships of the proletariat and the poor peasants they were economically centralized on points seven, eight and nine of the manifesto of the Communist Party, in which the revolutionaries, among other things, on the reclamation and improvement of the lands according to a common plan, on the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture, on the unification of the Farming and industry and working towards the gradual elimination of the difference between town and country. The Maoist 'Great Leap Forward' in 1958 was the hasty attempt to cast off the rural character of the Chinese revolution and to reduce, if not to bridge, the discrepancy to classical Marxism; perhaps it was not by chance that they wanted English steel production, i.e. that of the classical country of capitalism until 1973 with 40 million tons. The term 'great leap forward' may not only have a Maoist connotation. Circumstances could be brought up which make it possible to portray the October Revolution in the land of the Mushik as such. According to Lenin's own words at the tenth party congress of the KPR (B), this was not possible without dreamers. And when, only six years after the horror scenarios of the most terrible world war, Stalin is praised as the 'builder of communism' - Klaus Gestwa speaks of a “somersault from the ruins of post-war society to communism”. 5., Crutschow announced ten years later at the 22nd party congress that it would soon overtake the USA economically (dognat 'i peregnat'), in order to admit it from 1980 onwards under communism, in which, according to Mayakovsky, “there will be many songs and poems” live - shouldn't these considerations all be understood as leaps and bounds that fascinate us because they are dictated by dialectics as a deeply inner, restless movement that works 4. miracles? Born on March 9, 1934 in the village of Kluschino as the son of a muschik and a milkmaid, Gagarin made the greatest leap forward in space exploration. A close connection between communism and the conquest of space with a relatively new spatial orientation had established itself very early in the Soviet Union, especially through the founder of Soviet astronautics Konstantin Ciolkovskij, who died in 1935. In any case, space in Russia seems to have a much deeper and more extensive intensity than in Western Europe, which the fascist space experts had missed.
Even the utopian socialist Charles Fourier spoke of the “marvels of industry” and recognized that the rapidly developing modern industry produces the elements of happiness, but not happiness itself. In 1844, the 24-year-old Friedrich Engels exclaimed enthusiastically: “That of humanity Productive force standing under command is immeasurable ”. 6. But bourgeois society is one based on the commodity of labor, in which people disappear in the face of work. "Time is everything, man is nothing, he is at most the embodiment of time". 7. In world history, the industrial revolution centered on Western Europe with its devaluation of working people did not result in a proletarian revolution predicted by the socialist classics in this part of the world, but in the other, in a large, but backward agricultural country. Every successful revolution that involves progress in the development of mankind not only brings about a political and moral upswing of the people, but also a tremendous development of the productive forces, large-scale production along with the centralization of power, an abolition of the fragmentation of the productive forces. The communist works towards a gradual abolition of the antagonism between town and country, the first great division of labor, as the abolition of the industrial exploitation of agriculture. In the Anti-Dühring, Engels speaks of the “downfall of the big cities”. 8. In the Russian Soviet Republic the main concern was to secure the material basis of large-scale industry, and a core problem, if not the core problem of the October Revolution, was the increase in labor productivity. "The Russian man is a bad worker in comparison with the advanced nations". 9. This sentence does not come from the mouth of a Russian capitalist, but from the pen of Lenin, who saw in this specifically Russian backwardness the most difficult problem of the October Revolution, the solution of which would take decades. A higher labor productivity in comparison with capitalism was for Lenin the decisive criterion for the superiority of socialism, which is why the “subbotniks” were so eminently important. Thirty years after the October Revolution, in just two years from October 1948 to the end of 1950, the Soviet government published a rapid series of large-scale plans for the transformation of nature and the landscape, which was unprecedented in the world at the time and which was called the "Stalin Plan of Nature Conversion" (Stalinskij plan preobrazovanija pirody) went down in history parallel to the “Stalin's large buildings of communism” (Stalinskie Velikie Strojki Kommunizma), which offered the prospect of an “electrification of the way of life” through a water transport system connecting five seas. Lenin's party worked to lay the material and technical foundations for building communism. The propaganda portrayed it as "the struggle with the forces of nature: with the black storms and dry winds, with summer heat and snowstorms, with the destructive spring waters and the advance of the flying sand". 10. In 1938, in the "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course", Stalin had put the simple sentence on paper in the chapter on dialectical and historical materialism: "People fight against nature ..." . 11. That became increasingly programmatic, ten years later the “fight with nature” had become an everyday slogan, which was partly wrapped in martial language (“... mighty future battle against nature”). The mother of Stalin was still the serf of a kulak, the hitherto conscious and largest systematic redesign of nature and the landscape in world history bore the (cover) name of her son, who was initially called Josef Wissarionowitsch Dschugaschwilli after his birth and according to the wishes of his mother Should have become a priest. In 1951 the son of a cobbler was glorified on a famous poster as the 'great builder of communism'. One spoke of Prometheus and of the "springtime of mankind". The eyes of the Soviet peoples were turned to the future, and forgotten were the bitter words of Lermontov: “I look at my sex with sorrow! What lies in front of him - is dark and empty ”. Once work is freed from the wage dictatorship, the present rules over the past. The country that had been the bulwark of European reaction in the 19th century and which, as a result of the Second World War, had sunk itself almost religiously into the times of Nevski and Suvorov, saw itself in the 20th century as the avant-garde of progressive humanity. Everything seemed possible. Both after the first and after the second world war we can follow an exuberant enthusiasm in the Russian Communist Party (since 1922 CPSU): After the first, it was under the spell of one due to the “almost playful” October Revolution (“only” six dead) immediate expectation of socialism and prosperity; after the second, despite the exhaustion of the country, under the spell of an imminent transformation of socialism into communism connected with prosperity. Despite initial delays (NEP / reconstruction of the country destroyed by the Wehrmacht west of Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad according to the scorched earth policy), Lenin's words initially seemed to be true that after a revolution a rapid development of the productive forces would set in. In terms of culture of remembrance, the Second World War with 27 million dead Soviet citizens will have an ever more lasting impact on the peoples of the East than the October Revolution with its six deaths. The war had shown once again with unparalleled urgency what Marx and Engels understood by "previous history" at the beginning of their manifesto, now a future was to be shaped as a farewell to this. The start of the large-scale projects was also a work against the memory of the atrocities of war caused by counter-revolutionary troops; it was a sunrise after the black, blood-filled night of war, in which there was no ray of hope, no ray into the future, but where it was all about survival. Now it was about the birth of the 'New Man' longed for by the revolutionaries, for whom the world war was to be a long way off. 12. This 'New Man' (tvorec-celovek) was a collective man. Such large-scale projects as the two Stalin plans could not exist in the implementation of a bourgeois revolution, which as a revolution of bourgeois society was primarily always a political one and the meaning of the Individual put in the spotlight. The propagandist proclaimed citizen of the world (Citoyen) was in reality demoted from 1789 to the servant of this selfish man. For Saint-Simon, liberalism was decadent. From its own self-image, the bourgeois is always light years away from collectivism. That is why Anne Applebaum babbled about an “ideology of state slavery” 13. Under Stalin and Klaus Gestwa had nothing else to do than to quickly compile this antiquity from her. 14. It would also be political romanticism to connect the plans named after Stalin in some way with the old collectivism of the Russian village community, which had always remained withdrawn and did not look beyond the village outskirts. In the middle of the 19th century, Alexander Herzen could only see the future of Russia in the peasant, with Lenin's work, “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”, published in the last year of the century, it was indicated that the development of Russia was also embarking on an urban-industrial path becomes. And on this lie Stalin's plans for the transformation of nature and the large buildings of communism. The worship of nature in the bourgeois Enlightenment as a reflex of a still agriculturally dominated society was broken hands. In order to follow the complex and breathtaking process of the transformation of nature and the landscape, which is also to be seen in connection with the fact that Siberia can be assessed as one of the richest mineral treasuries in the world, it is appropriate to look at the handling of nature to begin tsarism, whose Romanov dynasty had tormented the country for 300 years.
So the first question to be asked is the environmental policy that was pursued for decades before the October Revolution. We know how tsarism dealt with Russia's natural treasures. For example, excessive timber exports and the need for wood during the expansion of the railway network led to a veritable deforestation of large areas; The Petersburg aristocratic clique was concerned with more or less aesthetic things instead of the thought of the planned reforestation of the clearcuts. As early as 1893, Friedrich Engels wrote “Can Europe disarm?” pointed out the devastating consequences of this overexploitation: rain and snow water was not absorbed, brooks and rivers swelled to floods. In summer, however, the soil moisture sank, making it inaccessible for the roots of the grain stalks. Famine in large areas was the result, just remember the so-called “bad year” of 1891, in which the farmers' livestock decreased rapidly. 15. August Bebel also referred to the influence of the forest on the moisture development in the region in his book “Die Frau und der Sozialismus”. In the book by Parvus and Dr. Lehmann “The Starving Russia” states that the poor harvests are essentially related to the excessive deforestation. Over time, five small rivers and six lakes disappeared in the Stavropol district, four rivers and four lakes in the Buzuluk district, six small rivers in the Samara district and two small rivers in the Buguruslaw district. Villages had lost running water and in some regions water was only found after sixty meters of drilling. As a result, the soil became hard and cracked. As the forests fell, the springs gradually dried up and the rains diminished. 16. “Ravaging and washing away of the fertile black earth soil, the formation of drifting sand, the lowering of the groundwater level led to the destruction of the traditionally fertile areas in the southwest ... to periodically recurring droughts, poor harvests and thus famine. The advance of the steppe seemed unstoppable. " 17. Due to the lack of forest areas, the dry winter winds (suchovej) from Siberia were able to sweep away the protective snow cover of the winter seeds unhindered, so that the soil was not soaked by the meltwater in spring. In summer the fields were without protection against the hot east winds coming from the steppes of Central Asia.Failures which, however, should not be restricted to Russia. The Italians in the Alps, for example, used the fir forests and thereby destroyed their dairy farming, to name just one of many examples.
Dokuchayev (1846 to 1903) had already undertaken experiments with forest protection strips before 1917. But it was only the Soviet power that reissued his writings and put his plans into practice. "With the creation of the forest protection strips, a weapon was created to break the violence of the winds, a huge natural water reservoir was created, which on the one hand prevented the destructive runoff of sudden downpours, on the other hand acted as a compensating water reservoir." 18. In fields protected by the forest, it was soon possible to achieve a harvest that was three to four times higher than in fields without protective strips. In 1949 alone, 70,000 forest planting specialists were trained. In addition to deforestation, the increasing desertification and systematic deterioration of the soil were a legacy of tsarism. The soil was particularly endangered by dust storms and canyons (Ovragi). Ever since Liebig it was believed that falling soil fertility was solely due to the withdrawal of mineral substances. A change in fruit also does not stop the decline in fertility. The Moscow agarist W. Wiljams challenged this traditional claim of authority. He found out that soil formation is not only the product of a geographical-climatic process, but also depends on the evolution and activity of living organisms, especially plants. He developed the “grass field system” (travopolnaja sistema), in which the general crop rotation was interrupted by the sowing of perennial grasses. Their biological behavior and root system promoted humus formation and stopped desertification. 19. Can these successes in soil improvement be attributed to specialists such as Docuchayev and Willjams alone? Descartes had already seen a future with the emergence of modern natural sciences in which the peasants would make better scientists and philosophers than the scholastics of the academy. Under the dictatorship of the working class, a trusting cooperation between peasants and specialists had developed; the gigantic wealth of rural nature observation and scientific expertise were mutually beneficial. The rich experiences of the peasant masses have been scientifically summarized.
The Great Stalin plan for the transformation of nature was approved by the Council of Ministers of the USSR on October 28th. Adopted in 1948. The plan envisaged the creation of forest protection plantings, the anchoring of the crop rotation system, the creation of ponds and canals to secure higher and more stable harvests in the steppe and forest steppe areas of the European part of the USSR. That was an area of 160 million hectares. The Stalin plan was initially implemented. 20. The state protective forest belts stretched eight times over a total length of 5,320 kilometers and a total area of 4.2 million hectares between the Urals and the Caspian Basin. Gestwa speaks of an "open flank" between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea. 21. The New York Times published an article on October 4, 1950 entitled "Return to Gigantomania." According to the plan, over 40,000 reservoirs and ponds were to be created in a unique irrigation system that was to irrigate an area of 28 million hectares. The Volga was dammed into a lake 600 kilometers long and 33 kilometers wide. A third of the forest reforestation plan had been fulfilled by 1952, and the Volga-Don Canal was opened on May 31, 1952. The feeling of inferiority of backwardness could finally fall away from the Soviet citizens. Today Anglo-American research can admit that the time of Stalin was by no means one of excessive exploitation of nature without regard to environmentally harmful consequences. Stalin supported the forest protection authorities, which rapidly lost importance and influence after his death. Stephen Brain speaks today that environmental protection in the Soviet Union under Stalin had reached a level that could not be reached anywhere in the world. 22. In his habilitation “Die Stalinschen Großbauten des Kommunismus”, Klaus Gestwa presents it in exactly the opposite way: “After Stalin's death, social and political interest in environmental issues grew. The thaw marked the beginning of endless environmental attempts to cure the incurable ”. 23. He emphasizes Cruchov, whose liberalization had ended Stalin's brutality in dealing with nature. Certainly mistakes were made in the execution of Stalin's large-scale plans; such projects cannot be implemented without errors; But is it allowed to fall into a black-and-white template, a template that Gorbachev used at the 28th party congress to attribute the undesirable ecological development in the Soviet Union to the period in which Stalin spent the last years of his life? After all, the Ministry of Forestry was dissolved just five days after Stalin's death. Wasn't that a mistake? 24. Perhaps there was a mistake in equating scientific and technical progress with progress par excellence in order to stand in a possibly inappropriate competition with the USA as a true “land of unlimited possibilities”? Lenin's reflection in 'Arguable Materialism' from 1922 that an alliance between the communists and the modern natural scientists was more important than one with the consistent materialists, there was the danger of a monological concept of progress. So it happened: The best atheistic argument consists in conquering and exploring space and submitting it to scientific ends. God is not like finding the alizarin.
- Stalin and Roosevelt. A comparison of plan and project for the transformation of nature
- Heinz Ahlreip (Author)
- Catalog number
- ISBN (eBook)
- ISBN (book)
- File size
- 459 KB
- Stalin plan, Tennessee project, Roosevelt, imperialism, capitalism
- Price (book)
- £ 13,99
- Price (eBook)
- £ 13,99
- Cite work
- Heinz Ahlreip (author), 2015, Stalin and Roosevelt. A comparison of plan and project for natural transformation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/306563
- Is Hair Transplant Safe in Mumbai?
- Mechanical engineers are scientists
- Burger King makes you sick
- What are self-generating assets
- What is your opinion on HAL TEJAS
- What does the Bible say about vegetarianism
- What are the requirements for machine learning
- What are car subscriptions
- What is the best Persian recipe
- Does dementia show up on MRI scans
- How can I organically expand my website
- Are the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses Biblical
- How quiet you can use a computer fan
- Do beer foam to you
- Should I overclock my GeForce GT 710?
- Eat armadillos snakes
- What is the principle of mutual induction
- Can flooded cars be repaired?
- Can someone be unsure whether they are muscular?
- What is the cheapest army for TH9
- What exactly is a meet and greet
- When should you leave SIP
- Save camels water
- How many series are there in Transformers