The state is one of the varieties of social systems, which, along with its well-known and previously studied features - public power, territory, law, etc. - is also characterized by certain systemic features: integrity, structure, management, connections, self-organization, goals.
Its prevailing position is primarily due to the fact that integrity is a condition for the existence of a system (state), an expression of all other signs. After all, it is integrity that characterizes everything that is stable, stable, deep, which is characteristic of the system as a system, determines its integrity, unity, dynamics, mutual consistency of the incoming parts, elements, eliminates their antagonism, etc. the integrity of the state and must be considered as a sign of the state, expressed in its stability, stability, realized in a certain political regime, alliance with society, personality.
Integrity is the primary dominant and determinant factor of the state as a whole, as a system. The state cannot exist outside or outside of it. In turn, this means that, firstly, in the socio-political system, the primacy (supremacy) of the whole over parts and elements is objectively necessary, the integrity of the whole over the integrity of parts and elements, and, secondly, that an integral socio-political system - the only possible form of state existence. Along with other mechanisms - historical, international - the integrity of the state is the highest level of socio-political organization of society, its normative and legal generalization. And if, in the order of conclusion, we turn to some principles of the system methodology, the theory of the integrity of the state, then it can be noted that:
- integrity is such a systemic feature of the state, which is expressed in stability, stability of social relations, fixes attention on the factors of internal orderliness, organization, and mutual consistency of the political system;
- not every state is an integral socio-political system, but every state cannot develop without being such;
- the state as an integral system can be of various levels of complexity: from unitary (simple) to federal (complex);
- the integrity of the state indicates a particular historical type of state, the level of development of democracy, culture, the status of a person in this system as a person and a citizen;
- like any social phenomenon, the integrity of the state is associated with the consciousness of a person, the level of moral, spiritual development of society;
- the integrity of the state is manifested in the standard of living of the population, the degree of social security of a person, the provision of civil rights and freedoms, the ability of political power to exercise this power on legitimate, legal, moral grounds;
- the integrity of the state is a subsystem of the existing social system; the adequacy of the integrity of the state and the integrity of society is one of the conditions for the stability of the political system;
- the integrity of the state is one of the foundations of political power, a way of organizing, delimiting, connecting, combining social needs and interests; hence, it can be considered as a certain union of citizens, social groups aimed at uniting into a single state;
- ensuring its integrity is one of the principles of the state, expressed in a number of its functions aimed at protecting a single economic, political, territorial, legal space throughout the country.
Integrity cannot exist in a state where there is no social balance, stability of social relations, the unity of economic, political, legal, territorial space. There cannot be several states in one state. Any references to a confederal structure cannot be taken into account, since a confederation is not a state legal entity, but an international legal entity. One state integrity, one political power, one state sovereignty - these are the objective foundations of the stability of the socio-political system. The sovereignty of the ruling class or the entire people, possessing such characteristics as constancy, indivisibility, unlimitedness, etc., is not only the core of the integrity of the state, but also the basis of state sovereignty. The mechanism of joint action of society and political power provides both the integrity and the sovereignty of the state with a universal, imperative character, and turns them into reality.
At the same time, the integrity and sovereignty of the state is a consequence of the integrity and sovereignty of the political power of society. Therefore, in the broad sense of the word, the state is an integral and sovereign political power, materialized in a certain political organization of society. It is power as the oldest and most universal means of regulating social relations, inherent in any social organization, that determines social unity, resolves contradictions, ensures peace and harmony between different parts of society, its sovereign state.
Territorial integrity is closely related to the sovereignty of the state. However, the latter is a broader concept than the territorial integrity of the state. Sovereignty is manifested not only in the supremacy of political power in a specific geographic space, but also in a certain jurisdiction over the citizens living in the population. The sovereignty of a state presupposes its integrity, the inviolability of its territory.
The subject of an integral and sovereign state can be exclusively the people in the person of its authorized representatives. One socio-political integrity, one state sovereignty and one their source and bearer - all this logically follows from the very nature of political power as a real and legitimate force of society, capable of ensuring the natural rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the integrity of society and the state. The multiplication of the number of subjects of the integrity and sovereignty of the state actually leads to the devaluation of their very essence, the loss of their certainty, and hence the value properties.
Introduction
Chapter I. Methodological foundations of the study of the integrity of the Russian state 24
2. Genetic roots and historical development of the theory and practice of the state integrity of Russia 51
Chapter II. Types of state integrity and their constitutional regulation in the Russian Federation 76
1. The unity of state power as the basis of the integrity of the state and its constitutional - regulation in the Russian Federation 76
2. Dialectics of territorial and national factors in the organization of the Russian state: formation, problems and prospects 96
3. The integrity of the Russian state as a condition for the stability of the international legal order 120
Chapter III. Constitutional Mechanisms for Ensuring the Integrity of the Russian Federation: Institutional and Functional Foundations 139
1. The President of the Russian Federation and ensuring the integrity of the state: principles and main directions of activity 139
2. Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and legal guarantees of the state integrity of Russia 161
3. Executive power in the mechanism of ensuring the state integrity of the Russian Federation 178
4. Local self-government and state power: dialectics of interaction in ensuring the state integrity of the Russian Federation 202
5. The Constitutional Court in the system of guarantees of the integrity of the Russian Federation 222
Chapter IV. Constitutional foundations of federal intervention in the Russian Federation: content and conditions for implementation 245
1. Federal intervention in the mechanism of state integrity of the Russian Federation 245
2. Constitutional criteria for the eligibility of federal intervention: conditions and limits 269
Conclusion 308
References 322
Introduction to work
Relevance of the research topic. The development of the problem of the integrity of the state in all the diversity of its aspects is of great theoretical and practical importance, due to the fact that the science of constitutional law has not yet finally developed a theory of the state integrity of Russia, and state legal practice is not equipped with adequate tools. Meanwhile, this problem accumulates a whole complex of questions that require doctrinal answers and practical solutions. On the one hand, it is about ensuring the security and territorial integrity of the country; the relationship between the sovereignty of the state and its federalist principles; observance and ensuring by the constituent entities of the Federation of the general federal standard of human and civil rights; the adoption at the federal level of a set of legislative acts that formulate the mechanism of the integrity of the state; the role of public authorities in the implementation of the integrative properties of the state and national unity; the effectiveness of modern constitutional guarantees for ensuring state integrity; the formation, development and functioning of civil society institutions in the Russian Federation as a necessary condition for the civilization process; rationalizing the very organization of public authority and relations between the Federation and its subjects; mutual constitutional responsibility of the center and regions; stability of international legal institutions and interstate relations of Russia as a subject of international law.
On the other hand, objective formational transformations in Russia and the world, the processes of globalization and the new challenges of the time caused by it pose the problem of the authorities with the formation of reliable guarantees for the preservation of Russia as a single subject of national and world politics and law and order in constitutional and international legal relations.
In this regard, an appeal to the category of the integrity of the state as an institution of constitutional law makes it possible to identify not only logical schemes for explaining the Russian Federation as an integral system, but also to isolate the levels of integration of the subjects of the Federation and the Federation as a whole, the hierarchy of these levels, the place and functional role of the state and subjects, its components, patterns and tendencies of stable and sustainable development of national statehood.
The very formulation of the problem of the integrity of the state is always associated with the analysis of the initial premises, which to a large extent form the methodology of its cognition; designate the criteria and mechanisms that ensure the actual integrity of the state; explain the existence of a whole complex of principles important for understanding the state, namely: indivisibility, the impossibility of the existence of its parts without each other, the priority of the state as an integral system over its subjects and its aggregate properties, identifying a certain structure, type of connections, methods of interaction, functioning and their role and values in ensuring state integrity.
The imperfection of the state structure of the Russian Federation led to the fact that the federal government faced the question of reforming its territorial structure, preserving the country as a single and integral state, taking into account the interests of the multinational composition of the population. However, even today some problems of the organization and activity of legislative and executive bodies of power at the federal level remain unresolved; the issue of bringing the regulatory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation into line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws has not been fully resolved; the existing negative potential of regionalism implicated in ethnic problems has not been overcome. All this weakens the unity of the state and poses a threat to its integrity. Speaking about reliable legal guarantees of the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, it should also be noted that the theory of constitutionalism is making only the first steps in the study of local self-government in the context of identifying its role in the mechanism of ensuring the integrity of the state.
Thus, 10 years after the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993, the development of many links in the chain of constitutionalism, which could fill the constitutional model of the organization and functioning of the Russian state with real content, continues to be relevant.
The international legal aspect of the problem is important. Having assumed certain obligations to comply with the principles and norms of international law, Russia today is an integral part of the world community, and its legal system is part of the world legal order. It is not only about the observance of its international obligations, but also about the observance of the rights and interests of the Russian Federation itself.
It should also be borne in mind that the unity of the constitutional space and its combination with the federal structure of the state, the territorial and state integrity of Russia and the integrative principles of state building, the principles of relations between different levels of the unified federal system of power, as well as ensuring the equality of the subjects of the Federation, the general federal standard of human rights and the mechanism of federal intervention form the basis of the practical activities of government bodies. In this regard, the analysis of this activity and the development of scientifically based recommendations is an important task of science and a condition for it to perform its functions, including forecasting ones.
The object of the research is the Russian state and its institutions of public authority as the basis (guarantee) of the integrity of the state, their influence on constitutional, legal, socio-economic, political and other processes that integrate the Russian Federation; the emerging system of ensuring effective government administration.
The range of issues related to the subject of this study: genetic, structural and functional types of integrity of the Russian state, the dynamics of their formation, development and practice of functioning in the conditions of federal relations, as well as the problems arising in this connection that require a regulatory solution. The formation of a new legal system is considered as a natural condition for the formation and strengthening of the state integrity of Russia. The role and purpose of public authorities: to promote the disclosure of the potential of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in ensuring the integrity of the state by legal and political means, since only such means are adequate to the principle of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. Development processes of modern federal statehood; the importance of the central government as a guarantor of the preservation and strengthening of the integrity of Russia; the role and importance of lower levels of public authority, including local government bodies.
The purpose and objectives of the study. The purpose of the dissertation research is to formulate and substantiate the role of public authorities in ensuring and maintaining the integrity of the Russian Federation as a single, special way of integrated education, as an integral state-legal and political system.
To achieve this goal, the following interrelated tasks were set, the theoretical solution of which constituted the essence and content of this work: to formulate the methodological foundations of the integrity of the Russian state, to identify the state-legal content of the category of "integrity" and its influence on the doctrine of the state in general and the nature of the Russian Federation in particular ; to analyze the genetic roots, the history of the development of the theory and practice of the state integrity of Russia; to reveal the content and meaning of the types of state integrity in the Russian Federation and their constitutional regulation; to carry out a theoretical analysis of the influence of territorial and national factors on the formation and development of the Russian state; to identify the importance of the structural foundations of the construction of the Russian state for ensuring its stability, as well as their impact on the integrity of the state; determine the degree of influence of the state integrity of the Russian Federation on the stability of the international legal order; to reveal the guarantee function of public authorities in ensuring the integrity of the Federation and the integration of Russian statehood; explore the dialectics of interaction between local government and state power c. ensuring the state integrity of the Russian Federation; to reveal the content of the constitutional mechanism for ensuring the integrity of the Russian state, to identify the institutional and functional foundations of this mechanism; substantiate the constitutional foundations, criteria of legality, conditions and limits of federal intervention in the system of ways to ensure the state integrity of the Russian Federation.
The solution of the set tasks allowed the author to answer some questions concerning the processes taking place in the state-legal system of Russia, to make a number of proposals for improving the federal legislation aimed at strengthening the territorial unity and state integrity of the Russian Federation.
The degree of scientific elaboration of the topic. The theoretical basis of the dissertation research was formed by the works of specialists in various branches of public knowledge. The works of Plato, Aristotle, G.V.F. Hegel, J. Boden, G. Grotius, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, Sh.L. Montesquieu, N. Machiavelli, K. Marx, J.J. Rousseau and other titans of philosophical and political thought. The works of Russian philosophers and lawyers are analyzed: A.N. Averyanova, I. V. Blauberg, B.C. Solovyova, A.S. Khomyakova, G.A. Yugaya, B.G. Yudina, E.G. Yudin and others. Publicistic and scientific research of domestic statesmen and public figures - Feofan Prokopovich, G. Katozhikhin, Yu. Krizhanich, I.T. Pososhkova, CE. Desnitsky, V.N. Tatishcheva,
MM. Speransky, N.M. Muravyov, P.I. Pestel, I.E. Andreevsky, A.S. Alekseeva, A.D. Gradovsky, N.M. Korkunov, P.I. Novgorodtseva, B.N. Chicherin, G.F. Shershenevich and others - helped the author to deeper reveal the dynamics of the formation and development of the Russian state. The dissertation candidate could not, of course, ignore the works of V.I. Lenin.
When considering the issues of federal building, the author relied on the works of well-known modern specialists in the field of constitutional law, theory of state and law, international law, political and legal doctrines, first of all: R.G. Abdulatipova, S.A. Avakyan, G.V. Atamanchuk, S.N. Baburina, M.V. Baglaya, M.I. Baytin, I.N. Bartsitsa, N.S. Bondar, A.V. Vasilyeva, N.V. Vitruk, L.I. Volovoi, A.I. Demidova, R.V. Yengibaryan, D.L. Zlatopolsky, V.T. Kabysheva, L.M. Karapetyan, A.D. Kerimova, D.A. Kerimova, N.M. Konin, Yu.K. Krasnova, B.S. Krylova, O.E. Kutafina, V.V. Lazareva, Yu.I. Leibo, V.O. Luchina, A.V. Malko, V.M. Manokhina, N.I. Matuzova, G.V. Maltseva, F.M. Rudinsky, I.N. Senyakina, V.N. Sinyukova, B.A. Strashun, E.V. Tadevosyan, Yu.A. Tikhomirova, B.N. Topornin, V.A. Tumanova, I.A. Umnova, T. Ya. Khabrieva, V.A. Chetvernin, V.E. Chirkina, O. I. Chistyakova, B.S. Ebzeeva, A.I. Ekimova L.M. Entina and others.
The legal basis for the study was the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal legislation, the Federal Treaty, constitutions (charters) of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, international legal documents. The very topic of the study prompted the author to comprehend the general principles of law, their place in the domestic legal system and the role in ensuring the integrity of the Russian state.
The methodological basis of the research was formed by a set of well-known scientific methods and means, which allowed the author to comprehensively analyze the subject of research and draw the appropriate scientific conclusions. The initial methodological method of dissertation research was the dialectical approach with its set of principles for cognizing the subject: objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the concrete historical approach to the considered category of constitutional law. The dialectical method enabled the author to actively use logical techniques at various stages and levels of work preparation.
The dissertation also used the method of specific socio-legal research (taking into account its unique originality), which made it possible to reflect the constitutional and legal experience of the development of the Russian state, to show the features and prospects of the federal structure of Russia as an integral state system, to highlight and define the role of specific institutions of constitutional law that ensure the integrity of the state. When necessary, other methods were used, in particular, comparative-historical, systemic, comparative-legal.
The comparative historical method made it possible to show not only the past and present state of the Russian constitutional and legal system as an integral entity, but also possible trends, patterns of development.
The systemic method made it possible to consider the structure of the entire branch of constitutional law as a system of interrelated constituent parts, to determine the place and role of the institutions of constitutional law in ensuring the mechanisms of the integrity of the state.
The comparative legal method of research has become an important tool for identifying the most effective models of constitutional and legal regulation of existing, as well as new institutions and other elements of Russian constitutional law that ensure state integrity.
The scientific novelty of the research lies in the author's concept of ensuring the state integrity of the Russian Federation; at the same time, three types of state integrity are distinguished and consistently analyzed: genetic, structural and functional.
For Russia at all stages of its development, and today especially, it is necessary to solve one of the most difficult tasks of its state building - the preservation of the state integrity of the country while meeting the objective constitutional needs of national-territorial entities and their all-round development within the Russian Federation. In this regard, a systematic analysis of the complex of problems of ensuring the integrity of the Russian Federation, taking into account the national and territorial principles of the organization and functioning of the state, has been carried out. The circle of constitutional, legal and political guarantees of the integrity of the state has been identified and indicated. The tendencies of the formation of regionalism are outlined.
Theoretical comprehension of various aspects of the category of state integrity allowed the dissertation candidate to determine its institutional and functional significance both in the practice of state building and in the science of constitutional law.
The author's position is that the Russian state is a self-organizing system, although it has many individual, inherent only characteristics, the main one of which is that the Russian Federation is not an amorphous union of heterogeneous joints, but an organic whole, and in this sense, the Federation has a system-forming quality that makes it possible to explain its internal and external connections, the system of functions and interactions between its subjects, on the one hand, and between the subjects and the Federation, on the other. According to the dissertation candidate, state integrity also lies in the fact that at one time the integrity of Russia, and later the Russian Federation, was determined primarily by the strength, authority and effective activity of the central government, the combination and interaction of genetic, structural and functional types of integrity. Strong federal power is the basis of the integrity of the Russian state; therefore, the structural and functional types of the integrity of the Russian state are subordinate in relation to the genetic type of the national integrity of the state. It follows from this that the self-organization of Russia should be supported by the organization of public authority and a well-thought-out legal order.
This dissertation research is devoted to general theoretical constitutional problems of state integrity. The formulated conclusions can be used by public authorities in solving issues of state and legal regulation of institutions that ensure and maintain the integrity of the Russian Federation.
The following main provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research are submitted for defense:
1. The author's concept of the integrity of the Russian state, the essence of which is that the Russian Federation is a system characterized by a hierarchical structure, the presence of many elements and connections that make up a certain type of integrity, which is characterized by the orderliness of system elements, relations and connections, the constancy of management processes , achieving goals by the system itself and its constituent parts, coordinating the actions of parts and the whole, interconnection or overcoming contradictions in achieving goals. Hence, the state as an integral system determines its subjects, and not the subjects - the state.
State integrity is determined by the structure, functioning and development of a single public authority filled with legal, as well as political, social and other content, its organizational structure and terms of reference. Public power acts as the main link in defining the "rules of the game" and directs the connections, interaction of the parts of the Federation, which structure the integrity of the state. The integrity of the state is also an institution of constitutional law. This is an inalienable property of the status of Russia as a state, which is established and enshrined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a system of constitutional, legal, economic, political and social norms that guarantee and ensure the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, as well as the content and interaction of types of its integrity.
In other words, the integrity of the Russian Federation is ensured by the unity of the system of state power, based on the unity of the legal and political system. At the same time, "integrity" in the author's concept is the content, "unity" is the form and method of ensuring the integrity of the state. The unity of state power is guaranteed by the Constitution, which defines a single political, as well as economic and legal space of the country, the principles of building a system of state power bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation, which make the state an integral entity. "Going" beyond the framework of the unity of the legislative, executive, judicial authorities and local self-government of any constituent entity of the Federation destabilizes the state integrity, its legal and political systems and should be considered as an undermining of the country's sovereignty. Thus, according to the author, the integrity of the Russian Federation is an inalienable property of its status as a state, which is established and consolidated by the Basic Law of the country, guaranteed by a system of constitutional, legal, economic, political and social norms, as well as by the interaction of genetic, structural and functional types of integrity in the very organization and functioning of the bodies of unified public authority in the Russian Federation.
The author's definition and vision of the integrity of the state as a synthetic category, covering the territorial, economic, legal, political, social, national and spiritual spheres (types of integrity), as well as legal integrity, which is not only a legal registration of other aspects of the integrity of the state, but also has a meaningful meaning. At the same time, territorial integrity is not identical with state integrity, it is part of the latter. Integrity in this aspect is the approval of a synthetic view of the Russian state, as well as the place, role and functions of public authorities in ensuring its integrity by various legal means and methods. At the same time, the unity of state power is personified by the Head of State, who integrates Russian statehood, ensures the coordinated functioning of all branches of state power, as well as the implementation of the constitutional and legal content of the genetic, structural and functional types of integrity.
A theoretical solution to the problem of the integrity of the Russian Federation through the prism of the theory and practice of sovereignty, which serves as the basis for constitutional regulation of the organization and functioning of public authorities and all issues of the federal structure of the Russian state. The integrity of the state and its unity are ensured by internal factors and external stability, the security of its borders, the absence of internal and external threats and an adequate response to their emergence. Public authority defines ordinary and extraordinary ways to ensure state integrity. Historically, Russia as a state was created "from above". The central government "allowed" the creation, formation of lands, volosts, provinces, and subsequently - subjects of the Russian Federation. It determined the administrative-territorial and state-political structure of the country, and domestic experience proves that the unity of the central government and its supremacy in relation to its subjects are the main component of the integrity and guarantee of the normal functioning of the state. At the same time, the hypertrophy of the national in the organization of the state undermines its unity and, consequently, the integrity, because it objectively blocks activities that extend to the entire territory of the country by a single sovereign power. Hence - the author's thesis about the unitary principle in Russian federalism and its support.
4. New approaches to the formation of the mechanism of the integrity of the state and its interaction with other states in the context of globalization of world economic and political processes, modern trends of a geopolitical nature and dynamically changing and developing international legal realities, excluding both autarky and rejection of national interests proper. This problem also has a federal aspect in the sense of the formation of relations between the subjects and their relations with the Federation as a whole, including the contractual practice that has developed in recent years and is largely contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The "sovereignty" of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation as state formations is excluded by the Constitution and does not fit into the framework of international law. The limits of their autonomy are determined not by international, but by domestic law. They cannot be subjects of international law, the definition of some subjects as states contained in the Constitution of the Russian Federation has a special meaning and does not mean their international legal personality.
5. One of the ways to solve the problem of symmetry and asymmetry of the Russian Federation as part of the problem of interaction of territorial and national factors in the organization of the state, status, subjects of jurisdiction, competence and powers of the Federation and its subjects, a rational combination of territorial and national principles in the organization of the state and strengthening its integrity there is a single federal standard of human and civil rights. Hence, the dissertation candidate's appeal to its content and guarantee mechanisms.
6. Definition of the federal district as a transitional to "constitutional regionalism" form of regional autonomy, provided and allowed by the central government "from above" in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws, thereby neutralizing the negative impact of the ethno-national factor on state building. The regional system of building a country with specific elements of autonomy allows not only to strengthen the integrity of the state, but also to harmonize national relations.
In this regard, the Russian Federation faces new tasks, on the solution of which the future of Russian federalism depends. We are talking about the reorganization of the structure and management of the current subjects of the Federation; transfer of part of their functions to federal districts; creating an optimal structure and defining the principles of building government and administration bodies in federal districts; a clear definition of the status, competence, powers and role of the current subjects of the Federation in the federal district; determining the limits, scope and degree of federal intervention and, in connection with this, determining, developing procedures, principles and subjects for delineating the spheres of jurisdiction and competence, responsibility and accountability of territorial structures to federal subjects; clarification, and in the future and possible amendments to Ch. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, reflecting the indicated and proposed changes in the organization of the federal structure of the country and the principles of federalism. It is also about the elimination of separatism and the sovereignty of the subjects that are part of the region. In turn, the power structures of the region, formed by the federal government and the authorities of the constituent entities of the region, will not allow the region to act in excess of its powers.
7. The author's vision of the concept of "state" beginning of local self-government, which consists in the fact that local self-government is the lower link of the system of unified state power. The RF Constitution formalized the “sovereignty” of local self-government. In essence, it has endowed local self-government bodies with some state functions and powers. The independence of local self-government bodies does not mean their functional separation from the system of public authorities and the system of government as a whole. Local self-government in the author's vision has essentially become a lower level of state power, since objectively it cannot but fulfill state functions and powers. We are talking about the recognition of this sociological and legal fact, which is of great importance, the meaning of which lies in the fact that it is local self-government that is the initial and final element of the integrity of the state.
8. In the system of mechanisms for guaranteeing the integrity of the Russian state, the dominant place is occupied by public authorities. It is she who constitutes and structures the integrity of the Russian state and acts as the main mechanism for ensuring and maintaining the integrity of the Russian Federation. The President of the Russian Federation, realizing the constitutional functions assigned to him, integrates, coordinates, ensures the interaction of all authorities, "stitches" the Russian statehood into one whole. The functions of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the powers of its chambers are aimed at ensuring sustainable, progressive and stable development of the Federation as a whole and its regions. The activities of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation determine the activities of all government bodies from bottom to top, and form the system of this power. Parliamentarism as a factor ensures the subordination of the interests of the Federation and its subjects and, ultimately, the unity and integrity of the Russian Federation.
The executive branch of the Russian Federation is the foundation. It protects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state; applies to the entire territory of the country and is carried out by the Government of the Russian Federation with the direct leadership and participation of the President.
The functions, goals, tasks of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the judicial system as a whole are to guarantee the integrity of the state in the context of the unity of the constitutional space of Russia, canceling or declaring unconstitutional laws and other normative acts adopted by federal and regional legislative and executive bodies of state power.
9. The constitutional model of the separation of powers in the Russian Federation provides for the legal and actual "presence" of the President of the Russian Federation in all three branches of government, since by issuing normative decrees, in some cases capable of performing the role of primary legal regulators, the Head of State exercises rule-making functions; he controls the executive branch, and in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 85 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation also has separate quasi-judicial powers. This guarantees the sustainable development of a huge in territory, multinational and multi-confessional federal state, ensures the coordination and interaction of the legislative, executive and judicial powers and their continuous functioning.
10. The constitutional foundations of federal intervention as a way to ensure the integrity of the state. The conditions are proposed, the reasons are determined under which the public authorities "include" the mechanisms of federal intervention, as well as the criteria for the constitutionality of such interference. In particular, neither international law nor national legislation prescribes the exact model of behavior for the federal authorities in these conditions, since the very conditions under which it becomes necessary to introduce one or more institutions of federal intervention are varied and unpredictable. In this regard, the dissertation proposes constitutional criteria for such interference, guaranteeing protection from arbitrariness, ensuring the inalienable rights and freedoms of citizens, the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, respect and observance of generally recognized principles and norms of international law and obligations under international treaties with the participation of the Russian Federation.
The theoretical and practical significance of the work. The theoretical significance of this dissertation research is the relevance of the problem of state integrity for the progressive development of the Russian Federation. The analysis of the questions facing the dissertation was carried out on the basis of a deep study and understanding of the regulatory, monographic material, publications of scientific journals and collections, as well as philosophical research. A deep methodological analysis of the state and prospects for the development of Russian statehood as an integral system allowed the author to formulate conclusions and proposals that can be used in the lawmaking and law enforcement activities of the state authorities of the Russian Federation.
The theoretical conclusions contained in the dissertation can also be used in research work, in the practical activities of government bodies of the Russian Federation and its subjects.
The results of the study will help in teaching courses on constitutional law, theory of state and law, and other sectoral disciplines, as well as in research work when considering and analyzing topical problems of constitutional law and sectoral legal disciplines.
The main provisions of the study can be useful when writing textbooks, teaching and educational-methodical manuals for students, as well as state and municipal officials of public authorities to improve their qualifications.
Approbation of research results. The main results of scientific research are contained in the monographs: "The President of the Russian Federation in the system of separation of powers" (1996), "The President in the constitutional order of the Russian Federation" (2000), "Public power and ensuring the state integrity of the Russian Federation (constitutional and legal problems) "(2003)," The Constitution and Integrity of Russia "(2003), as well as in textbooks and scientific articles published in scientific journals, thematic collections, materials of All-Russian scientific conferences published in the period from 1994 to 2003 d. They are presented to the Committee of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on legal and judicial issues, and also as expert opinions - to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research were used by the author when giving lectures, conducting practical classes on the course "Constitutional Law of Russia" at the Saratov State Academy of Law. A number of proposals for improving the legislative support for the integrity of the Russian state were submitted to the Volga Institute of Regional Lawmaking.
The structure of the thesis is determined by the topic itself and the logic of the research, as well as the tasks and goals set to achieve them. The dissertation consists of an introduction, 4 chapters, uniting 12 paragraphs, a conclusion, a list of regulatory legal acts and scientific literature.
The category of the integrity of the state and its methodological significance (projection of philosophy on the doctrine of the state)
In the philosophical literature, the concept of "integrity" is interpreted as a derivative of the category "part" and "whole". The very concept of "whole" is defined as "a philosophical category that expresses the relationship between a set of objects and a connection that unites these objects and leads to the appearance of new properties and patterns in it that are not inherent in objects in their dissociation: in this case, the type of connections between parts determines the type of the formed whole: the connections of the structure characterize the structural whole, the connections of functioning - the functioning whole, the connections of development - the developing whole, etc. ”. Researchers reasonably believe that the very posing of the question of the priority of the whole over the part, if this category is applied to the state, is associated and usually leads to the justification of totalitarianism, the consequence of which is the devaluation of the individual. To clarify the essence of legal relations in real life, the position of certain institutions as "living law", it is necessary to determine the logical-conceptual apparatus, which can be a methodological basis for further analysis of the legal phenomenon under consideration. We are talking about using the methodological potential of the philosophical category "integrity" to analyze the issue of the integrity of the state. What is the meaning of this methodological potential? First, in the existence of a whole complex of ideas important for understanding the state; secondly, in indivisibility: the impossibility of the existence of parts without each other; thirdly, in the priority of the whole over the parts (there is no direct connection with totalitarianism here); fourthly, in the presence of aggregative properties, i.e. properties that arise only when parts are connected (in relation to the state, these are defense, security, etc.). According to the just remark of the outstanding Russian scientist GF Shershenevich, “... philosophy is the crown and at the same time the basis of all sciences. She unites all the conclusions brought to her by the sciences into one harmonious whole and explores the provisions that underlie all sciences and are reluctantly accepted by them dogmatically. " Moreover, philosophical and methodological analysis makes it possible to reveal a certain structure, type of ties, methods of interaction, functioning of the whole and parts of the state as an integral system, to show their role, significance in ensuring state integrity and to comprehensively approach such a complex system of the state, which is the Russian Federation. ... In the study of such complex systems as the state, it is generally recognized that the source of transformations of the system or its functions lies in the system itself2. The state as a self-organizing system, naturally, has many individual characteristics inherent only to it, but one of the main ones is that the state is an organic whole, and in this sense it has a system-forming quality that makes it possible to explain its internal and external connections. It should be emphasized that the author's task is not to prove the priority of this or that type of integrity, but to show its real expression and embodiment in the state through a system of functions, connections and interactions. Therefore, applying the logical and methodological method of research to the issues of constitutional and legal relations in the sphere of the functioning of the state, it is necessary to sort out numerous discussions regarding the concept of "state integrity" using philosophical and legal categories. In all discussions on the problems of unity and state integrity, there are a number of very topical issues: 1. Does the state represent an integral entity based on a contractual or constitutional type of relationship? 2. What constitutes the integrity of the state: a part or a whole "in itself"? 3. Is it possible to speak (and to what extent) about territorial integrity if it is a complex state, in which parts take on the functions of the system as a whole and try to constitute themselves independently of the whole, being at the same time a part of the whole? 4. How does the concept of "integrity" compare with the concept of "sovereignty"? 5. What does the principle of territorial integrity mean - the indivisibility of the territory or the principle of "legal", "juridical" impenetrability of the state border? 6. To what extent and in what way are the types of integrity applicable to the category of “federalism” or does the dispersal of power weaken its territorial supremacy? 7. Does international practice correspond to the right of one of the parts of the state to act as a subject of international legal relations on behalf of and as a whole? 8. What are the guarantees of the territorial integrity of the state and its parts?
The unity of state power as the basis of the integrity of the state and its constitutional - regulation in the Russian Federation
Considering the problems of the unity of state power in the context of types of state integrity, we are talking about the very concept of state integrity through the prism of the unity of state power as the starting point and core of the mechanism for ensuring the state identity of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the unity of state power presupposes a significant volume and level of consistency of positions, as well as interests and relations between the institutions of Russian statehood, interconnected with the political and legal systems, including the institutions of civil society. In this context, the constitutional foundations of the unity of state power, which require proper scientific understanding, include: constitutional regulation and the constitutional and legal nature of the unity of state power, carried out on the basis of its division; constitutional and legal content of the unity of state power; forms of organization and functioning of a unified state power; the main constitutional subjects of a unified state power and the main principles of delimiting the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between them; principles common to the entire system of state power in the Russian Federation; constitutional mechanisms of unified state power and its guarantees.
The dominant place in this regard is occupied by the problems of state integrity, provided by the institutions of state power both at the federal level and at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the level of regions that unite groups of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. At the same time, we can and should talk about an integral system of institutions of state power and institutions of local self-government, which, therefore, presupposes not only a certain autonomy of local self-government, but also the interconnection and interaction of these forms of public power. Hence - consideration of the federal aspect of the state integrity of Russia, which is not differently expressed in the organization of legislative, executive and judicial power and forms the basis for the formation and functioning of the entire constitutional and legal system. The very state structure of Russia as an integral entity objectively entails the unity of the constitutional and legal system, which has two levels - federal and constituent entities of the Russian Federation. All these questions predetermined the content of this chapter of the study.
It is well known that for centuries in Russia, in the person of the tsar and then the emperor, there was a single power that was distinguished by integrity, was inherited and managed to ensure a rigid vertical of power over the vast territory of the Russian Empire. The state structure of Russia and the system of management of the regions were not as primitive as they always tried to imagine. Russia was not a "prison of peoples" as the Bolsheviks called it in order to provoke people of different nationalities into a revolutionary movement in order to seize power for themselves. The Russian Empire managed to preserve the identity of many peoples and prepare them for "entering into an independent life."
Beginning with the reforms of Peter the Great and Catherine II, reforms in the field of management, including the national outskirts, were consistently carried out in the country. The history of our state has clearly shown that as soon as the central government weakened, its foundations were loosened, the country's governing system failed and collapsed. As a result, during the period of revolutionary upheavals at the beginning of the 20th century. - it ceased to exist. After that, the functions of the supporting structure of the state for more than 70 years were taken by the leaders of the only ruling party, who created their own system of government. At the same time, the principles of governance developed and tested by many states, based on the separation of powers, a system of "checks" and "balances", and an independent judiciary, were ignored. A type of Soviet state was created - federal in form, unitary in essence.
The main reason for this approach to governing the country was rooted in the ideology of Bolshevism, which denied and did not recognize the legal principles of the state, which resulted in the rejection of all manifestations of pluralism not only in politics, but also in the state and administrative structure of the country. Understanding this reason could not but lead the then leadership of the country, headed by M.S. Gorbachev, to the need to reform the entire system of Soviet statehood.
Numerous researchers, studying such a phenomenon as the collapse of a once powerful state, name along with objective and subjective reasons1. In our opinion, the main reasons for this are as follows: the weakening of the central government, the position in this case of the leader of the ruling party - the de facto head of state; the absence of a body that would take on the functions of the supporting structure of statehood; rejection of the principle of separation of powers, in particular the continuity of state power.
The Russian Federation, which proclaimed its sovereignty on June 12, 1990 and established the institution of a presidency, elected by popular vote, was, relative to other republics of the former USSR, better prepared for independent development outside the framework of the existence of the USSR.
The institution of the presidency of the Russian Federation, as noted by B.S. Ebzeev1, has become the embodiment of the unity of state power. In its development, this institution has undergone significant changes: the role of the president and the place in the mechanism of state power, his powers, the nature of the relationship with. parliament and government, the scope and terms of reference have not yet "formed" and have not been enshrined in the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The President of the Russian Federation and ensuring the integrity of the state: principles and main directions of activity
In the system of the mechanism of guarantees of the integrity of the Russian state, the dominant place is occupied by public authorities. It is she who constitutes and structures the integrity of the Russian state and acts as the main mechanism for ensuring and maintaining the integrity of the Russian Federation. The President of the Russian Federation, realizing the constitutional functions assigned to him, integrates, coordinates, ensures the interaction of all authorities, "stitches" the Russian statehood into one whole. The functions of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the powers of its chambers are aimed at ensuring sustainable, progressive and stable development of the Federation as a whole and its regions. The activities of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation determine the activities of all government bodies from bottom to top, and form the system of this power.
The executive power of the Russian Federation is the basis for protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state; it covers the entire territory of the country and is carried out by the Government of the Russian Federation with the direct leadership and participation of the President of the Russian Federation.
The function, purpose, task of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is to guarantee the integrity of the state in the context of the unity of the constitutional space of Russia, repealing or declaring unconstitutional laws and other normative acts adopted by federal and regional legislative and executive bodies of state power.
Local self-government is the lowest link in the system of unified state power. The Constitution of the Russian Federation formally enshrined the "sovereignty" of local self-rule. In essence, it has endowed local self-government bodies with some state functions and powers. The independence of local self-government bodies does not mean their functional separation from the system of public authorities and the system of government as a whole. Local self-government has essentially become a lower level of state power, since it objectively cannot but fulfill state functions and powers. We are talking about the recognition of this sociological and legal fact, which is of great importance, the meaning of which lies in the fact that it is local self-government that is the initial and final element of the integrity of the state.
We consistently share the view of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on local self-government as a kind of unified public authority. Thus, the institutional mechanism for ensuring the integrity of the Russian Federation is made up of bodies of higher public authority and bodies of local self-government. However, let's start with the main element of this institutional mechanism - the power of the President of the Russian Federation.
The organization of the form of government in the Russian Federation, enshrined in the current Constitution, meets the national traditions of combining a strong, authoritative, unified executive power and a legislative body endowed with sufficiently powerful functions, which has the ability to control, albeit within very limited limits, the executive power. Its addition is a new body for the national state legal system - the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In our opinion, the consolidation of such a model of separation of powers in the Constitution of the Russian Federation is a reflection of the needs of society, focused on a radical reorganization of the foundations of its development1.
In the process of the formation of such a system of state power in Russia, the place and role of the President have been and remain the subject of a particularly sharp controversy2.
The institution of the President of the Russian Federation, in our deep conviction, "left" the constitutional model of the principle of separation of powers in the Russian Federation. As you know, there is no universal model of the separation of powers common to all states, regardless of the system of government, and the very process of the formation of the principle of separation of powers in our country proceeds in a contradictory and at the same time dynamically developing political practice of state building3.
The dissertation candidate believes that understanding the "national" constitutional model of the separation of powers in the Russian Federation will adequately determine the legal nature of the institution of the President, other institutions of state power in organizing mechanisms and guarantees of the integrity of the state.
Federal Intervention in the Mechanism of State Integrity of the Russian Federation
In 2002, the State Duma apparatus and the State Duma commission on the problems of sustainable development of the Russian Federation prepared a scientific publication called "Scientific basis for the strategy of sustainable development of the Russian Federation" 1. To achieve the goals of sustainable development of the Russian Federation, the authors of the publication consider it necessary to solve many problems in the economic, environmental, social spheres, in the field of science, education, security, and international relations. In the development of federalism and regional development, it is proposed, first of all, to solve the following tasks: strengthening statehood through improving the work of state institutions and public structures; democratization and de-bureaucratization of state power structures; improvement of legislation, primarily in the field of property; improvement of legislation and relations between federal structures, regions and municipalities. As one of the program objectives of the Strategy for Sustainable Development of Russia - XXI Century, it is envisaged to solve the problem of “identifying and comprehensive strategic analysis of threats to national security ... and territorial dismemberment of the Russian Federation” 1. The author of the dissertation research does not exaggerate the colors, citing a quotation from the aforementioned publication, when he emphasizes the danger for the Russian Federation of the threat of its territorial dismemberment. Today, we can say with full confidence that "Russian federalism has firmly stood on the constitutional foundations, but all this is a consequence of the compromise reached between the members of the Federation ...". In general, they talk about truly federal relations when a balance of interests of all subjects of the Federation has been achieved, when the degree of decentralization achieved does not threaten the collapse of the Federation, and the federal center acts as an integrating principle of the unity of the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the Russian Federation defines the quantitative composition and types of subjects of the Federation. The naming of the subjects of the Federation is based not only on the territorial, but also on the national, ethnic principle of its construction. It is obvious that the constituent entities of the Federation, as a whole, representing the entire territory of the country, solve one problem - the arrangement of peoples and territories in a single state, and their difference in terms of time affects only the relationship with the federal center, the development of economic, political ties, and mutual cooperation. The parameters of interaction between the Federation and its constituent entities are determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and the basis of these relationships is laid down by the Federal Treaty of March 31, 1999 No. , is based on the following principles: 1) compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws of the Russian Federation, their supremacy over the laws and regulations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation; 2) mutual responsibility and mutual guarantee of the rights of the Federation and subjects, consideration and balance of interests and powers of each other; 3) delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the bodies of state power of the Russian Federation and bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Federation; 4) a unified system of executive power in the Russian Federation, within the limits determined by the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation1. Thus, we are talking about the limits of the power of the Federation and its subjects. The limits of power as a philosophical category can be different; it is largely determined by the ability to act with certain consequences for the implementation of the set goals2. The spatial limits of power are defined by the fact that it operates within defined boundaries, territories, communities, relationships, and minds. The peculiarity of political power is that it actively uses a variety of sanctions: legislative, political prohibitions and obligations that can both restrain and stimulate political action3. In this regard, it is appropriate to talk about the right of the central government to actively act and apply constitutional sanctions to the subjects of the Russian Federation to prevent attempts to get out of the control of the Federation, to prevent separatist tendencies that can lead to the territorial dismemberment of Russia. There is a threat of territorial dismemberment, this problem has not been fully resolved, despite a number of steps taken by the federal authorities: the conclusion of the Federal Treaty on March 31, 1992; consolidation in the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 of the constitutional foundations and principles of the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation; the creation of seven federal districts in the Russian Federation and the establishment in them of the post of the plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Russian Federation with one goal: strengthening the Federation as a whole and the effectiveness of the vertical of power; the adoption of a number of federal constitutional and federal laws, in particular, "On the State of Emergency", "On Security", "On Defense", "On the State Border" and a number of others, which are more of a departmental "firefighting" character, in contrast to regulations concentrating in itself a unified system of legal support for the state and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. With the adoption of the Federal Laws: "On the General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation" and "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law" On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation ", an ordered system of constitutional legal methods of federal influence, intervention (intervention) on the subjects of the Federation in order to ensure a single legal and political space in Russia. The constitutional practice of recent years concerning the relationship between the federal government and the authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation could not but bring to life such an institution of constitutional law as “federal intervention”. In the science of constitutional law, the concepts of "federal intervention" and "constitutional responsibility" are similar in form of expression, legal nature, but not identical in content and subjects.
Trotsky, as it happened to him very often, does not fit in with ends. While proclaiming the goal of overthrowing Stalin and his power as a special kind of a Bonapartist dictatorship, he, nevertheless, categorically opposed the overthrow of the Soviet power system. It remains only to draw the only logical conclusion: he still did not fully understand that Stalin's system of power had just become the system of Soviet power. They merged into one indissoluble whole. That is why all his calls for more than ten years have sounded like a voice crying in the wilderness.
In addition, the fundamental miscalculation of the Trotskyists and other opponents of Stalin, who considered his regime to be Bonapartist, was that this regime relied on the working classes. And it is precisely because of this circumstance that he cannot be ranked among the regimes of the Bonapartist persuasion. The working class and the cooperative peasantry were the solid social foundation of the Stalinist regime. This, however, does not exclude the fact that other party and state instruments played an important and sometimes decisive role in ensuring the stability of Stalin's rule. At his disposal was the party, which permeated literally all the pores of the country's social life, and other mass organizations such as the Komsomol, trade unions, etc. Finally, he had a fairly effective control over all structures of state power and administration. And, undoubtedly, the state security organs played a key role here. Below I will dwell in more detail on the topic of relationship and interaction between Stalin and the state security services. Here I want to highlight one thought - these bodies were not only under the direct control of Stalin, but this control was supplemented and reinforced by the general party control over the OGPU, and then the NKVD. The control system was built in such a way that at some wonderful moment these bodies could not acquire independence and did not pretend to be not just an instrument for implementing a certain political course, but to dictate the nature and direction of this course themselves.
In other words, a purely speculative assessment of the nature of Stalin's power, built on abstract concepts, does not withstand a serious test of facts. In this regard, to draw some kind of analogy between Stalinism and Machiavellianism (which is often found in the literature on Stalin and Stalinism as a unique historical phenomenon) means deliberately or not deliberately to primitivize a complex and multifaceted problem. Stalinism as a system of power, of course, borrowed some of the ideas of Machiavelli. And not only Machiavelli! Indeed, among the authors who devoted their works to the art of managing public affairs, there were many other political thinkers. Starting with ancient Chinese and ancient philosophers, Roman emperors, medieval authors and modern enlighteners. So the arsenal from which Stalin could draw his knowledge of the management of state affairs was a truly bottomless storehouse of wisdom.
Before embarking on a general overview of the country's real achievements that became possible as a result of the implementation of the Stalinist general course in the first half of the 1930s, one should briefly dwell on one fundamentally important issue. In the vast literature about Stalin, the thesis that the constantly expanding layer of party and state officials and all kinds of bureaucrats, who received considerable privileges in the new society, became the foundation of Stalin's power, became almost axiomatic, with the light suggestion of Trotsky. This postulate seems to be very shaky and unconvincing. Of course, it is foolish to deny that without a certain amount of social support, any regime, even the most ferocious dictatorial regime, cannot function successfully for several decades. Especially during periods of deepest world upheavals and tectonic shifts both in the country itself and on the world stage. The support of such, frankly speaking, strata, no matter how numerous they are, is clearly not enough to carry out grandiose transformations that radically changed the entire familiar appearance of the country. Much more significant social rear was needed here, on which one could rely in the implementation of such a deep and such a large-scale program that Stalin put forward and defended.
Moreover, it is not enough to operate primarily with psychological categories and references to the fact that Stalin skillfully used Machiavelli's advice on how the sovereign is supposed to rule the people if he wants to succeed. R. Tucker, in the second volume of his fundamental work on Stalin, emphasizes that the leader at one time carefully studied the works of the great Italian and drew from them the appropriate conclusions regarding the most proven methods of governing the people. It seems that with all due respect to the depth and breadth of Machiavelli's judgments, when explaining the origins and reasons for the success of Stalin's policy, and in particular, the art of managing the affairs of the state, the insightful advice of a wise Italian was clearly not enough. For here we are dealing not so much with the problems of the art of public administration itself, as with the art of carrying out fundamental social transformations. And this, as they say, are different things!
In addition, the advice of the Italian thinker was useful and applicable to the conditions of medieval Italy fragmented by feudal squabbles and looked like an anachronism in the 20th century when applied to the situation of the most profound socio-economic transformations. But in the statements of the great Italian - who, by the way, without any reason, is ranked among the people who glorified duplicity, meanness and disregard for the norms of morality as reasonable principles of public administration - there are many really sound judgments regarding the art of managing public affairs. It seems that the following arguments of the wise Italian regarding the skillful combination of various methods in the exercise of supreme power did not remain outside Stalin's field of attention. So, it is quite relevant, especially to the era of Stalinist transformations, his following words sound:
“... A dispute may arise as to which is better: to be loved or to be feared. They say that it is best when they are afraid and love at the same time; however, love does not get along well with fear, so if you have to choose, then it is safer to choose fear. For about people in general, we can say that they are ungrateful and fickle, prone to hypocrisy and deceit, that they are frightened off by danger and attracted by profit: as long as you do them good, they are yours with all their soul, they promise nothing for you to spare: neither blood, nor life, no children, no property, but when you need them, they will immediately turn away from you. And it will be bad for the sovereign who, trusting their promises, will not take any measures in case of danger. For friendship, which is given for money, and is not acquired by the greatness and nobility of the soul, can be bought, but cannot be kept in order to use it in difficult times. In addition, people are less wary of offending the one who inspires them with love than the one who instills in them fear, for love is supported by gratitude, which people, being bad, can be neglected for their own benefit, while fear is supported by the threat of punishment, which cannot be neglected.
However, the sovereign must instill fear in such a way that, if not gaining love, then at least avoiding hatred, for it is quite possible to instill fear without hatred ... "
Stalin, in some ways, certainly followed the logic of the Italian's reasoning. However, one should not indulge in exaggeration and think that his policy was based on Machiavellianism. The fundamental prerequisite for the entire political philosophy of Stalin was and always has been a stake not on some narrow group of people, but on the broadest strata of the population. And the point here is not only and even not so much that often the measures he was taking in life for broad strata of the population of the Soviet Union turned out to be not only difficult, but also extremely difficult. However, the leader counted on understanding and approval of his course, proceeding from the fact that he promises the masses real fruits in the form of radical social gains, and not privileges for certain categories of citizens. This was precisely the main feature of Stalin's policy, if we consider it from a broad historical perspective.
By opposing the ideas of Machiavellianism to the political realism of Stalin, I want to highlight such an important feature of his political strategy as reliance not on individuals, but on the masses. If he had not been able to win more than broad mass support for his political course, then this course would hardly have led to such impressive practical results. This truth is difficult to dispute even for those who see only negative features and sides in the entire Soviet history of Stalin's period, concentrate only on them, and as a result, a picture is drawn that is worse than it is even difficult to imagine. But if it were so in reality, then we would have had a completely different turn of historical events than it took place in real life.
Despite the harsh living conditions and colossal difficulties, an atmosphere of the greatest enthusiasm and by no means artificial historical pathos reigned in the country as a whole. The broad masses of the country's population saw themselves as creators of a social system unprecedented in history. They were imbued with the spirit of optimism, creative search, determination and readiness to overcome any difficulties in the name of achieving the set goal. The high spiritual potential of Soviet society became the main driving force that ultimately predetermined the historical achievements of the Soviet people during that period. In presenting the material, I tried to ensure that the successes did not play the role of a cover and justification for serious miscalculations, mistakes and crimes of the Stalinist regime. The front side of the medal should not obscure the reverse side. But the most important thing is to be faithful to historical truth, to prevent negative moments in the history of those years from overshadowing the truly unprecedented achievements of the human spirit, the nationwide desire to build a society based on the ideals of social justice. And to this for many centuries, if not millennia, the thoughts and desires of the best representatives of the human race have always been directed. If, however, only negative aspects are emphasized and put in the foreground (and there were more than enough of them), then nothing will remain of the real Soviet history of those years. But it was a truly great historical epoch that radically changed the face of the entire country and opened the way for it to gain a worthy place in a world full of dangerous underwater reefs and currents.
Of course, in this society there were many opponents of the Soviet system and outright enemies of the new government. But they were not so significant by the strictest standards of force to influence in any significant way on the path of development of the country. And it should also be emphasized that society as a whole was not atomized, as is observed with an objective and careful analysis of the state of affairs in modern Russia. And the calls for the search for a national idea in modern Russia look by no means accidental in this regard. Generally speaking, the national idea is not sought or formulated. It is always a natural product of life itself and reflects its main features and all of its meaning. In those days, no one called for the search for some idea that would unite and cement society. She was in the air as a reality and united people. This idea was to create a new social order. And the overwhelming majority of Soviet people felt themselves to be pioneers of the process of the historical reorganization of the world on the basis of social justice.
I am somewhat carried away by reasoning on what at first glance seems to be abstract topics. In reality, they were not such during the period under review. They were of a purely real and practical nature. Stalin drew his political resources from the new spiritual state of Russian society. He - and this seems more than obvious - skillfully used, one might even say, exploited the enthusiasm reigning in the country, turning it into a powerful resource for the implementation of his political plans. It is inappropriate and even stupid to reproach him for this and burst out empty philippics in connection with such behavior of the leader. As historical experience shows, in politics, the use of such a resource is not a unique or extraordinary phenomenon, but a typical one, and it is peculiar to one degree or another and to one degree or another to all societies and all politicians. So Stalin is no exception.
But it should be noted that the leader did this quite skillfully, observing the necessary tact and sense of proportion. In his daily activities of that time, he tried to behave modestly and personally did not push out his own person. True, we must not forget that literally the whole country was then a kind of stage, where the role of both the main director and the main actor was invariably played by one person - Stalin. One of the important attributes of the cult of his personality, which was gaining more and more strength, was the personification of the country's entire political course with the name of Stalin. Apparently, in this way the leader not only sought to give additional weight to his influence, but also once and for all to link the task of building socialism with his name.
Without showing false modesty, he himself wrote about this in a letter to Kaganovich and Molotov, giving instructions on how to cover the Zinoviev-Kamenev trial in print. “It should have been said in the articles that the struggle against Stalin, Voroshilov, Molotov, Zhdanov, Kosior and others is a struggle against the Soviets, a struggle against collectivization, against industrialization, a struggle, therefore, for the restoration of capitalism in the cities and villages of the USSR. For Stalin and other leaders are not isolated individuals, but the personification of all the victories of socialism in the USSR, the personification of collectivization, industrialization, the rise of culture in the USSR, therefore, the personification of the efforts of workers, peasants and working intelligentsia for the defeat of capitalism and the triumph of socialism " .
And this was not so much a tribute to the leader's personal vanity (which, as the facts show, he was by no means deprived of), as a carefully thought-out political calculation, which, in his opinion, provided additional opportunities for the full implementation of his plans. And about his plans, which were of a long-term nature, he preferred not to spread, keeping them in the greatest secret.
Stalin wanted there to be no gulf between him as the leader of the party and the leader of the state and the people. He wanted and did everything possible to be perceived not as a person standing above everyone, but as a person fulfilling the historical mission that befell him. Like, not he, so another would do the same. Therefore, he often resorted to fairly cheap methods of ostentatious demonstration of his Bolshevik modesty. One of the little-known examples of this is the episode with the idea of publishing a collection of his works.
As mentioned above, his main opponents during the interregnum - Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev - published multivolume editions of their works. Fortunately, they were all distinguished not so much by deep theoretical knowledge and talents (excluding, of course, Trotsky), but also by their excessive political talkativeness. So they wrote and uttered quite a lot, and there was something out of which to compose collected works. Stalin, in this respect, demonstrated not only and not so much modesty, but also a sense of common sense. First, he did not want in this case to resemble his defeated rivals. Secondly, with this unwillingness, he seemed to emphasize that he was only a faithful student of Lenin and followed his examples of modesty and lack of political vanity.
One of the most (if not the most zealous) Stalinist sycophants and flatterers E. Yaroslavsky in 1934 publicly proposed to start publishing the collected works of the leader. However, this act of sycophancy was not accepted by Stalin. With his explicit approval, that part of Yaroslavsky's speech, which contained this proposal, was omitted from publication. But flatterers and sycophants are unstoppable in their zeal. E. Yaroslavsky sent a letter to Kaganovich, who, in the absence of Stalin in Moscow, was engaged in current party affairs. He tried to substantiate his proposal with references to the history of the publication of Lenin's collected works. This is what he wrote in his message:
Dear L.M.
I spoke with you yesterday about the publication of my speech in Pravda. I am writing about this because Comrade Mekhlis (a former employee of the secretary general's apparatus, appointed at that time the editor of the Pravda newspaper - N.K.), referring to a conversation with you, told me that he considered it inconvenient to publish my proposal to publish Comrade Stalin's collected works. Is it correct? Personally, I think this is wrong. Let me remind you that Lenin did not really approve of such a decision, but the party nevertheless decided to publish the complete collected works
Lenin. The Moscow Regional Conference is unlikely to understand why this proposal cannot be published. Please talk to me about this. "
Subsequently, the topic of publishing Stalin's works came up more than once. Moreover, as a rule, it was raised by the leader's closest comrades-in-arms, who sought in this way to gain favor with their own persons. But she also did not find her logical conclusion due to the resistance from the leader. However, the closest companions did not lose their fervor and did not temper their zeal. They competed with each other in praising Stalin in their correspondence. For example, K. Voroshilov in 1933 in a letter to A. Yenukidze - one of Stalin's then closest friends - wrote enthusiastically: “A wonderful person, our Koba. It is simply incomprehensible how he can combine in himself the great mind of a proletarian strategist, and the same will of a statesman and revolutionary leader and the soul of a completely ordinary, simple, kind comrade who remembers every little thing, who cares about everything that concerns the people he knows and loves. appreciates. It's good that we have Koba! " .
In addition, I will cite Stalin's letter in which he, with his characteristic harshness, protests against the publication in the central Soviet press of information about the newspaper's visit to Stalin's mother and his conversation with her. Here is the text of his telegram, which should be regarded both as a reprimand to his associates, and as a directive for the future:
Above are some documents with one single purpose - to show that Stalin, perfectly aware that his figure was under the illumination of powerful searchlights of Soviet and world public opinion, made efforts not to look ridiculous and odious, consumed by vanity, a figure. He sometimes restrained the efforts of his apologists, who showed indefatigable zeal in praising him, meaning the desire that the world in general, and especially the Soviet public, did not have an unfavorable impression of him. Playing the role of a modest person, but well aware of his historical mission, was a characteristic feature of his political behavior. Especially in the 20s and 30s.
Concluding this small, but, in my opinion, important section from the point of view of understanding the nature of Stalinist political thinking, it is worth emphasizing the following. Stalin, undoubtedly, was not a charismatic leader - neither in his personal qualities, nor in other parameters that are presented to leaders of this kind. But the very historical epoch, in which his activities developed, especially did not need leaders of a charismatic make-up. There were other times, the harsh reality somehow overshadowed such criteria as the charisma of a leader or his purely external data. The system of power itself was precisely based on the primacy of the masses over the individual, due to which the personality, as it were, receded into the shadows. When applied to Stalin, even this very expression “retreat into the shadows” sounds somehow paradoxical, since he was always in the center of attention and his very power cast its shadow on the life of the entire country, on all the processes that took place in it. The grandiose events of that era themselves, as it were, highlighted the role of the leader, and his deeds left their mark on the paintings of that historical era. And as a result, a truly complex historical canvas was formed, in the mosaic of which historians and writers, scientists and ordinary people have been trying to figure out for several decades.
2. "Life has become better, life has become more fun"
Successes and problems in the development of industry. In accordance with the plan developed on the basis of Stalin's instructions and on the basis of a comprehensive discussion, taking into account the mistakes and lessons of the past, the plan for the second five-year plan was successfully implemented. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the starting positions for the country's economic development were radically different for the better from the conditions of the first five-year plan. The main thing was that a reliable foundation of the socialist economy had been created, the construction of many large industrial enterprises never seen before had been completed. The experience of the first five-year plan played an invaluable role in organizing machine production on the basis of advanced technology. Of fundamental importance not only from the point of view of economic parameters, but also from the point of view of moral and political, was the fact that significant success was achieved in the training of engineers, technicians, skilled workers, specialists of a new profile, which all sectors of the economy so needed. On the whole, it was possible to state the solution, although not entirely in full, of the main socio-economic and political task, the importance of which Stalin invariably highlighted in the foreground - the strengthening of the country's economic independence. A logical consequence of the fact that the Soviet Union mastered many types of production was the reduction in imports. But in the first five-year period, the size of imports, disproportionate to the capabilities of the state economy, significantly affected not only the general situation in the country's economy, but also directly on the material situation of the broad masses of both urban and rural populations. Indeed, to a large extent, imports were ensured by deliveries abroad of agricultural products, primarily grain, which the country itself felt in great need. The problem was not only that a number of years were bad harvests, but also that the urban population grew at a colossal rate, caused by the process of industrialization. By the mid-1930s, the Soviet Union was mainly importing only complex machine tools, high-quality steel, non-ferrous and rare metals, and rubber. It was also a gratifying fact that foreign trade, in contrast to the previous five years, was no longer characterized by a negative, but by a positive balance.
The above general assessment should not be misleading and give the reader the impression that all the main problems have already been solved and that one should only continue to move along the intended path. There were many difficulties and problems, and as they developed further, they not only did not disappear, but also became more complicated, taking new forms. Stalin in his speeches constantly repeated that there is no reason for complacency and conceit, much less bragging. And this reminder was perceived especially urgent in the face of new, even more ambitious tasks that were put forward for the country in the course of the radical reconstruction of the national economy. An important moment was the process of changing the general world situation, when new harsh international realities, concealing the growing threat of war, were looming more and more clearly on the not so distant horizon. All these factors required comprehensive accounting and appropriate adjustments to national economic plans.
Stalin guided the party and the country on the need to focus on decisive areas of technical reconstruction: energy and mechanical engineering, ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, the fuel industry and transport. It was the solution of the key problems - the development of new technology and new industries - that was supposed to ensure the fulfillment of the second five-year plan. However, the solution to these problems rested on the availability of a sufficient number of trained personnel. The saturation of industry and transport with new technology, unprecedented in scale and pace, in itself meant nothing without the availability of personnel of the appropriate level. The size of the working class (and it grew by the millions) did not solve all questions of further economic progress, especially taking into account that the new workers were yesterday's peasants and did not have the necessary professional skills. If in the first five-year plan they tried to solve the problem of specialists by attracting foreign personnel, then under the new conditions this measure could no longer satisfy the needs of the country. Although it should be emphasized that foreign specialists have done a lot of useful things for our development, thus making (often not because of their desire, but because of the real circumstances of life) their contribution to the building of a new social system. The bet on attracting foreign specialists had both its pluses and minuses. Stalin was well aware of this. He believed that the fundamental problems of the state's economic growth could never be solved with the support of foreign specialists. Moreover, this method of solving the problem in itself put the country in a certain dependence on external forces, and this fundamentally contradicted his course towards creating a self-sufficient economic system. And the point here is not only and not so much the suspicion of the leader and his denial of the possibility of building a new social order with the help of predominantly bourgeois specialists. The very international position of the Soviet state strongly dictated the need for self-reliance. And I must admit that this strategic line turned out to be the only correct one and fully justified itself in the future, when the state found itself in a state of war.
We should pay tribute to Stalin, who, with all his weight and authority, raised the question of cadres to the level of the most important economic, political, party and state task. It was in the training of personnel that he saw that link, by grasping which it was possible to pull out the entire chain: the rapid saturation of industry and transport with new technology, as well as an increase in the number of workers. Stalin always kept the key issues of the country's economic development in the field of his close attention. It is no coincidence that the most important, one might say fundamental, slogans and directives on economic development issues came from his lips. So, at the beginning of 1931, he put forward the task of mastering technology. “The Bolsheviks must master technology. It is time for the Bolsheviks to become specialists themselves. Technique during the reconstruction period is everything "... And this attitude of the leader quickly transformed into an integral and well-thought-out system of government measures to introduce new technology. However, the economy did not stand still, its dynamic development posed more and more new problems, and every year these were more and more complex problems. And it was necessary to solve them urgently, one might say, in an emergency order, although without the flaws and blunders inherent in such methods. The significance of the task put forward by the leader was that it put an end to the contemptuous attitude towards technology on the part of communist business executives, turned the communist business executives to face technology, opened a new stage in the struggle for mastering technology by the forces of the Bolsheviks themselves, and thereby facilitated the task of carrying out the reconstruction of the national economy.
Stalin constantly keeps his finger on the pulse of the country's economic health and development. With astonishing perspicacity, he was able to single out the key, decisive moments on which the socialist reconstruction of the national economy directly depended. So, speaking in December 1934, he emphasized:
“Many have misunderstood the slogan of the party:“ Technique decides everything during the reconstruction period ”. Many have understood this slogan mechanically, that is, they understood it in the sense that if more cars are piled up, then everything that is required by this slogan will be done. This is not true. Technique must not be torn away from the people who set the technique in motion. Technology without people is dead. The slogan "Technology in the reconstruction period decides everything" does not mean bare technology, but technology led by people who have mastered technology. Only this understanding of this slogan is correct. And since we have already learned to value technology, it is time to state directly that the main thing now is in the people who have mastered technology. But it follows from this that if earlier the emphasis was placed on technology, on machines, then now the emphasis must be placed on people who have mastered technology. This is required by our slogan about technology. We must take care of every capable and understanding worker, take care and cultivate him. People should be carefully and carefully grown, like a gardener grows a favorite fruit tree. Educate, help grow, give perspective, put forward on time, transfer to another job on time, if a person cannot cope with his job, without waiting for him to finally fail. Carefully raising and qualifying people, correctly placing and organizing them in production, organizing wages so that it strengthens the decisive links of production and promotes people to the highest qualifications - this is what we need in order to create a large army of production and technical personnel. "
From now on, the task of training and educating personnel came to the fore. And Stalin gives a short but succinct definition of this new task: "... The old slogan" technology decides everything ", which is a reflection of the already passed period when we had a famine in the field of technology, must now be replaced by a new slogan, the slogan that "Cadres decide everything" (Highlighted by me - N.K.). And, finally, the leader formulated his most humanistic slogan-directive - "We must finally understand that of all the valuable capital available in the world, the most valuable and most decisive capital are people, personnel." .
Factory apprenticeship schools became one of the forms of training cadres of workers. During the years of the second five-year plan, FZU schools gave the country about one and a half million skilled workers. Still, the main emphasis was placed on the acquisition of a profession in the production process. Stalin concretized his appeal, giving it a convincing and at the same time laconic form - "cadres who have mastered technology decide everything!" On his initiative, these issues were in the center of attention of party and state bodies. The Central Committee issued a directive that industrial enterprises and state farms, especially those that are most technically equipped, would turn into a kind of school for the mass training and retraining of unskilled workers, foremen, technicians and engineers.
This struggle became especially widespread after the introduction of a mandatory state test of the knowledge of workers who studied the technical minimum in circles and courses. The real scale of the work done is evidenced by a simple fact: for the period 1937-1938. over 4 million people have passed technical exams. Such was the scale of this campaign! To some people nowadays it may seem like a typical window dressing and eyewash. But such a verdict is nothing more than rancor based on hatred of everything Soviet. And no more! History has proven the foresight and full practical validity of the measures taken. It is, in particular, thanks to such measures, our country turned out to be technically more or less prepared for the severe tests that fell to its lot during the war years. Stalin had the ability to look ahead and look beyond the horizons of current events. For a politician and statesman of this format, this is an immanent quality, without which he simply does not even have the right to be called a statesman. And it is known that the ability to look beyond the event horizon is by no means an easy thing. Even the famous French moralist La Rochefoucauld in his "Maxims" shrewdly noted: "It is more difficult for us to believe what lies outside our horizons" .
Of course, these statements should not be perceived as apologetic in relation to the person we are considering. Objective appraisal is not a kind or special kind of apologetics. Even many of his opponents do not dare to openly deny the fact that Stalin had a broad political and state outlook. True, at the same time they emphasize that this ability of his was rather an expression of his extremely developed sense of pragmatism. I believe that there is no point in conducting polemics on this matter, because in this case it is unproductive, and, to put it simply, is unnecessary. Facts do not cease to be facts if someone denies them. Especially for political or purely opportunistic reasons.
Achievements and problems in the development of agriculture. After the difficult years of the early 1930s, the stabilization of the situation in the field of agriculture and its further development on a new, collective basis, acted as one of the most important strategic tasks of the country. Naturally, Stalin paid particular close attention, if it is appropriate to use this concept, to his brainchild - collective and state farms. A lot of problems accumulated here, on the solution of which the food independence of the country depended, and more broadly, successes in the final approval of the new social system as a whole. As in industry, the focus here was on training. Stalin dealt with this problem every day. Despite all the difficulties, it was possible to solve it - by the end of the second five-year plan, a permanent and reliable contingent of qualified workers had been created in collective farms, state farms and machine and tractor stations.
It was the machine and tractor stations that became the main locomotive for the development of agriculture. And in this area, measures were taken in a hurried but systematic manner to train the necessary personnel and improve their professional skills. In particular, a large-scale test of the qualifications of tractor drivers was carried out, the result of which was the sending of about 30 thousand tractor drivers for training and advanced training. A technical minimum was introduced, which helped to conduct further training of specialists on a more solid basis. At the same time, a wide network of agricultural technical schools, various courses, etc. was deployed. As a result, from 1934 to 1937, about 1,300 thousand tractor drivers, more than 164 thousand combine operators, about 97 thousand drivers were trained for collective and state farms. The training of highly qualified specialists in agricultural universities and technical schools was widely carried out throughout the country. As a result of all these measures, by the end of the second five-year plan, 1.6 thousand specialists of higher and 94.4 thousand - of average qualifications were trained. In 390 scientific research institutes, branches and experimental stations of the country, there were almost 10 thousandth detachment of scientific workers.
One of the bottlenecks that hindered the growth of agricultural production and labor productivity on collective farms was serious shortcomings in the wage system. Without establishing proper order in this area, it was difficult to count on the implementation of the agricultural development plans outlined in the second five-year plan. On Stalin's initiative, relevant reforms were carried out here, aimed at stimulating the active and productive labor of collective farmers, tractor drivers, drivers and other persons directly involved in agricultural production. At the same time, rather tough measures were taken aimed at eliminating all kinds of violations of the collective farm regulations, eliminating such phenomena as theft or misuse of material assets, violations of labor and production discipline. Measures of material incentives for agricultural workers began to be widely introduced. All this as a whole led to the fact that the social face of the village has radically changed, fundamental shifts have taken place in the psychology of collective farmers - yesterday's individual farmers. It was possible to state with good reason that the situation in the countryside acquired a steady tendency towards improvement. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that the basis on which all these positive changes took place was by no means reduced, and even less limited to measures of state and administrative pressure. The decisive role here was played by the ever-increasing flow of capital investments in this sector of the economy. Without this, all efforts undertaken would of course be ineffective.
But it must be said frankly that the factors listed above did not at all serve as a sufficient guarantee of both the successful development of agriculture and the strengthening of the collective farm form of management. One of the most pressing issues, which literally touched upon the interests of all rural residents, was the question of the correct combination of public and personal interests of rural workers. In the press of those years, this problem was discussed with particular passion and caused great controversy. The root lay in the fact that part of the party and Soviet workers, being held captive by orthodox Bolshevik dogmas, in practice could not come to terms with the fact that collective farmers have their own interests, which often do not coincide with the interests of the social economy. Such, if one may say so, straightforward orthodox, have broken a lot of firewood in the conduct of state policy in the countryside. In February 1935, Stalin found it necessary to personally intervene in these disputes and formulated a point of view that, in its general form, looked absolutely reasonable and acceptable.
In particular, he said: “If you do not yet have an abundance of food in your artel and you cannot give individual collective farmers and their families everything they need, then the collective farm cannot take on itself in order to satisfy both social needs and personal ones. Then it is better to say bluntly that such and such an area of work is public, and such and such is personal. It is better to admit directly, openly and honestly that a collective farm household should have its own private household, small but personal. It is better to proceed from the fact that there is an artel farm, social, large, large and decisive, necessary to meet social needs, and along with it there is a small private farm necessary to meet the personal needs of the collective farmer. As long as there is a family, children, personal needs and personal tastes, then this cannot be ignored. And you have no right to disregard the personal interests of the collective farmers. Without this it is impossible to strengthen the collective farms. The combination of the personal interests of collective farmers with the public interests of collective farms is where the key to strengthening collective farms is. " .
Quoting all these statements of the leader on the further strengthening of the foundations of the cooperative system in agriculture, I feel some concern about the following. The reader may get the impression that I am painting some kind of idyllic picture, far from the real life of those years. Therefore, it is necessary to especially emphasize the idea that the basically correct instructions of Stalin did not mean at all that the real processes in the countryside developed in full accordance with these of his advice-directives. In life, there was - and very often - a completely different situation than it was provided by the instructions from above. As they say, to God is high, but to the king is far. Local life went on as usual, and often the most correct instructions turned out to be only good wishes.
I think it is necessary to make one more important remark. As the entire era of Stalin's rule, and the subsequent post-Stalin era, showed, the Soviet government throughout its existence was not able to most optimally resolve the issue of combining the public and personal interests of collective farmers. More than clearly, this is evidenced by the fact that for many decades the issues of agriculture were constantly discussed by the highest bodies of party and state power, countless decisions and resolutions were adopted, but it was not possible to fundamentally solve the problems of agriculture. Decisions on the size of the personal plots of collective farmers, the size and form of taxation have changed many times, but the problem has not yet been resolved in an optimal way. And Stalin himself, raising the question of the need to take into account the personal interests of collective farmers, due to his orthodox convictions, still could not go all the way. In his heart, he viewed all this as hidden concessions to the private capitalist, petty-bourgeois psychology of the peasantry. Although, of course, he could not publicly declare this for quite understandable reasons.
I think that the accents I have placed somewhat clarify the position of the author and it does not look unambiguously apologetic in relation to the general assessment of Stalin's policy in the field of cooperation. But nevertheless, one should still not get carried away with naked criticism (for the most part quite legitimate), but in due measure see both undeniably large, even historical in scale achievements, as well as mistakes, difficulties and sometimes even failures in the implementation of this policy.
The fact that the successes were not a fiction, but a reality, is evidenced by the fact that the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), held at the end of November 1934, decided to abolish the rationing system for food. A noticeable increase in collective and state farm production made it possible to abolish the rationing system. “The state now has a fairly large amount of grain, - noted in the resolution of the plenum, - in order to fully and unconditionally ensure the supply of the population without the rationing system, through the widespread deployment of a wide trade in bread "... Moreover, trade was carried out at uniform fixed state prices.
Stalin attached tremendous importance to the abolition of the rationing system for staple foods. Indeed, speaking in essence, it was the main real trump card in proof of the correctness of the course of collectivization he had chosen. The leader always believed that difficulties are natural, but temporary and will be overcome as they develop, thereby proving the historical validity of collectivization. It looked especially impressive after the hardest years of 1932 and 1933, which left an indelible mark in the living memory of the peoples of the Soviet Union.
Here is how Stalin's reaction to the abolition of the rationing system was described by his relative along the line of M. Svanidze's first wife. She kept a diary and the entry for November 1934 contains the following passage: “After lunch at I.(I mean I. Stalin - N.K.) there was a very complacent mood. He went to the intercity turntable and called Kirov, began to joke about the abolition of cards and the increase in the price of bread. He advised Kirov to immediately leave for Moscow in order to protect the interests of the Leningrad region from higher price increases than in other regions. Obviously Kirov was otboyarivatsya, then I. gave the phone to Kaganovich and he persuaded Kirov to come for 1 day. I. loves Kirov and, obviously, after his arrival from Sochi he wanted to see him, take a steam bath in a Russian bath and pamper in between cases, and the increase in the price of bread was an excuse " .
However, let us return to the main thread of our presentation.
In 1935, a new Charter of an agricultural artel was adopted, the development of which took place not only under the direct supervision of Stalin, but also with his most active participation. The charter consolidated collective farms as a social form of socialist economy and formulated the principles of managing it. The Charter embodied the basic principle of collective farm development - a combination of the public interests of the development of the collective farm and the personal interests of collective farmers. Naturally, in accordance with Stalin's concepts, the first place was given to the fulfillment of the tasks of the state, the all-round development of artisan production and the multiplication of the collective farm's public property as the main source of raising the welfare of the collective farm masses. The personal plot of land, the personal economy of collective farmers was assigned an auxiliary, auxiliary role. Their size was determined depending on the economic direction of collective farm production. The charter approved the principle of distribution of incomes by workdays, uniform for all collective farms, in accordance with the quantity and quality of labor expended.
Summing up a brief summary, it can be stated that the socialist mode of production finally triumphed in the agricultural sector in the Soviet Union. The country has become a major agricultural producer. Instead of the former 23.7 million small peasant farms, by the end of the second five-year plan, 243.7 thousand collective farms and 3992 state farms were created. The concentration of agricultural production has increased. In 1928, one collective farm had 13 peasant households, in 1937 - 76 households. In 1937, the specific weight of the sown area of individual farms was less than a percent in the country. By the end of 1937, 365.8 thousand tractors, about 105 thousand combine harvesters and 60.3 thousand trucks were concentrated in the machine-tractor stations. MTS served more than 90 percent of the sown area of collective farms. The creation of large socialist farms was accompanied by an increase in the culture of agriculture, and extensive work was carried out to irrigate land in arid regions. During the years of the second five-year plan, young socialist agriculture provided the country with more products than individual peasant farming before collectivization. The production of industrial crops has grown especially. The correlation between sectors in the structure of production has changed. In 1928, collective and state farms provided only 2.7 percent of grain production, and individual farms - 97.3 percent. At the end of the second five-year plan, the output of collective farms and state farms amounted to 72.2 percent, subsidiary farms of collective farmers, workers and employees - 26.3 percent, individual peasant farms - only 1.5 percent. During the years of the first and second five-year plans, large-scale public livestock raising was created. If earlier livestock was mainly dispersed in individual peasant farms, now 30–40 percent of it was in state and collective farms. However, more than half of the productive livestock was still in the private farms of collective farmers, workers and employees. This circumstance spoke about a lot, and above all about the fact that the Bolsheviks as a whole had not yet managed to overcome the peasant's eternal attachment to their property, one of the main components of which was always livestock.
It is essential to emphasize that as a result of all these transformations, the marketability of agricultural production has significantly increased. Namely, this represented in the eyes of Stalin one of the key goals of collectivization. Since the increase in marketability inextricably affected the strengthening of the country's strategic positions in the world, the growth of its defense capability as a whole. As has been noted more than once, the most important feature of the entire Stalinist economic strategy, designed for the future, was the creation of a mobile economy. This type of economy opened up new, previously unseen opportunities for realizing the goals of ensuring the national security of the state. Without the creation of this type of economy, our country would be unable to respond to the formidable challenges of the time. And these challenges have become more and more evident and more ambitious every year. So the implementation of collectivization acted as one of the cornerstones in the formation of a new, mobile structure of the entire economic complex of the state.
Returning to the subject of our direct consideration, namely to showing the success in the development of agriculture and, in particular, animal husbandry, in the interests of truth, it should be noted that the compilers of the above official statistics completely ignored the colossal reduction in the number of livestock during the period of collectivization. Therefore, the official figures cited, although impressive in their scale, still reflect only one thing - the positive side of the then situation in agriculture. As if in the shadow of oblivion, its negative sides remain. However, the leader as a whole could feel a sense of satisfaction, since the main goals were achieved. The fact that the collectivization process dragged on for almost a whole decade, that the first cavalry methods of solving this extremely difficult, but historically urgent socio-economic problem, turned out to be not only ineffective, but also disastrous - all this testified to the serious failures and mistakes of the chief architect of this course - Stalin. But this is one, albeit a very important aspect of the problem. Another - no less important - was that the problem was finally solved. And this marked new frontiers in the development of our country.
Improving the economic situation of the population. Stalin clearly understood that any propaganda steps aimed at praising the achievements of the new regime during the years of his rule would be fruitless if they were not backed up by a real improvement in the material situation of the bulk of the country's population. The fulfillment of the second five-year plan has created certain prerequisites for this. In the country, various movements and campaigns acquired unprecedented scope in history, the main goal of which was to attract workers as widely as possible to participate in accelerating economic growth, to improve the level and quality of labor in all sectors of the economic front. Spontaneously or on a tip from above, such movements arose as the adoption of obligations for the early fulfillment of planned targets, the Stakhanov movement, which constituted a whole heroic era in the life of our country in the 30s. On the personal initiative of the leader, a widespread campaign was launched to exalt and glorify the work of ordinary workers in the city and countryside. Stalin's winged words that labor in the Soviet country became a matter of honor, valor and heroism became the dominant feature of the entire life of society. Despite a certain utilitarian goal that the party leaders saw in campaigns of this kind, they themselves played a colossal educational and stimulating role. In no other society has the work of ordinary people been so highly exalted and glorified as a kind of feat, and not just as a means of earning wages to ensure life. In all this, elements of romanticism were visible, which colored the difficult life of Soviet people. From the height of these days, all this may seem either naive, or a carefully thought-out propaganda move by the authorities. However, if you look at things more deeply, you can see that then a new attitude towards work was indeed formed. This, in turn, had the most beneficial effect on the moral and psychological situation in the country.
I am writing about this so that the reader can at least to a small extent imagine the atmosphere of that era. This is important, especially in connection with the fact that this era is now being perverted by all available means of pseudo-democratic propaganda and is portrayed almost as a kind of slavery of a communist color, where only terror and repression ruled the show, where people felt an almost innate distrust of each other. combined with an ineradicable sense of fear. In a word, this society is presented almost in the form of one of the original circles of Dante's hell.
The real life of the Soviet people was completely different from what zealous anti-communists and haters of socialism portray it. Of course, it was not easy, just as the state of the state as a whole was not easy. The country was on the march, blazing paths into an unknown future. But every year life became better in material terms, as evidenced by countless facts and evidence. This is the main conclusion. It, of course, does not exclude the presence of serious difficulties, including in the material provision of the bulk of the country's population. And yet, the dominant trend was the trend towards an increase in the material standard of living and working conditions. There were many indicators of real improvement in the life of the population. It is worth mentioning such as improving working conditions, improving the pay system. Particular attention was paid to overcoming the elements of leveling, as well as ensuring higher wages for the foremost workers of production, workers in leading professions and people engaged in hard labor. Piece-work wages began to be used more widely (in 1935, 70% of all working time was paid on a piece-rate basis). Additional bonuses were introduced for the safety of mechanisms, energy savings, fuel, raw materials, materials. The Rates of Engineers and Technicians Working Directly in Manufacturing With a seven-hour working day and five-day working week in 1936, 5 million people had six hours or more shorter working hours. A significant lightening of labor and an increase in its productivity were achieved as a result of the mechanization of heavy and labor-intensive work. In the second five-year plan, the Soviet Union surpassed the capitalist countries in terms of the mechanization of coal mining. On the whole, the average money wages of workers and office employees have more than doubled over the five-year period (on average, per worker).
During the years of the second five-year plan, the country's leadership, and first of all the leader himself, began to pay primary attention to the development of light and food industries, expanding the range of consumer goods and cultural goods. It is no coincidence that the People's Commissar A. Mikoyan, who was in charge of these sectors of the economy, was sent on a long business trip to the United States to get acquainted with local experience and conclude contracts for the supply of the latest equipment. During these years, real giants of the food industry were created, some of which are still functioning. In a word, the party and its leader turned their faces to the people and their urgent needs. And not in some purely demonstrative sense, but in essence, in fact. And this could not fail to be noticed in the country. It is no accident that it was then that Stalin's winged words about the improvement of life sounded: “Life has become better, more fun. This is of course true. But this leads to the fact that the population began to multiply much faster than in the old days. The death rate has decreased, the birth rate is higher, and the net increase is incomparably greater. This is, of course, good, and we welcome it. Now we have about three million souls every year of net population growth. This means that every year we get an increment of the whole Finland " .
For all its political preoccupation, the leader's formula that life has become better, life has become more fun, it nevertheless reflected serious changes for the better that were taking place in the country and in public sentiment. And this, undoubtedly, contributed not to a purely propaganda, but to a real growth of Stalin's authority in Soviet society.
I specifically emphasize the latter circumstance, since it played a role in the fact that Stalin was able to carry out an unprecedented series of trials and purges, without encountering any organized and serious resistance from the broad masses of the population. But this is already the topic of subsequent chapters. Here I would like to give a certain outline of the general achievements and problems of Stalin's policy in the field of economics.
Many important questions of the country's economic life and the material conditions of the existence of the main strata of Soviet society remained outside the field of my attention. Firstly, it is impossible to grasp everything, and secondly, the focus of attention was and is not the specific economic, political, cultural and other problems themselves, but the political activities of Stalin. Therefore, for natural reasons, you have to set yourself a limiting framework and touch and illuminate only those aspects of important problems through the prism of which you can better reveal the policies and actions of the main figure of our story. Of course, this method has many flaws and flaws, but it is difficult to avoid them, even when you yourself see them well, but you simply do not have the opportunity to do otherwise within the assigned task - to the detriment of the main task.
Advances in cultural and scientific fields. If we try to describe in a nutshell the main achievements of the second Stalinist policy in the field of education, science and culture in the period under review, then this can be done simply - a genuine cultural revolution was carried out. The revolution, in its fundamental parameters, is quite comparable to the revolution in the field of socio-economic and political relations. The construction of a new society, of course, was unthinkable without the elimination of illiteracy, since an illiterate member of society could not be an active participant in this process. The campaign to eradicate illiteracy, begun in the first years of Soviet power, was basically completed in the second five-year plan. During these years, the program of compulsory primary education and universal compulsory polytechnic education in the volume of a seven-year period was successfully implemented. In total, during the second five-year plan, 3,671 schools were built in cities and urban-type settlements, and 15,107 in rural areas. In addition, at the direction of party bodies in 1936, 941 school buildings were vacated, which were not used for their intended purpose. The scale of the solution to the problem looks impressive and clearly shows that in this matter the successes of our country had no analogue in world history. It should be emphasized that such impressive results were based on a well-thought-out policy in the field of training a large number of teachers of both middle and higher echelons: pedagogical universities were created, the quality of textbooks was improved, and all kinds of experiments in the field of education were finally put to an end. years of significant damage to the case.
As for Stalin's role in all these matters, it must be said that he not only followed the development of the process as a whole and determined its main directions, but also personally participated in the development of fundamental instructions on such problems as the compilation of textbooks on modern history and the history of the USSR ... Draft textbooks on general history and especially the history of the USSR were widely discussed by the public. The leader acted as one of the participants in the discussion, and it goes without saying that his opinion was perceived as the ultimate truth. In passing, it should be noted that the circulation of textbooks in various fields of knowledge grew by leaps and bounds, which also testified to the attention of the country's leadership to education issues. During 1934-1938 the circulation of textbooks for primary and secondary schools exceeded 596 million copies.
In August 1934, while on vacation in the South, he, together with Kirov and Zhdanov, formulated the requirements for the prepared textbooks on these subjects. The participation of Kirov and Zhdanov in the drafting of comments, in all likelihood, was purely nominal: the leader in this way wanted to demonstrate the existence of collective leadership and that he was not alone and personally makes verdicts on the assessment of historical events in the past.
It cannot be said that these remarks were distinguished by a special depth and breadth of the formulation of problems. But a number of valuable and new thoughts are still contained in them, and they are important not only in themselves, but also as a visible indicator and a harbinger of Stalin's gradual evolution towards an increasingly definite and unconditional perception of state thinking as the basis of an approach not only to history, but and to foreign policy, international relations in general. Of course, this was not about the leader's abandonment of the class approach when analyzing historical events: such a step from him could not have been expected in any case. But nevertheless, he demonstrated the ability in a number of cases to overcome the stereotyped and narrowed framework of purely class criteria in assessing a number of important events in Russian and world history.
So, quite rightly and in full accordance with the realities of the past, he emphasized the need to consider the historical development of Russia not in isolation from the general historical course of events, but in organic connection with it. In particular, he wrote: “We consider it necessary to radically revise the synopsis in the spirit of the above provisions, while taking into account that we are talking about creating a textbook, where every word and every definition should be weighed, and not about irresponsible journal articles where you can chat about everything and how anything, distracting from the sense of responsibility.
We need a textbook on the history of the USSR, where the history of Great Russia does not break away from the history of other peoples of the USSR - this is firstly, and wherever the history of the peoples of the USSR does not break away from the history of European and world history in general - this is secondly " .
Stalin's other principled remark, reflecting the internationalist approach of the leader to the history of the country, is also quite remarkable. He reproached the group of authors of the textbook synopsis with the following: “She compiled a synopsis of Russian history, not the history of the USSR, that is, the history of Rus, but without the history of the peoples that became part of the USSR (data on the history of Ukraine, Belarus, Finland and other Baltic peoples, the North Caucasian and Transcaucasian peoples, the peoples of the Middle Asia and the Far East, as well as the Volga and northern regions - Tatars, Bashkirs, Mordovians, Chuvashs, etc.) " .
Stalin's remark is, of course, essentially correct. However, immediately after this remark follows the thesis, inherited from orthodox Bolshevism, about the colonial role that Russia allegedly played in relation to other peoples of the empire. Already in the first volume I had a chance to deal with this plot in sufficient detail. And, as it seems, on the whole, it was possible to show the inconsistency of this old Bolshevik thesis, on the basis of which, for many reasons, various nationalist currents grew and gained strength, undermining the foundations of a single state space of the country. Stalin took a clearly inconsistent and ambivalent position on this issue. He then criticized the colonial nature of the foreign policy of tsarist Russia, especially in relation to the so-called conquered peoples. Then he unleashed his blow against the manifestations of local nationalism. In other words, his views on this issue resembled a pendulum swinging in one direction or the other, depending on the current political situation. So in his remarks, he considered it necessary to focus on the fact that "The synopsis does not emphasize the annexationist-colonial role of Russian tsarism, together with the Russian bourgeoisie and landowners (" tsarism is a prison of peoples ") .
The remarks on the synopsis of the textbook on modern history are rather superficial. Here the leader apparently lacked the scale and breadth of his approach. The essence of his remarks boiled down to a sum of reproaches that were not very fundamental in their significance. So, noting that the synopsis of the textbook on modern history looks better than on the history of the USSR, Stalin adds "But there is still a lot of confusion in this outline"... And then comes what is called a game of definition. The chief writes: "Therefore, it is impossible to allow the French Revolution to be called simply" Great "- it must be called and interpreted as a revolution bourgeois.
Likewise, our socialist revolution in Russia cannot be called simply the October Revolution - it must be called and interpreted as a revolution socialist, revolution Soviet.
In accordance with this, it is necessary to restructure the synopsis of the textbook of modern history with the selection of appropriate definitions and terms " .
There is, of course, no point in going into the details of all these issues. Of fundamental importance was the way in which the comments traced the further evolution of Stalin's views on the philosophy of history in general and on Russian history in the first place. Some new moments in this evolution are already being drawn, at least so far only in a dotted line. But on the whole, as they liked to joke at the time of perestroika, the process began. And this was a natural process, conditioned not so much by the personal predilections of the leader himself as by the realities of the era. Simplifying somewhat the essence of the problem, one can express it as follows - the process of Stalin's formation as a statesman was going on. This process was not a one-line movement from one amount of values to another. It looked more like an organic combination of principles and approaches that differ in their value scale.
But returning to the topic of the development of education, it is worth mentioning that the very system of universities and technical schools has undergone radical changes; these institutions were enlarged, with the result that their total number was reduced from 832 in the 1932/33 academic year to 683 in the 1937/38 academic year. However, the number of students increased from 504.4 to 547.2 thousand. The requirements for university entrants have increased. The restrictions related to their social origin, introduced in the first years of Soviet power, were canceled. The latter was a landmark event, testifying to Stalin's desire to create in the country and abroad the impression of the equality of all Soviet citizens. This was all the more necessary after the adoption of the new constitution, which will be discussed later.
During the years of the second five-year plan, a large army of highly qualified and cultural workers has grown up in the USSR. Higher educational institutions of the country have graduated about 370 thousand specialists for the national economy - almost 200 thousand more than in the previous five years. Thus, in a short historical period, numerous cadres of the Soviet intelligentsia were formed, in their overwhelming majority they were a corps of highly educated specialists loyal to the new government. Stalin saw the socio-political mission of the huge detachment of the new, Soviet intelligentsia in fulfilling its historical mission and becoming an active participant in the creation of a socialist way of life in all forms of its manifestation. Without solving the problem of education and creating cadres of the intelligentsia, all plans for the reconstruction of the country were left in the air. And one of the important merit of Stalin is precisely that he understood the significance of this problem in time and did everything possible and impossible to solve it.
Speaking about Stalin's activities during these years, one cannot pass over in silence the question of his relationship to science and scientific research. Along with all the other problems to which he paid daily attention, science and everything connected with its development were also in the field of his vigilant supervision and control. True, this control concerned primarily the organizational aspect of the issue. But it also happened that he directly intervened in specific issues, although, I must say, he did not do it too often, since he was aware of his limited knowledge in this area. But the general direction of scientific policy, of course, was formed under the dominant influence of Stalin himself. According to him, science was called upon to contribute to the completion of the reconstruction of the entire national economy, the successful construction of a socialist society, and the implementation of the tasks of the cultural revolution. To fulfill these tasks, it was necessary to restructure the activities of scientific institutions, to train new cadres of highly qualified scientific workers. In connection with this, allocations for science have increased. In the second five-year plan, they increased by more than 3.6 times as compared with the first.
The work of scientific institutions was reorganized in order to establish closer and systematic cooperation between science and practice. The USSR Academy of Sciences was subordinated directly to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. In 1935, a new Statute of the Academy was adopted, theoretical problems directly related to the urgent tasks of the development of industry, agriculture and cultural construction were included in the scientific research plan. Stalin paid special attention to improving the planning and coordination of scientific work on a national scale. New research institutes and laboratories were created in the Academy of Sciences. The number of institutes of the Academy of Sciences increased from 28 in 1932 to 48 in 1937, and the number of employees in them during the same time increased 2.6 times (at the department of physical and mathematical sciences - more than 3 times, technical sciences - 4 times).
In total, by the end of 1937, 806 research institutes and their branches, 397 agricultural and other branch experimental stations, 31 observatories were operating in the USSR. The advanced training of scientific personnel was facilitated by the unified certification system for scientific and pedagogical workers introduced in 1937. The defense of doctoral and master's theses was established, as well as the assignment of academic titles.
Stalin maintained constant contact with some prominent Soviet scientists, was aware of their scientific interests and developments. He attached particular importance to concentrating the efforts of our scientists on the development of the most important theoretical and national economic problems: physicists and chemists carried out work in the field of studying metals and alloys, new types of raw materials and energy sources. Geologists searched for new deposits of iron, oil, coal, lead, molybdenum, tin, chromium, nickel, gold and other minerals needed by the country. Conditions were created to reduce imports of rare metals and increase government resources. Not to mention the purely economic significance of all these issues, they were included as an organic link in the system of the mobilization economy created by Stalin. There is hardly any need to emphasize that the scientific research, which the leader insisted on, had, first of all, a direct relation to the issues of strengthening the defense capability of the state. An indicator of the rapid development of Soviet science, and in its most promising areas, is the participation in this of many prominent scientists who have become the pride of not only Soviet, but also world science. At this time, the activities headed by S.P. Korolev, the group for the study of jet propulsion (GIRD), the team of which created the first experimental rockets. In the same years, one of the world's largest nuclear fission plants was installed. Work was developed in the field of telemechanics, radio engineering, electronics and automation. The study of the Arctic was carried out on a wide front. Outstanding scientists such as N.I. Vavilov, S.I. Vavilov, A.F. Ioffe, V.L. Komarov, I.V. Kurchatov, I.V. Michurin, V.A. Obruchev, E.O. Paton, I.E. Tamm, V.A. Fock, C.A. Chaplygin and many others.
In this chapter I do not consider the problems of Stalin and literature, Stalin and art. Although, logically, it would be appropriate to dwell on them here. However, it seems to me necessary to devote a special section to these problems, and it will not be built in a chronological framework, but in a problem-thematic key. In addition, for the convenience of presenting and creating a complete understanding of Stalin's attitude to these issues, in my opinion, it is worth combining the entire period of Stalin's rule into one whole, which will make it possible to trace the evolution of his views and positions on issues of literature and art.
3. Stalin and the issues of strengthening the country's defense
When faced with a truly immense range of problems that Stalin dealt with, one involuntarily feels a sense of surprise, and sometimes bewilderment. Sometimes even a certain semblance of mistrust towards the sources is created, reflecting the whole gamut of his interests as a statesman. But this is a false feeling: as the supreme leader of the party and, in fact, the state, for objective reasons, he was forced to deal not with the problems that interested him personally, but with those in which the state was interested. The leader's credo on this issue could be expressed in his own words, though with a broader meaning. In one of his letters to Kaganovich there is such a remarkable phrase: "You cannot yawn and sleep when you are in power" .
Pondering the meaning of this simple phrase, you begin to understand that for Stalin it was not a purely everyday expression, so to speak, a red word. If you try to decipher it, then some kind of holistic philosophy that the leader professed is somehow invisibly visible in it. Apparently, even in a dream, the thought that he was in power, and, therefore, was responsible for everything that happened "in his diocese" did not leave him. And that the issues of a military plan, above all, increasing the combat readiness of the country's armed forces, strengthening its defense capability, were always at the epicenter of his attention: a huge array of documents, and the whole political and state activities of Stalin, are convincing of this. Here, of course, there is no way to touch upon all aspects of such a multifaceted and capacious problem. Therefore, I will dwell only on some of its key points.
First of all, the question arises: did Stalin himself consider himself a military leader? It is impossible to give an unambiguous answer to this question. In the most simplified form, it can be argued that, on the one hand, he has repeatedly emphasized that he is primarily a politician and issues of military strategy for him are presented as part of political strategy in general. That is, he did not consider himself as a military leader. On the other hand, his activities during the Civil War showed that he was actively solving issues of a purely military plan, and thus, as it were, played the role of a military leader. Let us also recall that the People's Commissar of Defense Voroshilov, already at the end of the 1920s, preached the idea that none other than Stalin was the actual creator of the Red Army. Of course, this Voroshilov's version does not correspond to the historical truth and should be rejected as knowingly apologetic and sycophantic in its content and spirit. But to deny the important and active role of Stalin in the building of the Red Army is to contradict the truth. As a member of the Politburo, and then General Secretary of the Central Committee, he was directly involved in the development and adoption of key decisions on the country's defense and the construction of the army and navy. I will cite the assessment of a British military specialist who wrote a book about Stalin as a military leader, while noting that the English author by no means can be counted among the admirers of Stalin.
Here is what he wrote about Stalin of the period that we are now considering: “During the 1920s and 1930s, Stalin ultimately controlled the most important appointments in the army, approved or indicated the direction of the development of military theory, training, organization, equipping and deployment of the armed forces ... a base responsible for the production of a huge amount of military equipment, most of which was up to date and of good quality, bearing in mind the time when it was put into service " .
When Stalin became the autocratic ruler of the country, his role in resolving all military issues not only increased, but also became decisive in all respects. A special place is occupied by the Great Patriotic War, but all this will be discussed in the relevant chapters. Here I would like to touch upon one important episode that sheds light on Stalin's approaches to military problems.
In 1930, the then Deputy People's Commissar of Defense M. Tukhachevsky appealed to the Central Committee of the party with proposals on new plans for building the army. Stalin carefully studied these proposals and in a letter to Voroshilov subjected them to pejorative criticism. The main criticisms made by the leader are worth repeating, since they reveal Stalin's deep understanding of the very nature of military organizational development and the relationship of defense problems with the general development of the country. Namely, this approach was demanded of him by his position as leader of the country.
In a letter dating to March 1930, he wrote: “I received both documents, and the explanatory note of Comrade Tukhachevsky, and the“ considerations ”of the Headquarters. You know that I have great respect for Comrade Tukhachevsky, how extraordinary capable comrade(emphasis mine - N.K.)... But I did not expect that a Marxist who should not be torn off from the soil could defend such a fantastic "plan" torn off from the soil. In his "plan" there is no main thing, that is, there is no account of the real possibilities of the economic, financial, cultural order. This "plan" fundamentally violates every conceivable and permissible proportion between the army, as part of the country, and the country as a whole, with its limits of economic and cultural order. The "plan" strays into the point of view of "purely military" people, who often forget that the army is a derivative of the economic and cultural state of the country.
How could such a "plan" arise in the head of a Marxist who had gone through the school of the civil war?
I think that Comrade Tukhachevsky's "plan" is the result of a fashionable enthusiasm for "leftist" phrases, the result of a passion for paper, clerical maximalism. That is why the analysis is replaced in it by "playing in tsifiri", and the Marxist perspective of the growth of the Red Army - by fantasy.
To "carry out" such a "plan" would surely ruin both the country's economy and the army. This would be worse than any counter-revolution.
It is gratifying that the Headquarters of the Red Army, with all the danger of temptation, clearly and definitely dissociated itself from Comrade Tukhachevsky's "plan".
As we can see from the letter, Stalin, in essence, accused Tukhachevsky not only of having clearly anti-Marxist positions, poorly understanding the nature of the organic and inextricable relationship of military development with other important parameters of the country's economic development, but also that his proposals are “worse than any counterrevolution ". All this somehow does not fit with the previously expressed high assessment of Tukhachevsky as an unusually capable comrade. With such an attitude to the proposals of the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, there could only be a question of his dismissal from the post, to which he was clearly not mature enough. But in the early 1930s, such a response from the leader was by no means tantamount to a verdict on the political unreliability of the author of the presented proposals.
But this plot is interesting not only for these moments, but also for how it continued after more than two years. Stalin in 1932 wrote a letter to Tukhachevsky admitting that he was wrong, which happened to him not so often. Especially if we take into account not the ostentatious, but the real attitude of the leader towards Tukhachevsky. A cat ran between them during the war with Poland in 1920, when they met in direct confrontation. And Stalin did not forget old grievances, and even more so he did not know how to forgive them. Therefore, his letter to Tukhachevsky, with a kind of self-criticism, is surprising, bordering on shock. Why on earth would he have to admit that he was wrong two years later? It was not sentimental feelings that prompted him to do this, but purely business considerations. The bottom line is that during that period, in practical terms, proposals were discussed to make fundamental adjustments to the long-term program of military development. And here it turned out that a number of Tukhachevsky's ideas and considerations are fully consistent with the new conditions and their implementation can significantly contribute to strengthening the power and increasing the combat capability and mobility of the Red Army. In a word, Tukhachevsky's proposals were worth taking seriously. Moreover, it was during that period that the question of how to bring our army to the level of the most modern armies in the world was posed with all urgency.
Apparently, all this in its totality prompted the leader to cast aside all kinds of emotions and considerations of "the honor of the uniform." And he sent the following message to a man whom he almost mixed with mud recently.
To Comrade Tukhachevsky. Copy to Comrade Voroshilov.
The attached letter addressed to Comrade Voroshilov was written by me in March 1930. It means two documents: a) your "note" on the deployment of our army, bringing the number of divisions to 246 or 248 (I don't remember exactly); b) the "considerations" of our headquarters with the conclusion that your "note" requires, in fact, bringing the number of the army to 11 million souls, that this "note" in view of this is unreal, fantastic, unbearable for our country.
In my letter addressed to Comrade Voroshilov, as you know, I joined mainly the conclusions of our headquarters and spoke sharply negatively about your "note", recognizing it as the fruit of "clerical maximalism", the result of a "game of numbers", etc. ...
This was the case two years ago.
Now, two years later, when some unclear questions have become clearer to me, I must admit that my assessment was too harsh, and the conclusions of my letter were not entirely correct.
First, the closest acquaintance with the case showed that the figure "11 million souls" does not follow from your "note", because what your "note" may require and what it really requires is an army of 8 million souls. Of course, an army of 8 million is also unrealistic, unnecessary and unbearable for our country, at least in the next three or four years (not to mention the first five-year plan). But 8 million is still not 11 million.
Secondly, there is no doubt that the changed nature of armies in recent years, the growth of technology, military transport and the development of aviation, the emergence of mechanized units and the corresponding reorganization of the army create a completely new situation that deprives the old disputes about a large number of divisions of their decisive importance. There is no need to prove that not the number of divisions, but, above all, their quality, their saturation with equipment will now play a decisive role. I think you will agree with me that an army of 6 million, well supplied with equipment and newly organized, will be quite enough to defend the independence of our country on all fronts, without exception. And we are more or less capable of such an army. It seems to me that my letter addressed to Comrade Voroshilov would not have been so harsh in tone and it would have been free of some wrong conclusions about you if I had then transferred the dispute to this new base. But I didn't, since obviously the problem was not clear enough for me yet.
Do not scold me for undertaking to correct the shortcomings of my letter with some delay.
With communist greetings, I. Stalin. "
The above exchange of epistolary messages gives grounds to draw the conclusion: Stalin, when it was necessary, put the interests of the cause, concern for strengthening the defensive power of our armed forces above all other considerations. Including considerations of personal prestige. This assessment, of course, is not and cannot be absolute and timeless. It would be unlawful to extend it to all subsequent stages of the leader's activity. But in the period under consideration, he undoubtedly demonstrated both a sense of common sense and a sense of responsibility in such a scrupulous and important matter as military development. In order to find funds to strengthen the country's defenses, Stalin did not stop at literally nothing. It is known that in the 1920s, the party seriously raised the issue of permitting the sale of vodka, which could provide very substantial revenues to the state budget. However, among a significant part of the Bolsheviks there was strong opposition to this kind of course. At the same time, they referred to the principled position of Lenin, who categorically opposed the idea of soldering the people under the auspices of the state. Stalin not immediately, but decisively advocated the introduction of such a measure. In the end, the issue of selling vodka under the state monopoly was resolved positively, however, they tried to somehow regulate the volume of sales of vodka products.
In the early 30s, the leader persistently pushed the idea of increasing the sale of vodka, seeing this as one of the most important sources of funds from the population. His argumentation was of a purely pragmatic nature and was far from any kind of sentimentality. Here is an excerpt from his letter to Molotov, in which the details of the upcoming reform in military affairs were discussed: “And vice versa, with this 'reform' we will certainly ensure the victorious defense of the USSR. But the "reform" will require rather large sums of money (more "shots", more equipment, an additional number of command personnel, additional expenses for clothing and food supplies). Where to get the money? It is necessary, in my opinion, to increase (greatly possibly) the production of vodka. It is necessary to cast aside false shame and directly, openly go to the maximum increase in the production of vodka in order to ensure a real and serious defense of the country. Therefore, this matter must be taken into account now. postponing the appropriate raw materials for the production of vodka and formally fixing it in the state budget for 30–31 years. Keep in mind that the serious development of civil aviation will also require a lot of money, for which, again, you will have to appeal to vodka " .
The government sought money wherever possible. One of the important and stable sources of budget replenishment was government loans, which were distributed among the population. Formally, they were voluntary, but in reality they were voluntary-compulsory, and more precisely, they were mostly compulsory. Introduced into practice during the first five-year plan, they became an immanent feature of Soviet life and existed until 1957, when Khrushchev made a "beautiful gesture" announcing their abolition. A considerable share of the already not so hot wages was calculated in favor of the state. And if at first, when the country had nowhere to draw funds, this measure could be explained and justified, then at subsequent stages it looked nothing more than an additional levy levied in favor of the state.
In addition to the export of traditional goods (bread, timber, etc.), the practice of selling valuable works of art abroad, primarily painting, has become quite widespread. This measure made some contribution to the national treasury, however, considering it in retrospect, it seems obvious that it undoubtedly inflicted tangible damage on the country's cultural national heritage. Even taking into account all the complexity of the then situation with the extraction of foreign currency, this policy, carried out if not at the initiative of Stalin, then with his indisputable approval, can in no way be recognized as a well-thought-out state line. In those years, the system of the so-called torgsin, that is, trade with foreigners, was also widely introduced. To implement this system, a network of closed shops was created in the country, in which foreigners could buy the necessary food and consumer goods for foreign currency.Over time, Soviet citizens were also allowed access to these shops: they paid for their purchases in gold, precious products, works of art, etc. .d.
In a word, all imaginable and inconceivable sources were used in order to obtain the funds necessary for industrialization. It goes without saying that a significant part of these funds was intended for military needs, for the purpose of strengthening the army and navy and equipping them with the necessary types of weapons and equipment. Stalin pursued this line consistently and unshakably.
The country's successes in the implementation of the first and second five-year plans made it possible to put the military organizational development on an entirely new basis. As a result, conditions were created that made it possible in a very short historical period of time to carry out the necessary rearmament of the Red Army and the Navy. As a result of complete collectivization, the social base and rear of the Red Army were strengthened, agricultural production increased and the material supply of the army improved. Not the last place was taken by the fact that the necessary prerequisites for the creation of mobilization reserves in case of war were prepared. The rapid growth of automotive and tractor engineering made it possible to switch the enterprises of this industry to the production of tanks, military tractors and other military equipment. Rural machine operators became an important source of technically prepared replenishment of the army (remember, for example, the popular movie Tractor Drivers at that time, where these problems were reflected in artistic form). And hardly anyone will doubt that Stalin stood at the origins of all these cases, consistently pursuing his course of creating a mobile economy.
At the 17th Party Congress in 1934 and in his subsequent speeches, Stalin emphasized the need to expand the mobilization capabilities of industry and the entire national economy, to create new enterprises in heavy industry, including defense, in the eastern regions of the country. This geographical reorientation, as the impending terrible events of the Second World War showed, can rightfully be regarded as Stalin's great service to the country and to its future generations. It is enough even purely speculatively, hypothetically to imagine - had it not been done - in order to present on the entire grandiose scale the entire sum of insoluble problems that the country would have faced during the war. We can say that in order to build up a powerful military potential, the leader did not allow wasting not only one year, but not a single day. And all this will be rewarded a hundredfold in the future.
In terms of implementing the outlined course in March 1934, a decree was adopted "On the system of artillery weapons of the Red Army for the second five-year plan"; in April 1935, the plan for the development of the Air Force for 1935-1937 was approved. Somewhat earlier (in June 1933) a decision was made "On the program of naval development for 1933-1938." These documents were part of the second five-year plan for the development of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the main task of which was to ensure the Red Army's superiority over the armies of the capitalist states in all basic means of struggle - aviation, tanks, artillery, and navy.
On the initiative of Stalin and on the basis of the installations formulated in the decisions of the PB and Council of People's Commissars, the enterprises of the defense industry were reconstructed, dozens of new military factories were built. Moreover, it should be noted that in all branches of the defense industry, fixed assets have been updated, new production facilities have been created, and the output of manufactured products has significantly increased. Generally speaking, the defense industry of the USSR in the second five-year plan developed much faster than other sectors of the national economy. Its gross output has increased 2.8 times over these years; the number of workers, engineers and technicians and employees employed in military enterprises has almost doubled, and output per worker has more than tripled. The production of aircraft and aircraft engines in the second five-year plan increased 5.5 times, including military aircraft - 7.5 times, warships - 3 times, artillery and small arms - 4 times, radio equipment - 3 times. ammunition - almost 5 times, tanks - more than 2 times, gunpowder - almost 7 times, and so on. on the formation of the All-Union People's Commissariat of the Defense Industry. In April 1937, again at the suggestion of Stalin, a resolution was adopted to establish a Defense Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. By direct order of Stalin, formalized by the decisions of the Central Committee of the party, research institutes, large military design bureaus and pilot production facilities, specialized in the combat arms, were created in the country, which launched work on the development of the latest types of military equipment and weapons. Research began in the field of rocketry. In the early 30s, special research institutions were formed to create rocket technology. Created, tested and put into mass production in the late 30s - early 40s, these funds played an important role in the upcoming war.
Over the same years, remarkable personnel of military designers have grown. Thus, the central design bureaus and institutes of aircraft construction were headed by outstanding engineers and scientists N.N. Polikarpov, A.N. Tupolev, V.M. Petlyakov, S.V. Ilyushin, A.S. Yakovlev, S.A. Lavochkin and others. A.A. Mikulin, V. Ya. Klimov and A.D. Shvetsov. The largest specialists in tank building were J.Ya. Kotin, N.A. Kucherenko, M.I. Koshkin and others. A great contribution to the development of Soviet artillery was made by V.G. Grabin, I.I. Ivanov, F.F. Petrov. Old, experienced small arms designers V.A. Degtyarev, F.V. Tokarev, V.G. Fedorov, S.G. Simonov, B.G. Shpitalny, G.S. Shpagin. The activities of the talented shipbuilders A.N. Krylova and others.
The above lists are only generalizing facts and data that paint in large strokes a picture of everything that Stalin personally had to do as the main Soviet leader in strengthening the country's defense capability. Numerous memories of military leaders and scientists, designers and pilots, persons directly associated with the deployment of the military industry of the Soviet Union have survived. I will not overload the book with the reproduction of these vivid and highly instructive memories. I will refer to only three people. The first is Molotov, who knew Stalin not only longer than all his comrades-in-arms, but also, apparently, better than them. Here is his estimate:
“In my opinion, Stalin quickly and deeply grasped the questions of technology. This has always affected the consideration of issues of military technology: aviation, artillery, tanks, ships. Stalin was easily guided in this, and although he did not at all like the mathematical side of technology, he caught progress well and actively pushed forward the affairs of military technology. In these cases, naturally, little attention was paid to the economic side. Stalin did not try to delve into questions of economics ”.
Another witness, whose opinion I will refer to, is D.F. Ustinov, appointed in 1941 by Stalin to the post of People's Commissar of Armaments. His assessments are worthy of faith, since they appeared when the name of the leader was by no means held in high esteem. Another important thing is that he was in close contact with Stalin and had a good opportunity to observe his approaches to solving the problems of the defense industries. Here is what D. Ustinov wrote about Stalin's style of work: “For all his imperiousness, severity, I would say, rigidity, he vividly responded to the manifestation of reasonable initiative, independence, appreciated the independence of judgment. In any case, as far as I remember, as a rule, he did not anticipate those present with his conclusion, assessment, decision. Knowing the weight of his word, Stalin tried for the time being not to reveal his attitude to the problem under discussion, most often he either sat as if aloof, or walked almost silently around the office, so that it seemed that he was very far from the subject of the conversation, thinking about something of his own. And suddenly a short remark was heard, sometimes turning the conversation into a new one and, as it often turned out later, the only right channel ...
Possessing the richest, extremely tenacious and capacious memory, I.V. Stalin remembered in detail everything that was connected with the discussion, and did not allow any deviations from the essence of the solutions or assessments that had been worked out. He knew by name practically all the leaders of the economy and the Armed Forces, right down to the directors of factories and commanders of divisions, he remembered the most significant data characterizing both them personally and the state of affairs in the areas entrusted to them. He had an analytical mind capable of crystallizing the most important and essential from a huge mass of data, information, facts. Stalin formulated his thoughts and decisions clearly, clearly, concisely, with inexorable logic. I did not like superfluous words and did not say them " .
And, finally, the testimony of the outstanding Soviet designer A.S. Yakovleva: “Stalin asked several questions. He was interested in the state and level of German, British and French aviation. I was amazed at his awareness. He spoke like an aviation specialist " .
Stalin paid attention to the development of all types and types of troops, realizing that the coming war would be primarily a war of engines, and only those who would have modern weapons that would meet the needs of new forms of combat operations would win in it. Accordingly, the formation of tank units and formations was carried out at an accelerated pace. If in 1931 the army received 740 tanks of domestic production, then in 1938 - already 2271 tanks. By the end of the second five-year plan in the Red Army, only the main samples of tanks were 12 thousand units. And although our tanks were distinguished by their speed and firepower, their weak point was insufficiently strong armor. Vigorous measures were taken to eliminate these flaws. During this period, Soviet designers began to create the T-34 and KV combat vehicles that had no analogues in the world.
We can say that aviation was the leader's favorite child. Its development was given top priority: From 1933 to 1937, the number of combat aircraft more than doubled. On the domestic aircraft created by our designers, Soviet pilots set outstanding international records, testifying to the transformation of the USSR into an advanced aviation power. In July 1936, on the ANT-25 aircraft V.P. Chkalov, G.F. Baidukov, A.V. Belyakov flew over 9 thousand kilometers without landing on the route Moscow - Petropavlovsk-on-Kamchatka - Udd Island. A year later, the same crew made a non-stop flight from Moscow to the United States. And all these were not propaganda actions, but a real demonstration of the high level of Soviet aviation and its military industry.
Such an important component of the country's defense power as the navy did not remain out of the field of attention of Stalin and the Soviet leadership. The construction of submarines and surface ships was launched. By the end of the second five-year plan, 500 combat and auxiliary ships of various classes, equipped with advanced artillery and anti-aircraft systems, and torpedo tubes, had entered service. From 1930 to 1936, the number of submarines increased more than 8 times, small surface ships - 4 times. The Baltic, Black Sea, Pacific and Northern fleets already had battleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and torpedo boats.
Air defense and coastal defenses were strengthened. From 1929 to 1935, new fortified areas with permanent defensive structures were created. Defense appropriations in 1937 amounted to 17.5 billion rubles instead of the planned 4.3 billion rubles. All these measures in their totality gave their results: by the end of the second five-year plan, the Red Army and the Navy did not lag behind the armies of the world's largest powers in terms of technical equipment, and surpassed them in terms of the main models of military equipment and weapons.
The timely taken organizational and managerial measures also contributed to the strengthening of the Soviet armed forces. In a rather short period, covering 1935-1937, fundamental changes were made in the military system of the USSR: a transition was made from the territorial personnel principle of manning the Red Army to a single personnel principle. The need for this restructuring was caused by the fact that the old system no longer met the new needs and the real situation in the world. The transition to a personnel system was also conditioned by the technical reconstruction of the army and navy. The complete transition to the personnel system was completed in 1938. As a result of organizational restructuring and an increase in the technical equipment of the Red Army, its structure and composition have undergone serious changes. In the ground forces, the proportion of artillery, armored and mechanized units has increased. Fundamental changes also concerned the structure and composition of the Air Force and the Navy. These changes were aimed at bringing the state of these types and types of troops in line with new realities. In the mid-thirties, long-range bomber aviation corps appeared, and airborne troops were created. New fleets appeared - the Northern Fleet.
The structure of military command has also changed. In June 1934, the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR was abolished, and the People's Commissariat for Military and Naval Affairs was transformed into the People's Commissariat of Defense of the USSR. K.E. remained the People's Commissar of Defense. Voroshilov, and his deputies Ya. Gamarnik and M.N. Tukhachevsky. Under the People's Commissar of Defense, a Military Council consisting of 80 people was created.In September 1935, it was decided to transform the Headquarters of the Red Army into the General Staff of the Red Army, the head of which was A. Egorov. In 1936, the Academy of the General Staff was formed. In April 1936, the Politburo recognized it necessary to create, within the People's Commissariat of Defense, the Combat Training Directorate of the Red Army; Deputy People's Commissar of Defense M.N. Tukhachevsky. The Main Directorate of Armaments and Technical Supply of the Red Army was also organized. Finally, at the end of 1937, the People's Commissariat of the Navy was formed. In 1935, new military ranks were introduced. The first marshals of the Soviet Union were K.E. Voroshilov, M.N. Tukhachevsky, S.M. Budyonny, A.I. Egorov and V.K. Blucher. The rank of 1st rank army commander was given to S.S. Kamenev, I.E. Yakir, I.P. Uborevich, I.P. Belov, B.M. Shaposhnikov; commander of the 2nd rank - P.E. Dybenko, M.K. Lewandovsky, I.N. Dubovoy, I.F. Fedko and A.I. Cork, N. D. Kashirin, A.I. Sedyakin, Ya. I. Alksnis, I.A. Khalepsky, I.I. Vatsetis. The rank of 1st rank army commissar was awarded to Ya.B. Gamarniku.
This section highlights only the most important aspects of Stalin's activities to improve the construction of the country's armed forces and to maximize its defense capability. The main direction of all these measures was to raise the level of the armed forces to the modern requirements that were imposed by life itself. Stalin, with the help of various means, primarily intelligence, meticulously followed the military development in other states, and above all, future potential adversaries. He set a task for the military - not only to keep up with foreign armies, but also to be no lower than them in all respects. This concerned the number, structure, organization, equipping with weapons and military equipment, the level of military strategy and tactics, professional training of soldiers and commanders of all levels. I'm not even talking about the moral and political criteria by which the army and navy of the Land of the Soviets had no equal in the world.
At the risk of repeating myself, I will conclude this section with the following conclusion: the Soviet leader had no illusions about the likely development of the world situation. He considered a military confrontation inevitable. And the guarantee of victory could only be a mobilization economy and the entire military structure of the state built on its basis.
4. Stalin's constitution as a mirror of the era
The logical conclusion of the Stalinist policy of the mid-1930s was the adoption of a new constitution of the state. The need to develop a new constitution was dictated by deep objective factors. The constitution was supposed to take into account the fundamental changes in the Soviet social system, to express them in the appropriate political and legal forms. It was primarily about the fact that the new basic law should reflect the fundamental changes in the socio-economic, political, national and international situation of the country. As the reader could be convinced, these changes directly affected all spheres of life in Soviet society. And to live according to the old norms enshrined in the 1924 constitution looked not just an anachronism, but it was practically impossible. New realities of life every hour raised new questions, demanded a solution, and to do this within the framework of the previous constitution was not only difficult, but often simply impossible. And this concerned literally all aspects of state and public life, all spheres of the economy, social relations, interethnic relations, etc. The idea that patching up the old constitution was an unpromising and highly palliative occupation was making its way more and more.
But in addition to purely objective reasons that determined the relevance of the development and adoption of a new constitution, Stalin apparently had other considerations as well. It seems to me that by adopting a new constitution he wanted to clearly and unambiguously define a fundamentally new frontier in the history of the state - the onset of the Stalin era. In a more concrete sense, the leader considered it necessary to clearly identify a new historical stage in which the state had entered - the stage of completing the construction of socialism in our country. Thus, he wanted to demonstrate both to the peoples of the Soviet Union and to the international communist movement, and in a broader aspect - to the whole world that the Soviet country, for the first time in world history, realized the age-old dream of all mankind - the construction of a just and democratic society, where not capital and class violence rule, but labor and social justice. The new constitution was to become a historical monument testifying to the complete and final victory of the strategic course put forward and defended by Stalin for a decade and a half. Calling the new constitution the apotheosis of a leader's victory would not be an exaggeration or a beautiful metaphor. In a sense, the act of adopting a new fundamental law summed up Stalin's many years of political struggle, served as irrefutable proof that not his political opponents, but he was right, that the logic of history was on his side.
In a broad historical context, the new constitution, the 1936 constitution, can be seen as a kind of mirror of Stalinism as a system of political views and practical politics. That is why it attracts lively attention to itself, although many aspects associated with this constitution are perceived in our time as a distant, almost Old Testament history.
For obvious reasons, there is no reason to go into many details related to the history of the development and adoption of the constitution, its main features and characteristics, the historical significance of this act itself. I believe that it will be advisable to limit ourselves to the most cardinal moments, capable to some extent of revealing the scale of Stalin's personal participation in this whole matter, and most importantly, his role as the chief architect of the new state structure.
It was Stalin who came up with the idea of a radical constitutional reform in the USSR. This is evidenced by the following fact. On February 6, 1935, he sent a note to the Politburo members with the following content: “In my opinion, the matter with the Constitution of the USSR is much more complicated than it might seem at first glance. First, the electoral system must be changed not only in the sense of abolishing its multi-stage nature. It also needs to be changed in the sense of replacing open voting with closed, (secret) voting. We can and must go to the end in this matter, without stopping halfway. The situation and the balance of forces in our country at the moment are such that we can only win politically in this matter ... Secondly, it must be borne in mind that the Constitution of the USSR was developed mainly in 1918 ... conditions, cannot correspond to the current situation and current needs ... Thus, changes in the constitution should be carried out in two directions: a) in the direction of improving its electoral system; b) in the direction of clarifying its socio-economic basis. I suggest:
1. To convene a day or two after the opening of the VII Congress of Soviets a plenum of the Central Committee of the military-industrial complex (b) and decide on the necessary changes in the Constitution of the USSR.
2. Instruct one of the members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) (for example, Comrade Molotov) to speak at the VII Congress of Soviets on behalf of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) with a motivated proposal: a) to approve the decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) on amendments to the Constitution of the USSR; b) instruct the Central Executive Committee of the USSR to create a constitutional commission to develop appropriate amendments to the constitution so that one of the sessions of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR approves the amended text of the constitution, and future elections of government bodies are carried out on the basis of the new electoral system.
In February 1935, the plenum of the Central Committee of the party, in accordance with Stalin's initiative, recognized the need to amend the current Constitution of the USSR in order to further democratize the electoral system and clarify the socio-economic basis of the constitution in accordance with the new class structure that had formed in the country and assert the undivided domination of socialist property in economy. The plenary session instructed a commission headed by Stalin to prepare an appropriate draft and submit it for consideration by the supreme body of state power. A constitutional commission was created, which included leading party and Soviet workers, representatives of the union republics, lawyers and public figures. Sub-committees were also established on various aspects of the work. Ultimately, in May 1936, the Constitutional Commission, at its plenary session, drew up the final text. The draft was considered in June 1936 by the plenum of the Central Committee, which adopted and approved in the main the draft Constitution of the USSR. In accordance with the decision of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, this project was submitted for a nationwide discussion, in which several tens of millions of citizens took part. A variety of amendments and proposals were introduced and considered in the respective subcommissions.
On November 25, 1936, the VIII Extraordinary Congress of Soviets of the USSR opened in Moscow. Stalin made a report on the draft constitution, substantiating the main provisions of the new constitution, formulating the motives underlying the acceptance or rejection of this or that proposal, which revealed the significance of the new constitution for the Soviet country and its international significance.
Particular emphasis in the report was made on the analysis of the socio-economic and political changes that have taken place in the country since 1924 and have created a real foundation for the possibility of adopting a new constitution: “Our Soviet society has achieved that it has already realized socialism in the main, created a socialist system, that is, it has realized what the Marxists call differently the first or lowest phase of communism. This means that we have already carried out basically the first phase of communism, socialism " .
There is no need to consider in detail all the main aspects of a detailed report, many of which are already narrowly of historical value. I will dwell only on the moments that are directly related to the fundamental provisions, which have not lost their significance in our time. And often directly related to the present.
First of all, Stalin paid due attention to justifying the existence of a one-party system in the Soviet Union. After all, the majority of bourgeois, as well as left-democratic critics of the Soviet constitution pointed to this circumstance as proof of the absence of truly democratic principles in the Soviet Union. The leader's argumentation was not particularly original and was reduced to the well-known Bolshevik postulates, the inviolability of which was proclaimed virtually throughout the entire history of the existence of Soviet power.
Stalin, in particular, gave a detailed answer to the accusations that the new constitution “Does not allow freedom of political parties and maintains the current leading position of the Communist Party in the USSR. At the same time, this group of critics believes that the lack of freedom of parties in the USSR is a sign of violation of the foundations of democracy.
I must admit that the draft of the new Constitution does indeed uphold the regime of the dictatorship of the working class, just as it preserves the present leadership of the Communist Party of the USSR unchanged. ( Stormy applause.) If respected critics consider this to be a flaw in the draft Constitution, then one can only regret it. We, the Bolsheviks, consider this a merit of the draft Constitution. ( Stormy applause.)
As for the freedom of various political parties, we hold somewhat different views here. The party is part of the class, its vanguard. Several parties, and hence the freedom of parties, can exist only in a society where there are antagonistic classes, whose interests are hostile and irreconcilable, where there are, say, capitalists and workers, landowners and peasants, kulaks and the poor, etc. But in the USSR there are no longer such classes as capitalists, landowners, kulaks, etc. In the USSR there are only two classes, workers and peasants, whose interests are not only not hostile, but, on the contrary, friendly. Consequently, in the USSR there is no basis for the existence of several parties, and hence for the freedom of these parties. In the USSR, there is soil for only one party, the Communist Party. There can be only one party in the USSR - the Communist Party, which bravely and to the end defends the interests of workers and peasants " .
The logic in the leader's reasoning is, of course, iron, if everything is viewed exclusively through the prism of class criteria. However, in real life one has to deal not only with these absolutely important, one might say, decisive, criteria. For Stalin, all other criteria seemed to be swept aside from the threshold in view of their subordinate significance. It must be said that in the struggle against socialism, already in the post-Stalin era, the so-called imperative, recognizing the one-party system under socialism, turned into the Achilles' heel of Soviet power, and ultimately played the role of one of the main levers for overthrowing the socialist system. So the purely formal proclamation of one-party system as a principle of state building is by no means a sufficient guarantee against attempts to restore the old system. In the conditions of the time in question, this principle seemed so unshakable and durable that few people could have the idea that it would not withstand the severe test of time.
I do not want to lead the reader to the idea that the multi-party system itself is already the basis and guarantee of the successful construction of a democratic society. As the historical experience of many countries, especially modern Russia, shows, the principle of a multi-party system too often serves as just a fig leaf designed to camouflage the absence of true democracy. The purely formal aspects of democracy are demonstratively pushed into the foreground and the illusion of the existence of a truly democratic system is created. In fact, the imaginary multi-party system plays a peculiar role of propaganda cover for the implementation of the main goal - to ensure the dominance of the power of capital. This very, sometimes artificially created multi-party system, in fact, in real life, turns out to be only the flip side of the real one-party system, where dominates and everything is determined only by the power of money, the power of capital and the state bureaucracy, striving to make this power almost hereditary. This is more than convincingly evidenced by the practice of political life in Russia today, where the highest posts in federal and local authorities are held by the same persons for many periods. At the same time, there are always "convincing" arguments and "legal" grounds to justify and legitimize such a practice.
So, comparing the past with the present, we can conclude: much more honest and understandable from the point of view of normal human logic was the open recognition and justification on the part of the Bolsheviks, and Stalin, in the first place, of the historical necessity of the existence of a one-party system. At least, people were not led by the nose and did not prove that a multi-party system is the main generic sign of true democracy. This my departure from the topic is dictated not by an emotional outburst, but by an impassive comparison, which, from a historical point of view, simply suggests itself, as it were by itself.
Along the way, it should be noted that even in a multi-party system, the construction of a socialist system is quite possible. This is clearly seen in the example of the People's Republic of China. The multi-party system in China by no means serves as an obstacle for the Communist Party to fully exercise its leadership role in all spheres of life. Later, already in the post-war period, Stalin seriously revised his concept of one-party system. But this will be discussed in the relevant chapters.
Stalin's report contained one more fundamentally important proposition that deserves special attention to it. The point is that the leader categorically opposed the next amendment. “The amendment consists in the fact that it is proposed to completely exclude from the draft Constitution the 17th article, which speaks of preserving the right of free withdrawal from the USSR for the Union republics. I think, - emphasized Stalin, - that this proposal is wrong and therefore should not be accepted by the Congress. The USSR is a voluntary union of equal Union republics. To exclude from the Constitution the article on the right of free secession from the USSR means violating the voluntary nature of this union. Can we take this step? I think that we cannot and should not take this step. They say that there is not a single republic in the USSR that would like to secede from the USSR, which in view of this, Article 17 has no practical significance. That we do not have a single republic that would like to secede from the USSR is, of course, true. But it does not at all follow from this that we should not fix in the Constitution the right of the Union Republics to freely secede from the USSR " .
Of course, from the point of view of formal logic, Stalin's argumentation is quite convincing. However, again, it should be noted that purely class criteria lay at the heart of his argumentation, and all others, as it were, remained in the shadows. Such argumentation did not take into account many factors of the future state building of the USSR, which were impossible to foresee, because they were beyond the horizon of events that could be foreseen. The leader, it seems to me, has not yet recovered from the blow inflicted on him at the time by Lenin in connection with Stalin's proposal to build a new union state on the basis of autonomization, that is, the entry of the republics into Russia. Although, as the experience of the country's historical development has shown (especially through the prism of a retrospective approach), Stalin's idea was more in line with the historical conditions of our country and, most importantly, served as a certain guarantee against attempts by all kinds of internal and external forces to undermine our state from within and destroy it. Here, again, the narrowness of the purely class approach played a negative role, since it was believed that in all the Union republics the working classes were in power, and they were in no way interested in the separation of their common forces. Such a profound connoisseur of the national question, such as Stalin, underestimated the exceptional complexity and dynamism of the national question, national factors subject to constant changes, and therefore capable of acting as a locomotive of regressive development at one or another historical boundary. Ultimately, as the post-Stalinist period of our history showed, the totality of national moments became the supporting lever with which the unity of the Union State was undermined.
Of course, the reader can reproach the author: it is easy to be discerning in hindsight! And he will, of course, be right. However, I am not playing the role of a judge and denouncer of certain mistakes of Stalin, but only as an impartial contemplator of the events of those years, about which I have the right to express my own judgment. It is a judgment, not some kind of historical verdict.
In connection with the constitution, historians have raised and arise many questions concerning the role of Stalin himself in its development. As for the adoption of the constitution, no one here has any doubts about Stalin's role - he was the supreme arbiter who delivered the final verdict on the fate of the constitution, and the nationwide discussion and voting at the Congress of Soviets only served as a democratic cover for his final decision. But it is absolutely indisputable that Stalin actively participated in the development of the draft constitution. This his participation was expressed primarily in the fact that he determined the main directions and parameters of the constitution, the nature of its main social, economic and political norms. He, of course, also had the last word on issues related to the formulation of democratic norms - on the rights and obligations of citizens, on the nature of elections, on the abolition of all and all restrictions in the legal status of citizens, etc.
But it is hardly permissible to believe that he personally formulated articles of the constitution, even the most fundamental ones, since this required solid legal knowledge, which, of course, he did not possess enough. And it would be naive to believe that the creator of the constitution, by whom he was rightfully called, had to write the entire text of it himself. Although there is evidence that he carefully studied the entire range of constitutional problems, including the experience of the constitutional system in Western countries. Since the USSR was a federal state, the leader was interested in how federal principles and norms are embodied in the constitutions of countries built on a federal basis. In an encrypted message from October 1935 to Kaganovich, he asks: “Talk with Radek and send me urgently the Swiss Constitution. Waiting for an answer. Stalin " .
It is clear from the text of the encryption that Stalin considered it important for himself to get acquainted with the Swiss Constitution. In general, being an expert on the national question, he often referred in his works to the example of this small, but rich in terms of constitutional experience of the state. The mention of Radek's name in this context clearly indicates that the latter took an active part in drafting the constitution. Some Western experts, such as S. Cohen, R. Tucker and a number of others (let alone Soviet and Russian historians), adhere, and very firmly, to the conviction that Bukharin and Radek were the real authors of the Stalinist constitution. Thus, R. Tucker writes: "Particular attention was drawn to the provisions on civil rights, the author of which is believed to be Bukharin"... Quite a few other statements of the same kind could be cited, but I think this is not necessary. In all likelihood, Bukharin, Radek, Tal and many others took an active part in drafting the constitution. However, according to this parameter alone, there is no reason to rank them among the authors of the constitution. Their role - no matter how large it may be - was in any case the role of executors of Stalin's will. Contrary to his opinion, neither Bukharin, nor Radek, nor anyone else could introduce any serious innovations into the constitution. It was just beyond their limits. In later jargon, they simply performed the functions of ghostwriters who worked for the leader.
It is curious to note the following detail: even before the publication of the draft constitution, Stalin personally launched a propaganda campaign in its favor. Moreover, the addressee was the foreign community, in which the leader strove to create for himself (in modern Nizhny Novgorod-English slang) an image of a consistent supporter and guarantor of democratic freedoms. Indeed, by that time in the West, his reputation was diametrically opposite. In a conversation with the chairman of the American newspaper association R. Howard, the leader painted with broad strokes a rosy picture of the triumph of truly democratic norms as a result of the adoption of a new constitution. “... According to the new constitution, - he declared, - elections will be general, equal, direct and secret. It confuses you that only one party will run in this election. You do not see what kind of electoral struggle can be under these conditions. Obviously, the electoral lists for the elections will be submitted not only by the Communist Party, but also by all kinds of public non-party organizations. And we have hundreds of them " .
And as if anticipating a reasonable skeptical reaction of the interlocutor regarding the possibility of any electoral struggle in the conditions of a one-party system, Stalin supplemented his argumentation as follows: “It seems to you that there will be no electoral struggle. But it will be, and I foresee a very lively electoral struggle. We have a lot of institutions that do not work well. It happens that one or another local authority is not able to satisfy one or another of the many-sided and ever-growing needs of the working people of town and country. Did you or did you not build a good school? Have you improved your living conditions? Are you not a bureaucrat? Have you helped to make our work more efficient, our life more cultural? These will be the criteria with which millions of voters will approach candidates, discarding the unfit, deleting them from the lists, nominating the best and nominating them. Yes, the electoral struggle will be lively, it will take place around many burning issues, mainly practical issues of paramount importance for the people " .
The leader, of course, was disingenuous, speaking about the lively electoral struggle during the elections. He needed this not only to justify the existence of the monopoly position of the Communist Party. The question was that during the discussion of the draft constitution, there was intense talk that a system of nominating several candidates would be introduced, since only in this case the elections could be called elections, and not a simple procedure for dropping ballots into ballot boxes with a predetermined outcome voting. After all, voting is not an election yet. We have thousands of proofs of this in our current Russian reality, when, in the absence of a monopoly on the power of one party, various levers and means are used, primarily the so-called administrative resource, in order to actually prejudge the outcome of elections in favor of the ruling party in advance.
In this regard, the Stalinist constitution was quite clear, which did not even allow any inclinations to political competition. It consolidated the leading role of the Communist Party in the Soviet state, fixing the position that the most active and conscientious citizens from the ranks of the working class and other strata of the working people are united in the Communist Party, "Which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and represents the leading core of all workers' organizations, both public and state" .
The new constitution recorded a new reality - the social unity of Soviet society. But Stalin was not so obsessed with all kinds of democratic innovations as to accept the absence of class distinctions in the country. The constitution stated that the USSR was a socialist state of workers and peasants, which clearly emphasized its class character. It is interesting to note that even then, in the mid-1930s, during the discussion of the draft constitution, proposals were made in the legislative form to proclaim the Soviet state as a nation-wide state. Then the adoption of this proposal was not accepted, proceeding from the postulate that there were no necessary real prerequisites for this. Subsequently, already in Khrushchev's times, the formula about the state of the whole people acquired the character of a legal constitutional norm.
Regarding the issue of the class nature of the Soviet state, it should be noted that even those rather modest and generally not changing the essence of the amendments made to the new constitution caused a fierce critical reaction from the main political opponent of the leader Trotsky. In the article about the new constitution, published in the Trotskyists' bulletin, it was subjected to devastating criticism precisely from the standpoint of orthodox Bolshevism. In particular, it said: “… It is absolutely impossible to understand what is the social nature of the state for which a new constitution is being drawn up? The Soviet system was officially considered the expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But if classes are destroyed, then the social basis of the dictatorship is also destroyed. Who is its bearer now? Obviously the entire population as a whole. But when the entire people, freed from class opposites, becomes the bearer of the dictatorship, this means nothing more than the dissolution of the dictatorship in socialist society, and, consequently, the elimination of the state. Marxist logic is invulnerable. The liquidation of the state, in turn, begins with the liquidation of the bureaucracy. Does the new constitution mean at least the liquidation of the GPU? Let someone in the USSR try to express this idea: the GPU will immediately find convincing evidence to refute it. Classes have been destroyed, soviets are abolished, the class theory of the state is falling to pieces, but the bureaucracy remains. Q.E.D" .
But Stalin was little worried about possible reproaches from the left spectrum of the communist movement for deviating from traditional Marxism. He was building a new state and did not want the weights of old dogmas or even outright Marxist illusions to hang on his feet. Guided by them, he could not move forward. Yes, in fact, there was no fundamental revision of the Marxist-Leninist attitudes about the state in the Stalinist innovations. There were only new formulations that covered up the essentially class approach to defining the nature of Soviet society. At the time, this approach was still the alpha and omega of his political thinking.
It was important for Stalin to demonstrate to his people, and to the whole world, that socialism is by no means hostile to democracy, it is not a negation of it, much less an antipode. And such an approach cannot be denied not only pragmatic, but also sound in essence. That is why the new constitution not only established complete equality of rights for Soviet citizens regardless of their social origin and class affiliation, but also, in accordance with this, expanded the range of fundamental rights and freedoms of Soviet people. A historical achievement was the legislative consolidation of fundamental socio-political rights and freedoms: the right to work, to rest, education, to material security in old age, equal rights of a woman with a man in all areas of economic, state, cultural and socio-political life, freedom of conscience, words, stamps, meetings and rallies, uniting workers in various public organizations, inviolability of the person, home, privacy of correspondence.
The Stalinist constitution enshrined the principle of the unity of the rights and obligations of citizens. While guaranteeing Soviet citizens their rights, the constitution at the same time demanded strict observance of laws, observance of labor discipline and the fulfillment of other duties to strengthen the Soviet social system and protect the socialist fatherland. In other words, the constitution embodied the classic position - "there are no rights without obligations, there are no obligations without rights."
But so that people do not relax too much and do not become exhausted under the burden of their happiness, the constitution indicated that rights and freedoms are granted to citizens of the USSR in order to strengthen the socialist system. This capacious and vague formula could be interpreted within the limits of the desired, that is, its content opened up opportunities for carrying out all kinds of actions against those who, in the opinion of those in power, oppose the socialist system.
In short, the whole spirit and meaning of the new Stalinist constitution was ambivalent and contradictory. On the one hand, it really consolidated socio-economic rights and democratic freedoms that were previously unknown to our society and the state, which potentially opened up for Soviet society the possibility of truly effective progress towards the establishment of genuine democracy (of course, not in the bourgeois, i.e., Western understanding of it) , to the flowering of all the creative possibilities of the individual. On the other hand, some of its provisions, primarily those concerning human rights and freedoms, were just declared and were not ensured in real life.
In connection with the question of the constitution, it is difficult to pass over in silence and Stalin's speech to the voters in 1937. Many of the provisions of this speech, of course, have already lost their historical relevance, which is quite natural. But on one plot from this speech it is worth focusing the reader's attention. Stalin raised the question of the responsibility of the deputies to their voters, and the posing of this question, in my opinion, surprisingly echoes the practice of elections, which we are now observing in our country. The analogy, as they say, suggests itself. "While the elections are underway, - said Stalin, - deputies flirt with voters, fawn at them, swear allegiance, give a bunch of all sorts of promises. It turns out that the dependence of the deputies on the voters is complete. As soon as the elections have taken place and the candidates have become deputies, relations change radically. Instead of the dependence of the deputies on the voters, their complete independence is obtained. For 4 or 5 years, that is, until the new elections, the deputy feels completely free, independent from the people, from his voters. He can move from one camp to another, he can turn from the right road to the wrong one, he can get entangled in some shenanigans of a not quite necessary nature, he can somersault as he pleases - he is independent.
Can such a relationship be considered normal? By no means, comrades. Our Constitution took this circumstance into account, and it passed a law by virtue of which voters have the right to early recall their deputies if they start to trick, if they turn off the road, if they forget about their dependence on the people, on voters " .
The thought involuntarily suggests itself that the leader seemed to have glanced through many decades into the current Russian reality. Comments here are perhaps unnecessary, and every more or less objective observer is unlikely to dispute the assertion that the picture of elections in modern Russia is remarkably similar to that drawn by Stalin in 1937.
Returning to the constitution, the following should be emphasized. I have no intention of somehow belittling the really great historical significance of the very fact of the adoption of the new constitution. Especially considering the realities of that harsh time. But also to close our eyes to the fact that the norms and provisions of the constitution were in fact often sheer fictions - this can only be ignored by those who do not want to see anything at all. And this quality is worse than political blindness. In connection with the assessment of the Stalinist constitution (and from the very beginning of its preparation, and especially after its adoption in December 1936, it was called nothing but Stalinist - and this was its reason) one passage from Shchedrin's immortal creation involuntarily comes to mind. Of a situation somewhat reminiscent of the one in question, he wrote:
“Of course, it cannot be denied that attempts at a constitutional nature existed; but, it seems, these attempts were limited to the fact that the quarter ones had so improved their manners that not every passerby was grabbed by the collar. This is the only constitution that was supposed to be possible in the then infantile state of society. First of all, it was necessary to accustom the people to courteous treatment and then, having softened their morals, to give them real alleged rights. From a theoretical point of view, such a view is, of course, completely correct. But, on the other hand, no less likelihood deserves the consideration that no matter how attractive the theory of courteous treatment, taken in isolation, it does not in the least guarantee people against a sudden intrusion of the theory of treatment of the disrespectful (as was later proved by the appearance on the arena of history of such a person , like Major Gloom-Grumblev), and, therefore, if we really want to approve courteous treatment on a solid basis, then all the same, first of all, we must provide people with allegedly real rights. And this, in turn, proves how shaky the theory is in general and how wisely those military leaders act who treat them with distrust. "
But let's put aside all the bitter irony of comparisons and juxtapositions and face the facts. And they are more than impressive. Industrial production in the USSR increased in 1937 in comparison with 1913 almost 6 times, in the USA - only 1.9 times, and in England - 1.2 times. By the time the Stalinist constitution was adopted, Soviet Russia had advanced to the second place in the world in terms of industrial production. Tsarist Russia occupied only the fifth place. At the same time, the country's share in world industrial production also increased: if in 1917 Russia produced less than 3 percent of world industrial production, then in 1937 the share of the USSR in world production approached 10 percent. It would be possible to cite a lot of figures and facts that testified to the real, and fundamental in their significance, achievements of the Soviet Union over two five-year plans. However, facts and figures are not the only thing. Even a cursory review of Stalin's activities during the period under review convincingly suggests that, in all likelihood, he could feel satisfaction. But in politics, satisfaction lulls and dampens. Even to some extent disarming. And the leader did not belong to this category of politicians. He considered any line taken as a springboard for a new jump. All the more so as time was rushing, and standing still, admiring achievements would be tantamount to a crime.
Meanwhile, on the political horizon, clouds were gathering, threatening to unleash on the country not just a hurricane, but a "real Russian typhoon." A new phase in Stalinist politics was approaching, the phase for which it is probably difficult to find an adequate definition in the Russian language - the great purge, the great terror, just a common noun - "1937" ... But no matter what, even the most capacious, definition we use, it is hardly capable of reflecting all the tragedy, all the depth and enormous scale of the upheavals that befell the country. These pages, and they are also the darkest pages in the political biography of Stalin, were written in blood and suffering on the tablets of Soviet history of that period.
As has already been emphasized more than once, the striking contradictions of many aspects of Stalin's political strategy and, in general, his activities, is an absolutely indisputable fact, which does not cause any serious discrepancies in the works of historians of a by no means identical orientation. Disputes and confrontations of positions begin when the question arises about the assessment and correlation of positive and negative aspects in the entire Stalinist policy. No matter what period it belongs to. Here, it is not so much the confrontation of different methodologies and approaches to assessment that is reflected, but rather purely political and ideological motives. In my approach to these extremely complex and difficult to assess problems, I tried, to the best of my ability, to maintain the necessary degree of objectivity. There is no need to talk about impartiality, since anyone, even the most objective researcher, cannot jump above his head - that is, demonstrate complete impartiality. We cannot be above the limit predetermined by nature, and a person, especially a historian, in any case cannot completely avoid a position that can be called, figuratively speaking, the position of a slave of his own thoughts and feelings.
Nevertheless, I want to emphasize once again that I tried to be objective in my presentation of events and interpretation of facts related to the so-called 1937 syndrome. Many assessments can be perceived as too one-sided and categorical. But I did not want to smooth them out in order to whitewash the main character of our story. However, with all the conviction I want to emphasize one thought - all the terrible events of the 30s cannot overshadow and overshadow the history of the truly great that happened in those years. Ultimately, the main direction of development of our country at that time was not determined by terror and repression. Although, of course, they could not but have a negative effect on the rhythm and pace of advance along the historical path that has fallen to our lot. The essence and nature of the deep processes of that time was expressed not by repression, but by the forward movement of the country, the strengthening of its power as a great power. This was the main content of this stage in the development of the Soviet state. However, critics of Stalin concentrate all their attention on repression, overshadowing everything else. No one, of course, can, without trampling on the truth, close their eyes to the injustices of that era, primarily to massive repressions. But even more contrary to the historical truth is such an approach, when the very fact of repression unceremoniously rejects all other facts. And above all, the rapid and unprecedented in history progressive development of Soviet society, the very fact of the transformation of our country from a backward into a highly developed industrial state, which is inestimable in its significance. Ultimately, this is what predetermined the further fate of the Soviet state, which was able to withstand an extremely harsh struggle against fascism.
Summing up a brief summary, there is reason to say that Stalin's policy in the mid-1930s bore the stamp of ambivalence and contradiction.
On the one hand, it marked a colossal economic and social breakthrough, an unprecedented growth in the education and culture of the peoples of the Soviet Union, a qualitatively new level of state defense, etc. The material situation of the broad masses of the country's population has also noticeably improved. Democratic norms of functioning of state structures and basic social and political rights of citizens were declared and legalized.
On the other hand, it was the mid-1930s that entered our historical chronicle as a period of preparation for large-scale repressions and purges. During this period, conditions were prepared that made it possible for Stalin to carry out not political, but physical elimination of his real and potential opponents. In a word, this relatively short historical period of time contains something that sometimes does not fit into the framework of entire decades.
S. 664–665. T. 4. Book two. S. 471–472.
Stalin and Kaganovich. Correspondence. P. 440.
Albert Seaton. Stalin as military commander. N.Y. 1976. p. 270.
P. 113.
Soviet leadership. Correspondence. 1928 - 1941... S. 171-172.
Letters from I.V. Stalin V.M. Molotov. 1925 - 1936. S. 209-210.
50 years of the Armed Forces of the USSR... M. 1968.S. 197.
History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. T. 4. Book two. S. 398-399.
CPSU on the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union... Documentation. 1917 - 1968.M. 1968.S. 277.
"Independent newspaper". June 30, 2001 In the footnote, I would like to express a fairly well-founded doubt that Stalin paid little attention to the economic side of the matter when considering military-technical issues. This is a clear stretch, since it simply contradicts common sense, and no one has yet noticed the absence of such in Stalin. Secondly, historiography has numerous facts attesting to just the opposite - Stalin invariably delved into the economic cost of a project or decision. Another question - often had to make sacrifices, despite the high price, since the interests of the case demanded it.
Congresses of Soviets of the USSR, union and autonomous Soviet socialist republics. Collection of documents. T. 111 (1922 - 1936) M. 1936.S. 243.Opposition Bulletin. 1936 No. 50. (Electronic version).
I.V. Stalin... Op. T. 14. Speech at the pre-election meeting of voters. (Electronic variant).
M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. The history of one city. P. 128.
USSR and foreign countries after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Statistical collection. M. 1970.S. 23.
Part 3. of Art. 4: RF ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory.
Art. 5: Fed. RF device is based on:
- her state. integrity,
- the unity of the state system. authorities,
- delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the OGA of the Russian Federation and the OGA of the constituent entities,
- equality and self-determination of peoples in the Russian Federation.
Terr. integrity (Art. 67), the unity of the ek. space (Art. 74), the unity of the budgetary system (Art. 75), the unity of citizenship (Art. 6), the unity of the pr. system, the unity of the state system. authorities.
Comm. ed. V.D. Karpovich: Part 3 of Art. 5 talks about the fundamentals (principles) of fed. devices. The concept of "federal structure" was not used in the earlier existing Russian constitutions, which operated with the concepts of "state structure" (Constitution of the RSFSR 1937) and "national state. Structure" (Constitution of the RSFSR 1978).
Const. the story focuses on the form of state. devices of Russia. This in itself presupposes that its constituent parts, being el-tah of the whole, are relatively self. state formations; which, unlike unit. of the state, a greater degree of decentralization and vertical separation of powers is guaranteed.
Regulations on the fed. device are reflected in many articles of the Constitution, but most developed in its chap. 3. In the commented part of the article, the foundations of this device are formulated. One of them is recognized by the state. the integrity of the RF. This means that Russia is not a simple combination of its constituent parts, but is a single state in which: the integrity and inviolability of the territory is ensured; there is a single citizenship; uniform eq is guaranteed. space and use of a single den. units - ruble; the supremacy of the KRF and FZ is established throughout the Russian territory; Fed. OGV and the unity of the state systems is proclaimed. authorities; state formations are considered as being part of the Russian Federation, the territory of each of them is an inseparable part of the territory of Russia; questions fed. devices are attributed to the exclusive prerogative of the Russian Federation; absent, as in other existing fed. states, the right to secede of subjects from the Federation (Articles 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 65, 67, 71, 75, etc.).
State integrity and its components - a defining prerequisite for the normal functioning of the state. It is also, as emphasized in the JCC of July 31, 1995 in the case of checking the constitutionality of a number of acts adopted in connection with the settlement of the armed conflict in the Chechen Republic, an important condition for the equal status of all citizens, regardless of their place of residence and one of the guarantees their const. rights and freedoms. That is why the state. integrity is seen as a special value. It is protected by the entire OGV system - President, his authorized representatives in the Fed. districts, Pr-vom, fed. courts, the Prosecutor's Office, etc., as well as the establishment of a ban on the creation and activities of the general. associations, the goals and actions of which are aimed at violating the integrity of the Russian Federation.
As one of the foundations of the Fed. device The Constitution enshrines the principle of the unity of the state system. authorities. It is a logical consequence of the fact that the single source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinationals. people. This principle guarantees the integrity of Russia and its sovereignty, ensures the smooth functioning of the state. mechanism for the implementation of the functions of the Russian state in all their completeness and diversity.
The horizontal implementation of this principle is expressed in the fact that fed. UGV and UGV subjects, acting in the spirit of separation of powers as a self. bodies, at the same time act as a single state. authorities - respectively Fed. and subject. This is achieved by the unity of the key principles of functioning, the derivation of powers from those possessed by the Federation or its subject, the presence of a set of org. checks and balances, in which all bodies of a given level, in accordance with their functions in various forms, participate in the development of state. politics, law making and implementation; policies and laws reflect the common position of the unified government. authorities.
In a vertical section, the unity of the state system. power is manifested in the def. structural similarity of OGV subjects and fed. OGV. It requires that subjects primarily come from the fed. relationship schemes isp. and order. authorities (PKS of January 18, 1996 in the case of checking the constitutionality of a number of provisions of the Charter of the Altai Territory) and were guided by vol. principles and forms of activity. This unity provides a special structure of the FS, where one of the chambers - the Federation Council is formed from representatives from each subject: one from the representative. and isp. OGV (Art. 95); the supremacy of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law (part 2 of article 4); Federal Law "On the principles of organization of laws and regulations. measures of responsibility of OGA subjects for violation of the CRF and Federal Law; activity of the President as the guarantor of the Constitution (part 2 of article 80); implementation of fed. OGV coordination powers (Federal Law of January 4, 1999 "On the coordination of international and foreign relations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation"); court. control (Articles 46, 125), prosecutor's supervision. With regard to the organs of isp. authorities, which, according to def. questions form a single system of isp. authorities in Russia (part 2 of Art. 77), the President is endowed with the right to suspend the acts of the Spanish authorities. authorities of the subjects in the event of a conflict between these acts of the KRF and the Federal Law, Int. obligations of Russia or violation of human and civil rights and freedoms before the decision of this issue by the appropriate court (part 2 of Art. 85).
Fed. the device is based on the delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the OGV of the Russian Federation and the OGV of the subjects. This is the principle of vertical separation of powers, the consistent implementation of which guarantees the necessary independence and sovereignty of the state. bodies within the established boundaries, the inadmissibility of arbitrariness in their activities and respect for the decisions made by them within their competence.
The delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the named OGVs is derived from the delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction between the Russian Federation and its subjects (Articles 71-73). It is carried out by the CRF and, in accordance with it, by the Federate. and other agreements on the delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction and powers (in the system of executive power - also with the help of agreements between the federal bodies of executive power and bodies of executive power of the subjects), Federal Law (part 3 of article 11).
(the principle of technological innovation, the principle of consistency of innovations, systemic philosophy of scientific theories and practical projects, systemic ideas of development, professional consistency of public administration, the importance of systemic philosophy for the development of public administration, the state is a system-subject of national administration, large-scale and complexity of the public administration system, systemic industrialization, mechanization and technologization of public administration, the paradigm of systems philosophy, systematic survival, preservation and development of man, the role of systematic management)
? The principle of technological innovation. Any results of human activity - knowledge, goods, services, information accompanying them, must be technological. This is a condition of the systemic philosophy of activity. fully applies to all goods, including such goods as objects of intellectual property: scientific publications, projects, analytical materials, textbooks, lecture courses, teaching aids, teaching aids, etc. A textbook and any other scientific and methodological work, monograph and any other scientific publication, as products of activity, including methodological and scientific-theoretical ones, must be technological. This is a necessary condition for intellectual property to become an innovation in social production. This condition must be fulfilled both for the innovative development of social production as a whole and for its parts - scientific, material, energy, information, educational and other industries.
In other words, the result of human activity can become an innovation if he technological for the area of production for which it is intended. This condition must also be met for state programs for the development of areas of human knowledge and practice. For example, the state program for supporting the innovative development of education should be technologically advanced for the domestic educational industry.
This is one of the main conditions for making a state decision regarding the options for innovative development programs for a specific branch of social production, for example, metallurgy, oil, food, electricity, etc. In the system philosophy of activity, this condition is described general principle of manufacturability ... This principle generalizes the concept of manufacturability for products of all types of industries, including management production. On the basis of this general principle, particular principles of manufacturability are developed for the products of certain types of industries and specific industries.
For example, for the case of an educational system, the following modifications of the principle of manufacturability can be adopted:
Of all the available types of educational and methodological support that meet the goals set for a given educational system (university, college, institute, etc.), the most technological should be selected, i.e. ensuring the most effective use of the potential of the teaching staff of this educational system for the graduation of specialists;
or:
of all the available standards of higher education specialties that correspond to the profile of a given educational system (university, college, institute, etc.), the most technological ones should be selected, that is, those that ensure the most effective use of the potential of the teaching staff of this educational system for the graduation of specialists ...
This condition should be one of the main conditions for the formation of state programs for the development of educational and methodological support of the educational process, a complex of specialties and specializations, standards of specialties, plans for the release of educational literature, etc.
? The principle of consistency of innovation. Innovation should be not only technological, but also systemic. To consider the conditions for the consistency of innovations, formulated from the standpoint of systems philosophy, the following figurative description can be used.
To improve the quality of fruit-bearing trees, branches (grafts) from other, “cultivated” varieties of trees are grafted onto the “wild” stock. Leaves and fruits grow on the grafted branch. But the nutrition of the grafted branch is constantly carried out with the help of the root system and the trunk of the rootstock tree, which essentially determines the result of the life of the grafted branch. And only once a year leaves and (not useful for various reasons) fruits fall from the grafted branch, which then affect the nutritional composition of the root system and the original tree itself.
This cycle repeats annually. As a result, the grafted cultivated rootstock and the original wild tree variety act like a new tree (unless, of course, the grafted branch grafts and does not die off). We can say that the tree of the original variety and the grafted branch as a result function as a new holistic system.
Like this example, innovations (innovations), "grafted" into social production, feed on the resources that social production has at the time of their appearance. But social production must also move to a state of new integrity under the influence of the introduced innovation. Of course, the mechanism for introducing and using innovations is much more complicated than the described scheme (as, by the way, is the process of life support of a grafted branch on a tree and the tree itself). But the fact is indisputable: the effectiveness of innovation essentially depends on the previous state of social production and, in particular, on the state of the nation - its spirituality, morality, intellect, physical development. In turn, social production and the state of the nation develop under the influence of innovations, but slower than the innovations themselves appear and develop under the influence of social production and the state of the nation. Therefore, it is very important to correctly choose from the whole set of innovations precisely those innovations that are necessary for the development of social production in the foreseeable future, which, figuratively speaking, can most effectively nourish development social production in the foreseeable future.
The described example is one of those, to the description of which it is possible to apply the general principle of consistency, developed and proposed by the author, as an integral part of the systemic philosophy. On the basis of the general principle of consistency, it is possible to develop modifications of the principle of consistency for types of industries and specific industries. So, from the standpoint of systems philosophy the principle of consistency for this case can be summarized as follows:
social production of the past, innovations of the present, as well as social production of the future, must be described by one general model of the system.
Such a model of the general system describes the general features of the existing and future social production, as well as the desired innovations as innovations. The use of such a model for innovative programs contributes to ensuring the integrity of the development of social production.
Systems philosophy not only describes, as shown here, the conditions of consistency and manufacturability using the general principle of consistency and the general principle of manufacturability, but also offers the Law of consistency, the Law of technologization, the Law and principles of the development of the potential of systems, models of processes, structures and other parts of systems. On the basis of these principles and laws, with the help of the innovative method of systems philosophy, a system technology of a certain type of activity and specific activity is created. As a result, the technologies of activity become systemic, and the systems of activity become technological. And not only for innovative programs.
? Systems philosophy of scientific theories and practical projects. Systems philosophy offers general models of implementation for any type of activity - industrial, scientific, educational, managerial, and any other. As you know, in practice, there are barriers between various types of government activity, which are justly called departmental (or regional, which are essentially the same). Moreover, at present, the problem of departmental disunity and barriers is extremely relevant not only for public administration, but also for social production and administration in general, as well as for any of its other areas. For example, the barriers between science and practice are significant.
The traditional measures to overcome departmental disunity are, as you know, state administrative organizational and regulatory measures and measures of public influence with the help of the media, non-governmental organizations, etc. They can be figuratively called "outside measures" - as measures proceeding from the interests of social production as a whole and from the interests of individual parts of social production.
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the creation of departmental disunity in various areas of theory and practice was naturally facilitated by significant differences between the methods of constructing professional technologies of activity in different spheres of social production. Therefore, in addition to the creation of organizational and social measures to overcome departmental disunity, unified methodologies for the implementation of professional technologies of activity in different areas of activity (for example, in the areas of creating scientific theories and practical projects) are needed - to build, figuratively speaking, “measures from within”. Such unified methodologies will help to create a community of professional technologies of activity in different spheres of social production. As a result, it is possible, for example, to combine into a single technology the processes of creating a scientific theory and a practical project to solve a specific production problem, creating a continuous cycle of applied scientific research, design and practical implementation. The basis of such a unified technology is, in this case, system philosophy of scientific and practical projects.
With the help of a systematic philosophy of activity, you can also create systemic unity of technologies for the formation and implementation of a certain state project, all its parts implemented by various government departments.
? Systemic development ideas. Based on the method of systems philosophy, it is possible to combine knowledge from various branches of science into holistic knowledge to solve a certain systemic problem of social production.
One of such systemic problems is, as you know, the problem of the state idea and the national idea. The development of a national idea and a state idea undertaken by the author in one of the works in the form system development idea based on the method of systems philosophy, caused the following reaction of one of the researchers: “M. M. Telemtaev is not a humanist ", described in more detail in v. This reaction is a consequence of the still existing departmental disunity of scientific ideas. The author naturally agrees with this statement, as not a humanities student in basic education. But all the same, a feasible contribution to the formation of the national idea is the duty of every citizen, especially a scientist. And to solve humanitarian problems in their setting, approaches, methods and means of other areas of knowledge, for example, systemology, can be used. The closeness of systemology and philosophy is beyond doubt, as is well known. It is known that "The systemic paradigm unites the natural sciences and the humanities and develops them" ... To develop a national idea in this case, the author's method of systemic philosophy was used, which combined the necessary knowledge into an integral system. This allows not only to formulate the idea of the nation's development, but also to determine the basic systems and technologies for its implementation.
At the same time, it is known that it is impossible to create not only a modern national idea, but also a smaller-scale state idea or a program for the development of any branch of social production, using only narrow professional knowledge, for example, only humanitarian knowledge. The relationship between the natural sciences, the humanities, technical and other branches of modern knowledge is known. This is clearly revealed in the formation of ideas for the development of any branches of social production. It is impossible to dispense with only humanitarian or philosophical, or technical, or natural science knowledge for these purposes. Here, methodologies such as a systemic philosophy of activity are needed.
? The world in which we live is not divided into worlds corresponding to the established areas of scientific knowledge. This is a single world and the task of a scientist and teacher is to comprehend and help any person to find holistic knowledge, including about the ideas of development, combining various sections of scientific and non-scientific knowledge. IN AND. Vernadsky wrote: “The scientific worldview is not synonymous with truth in the same way that religious and philosophical systems are not. All of them represent only approaches to it, various manifestations of the human spirit. " It can also be noted that, unlike world religions, scientific knowledge does not represent an integral system of knowledge and this is one of the problems of the development of science as an approach to the comprehension of truth.
The example of great thinkers suggests that a scientist should direct his efforts towards building a single building of science, comprehending an integral system of knowledge. Moreover, regardless of where he started this lesson - from the humanitarian, natural sciences, technical, philosophical, religious or other parts of the knowledge system. The existing differentiation and interpenetration of areas of knowledge help only the beginning of the path in science and practice.
Differentiation of branches of knowledge is nothing more than a convenient condition for choosing a starting position for starting a path in science and practice ; the choice of this position is determined, of course, by the initial training and inclinations of the future specialist. Further development of a scientist and specialist should lead to the formation of systemic knowledge, including systemic ideas for the development of social production. It is also necessary to form an integral system of knowledge about the national idea, ideology, programs and projects, the state and nation, people, country, etc.
As an example of necessity consistency of the idea of development, you can give ideas for the development of education. To form them, knowledge of the theory and experience of education, as well as knowledge of modern computer technologies of education, knowledge of the features of building financial projects for the development of education and knowledge of project management technologies, knowledge of the management of systems development and many other knowledge, scientific and unscientific, are required. It can be argued that the ideas of the development of education cannot be formulated and implemented in the form of a state program without combining all this knowledge, listed and not listed, into an integral system.
? Professional consistency of public administration. Systemic philosophy is aimed at creating a professional systemic nature of state management activities.
Professional consistency , in the general case, we can imagine it as a balanced combination of professional technological systematicity and professional organizational systemicity, built on the basis of a unified systemic methodology.
Professional technological consistency a certain field of activity, in general, is the systematic nature of professional activity, created on the basis of a single, for all professionals operating in this area, systemic methodology of professional technologies for the formation, adoption and implementation of professional results: policies, programs, projects, decisions, etc. ... The implementation of professional technological consistency in successful management structures, for example, leads to the formation of a certain professional style of specialists and managers. For example, it is known that the management style of Japanese entrepreneurs differs significantly from the Western one; the business style of Arab entrepreneurs differs from the style of Chinese business people.
Professional organizational consistency a certain field of activity, in general, is the systematic nature of professional activity, created on the basis of a single, for all professionals operating in this area, systemic methodology for organizing activities within the framework of one organization, firm, enterprise, institution, service.
In turn, professional consistency of public administration Let us imagine it as a balanced combination of professional technological systemicity of public administration and professional organizational systemicity of public administration, built on the basis of a unified systemic methodology.
Then professional technological systematic nature of public administration - it is the systematic nature of professional state management activities, created on the basis of a unified systematic methodology of professional technologies for the formation, adoption and implementation of state policies, programs, projects and decisions for all civil servants, state bodies and their subdivisions.
We also define that professional organizational consistency of public administration - this is the systematic nature of professional state management activities, created on the basis of a single systematic methodology for organizing activities for all civil servants, state bodies and their departments.
The role of the systemic methodology for professional organizational consistency is often played in practice by powerful methods, methods of coercion. Professional organizational consistency is often kept, in common parlance, on the principle of "recognized wisdom and will of the boss" ... So, this principle was characteristic as the main one for the system of state administration of tsarist Russia, for the Soviet period of development of post-tsarist Russia. It is also present to a significant extent in modern systems of public administration. In this principle itself, there is neither negative nor positive. The only problems are to what extent it must be carried out in order to obtain a result useful and effective for social production, as well as how to build and implement the principle of "recognized wisdom and will of the boss" using the systemic methodology of professional organizational consistency.
On the other hand, as follows from the definition of professional consistency, it is necessary to use a unified systemic methodology for the organizational and technological types of professional consistency of public administration. In other words, the reduction of the organizational systemicity of public administration to the level of a reasonable combination with the technological systemic nature of public administration is possible only on the basis of a unified systematic methodology of public administration. Only in this case, on the basis of an organic combination of organizational and technological types of professional consistency, is the integrity of public administration achievable.
As a unified systemic methodology, this work uses a systemic philosophy aimed at solving the problem of creating a professional systemic nature of public administration as a balanced combination of professional technological systematicity and professional organizational systemicity of public administration.
? The importance of systems philosophy for the development of public administration. Systems philosophy contains general models for the implementation of the activities of subjects, objects and results of activity.
Systems philosophy, the principles and rules of consistency and development of the potential of systems contained in it, models of systems, their processes and structures, satisfy the principle of manufacturability for any field of activity, incl. and for public administration.
At the same time, systems philosophy satisfies the principle of consistency .
For example, as applied to the problems of state systemic management, one of the aspects of the consistency of systems philosophy can be described as follows:
the applied method of systems philosophy for a certain level of government (systemic technology of government at this level) is at the same time general system model for system technologies of public administration of systems of the lowest hierarchy level of government.
In general, systems philosophy is general system model for every part of systems philosophy.
Therefore, on the basis of the systemic philosophy of activity, interrelated complexes of systemic scientific theories and practical projects of state systemic management of complex complexes of social production can be created.
At the same time, this book is not written as containing recipes for the implementation of state system management for all occasions. There is also no statement or hint in it that it is enough to master the systemic philosophy of public administration and the work of a public manager will be to use practical systemic projects, the creation of which is accessible and easy.
On the contrary, this book is a kind of invitation to create modern scientific theories and practical projects of public system management ... Therefore, in the beginning, the methodology is stated - the systemic philosophy of public administration itself. Then the questions of building theories and projects for various spheres, problems, goals, tasks of state system management are presented. Further, in each section, directions of research and current programs, projects, policies arising from the content of this section are outlined.
These lists are not exhaustive, since it is impossible to describe all the possibilities of systems philosophy in one edition. Each interested reader can supplement them by studying systems philosophy and applying its principles, rules, models to improve their performance. The author proceeded from the obvious fact that the creation of a systemic nature of public administration is a problem that can be solved not only in methodology, but also in theory and practice, only with the participation of as many public administration practitioners, experts, consultants and other specialists as possible, and also researchers and students, listeners, undergraduates, graduate students, doctoral students.
Books of this kind should not, of course, represent a set of certain uncontested postulates, in this case, of state systemic management. At the same time, for certainty, logic and effectiveness of the presentation, it is necessary to postulate at the methodological level certain ideas about the method of research and design of activities, the place and role of the results of the studied activities. In this book the basis for considering the problems of public administration is the system philosophy of activity , proposed and developed by the author in a number of works, for example , and others. On the basis of this method, it is proposed to build a state system management.
Consideration of the problematics of state systemic management from the unified methodological positions of the systemic philosophy of activity allows:
a) put before the reader the problem of mastering systems thinking and help develop his knowledge, skills and abilities of systems thinking;
b) generalize the available views and simulate role and place of consistency public administration in the development of social production in the country;
v) present in a unified manner model of public system management showing the role and place of the state as a system-subject of management in the general system of national government;
G) show role and place of government in the general system of state activity.
? The state system is a system-subject of national self-government.
A nation can be viewed as a system-subject, a system-result and a system-object of nation management, that is, a nation from the standpoint of systemic philosophy exercises self-control over the survival, preservation and development of the nation. Insofar as the nation as a whole cannot constantly exercise self-government by itself, the nation creates (with the help of various mechanisms) a multitude of systems-subjects of the nation's governance. All these subjects of government need general rules of conduct, like the whole nation. Therefore, the nation creates the state, as the most important subject of government, which also establishes the general rules of conduct for all subjects of government of the nation.
We regard the state as the most important subject system management of the survival, preservation and development of the nation. For the formation and implementation of public administration, the need for a systematic description of the desired results of the state's administrative activities is obvious - result systems government controlled. It is also obvious that for the construction and implementation of public administration, it is necessary to describe social production as object system ... Therefore, when constructing methods for solving problems of public system management, the public administration system is considered as system triad, consisting of systems of three types - subjects, objects and results of public administration. In this regard, this book pays attention to the formation and development of both the subject and the object and the result of state system management, carried out by the system triad "system-subject, system-object, system-result."
As general models for systems - objects, subjects and results, as well as for the system triad of state system management, DNIF-model and the model of the integrated potential of the nation, as well as a number of other models of systems, processes and management structures contained in systems philosophy and proposed by the author in the works and others.
? The public administration system is a large-scale system. The format (scale) of public administration problems, as a rule, "by several orders of magnitude" exceeds the format (scale) of those problems that a person or group of people can resolve. In addition, as a rule, a person working in the state system does not single-handedly solve state problems, but solves individual problems that contribute to the solution of this problem. The format of these tasks is much "smaller" than the format of the problem that in this case must be resolved by the public administration system. For this reason, governance problems are large-scale. Large-scale management problems are dissected, "fragmented" to the size of those problems, goals, tasks that are within the power of one person or team. Corresponding large-scale systems of public administration are built on the basis of a certain order of division, fragmentation of problems to solve them. Such a system contains parts and elements designed to solve individual problems, achieve individual goals, and solve individual problems.
In other words, a large-scale, large system is being created to:
Lead the original large, large-scale problem to a system of tasks, each of which can be solved by an individual person (group of people), i.e., reduce the format of the original problem to the format of a person's (group of people) capabilities;
Transform the totality of the results of the activities of individual people (groups of people) into the result of solving the original problem;
Create a mode of interaction when solving a complex of large, large-scale problems of social production.
Outside of the problems that a person poses for himself, there is no concept of a large-scale system.
? The theory and practice of public administration have the characteristics of complex systems. At present, the methods of natural and technical sciences are increasingly penetrating into the theory and practice of state activity. An important influence on the formation and development of public administration is exerted by such branches of science as cybernetics, computer science, economic and mathematical methods, financial mathematics, and the theory of control systems. Computerization, the creation of information systems and networks, the introduction of automated control systems, and automated workstations have a particularly great influence on the transformation of state activity. Much attention began to be paid to the creation of information technologies of management, the application of the theory and practice of management of large corporations in the theory and practice of public administration.
As a result, due to the presence of a large number of approaches to modeling, formation and implementation of public administration, the problem of the complexity of public administration systems arises. According to the definition of Acad. A. I. Berga " to compile a model of a complex system, it is necessary, as a rule, to use more than two theories, more than two languages for describing the system, in view of the qualitative difference in the internal nature of the system elements among themselves and the presence of different approaches to modeling objects of different nature ».
An effective solution to the problems of modeling and implementation of complex processes and structures of public administration systems as complex systems is possible on the basis of the method of systems philosophy.
Systems philosophy allows to take into account the complexity and large-scale of state systems in the formation and implementation of scientific theories and practical projects of public administration.
Outside of the problems that a person poses for himself, there is no concept of a complex system.
? Systemic industrialization, mechanization and technologization of public administration. Any large-scale and complex system, including the system of public administration, in the process of its development is transformed into a production system under the influence of the processes of industrialization of activity (mechanization, technologization and the actual industrialization of activity) due to the action of the universal Law of technologization of human activity, formulated by the author in the work. It can be argued that it was precisely the technologization and industrialization of human activity in its various spheres - in production, technology, science, that led to the need for systemic studies of large-scale and complex subjects, objects and results of human activity, to the emergence of systemology, the theory of general systems, and other areas of systemic research. ... In this regard, systems philosophy considers industrialization as one of the processes that need to be given systematic properties to create a systemic management of systems development. As a result, if the process of managing the development of the system itself becomes systemic, then in the transformed systems of activity, consistency will remain and develop. Then the implementation of the process of industrialization of production as a systemic process leads to the systemic development of the system and to its transformation into holistic production system.
The transformation of processes and structures of activity through systemic industrialization corresponds to the principle and the Law of the systemic development of the activity of systemic philosophy and turns out to be effective for the system, for its internal environment, as well as for the environment of consumption and production.
Because of this, it is necessary that the processes of mechanization, technologization and industrialization acquire the properties of consistency, become processes system industrialization, system mechanization, system technology... In this case, they will contribute to the development of the professional systemic nature of public administration, as well as the creation of a balance between its organizational and technological systemicity.
Systems philosophy is the methodological basis for theory and practice systemic industrialization social production and management as a methodology containing general principles and laws of consistency and development of systems. Systemic industrialization of public administration is the development of public administration on the basis of such main sections of systems philosophy as the principle and the Law of consistency, principles and the Law of the development of the potential of systems. Then the industrialization of public administration is carried out in the direction of creating man-machine industries of state systemic control, which are characterized by a systematic structure and a high technological level.
In the structure of the innovative process of systemic industrialization of public administration, system philosophy distinguishes three components of the creation of a systemic man-machine administrative production:
a) system mechanization - the creation and use of specialized systems of machines that increase productivity and improve the quality of state administrative work;
b) systemic technologization - creation and implementation of man-machine system management technologies and, on their basis, technological systems for the production of state management results;
v) systemic industrialization - creation and implementation of a complex of state production systems, as sets of state technological and economic and administrative systems.
? System mechanization should be implemented as a systemic technology for the mechanization of public administration. The approach to mechanization as to the construction of a system technology assumes the following:
1) machines for state systemic management activities are created as machine systems;
2) to machines presented system of requirements, ordered by researching the processing of information resources carried out by the public administration system;
3) the study of the processing of information resources is carried out on the basis of a complex process and structure models public administration as a complex of models of a large and large-scale public administration system;
4) models of processes and structures of public administration as objects of research should be systemic, satisfy axioms of the principle of consistency;
5) system models of three types of objects: systems of processes (structures), systems of requirements for machines, systems of machines must be combined into an interconnected triad of models of systems "processes-requirements-machines" the mechanization of public administration;
6) the triad of systems "processes-requirements-machines" of the mechanization of public administration should be described one general system model.
The fulfillment of these conditions allows, as experience shows, to productively use the principles, rules and laws of consistency and development of systems, proposed by the system philosophy of activity, for the creation and implementation of system technology for equipping state management with computers and other machines.
? System technologization is aimed at uniting man and machine for the implementation of systemic management technologies, which in the system of state technological management are carried out by man-machine systems for the production of government decisions, projects, programs, policies. As such systems, automated workstations, automated information processing and control systems, computerized telecommunication systems and other systems that combine the capabilities of a person and a computer are used. Systemic technologization is based on the system technology method using the effect of joint action of the Laws of consistency, development and technologization of the potential of systems, principles of consistency, development and technologization of the potential of systems, mathematical and other models of systems and technologies.
As you know, the processes carried out in public administration are often creative processes. In this case, the designer of the public administration system faces the following task:
1) there are products of creative management work - successful government management decisions, projects, programs, policies;
2) it is necessary to find ways to replicate successful products of creative managerial labor throughout the state system.
It is known at the same time that creative processes are massively impossible to implement in the sense that they cannot be performed many times by different people to replicate the same product. In contrast to them, technologies are processes that are created, as conceived by a designer and a technologist, as a set of simple operations for the manufacture of the same type of products repeatedly performed by different people. The simplicity of operation in technology for humans is ensured, in particular, by the fact that complex and cumbersome physical, mechanical, chemical, informational, managerial and other processes are "entrusted" to the machine.
This approach is used by the systemic philosophy of activity to build models of the systemic technology of public administration. Systems philosophy considers the issues of technologization at a new system level in accordance with the rules of the Law of Systems Development and the Law of Technologization ... This makes it possible to build more advanced management technologies - innovative systemic technologies of public administration, and the transformation of this type of activity into an innovative systemic activity - state systemic management.
? Systemic industrialization is carried out on the basis of the method of systems philosophy and a complex of applied systemic technologies of public administration and is aimed at creating, on this basis, innovative production systems of public administration.
Systemic philosophy, figuratively speaking, is aimed at building the systemic art of industrialized state management. To this end, she tries to combine and present in a holistic form the knowledge about the formation and implementation of management activities that are available in social and humanitarian, natural, engineering and other areas of knowledge about theoretical and practical management projects.
In turn, modern state activity uses the achievements all branches of human knowledge- philosophical, social and humanitarian, natural science, engineering and other knowledge. Suffice it to mention the programs for the formation and development in Russia, the CIS countries, in the countries of near and far abroad, programs for the creation of national information infrastructures, which include electronic governments. The widespread use of mathematical methods in the practice of public administration is also known, for example, in the form of economic and mathematical methods, financial mathematics, and statistical methods. Certain types of government activities, in principle, cannot be carried out without mathematical methods, for example, government statistics, government regulation in the field of demography. It is impossible to form and implement public administration without legal, philosophical, economic, social and humanitarian knowledge. Therefore, along with the preservation of the role of specialized practical techniques and methods, the role of such public administration technologies that use the integral set of achievements of all branches of human knowledge is growing.
State activity should become more and more integral, systemic and technologized. And it should be noted that the origins of the current crisis in public administration consist in the fact that the state works unsystematically and does not represent a modern efficient high-tech production of state management decisions, projects, programs, policies. In terms of integrity, consistency and technology, the state is inferior not only to the management of large and medium-sized businesses, but also to non-commodity intra-family business. Given these circumstances, it is necessary to form new trends in the development of public administration.
In connection with the indicated need for the formation of new trends in the development of public administration as an integral systemic and technologized activity, a systemic philosophy of activity is necessary as a methodology aimed at ensuring the integrity, consistency and high technologies of state activity. Such innovative methodologies as a systemic philosophy of activity will make it possible to effectively use different systems of knowledge in the practice of public administration. It is for these reasons that the development of the main provisions of the method of systems philosophy in relation to the development of the state system, undertaken in this work, will help, in the author's opinion, the further implementation of the ideas of integrity in the practice of the development of state activities, the formation of high-tech state system management .
? The paradigm of systems philosophy. In connection with his activities, the author dealt with a variety of objects that were most conveniently modeled in the form of systems, general systems. At the same time, system models did not lead, as a rule, to the construction of constructive methods for solving practical problems. We had to look for new technologies for the formation, adoption and implementation of decisions and, in this regard, to reconstruct system models. The search for a rational combination of ideas of systemology and technology led the author to the paradigm of systems philosophy and its applied section - system technology. On the basis of the results obtained in the development of systems philosophy, the method of systems philosophy is being developed, which is used to build a system technology. In turn, system technology as a scientific direction contains applied methods for constructing practical system technologies for different types and areas of activity and for different types of program projects, activity policies.
For the first time, the idea and basic principles of constructing system philosophy and system technology (applied section of system philosophy) were developed and proposed by the author in the mid-70s of the last century. Since then, system philosophy and system technology have been effectively used to develop and implement programs and projects in various spheres of society and have been developed by the author on this basis. The most complete system philosophy and system technology, as a professional worldview, are substantiated and described in the works .
This work is devoted to the further development of systems philosophy as applied to the problem of building state systems management. From the standpoint of systems philosophy, to describe a person and those systems in which he participates, the already mentioned model in the form of DNIF systems... DNIF-system is a combination of spiritual, moral, intellectual and bodily systems, a system of mental and physical health. The development of a person and any systems in which he participates, according to the concepts of system philosophy, should be carried out in such a way that all these systems contained in them develop interconnectedly and harmoniously as DNIF-systems. A person, developing and applying professional efforts to change the environment, of which he is a part, must remain a DNIF-system, not lose any part of his DNIF-system, but develop them and the interaction between them and the environment, as a DNIF-system. This is one of the main conditions that must be observed for the formation and implementation of scientific theories and practical projects of public system management.
? The systematic nature of human survival, preservation and development. The state system should study and take into account in its management activities the features of the previous stages of human development and use this information when building a new stage in the development of mankind and the country as part of global development. It can be stated that two systemic stages of human development.
First stage"Creation and development of a system of interaction between people" - oldest stage ... This stage led to the formation of man and human communities as DNIF-systems in different regions of the Planet. At this stage, the formation of a system of material, information and energy needs of a person, family, community, as a necessary condition for the survival and development of a person, as a DNIF system, in the natural environment took place.
Second phase"Creation and development of a system of turnover of property rights and a system of power rights" - stage of civilization ... Here, the bodily system of a person and society receives the main opportunities for development. At this stage, the following happened: the creation of systems of material, information and energy production and consumption; creation of a financial system as a system of information on the value of goods, knowledge and services and a system for providing opportunities for the exchange of labor products. Intellect, spirituality and morality, mental and physical health play a subordinate role at the stage of civilization. They mainly serve civilization, resist it and develop on this, but to a lesser extent than the systems of production and consumption. The systematic nature of human development, as a DNIF-system containing spiritual, moral, intellectual, bodily systems, is violated. This stage, unfortunately, led to the understanding of nature as a system of resources for human development. At this stage, a person loses understanding of his role as a part of nature. Further human development is fettered by this kind of shackles of stereotypes of civilization and economic growth.
Coming third stage- "the creation of a unified system of the human mind, the Planet, the Cosmos." This is the stage of preservation, survival and development of the soul, mind and mind of humanity. At this stage, the harmonization of the development of the DNIF-system of mankind will take place, its transformation into a subsystem of the mind of the Planet, Space, that is, into a subsystem of the DNIF-system of the Planet, Space. The initial stage of this stage is an information society, the transformation of the human community into a single information organism, the creation of an information culture as a basis for further development and transformation of DNIF systems. But at the same time, new systems of information, material and energy needs will arise, which will be necessary for the survival, preservation and development of human DNIF systems in the space environment.
Using the information presented, from the standpoint of systems philosophy, it can be determined that survival the system is based on the development of relationships in the internal environment of the system and in the system triad. In turn, preservation based on the development of relationships with the external environment of the system and the system triad. And further, development based on the ability to "get used to" the external environment, to become its full-fledged component, preserving itself as a system that contributes to the development of the external environment as a system.
? External environment(environment) of which man is now a part, was(up to a person), there is(with a person) and will be(with or without a person).
Public administration plays a decisive role in choosing the direction of further development of a person in the global development process, as a part of Planets Earth from three possible options:
first- to destroy your kind, and possibly the Planet, continuing the path of consumerism and economic growth (death, the path of "regressive preservation");
second- to turn into a "termite colony", preserving itself and the Planet and placing responsibility for the Planet on the future carriers of the mind (degradation, the path of "regressive survival");
third- to become the bearer of the Planet's mind and ensure its survival, preservation and development in the general system of the Universe (development, the path of "progressive development").
To select and implement the third direction of development, it is necessary to build a toolkit for state management of the country's progressive sustainable development, based on the systemic philosophy of activity.
? The role of management consistency. The problem of consistency, expressed in an explicit or implicit form, has always been the subject of concern for philosophical, religious, ethical and other teachings. The creation of a systematic behavior and management of the behavior of people, groups of people, states, countries and the entire world community is the main problem of the modern stage of development of the Planet and humanity. Understanding the systemic nature of the world in which we find ourselves is the problem, having solved which a person will make a revolution in his worldview and behavior. The time will come and the perception of consistency, as an indispensable attribute of worldview and behavior, will become common. Future generations of mankind will face new worldview problems, the nature of which is not yet clear to us. But for this it is necessary to survive, survive and develop on the basis of a systemic perception of the world. And in this, the decisive role belongs to public administration.
Through the efforts of man, the Planet has been transformed and its life support systems have been created; public administration should treat them as the basis for the future holistic systems "Planet - an intelligent system", "Planet - a sphere of reason", "Planet - a system, a sphere of intelligent life", or - "Sphere of the Planet Mind", "Noosphere of the Planet" according to V.I. Vernadsky. The most recognized and promising direction for building a global project for the survival, preservation and development of the Earth is the UN project "Agenda XXI" of the sustainable development strategy. For its part, systems philosophy is a philosophy of sustainable progressive development. The subsystems of this global system will have to be systems created on the basis of national projects for the survival, preservation and development of the integrated potential of countries. Such a sphere of mind will act in the interests of the Planet and man, as the leading carrier of the mind of the Planet, and in the future, in the interests of the universe "as a whole". It is possible that then we will be of interest to highly developed alien civilizations, since we are not looking for low-developed civilizations of other planets either.
As a result, Vernadsky's doctrine of the noosphere, Tsiolkovsky's statement “thought is a factor in the evolution of the cosmos”, Chizhevsky's theory of the unity of the pulse of earthly and cosmic life, the teachings and theories of many other great scientists about the paths of the evolution of mind will be realized. If not, then the answer to these questions will be sought by someone next, whom the Cosmos will endow with reason after the degradation or death of human civilization.
1. 2. General concept of system management
(the problem and monitoring of the integrity of the environment, the system - knowledge of integrity, management, production activities, management as an activity, the problem of management, the problem of national management, general models of the systems philosophy of management, the DNIF-system model, the mission of management, system strategy, policies and management programs , management projects, the triad of management, regulation, missionary and own goals of management, systemic purpose of management, method of systems philosophy of management)
? Problem and monitoring of the integrity of the environment. In general, the problem describes a violation of the development of the environment (and / or its components) as an integrity. The environment (environment) contains people and groups of people. The desired integral survival, preservation and development of the environment, of which a person and his groups are a part, is described with the help of certain models of survival, preservation and development. These can be international, national, state, regional, sectoral policies, programs, projects. Mathematical, verbal, physical and other models can be drawn up as a basis for drawing up policies, programs, projects. For these purposes, as a rule, models of economic, environmental and social development are formed, which can be combined into a holistic model of sustainable development.
These models predict integral processes and structures of survival, preservation and development of the environment and man as a part of the environment. At the same time, the actual results of the implementation of these processes and structures do not correspond, as a rule, to the desired results. Thus, the integrity of development is violated, a problem arises that requires its solution. At the same time, a violation of the integrity of development can occur both due to the implementation in the environment of the indicated desired models of survival, preservation and development, and as a result of processes that are realized in the environment regardless of the will of a person.
The problem is a persistent contradiction between the desired model and the actual implementation of holistic survival, preservation and development of people and groups of people, as well as the environment of which they are a part.
We do not know and cannot, apparently, know all the mechanisms that maintain the integrity of natural and artificial environments. But we can monitor the violation of integrity, determine the set of influencing factors, as well as the degree of influence of individual factors and take measures to restore the integrity of the environment and the integrity of its development.
? Integrity monitoring environment is possible with the help of such an activity tool as a system. In the complex of human knowledge, the system reflects such a fundamental property of the environment as integrity, in other words, with the help of systems models, the integrity of the environment, its artificial and natural parts is reflected. Of course, this is not a "full-volume" reflection of the whole, but a partial one. For this reason, there are a large number of definitions of the system, often contradictory, reflecting the particular characteristics of the whole. Systems philosophy refers to the definitions of systems as their models and sets the task of using the definitions of the system that belong to a certain system of models of systems.
? System - knowledge of integrity. The system is knowledge about the whole, which, in turn, must be integral. System models are viewed as artificial systems, which, in turn, must be holistic. In this paper, various definitions of systems are used, which together represent a complete system. It is possible that we are not able to fully cognize the phenomenon of integrity. The problem of integrity, including the problem of the integrity of objects, subjects and management results will be further specifically considered. Now we turn to the actual problem of management.
Depending on the characteristics of the environment in which the problems arise, and depending on the characteristics of the "solver" of the problems, the problems themselves can be modeled as complex, large-scale, permanent, temporary, stable and other systems.
? Manufacturing activities. The need for management arises as follows. The production activity of a certain subject of activity, aimed at solving a certain problem, exists from the moment this problem arises. So, for example, food production, aimed at solving the problem of hunger, arose, one might say, at the same time as this problem. When the results of such production activities are insufficient to meet the needs of the environment and / or the needs of people in the results of solving a given problem or exceed them (for example, insufficient or excessive to satisfy the hunger of a given group of people), then need for management... Then the subjects of production activity are simultaneously transformed into objects of management. In what follows, the subjects of production activity will be called objects of management, objects of activity. The rationale is set out in the section on the principle of consistency.
? Management as an activity. From the standpoint of system technology, management as a type of activity must comply with the principle and the Law of the consistency of management activities, the principles and the Law of the development of management activities, as well as models of systems, processes and structures of management activities, which in the subsequent sections are formulated on the basis of the general results of system philosophy.
Management - This is an activity to establish and maintain the required correspondence between the "need for the results of solving the problem - the results of solving the problem" for some control object. The Office is bringing the problem-solving process back on track; for this, the management contributes to the production activity of the management object, which solves the original problem. We can say that management helps to remove relevance this problem, allow at the moment the problem that we will consider original, causal.
It can be argued that a poor-quality solution to the original problem, independently carried out by a certain object of activity, is the cause of the management problem. In turn, management leads to the proper quality of the solution to the original problem. As a result, management, as a type of activity, is combined with the activities of the control object to solve the original problem and, as a result, it is not always possible to separately assess the contributions of the object and the subject of control to the effectiveness of solving the original problem. Determining the effectiveness of management is one of the most difficult tasks of management theory. The task of determining the effectiveness of public administration is especially difficult. At the same time, public administration is viewed as an integral part of national government. To ensure the consistency of public administration, the method of the systemic philosophy of activity is used.
? Problem management, that is, the problem that the control solves is a persistent discrepancy between the needs for the results of solving a certain initial problem by the control object and the practical results of its solution by the control object. Goal of management- to keep this discrepancy within acceptable limits that do not violate the integral development of the control object in interaction with the external environment and its components. Management can be interpreted as an activity to ensure compliance with the restrictions on the practical solution of the original problem.
In accordance with the definition adopted at the beginning of this section, the presence of a control problem reflects a violation of the integrity of the development of a certain control object in a certain environment. This fully applies to the problem of state management of the survival, preservation and development of the nation. Preservation of the integrity of the development of the people, which includes, according to N.A. Berdyaeva, “all historical generations, not only living, but also dead, and our fathers and grandfathers” is one of the main goals of state systemic management, state systemic policies, programs, projects, as well as state systemic activities in general. Following the thoughts of N.A. Berdyaev, one can obviously come to the conclusion that the people of the country include not only past and present, but all their future generations, as well as a nation, ethnos, family, clan and other stable groups of people .
? The problem of national governance there is a steady discrepancy between the needs for the integral survival, preservation and development of the nation and the practical results of the survival, preservation and development of the nation. The goal of national governance is to keep this discrepancy within acceptable limits that do not violate the integrity of the nation in the process of its development. The integrity of the nation is considered in a temporary aspect, and then the problem of the integrity of the nation of the past, present and future comes to the fore, which should be resolved in the short, medium and long term. The integrity of a nation can be seen beyond time. In this case, the strategic problem of the integrity of the nation is studied and solved, as consisting of reasonably distinguished integral parts, such as a person, family, ethnic group, the potentials of a nation, etc. parts of the holistic problem of national governance.
All problems of national governance (in relation to a person, a firm, a resource market, in the social, economic, environmental spheres, etc.) are in two main states:
1) stability (the results of solving the problem correspond to the needs of society);
2) actualization (the results of solving the problem do not correspond to the needs of society, the problems “arise”, more correctly - they become actualized, become actual). Naturally, in such a complex and large-scale system, which can be considered social production, all problems are in different states, i.e. at different stages of their life cycle. For this reason, a complex of urgent problems is constantly present in social production, requiring the creation of appropriate management. And one of the tasks that must be solved in connection with this circumstance is the need to build a system of priorities for solving the problems of development by society. To build a system technology for solving this problem, it is necessary, first of all, creation of a bank of development problems.
? General models of systems philosophy of management. At the same time, using the general models of activity proposed by the system philosophy, in the management models, it is possible to create the best ranked combination of the most effective features of various management models for a given period of time, such as, for example:
Hierarchical. Here strict subordination "from top to bottom", the practical absence of interactions "horizontally", strict adherence to the instructions of the management, the maximum level of specialization of management links, strict regulation of the possibilities of external relations, etc. are legalized;
Organic. For this case, the management style is characterized as corresponding to the soul of the employee, aimed at creating and developing a moral management system, at purposeful and harmonious development, at creating a family style of activity, at forming and adhering to the corporate style of business ethics, etc.
Ultimately, all these and other models of activity reflect particular sets of properties of the modeled object as a whole. For a holistic description of the activity as a whole, including the managerial one, a model of the general system is needed, and then the listed and other models of activity can be considered as its particular cases.
As such a model can be used DNIF-system model activities, other models offered by systems philosophy. The system of rules, principles, laws and models of systemic philosophy allows to harmoniously combine rationalist, hierarchical, organismic (animalistic), holistic and other models of productive activity. Thus, the DNIF-system model allows one to introduce quantitative assessments of spirituality, morality, intellectual and physical potentials of management, its mental and physical health, mind, soul, and management mind. As a result, it is possible to create an integral DNIF-management model that reflects and develops the individual characteristics of the management system, including the system-subject of management.
? Mission of management. The method of systems philosophy is considered as a methodological basis for solving the problem of management, which allows us to approach the formation of both the mission and management strategy, and short-, medium- and long-term policies, programs, and projects of activity from a unified position.
System Model mission activities important for the formation and implementation of a management strategy. In the form of a mission, the desired integral effect of this main activity on the environment in which this activity is carried out, including the internal environment of the system carrying out this activity, is expressed in a concentrated manner. The mission should also include a model of the legal responsibility of this system for the consequences of those changes that bring the results of its activities into the environment, as well as into the internal environment of the elements and other parts of the system itself. Models of responsibility and measures taken in the event of the occurrence of relevant legal events should be systemic. Such systems models should include social, environmental and economic responsibilities. In addition, there should be responsibility for the integrity of the environment and internal environments of the system of activities.
It is important to separate the missions of the system-subject of management, the system-object of management and the system-result of management and the management system as a whole. However, all these missions must be a whole. Especially for the system of government and, in general, national government.
The management strategy is aimed at fulfilling the mission of the main activity of the system-object of management. At the same time, the mission is understood as a responsible expression of the role in the environment, for the implementation of which this activity is necessary. In turn, short-, medium- and long-term policies, programs and projects of management activities are mechanisms for implementing the management strategy within the framework of the implementation of specific stages of the mission of the system-object of management.
Management strategy, from the standpoint of a systemic philosophy of management - systemic management strategy, it is a system technology for the formation of models of the future system-subject of control. At the same time, a system of such models can be developed, as well as technologies for choosing the next model in the future and the transition from the previous model to the next. In this case, the models of the future system-subject of management are not considered in isolation from the past and present models of the system-subject of management. Therefore, the systemic management strategy contains a systemic technology for managing the development of the system-subject of management - from the foreseeable experience of past management to the foreseeable models of future management.
In addition, the management strategy is not considered here in isolation from system strategy of the object management. In turn, the systemic strategy of the activity of the control object for which the control is created is considered as a system technology for the formation of models of the future activity of the control object. Systems philosophy also considers the models of the future activity of the controlled object in unity with the models of the past and present activity of the controlled object. Due to this, the system strategy of the control object's activity contains the system technology for managing the development of the system-object of activity - from the foreseeable experience of past activity to the foreseeable models of technologies for the future activity of the control object.
Further, the management strategy is not considered here in isolation from management. In turn, the systemic strategy of those results, for the sake of which both management and the activity of the control object are created, is considered as a system technology for the formation of models of future joint results of control and the activity of the control object. Systems philosophy also does not consider the models of future results in isolation from the models of the results of past and present activities of the system-object and the system-subject of management. Due to this, the systemic result strategy contains a systemic technology for managing the development of the result system - from the foreseeable experience of the implementation of the result systems in the past to the foreseeable models of the implementation of the result systems in the future.
It follows that, in general, the systemic strategy - it is a systemic technology for the formation of an integral complex of past, present and future management models, the activities of the management object and the result. A systemic strategy can also be called a management strategy for the development of a management system, which includes a system-subject of management (the management system itself), a system-object of management (actually a system of core activities that need management) and a system-result. True, the question always remains open - what is the main one: management, main production or result? Is such a system a management system or a system of activities in which management plays a subsidiary role?
In general, a systemic strategy is a systemic technology of combining models of the past, present and future of any activity, including management activity and the result of activity, into a whole. Such a combination is made on the basis of the method of the systemic philosophy of activity.
Figuratively speaking, the systemic management strategy forms (creates) the behavior of the management system, which, according to the strategic concept, ensures its effective functioning in the future environments of activity, in which their own statements of the problems of survival, preservation and development will arise. We can assume that the systemic management strategy is what connects the models of systemic management activities of the past, present and future. The task of the system management strategy is to provide such a set of models of the management system, its subject, object and result, which can be effectively used to build short-, medium- and long-term management over the expected life cycle of the management system.
Such a complex of models is used within the framework of the general method of the systemic philosophy of activity for the construction of theory and practice of short, medium and long-term politicians, programs, projects implementing and correcting the strategy of certain activities. Policies and programs are also considered here as projects: a policy is seen as a system of programs and projects, a program as a system of projects.
The project, in general, contains a description of one or more interrelated models included in the system strategy, in a form suitable for practice, as well as a description of the order of its implementation. Projects are drawn up as sets of documents to be used in the practical implementation of the activity strategy. Therefore, projects for future activities, in contrast to models, have certain regulations for practical implementation, taking into account the specific possibilities of resource provision of the development strategy (project management plans, action plans for project implementation, business plans, etc.).
In turn, the method of systems philosophy makes it possible to build managing this entire set of projects on the basis of the principle and the Law of consistency, the principles and the Law of systems development, the DNIF-system model, the system potential model, other models of systems and systemic activity.
The implementation of management activities is carried out, as you know, control systems.
The system-subject of control must develop appropriate control actions to bring the processes of solving the initial problem by the system-object of control in accordance with the needs for solving this problem. In the example with the problem of hunger, the management system should bring food production processes in line with the needs of a given population in satisfying hunger - if they are insufficient, find new opportunities and take measures to implement them, if they are redundant, find, for example, opportunities and create appropriate control actions for export food. If this problem is resolved for society as a whole, then problems arise and are constantly being resolved related to resolving this problem on a smaller scale: on the scale of a region, family, individual, etc. A number of these problems, due to their plurality, for example, become the subject of public administration. Such problems can be nutritional problems of children of different ages, nutritional problems of nursing mothers, etc.
In the general case, there is the aggregate “problem of society, the process of solving the problem and managing the compliance of the results of solving the problem with the state of the problem”, in short - the triad “problem, result of the process, management”, figuratively the triad “Problem”. It has existed since the problem arose. In the general case, all these components of this triad have a mutual influence on each other: under the influence of the transformation of the problem, control and the process change, under the influence of a change in control, the problem statement and process can change, under the influence of a change in the required parameters of the process result, the problem statement and control change.
? Management is a triune process in the system-subject, system-object and in the system-result of management. In the subject, this process is formed, in the object it is realized, and as a result it is embodied. For the subject of management to be able to coordinate its effects, it must "in itself" contain a model of the object and the result of management. This means that the system-subject of control must have knowledge about the processes and structures of the object and the result of control. Such knowledge in an ordered form is a model of a system-object and a system-result. But the manager has to deal with a wide variety of models. These can be social, ecological, economic models. They can be presented in a wide variety of forms: verbal, physical, mathematical, cybernetic, and others.
All these various models in the control system must be considered from a single point of view, if only in order to obtain comparable results in the production of analysis, research, design, etc. For this reason, the subject of management must have a general approach to operating with models - some general model. Systems philosophy offers a coherent set of common systems models for management purposes, described in the following sections.
? Regulation is a type of control. Its purpose is to motivate the development of the processes and structures of the controlled object in a certain direction and to keep the processes and structures of the controlled object within a certain "framework" of development. The directions of development and the development framework are determined by the mission, strategy, corresponding policy, program, project of a higher level. This is a kind of “self-management of the object of activity”. For regulation, certain sets of parameters of the control object can be selected, which must be kept within the specified limits. In this case, the control system is given a certain value of accuracy, interval, “corridor” for regulating the parameters and characteristics of processes and structures of the control object.
Consider the following model of interaction of control system components in the process of arising and solving the problem of management.
So, the subject system:
1) finds a variant of the problem statement and formulates the goal of the activity to resolve the problem. In this sense, the subject system takes on the mission of a representative of the environment in which some initial problem arose. This problem must be described (made a statement of the problem) and a certain system of goals must be formed. The achievement of these goals in the aggregate and according to certain regulations leads to the resolution, removal, solution of the original problem. To achieve each of these goals, you need a product, a system of products. If such a product is not available, then a certain production system is required for its production. This required product is now seen as the result of the activity of the production system;
2) finds a model of a specific result system for solving the problem, for which it conducts analysis, appropriate studies, design of the result system and, if necessary, design of the object system. The system-subject carries out complex activities to solve the problem: analysis, research, design, management and other activities, for which it forms and develops the appropriate subsystems, of which the most important is the system-subject of management. The corresponding integrated model of activity will be discussed below;
3) provides control over the production of the result system in the production system-object;
4) compares the desired and actual system-results. The purpose of the subject system is to ensure that the real result system corresponds to the desired result system.
5) redesigns, if necessary, the statement of the problem (including taking into account the wishes of all systems with which the control system interacts), the goal of the activity, the system-result and the system-object, and proceeds to the next iteration of solving the problem.
The described set of components of the activity of the system-subject of control corresponds to its missions as a representative of the environment in which there is a problem of survival, preservation and development of this environment, which requires a solution.
Apart from the missionary problem, in the system-subject of management, as in any system, there are “own” problems of survival, preservation and development. To solve them, the subject system must find the necessary resources. One of the sources of resources is the payment of the environment for the implementation of the functions of the system-subject of control. But, at the same time, receiving the capabilities of the representative of the environment to solve the problem of the environment, the system-subject of management gains access to the disposal of the resources of the environment. As a result, the subject system receives great opportunities for its own resource support, which can also occur to the detriment of solving the initial problem of the environment. For this reason, it is important that the system-subject follows such models of activity, in which there is a system of motivations for a harmonious combination of two types of goals of the system-subject of management:
missionary - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of the environment, and own - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of the subject system itself.
? Activity of the system-object of management corresponds to her missions in an environment as a system that produces a certain result system necessary for the survival, preservation and development of this environment.
In the system-object of management, as well as in the system-subject of management, in addition to the missionary problem, there are “own” problems of survival, preservation and development. To solve them, the object system must find the necessary resources. One of the sources of resources is the payment of the environment to the system-object for the produced system-result. But, on its part, the object system pursues its own goals of obtaining the greatest benefits from the production of the result system, which can also occur to the detriment of solving the initial environmental problem. For this reason, it is important to harmoniously combine the two types of objectives of the system-object of management:
missionary - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of the environment through the production and implementation of the result system, and
own - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of the object system itself.
? Using the result system corresponds to her missions in the environment as a system necessary to achieve a certain goal of survival, preservation and development of this environment.
For example, the system-result of education contains knowledge, skills and abilities to solve the problems of the development of social production in the country, aimed at the implementation of the missionary goal of education. But at the same time, an educated person also needs to achieve the goals of his own survival, preservation and development.
From this example, the importance of a harmonious combination of two types of goals of the management result system is obvious:
missionary - to ensure the achievement of a specific goal of survival, preservation and development of the environment, and
own - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of the result system itself.
The presence of missionary and personal goals of survival, preservation and development in an obvious way can be shown in control system as a whole.
Thus, the management system and each of its parts (system-subject, system-object and system-result, its other parts) are aimed at achieving two types of goals, which can be called missionary and their own. Therefore, one of the tasks of management is to contribute to the implementation of the goals of the management system and any part of it, at which consistent (harmonious) survival, preservation and development of the system and the environment of which it is a part. If the system deviates from the mission in favor of its own goals, then this can lead to a violation of the integrity of the development of the environment. If, on the contrary, the system deviates from its own goals in favor of missionary goals, then this can lead to a violation of the integrity of the development of the system as a part of the environment.
The set of missionary and own goals of the management system, built taking into account the influence of the missionary and own goals of the parts of the management system, will be called systemic management goal. When constructing a specific formula for the systemic goal of management, harmonious (coordinated) survival, preservation and development of the aggregate "management system, external and internal environment of the management system, components of the management system, component of the internal and external environment of the management system" should be ensured. The key task of constructing a formula for the systemic goal of management is to find a balance of development priorities for the parts of a given population.
To achieve coordinated (harmonious) survival, preservation and development of the system and environment, the system-subject of control, like the control system as a whole, and any part of it, carry out not only control, but also analysis, research, design and other activities... All these activities are united by systems philosophy in a single general model of activity, with the help of which management is described as a type of activity.
In this case, the general models of systemic activity, including the models of systemic management, implement the principle and the Law of systematic activity, the Law and principles of the systemic development of activity, the Law of technologization and the principles of technologization.
Then management is considered as a subsystem of some activity as a whole. The systemic models of the interaction of these types of activity, considered in Chapter 3, are necessary to ensure the coordinated (harmonious) survival, preservation and development of a given set of subjects, objects and results of management and activities in general.
? Systems philosophy as a management methodology, develops in three directions: methodology of strategy, methodology of theory and methodology of practice of systems management.
Systems philosophy of management - methodological basis, a set of models and methods of systematic implementation of management activities, a section of the doctrine on the method of systems philosophy devoted to management issues (methodological basis of a systemic management strategy).
The method of systems philosophy of management - the method of constructing and implementing the theoretical foundations of the systemic implementation of management activities (methodology of the theory of systems management).
The method of systemic philosophy of management is based on the results of the systemic philosophy of management, as a methodology, transforms them into a certain ordered set of models, principles, laws, rules in relation to management activities.
It can be management activities in relation to the formation and implementation of international, national, regional, national, public, party, industrial, scientific, educational, educational, managerial, design, project, environmental, social, economic, private, family, collective, as well as any other activities carried out in national production.
System control technology method - a method of constructing and implementing a system technology project to solve a specific problem, task, to achieve a specific system management goal (methodology of system management practice).
The method of systemic management technology is based on the method of systems philosophy of management and on the general methodology of system philosophy, transforms them in relation to the practical construction of a specific system technology to solve a specific problem, task, to achieve a specific systemic management goal.
System technology project management - a set of documents (legal acts) regulating the formation and practical implementation of the system technology of management activities (conceptual system management technology).
A system technology project for a certain type of management activity can be analytical, research, design, production, management, expert, control (monitoring), archival.
Projects of systemic technology of management activities can be created as management subsystems (systems-subjects of management) of various types of national activities, such as international, regional, state, public, party, industrial, scientific, educational, educational, managerial, design, design, environmental, social , economic, private, family, collective, its other types.
System control technology - combining the capabilities of management systems and technologies in the form of a system set of methods and means of practical formation, production and implementation of management decisions, projects, programs, policies designed to solve a specific problem, task, to achieve a specific systemic goal of national production or its part (empirical system technology management). At the same time, the management system is considered as a way of organizing methods and means of achieving the goal of management, solving management problems, solving management problems, management technology - as a way of organizing methods and means of production of a management product in the form of a management decision (project, program, policy, etc.) ) implemented in the control object.
? System management - a set of methodology, theory, projects and practice of system management technologies.
1. 3. The concept of state system management
(the problem and monitoring of the integrity of national production, the need for public administration, the problem of public administration, the mission of public administration, the systemic strategy of public administration, systemic models of public administration, state regulation, missionary and own goals of the public administration system and its parts, the systemic goal of public administration, system philosophy and system technology of public administration and public activity, public system management)
For national capacity the problem describes the violation of the development of national potential (and / or its components), as an integrity. The system structure and processes of national production aimed at developing national potential are considered in ... Chapter 3 will look at these issues in relation to public systems management. Here we will focus on those aspects that are important for posing the problem of public administration. The desired integral survival, preservation and development of national potential, which includes human potential, is described through international, national, state, regional, sectoral policies, programs, projects of survival, conservation and development. Mathematical, verbal, physical and other models can be drawn up as a basis for drawing up policies, programs, projects. For these purposes, as a rule, models for the development of national economic, environmental and social potential are formed, which can be combined into an integral model of sustainable development.
These models predict integral processes and structures of survival, preservation and development of national potential, its social, ecological, economic and other parts. At the same time, the real results of the implementation of these processes and structures do not correspond, as a rule, to the desired results of the development of national potential. Thus, the integrity of the development of the national potential and its parts is violated, the problem of its functioning and development arises, which requires a solution. At the same time, a violation of the integrity of the development of national potential can occur both due to the implementation of the indicated desired models of integral survival, preservation and development of national potential, and as a result of processes that are implemented in the social, environmental, economic and other environments of the world economy, regardless of the will of the subjects of national production.
The problem of developing national potential - it is a stable contradiction between the desired model and the real implementation of integral survival, preservation and development of national potential in the world economy, of which it is a part.
Since the national potential by its origin is an artificial system, as a result, an illusion may be created that the subjects of national production, and, consequently, the subjects of national government know everything about it as a whole. But the national potential as a whole has properties that are not a combination of the properties of its parts, including a combination of properties formed under the influence of human activity. It is appropriate, in the author's opinion, to refer to the thought of Academician A.I. Oparin about the development of life on earth: “Natural selection, which determined the entire prebiological, and then the biological stage of evolution, was subjected not to these or those polynucleotides capable of replication and even proteins-enzymes that did not arise under their influence, but integral phase-isolated systems ( probionts), and then the primary living beings ... It was not the parts that determined the organization of the whole, but the whole in its development created the expediency of the structure of the parts. "
In this case, relying on the thought of A. I. Oparin, it can be argued that “not parts of the national potential determine its development as a whole, but the national potential, as a whole, in its development determines integrity development of parts ". We do not know and cannot, apparently, know all the mechanisms that support the integrity of the national potential. But we can monitor the national potential as a whole, determine the set of influencing factors, determine the degree of influence of individual factors, take measures to survive, preserve and develop the national potential as an integrity.
? Integrity monitoring national capacity is possible, as in other cases, with the help of such an activity tool as a system. In the complex of knowledge of the subjects of national governance, the system reflects such a fundamental property of national potential as integrity, in other words, with the help of systems models, the integrity of the national potential and the results of its development is reflected. Of course, this is not a "full-scale" reflection of the national potential as a whole, but a partial one. For this reason, there are a large number of models of the national capacity system, reflecting the particular characteristics of the national capacity as a whole.
Emergence needs for national (state, including) management can be described as follows. The production activity of a certain subject of national production, aimed at solving a certain problem of the development of national potential, has existed from the moment this problem arose. So, for example, food production, aimed at solving the problem of hunger for the population of the country, exists, one might say, simultaneously with this problem. When the results of this type of national production activity are insufficient to meet the needs of the population in the results of solving a given problem or exceed them (for example, insufficient or excessive to satisfy the hunger of a given group of people), then need for management... Then the subjects of national production activity are simultaneously transformed into objects of national control. In what follows, the subjects of national production activity will be called objects of national (state) management, objects of national (state) activity.
? National (state, including) management - this is the activity of the subjects of national governance to establish and maintain the required correspondence between "needs for the development of national potential - the results of development of national potential". National (state, including) management introduces the process of solving the problem of developing the national potential of the object of management into the desired state. For this, the national (state, including) management promotes the activities of the management object - national production, aimed at solving the problem of developing national potential. We can say that national (state, including) government helps to remove relevance , allow at the moment, a general or particular problem of developing national potential.
It can be argued that a poor-quality solution to a certain problem of developing national potential, independently carried out by a part of national production, is the cause of the problem of national (state, including) governance. In turn, national (state, including) management leads, by design, to the proper quality of solving a general or particular problem of developing national potential.
As a result, national (state, including) management (activities of the subject of management) is combined with the functioning of national production (object of management) to solve the original problem. As a result, it is not always possible to separately assess the contributions of the object and the subject of national (state, including) governance in the result of solving the problem of developing national potential. Determining the effectiveness of the subject of national (state, including) management is one of the most difficult tasks of theory and practice.
? The problem of national (state, including) governance there is a steady mismatch between the needs for holistic survival, preservation and development of national potential and the practical results of survival, preservation and development of national potential.
As noted in the previous section, all problems of national governance are in a state of stability or actualization, i.e. at different stages of their life cycle. For this reason, a complex of urgent problems of national governance is constantly present and one of the tasks that must be regularly addressed in connection with this circumstance is the need to build a system of priorities for solving the problems of national governance. To build a system technology for solving this problem, it is necessary, first of all, to create Bank of National Governance Issues containing an integral set of problems of national governance, the expected order of actualization of problems, models for building a system of priorities, as well as an integral set of models and projects of systemic technology for solving problems.
? The purpose of national (state, including) management is to bring the specified discrepancy, leading to the emergence of a problem of national governance, within acceptable limits that do not violate the integrity of the national potential in the process of its development and keep within these limits. The integrity of the national potential is considered in a temporary aspect, and then the problem of the integrity of the national potential of the past, present and future comes to the fore, which should be resolved in the short, medium and long term. The integrity of national capacities can also be considered timeless. In this case, the strategic problem of the integrity of the national potential, as consisting of reasonably distinguished integral parts (informational, human, etc.), is studied and solved. Systems philosophy, as shown in the relevant sections of the book, allows you to solve these problems in interconnection, as part of an integral problem of national (state, including) governance.
Moreover, using common business models it is necessary to create the best, for a given period of time, a ranked combination of the most effective features of various models of public administration.
Ultimately, all models of public administration reflect private aggregates of the properties of public system management as a whole. For a holistic description of state activities in general, incl. and public administration, a model of the general system is needed, in the presence of which other models of public administration can be considered as its particular cases.
The system of rules, principles, laws and models of systemic philosophy allows to harmoniously combine all models of public administration in the form of a general model. The model of the DNIF-system of public administration can be used as such a model. The DNIF-system model makes it possible to introduce quantitative assessments of spirituality, morality, intellectual and physical potentials of public administration, its mental and physical health, mind, soul, and the mind of public administration. As a result, it is possible to create an integral DNIF-model of public administration.
The method of systems philosophy allows us to approach the formation of both the mission and strategy of state activity and short, medium and long-term policies, programs, projects of state activity from a unified position.
System Model missions of government important for the formation and implementation of a public administration strategy. In the form of a mission, the desired integral impact of state activities on the external environment and on the internal environment of the state system is expressed in a concentrated manner. The mission should also include a model of legal responsibility of the state system for the consequences of those changes that bring the results of its activities into the national potential. The models of responsibility of the state system and the measures taken upon the occurrence of relevant legal events should be systemic. Such systemic models should include the social, environmental and economic responsibilities of the state system. In addition, there should be responsibility for the integrity of the national potential and the potential of public administration, as the most important type of national activity.
It is important to separate the missions of the system-subject of public administration, the system-object of public administration and the system-result of public administration, as well as the system of public administration as a whole. However, all these missions must be a whole. Not only for the public administration system, but, in general, for national administration.
The strategy of public administration is aimed at facilitating the implementation of the mission of national production, which is a system-object of public administration. On the other hand, mission is a responsible expression of the role played by public administration in the environment of national production. In turn, short, medium and long-term policies, programs and projects of state management activities are mechanisms for implementing the strategy of public administration within the framework of specific stages of the implementation of the mission of national production.
The strategy of public administration, from the standpoint of a systemic philosophy of management - systemic strategy of public administration, it is a systemic technology for the formation of a set of models of the future system-subject of public administration. At the same time, a system of public administration models can be developed, as well as technologies for choosing in the future the next model of public administration and the transition from the previous model of public administration to the next. In this case, the models of the future system-subject of public administration are not considered in isolation from the past and present models of the system-subject of public administration. Therefore, the systemic strategy of public administration contains a systemic technology for managing the development of the system-subject of public administration - from the foreseeable experience of the past public administration to the foreseeable models of the future public administration.
In addition, the strategy of public administration is not considered here in isolation from systemic strategy of national production as an object government controlled. In turn, the systemic strategy of national production, for which public administration is created, is considered as a systemic technology for the formation of models of future national production. Systems philosophy also considers the models of the future national production in unity with its past and present models. Due to this, the systemic strategy of national production contains a systemic technology for managing the development of the system of national production - from the foreseeable experience of past national production to the foreseeable models of technologies of future national production.
Further, the strategy of public administration is not considered here in isolation from systemic strategy for results government controlled. In turn, a systemic strategy for the development of national potential, i.e., those results for the sake of which both public administration and national production are created, is considered as a systemic technology for the formation of models of future aggregate results of national production and public administration, leading to the development of national potential. Systems philosophy also does not consider models of future results of the development of national potential in isolation from the models of aggregate results of past and present activities of national production (system-object of public administration) and public administration (system-subject of public administration). Due to this, the systemic strategy of the result of public administration contains a systemic technology for managing the development of the system-result - from the foreseeable experience of implementing the systems-results of public administration in the past to the foreseeable models of implementing the systems-results of public administration in the future.
It follows that, in general, the systemic strategy of public administration - it is a systemic technology of formation an integral complex of past, present and future models public administration, national production and national capacity development model. The systemic strategy of public administration can also be called a strategy for managing the development of the public administration system, which includes a system-subject of public administration (the system of public administration itself), a system-object of management (actually a system of national production that needs public administration) and a system-result (growth national capacity, assessment of progressive or regressive development of national capacity).
The systemic strategy of public administration forms (creates) behavior system of public administration, providing, according to the strategic plan, its effective functioning in future operating environments, in which there will be their own statements of the problems of survival, preservation and development of national potential. In general, the systemic strategy of public administration is what connects the models (projects) of the state systemic management activities of the past, present and future. The task of the systemic strategy of public administration is to provide such a set of models (projects) of the public administration system, its subject (the system itself, the subject of public administration), object (system of national production) and result (development of national potential), which can be effectively used to build a short , medium- and long-term public administration over the expected life cycle of the public administration system.
Such a strategic complex of models is used within the framework of the general method of public system management to build the theory and practice of short, medium and long-term politicians, programs, projects implementing and correcting the systemic strategy of public administration. State policies and programs are also considered here as projects: state policy is viewed as a state system of programs and projects, state programs - as a system of state projects.
The state project, in general, then contains a description of one or more interrelated models included in strategic model complex state system management, as well as a description system technology tactics its implementation in specific conditions. Projects are drawn up as sets of documents to be applied in a given period in the practical implementation of the systemic strategy of public administration. Therefore, projects for future public administration contain strategic management models, as well as certain tactical regulations for the practical implementation of public system management (project management plans, action plans for project implementation, business plans, etc.). In accordance with the strategy, the state management system, the models of its subjects, objects and results are being transformed, corresponding to the expected conditions of their functioning, and in accordance with the tactics, the implementation of policies, programs, projects and the development of proposals for adjusting the strategy takes place.
Briefly, it can be determined that the systemic strategy of public administration is an activity to create such a system of public administration that will function organically as a whole in some future environment of life, also represented as a whole. Such past and present, as well as future environments of life can be described and formed in the form of a limited set of models, comparing them with certain models of public administration (past and present environments and models, in turn, were also future). Then the systemic strategy of public administration can be effectively used to build short-, medium- and long-term public administration, as well as for measures to reform public administration, its subjects, objects and results. The methodological basis of the systemic strategy of public administration will be the systemic philosophy of management. The purpose of the systemic strategy is to preserve and develop the integrity of the national potential and the integrity of its development.
? Implementation of state systemic management activities is carried out, as follows from the previous presentation, as follows .
The system-subject of management (state system-subject of management) develops the necessary control effects on national production (system-object of management) to bring the results of the development of national potential in line with the needs for its development. Managing influences are carried out in accordance with state policies, programs, projects, corresponding to the mission and systemic strategy of public administration.
So, public administration is a three-pronged process in the system-subject (the actual state management system), in the system-object (system of national production) and in the system-result of management (development of national potential). In the state management system, this process is formed, then it is implemented in national production and is embodied in the form of the development of national potential. For the state management system to be able to coordinate its impact on national production, it must “in itself” contain a model of national production and a model for the development of national potential. This means that the state system-subject of management must have knowledge about the processes and structures of national production (system-object of public administration) and about the development of national potential (system-result of public administration). Such knowledge is presented in an ordered form in the form of models of national production and national potential. But the government administrator has to deal with a wide variety of models. These can be social, environmental, economic, and others. They can be presented in a wide variety of forms: verbal, physical, mathematical, cybernetic, and others.
All these various models in the state management system must be considered from a unified position, if only in order to obtain comparable results in the production of analysis, research, design, management itself, expertise, etc. For this reason, the state system-subject of management should have a unified approach to operating models - some general model. Systems philosophy offers a holistic set of models of common systems for the purposes of public systems management, described in the following sections.
? Government regulation is a type of government. Its purpose is to motivate the change in the processes and structures of national production in the necessary direction, as well as the observance of a certain "framework" for the development of processes and structures of national production and national potential. The established directions of development and the framework for the development of national production and national potential affect the formation of a model of the state's mission, and also depend, in turn, on models of state strategies, state policies, programs, projects. This is a kind of "state management of self-government of national production and self-development of national potential." For regulation, certain sets of parameters can be selected that describe the functioning of national production and the development of national potential, which must be kept within the given framework. At the same time, the state regulation system (for example, the state system of economic regulation) is assigned a certain value of accuracy, interval, “corridor” for regulating the parameters and characteristics of processes and structures of national production and development of national potential.
Consider the following model of functioning of the components of the public administration system in the process of the emergence and resolution of the problem of public administration.
So, the system of public administration itself, as a system-subject of public administration:
1) finds a variant of posing the state problem of the development of national potential and formulates the goal of activities to resolve this problem. In this sense, the state management system, as a subject system, takes on the mission of a representative of the environment (national potential), in which a certain development problem has arisen. This problem must be described (made a statement of the problem) and a certain system of goals must be formed; the achievement of these goals in the aggregate and according to certain regulations leads to the resolution, removal, solution of the set development problem. To achieve each of these goals, a certain product is needed, a system of products produced by national production. If there is no such product, then it is necessary to create a new production system in national production;
2) finds a model of a specific system-result for solving the problem posed of the development of national potential, for which it conducts analysis, appropriate research, design of the system-result and, if necessary, design of the production system-object included in national production.
3) ensures the management of the production of the result system by the national production system-object;
4) determines the degree to which the desired development of national potential corresponds to the real development of national potential obtained using the produced result system. If the degree of conformity is acceptable, continues to control the production of the result system;
5) if the degree of correspondence of the desired development of national potential to the real development of national potential obtained using the produced system-result is unacceptable, then redesign the problem statement, system-result and system-object and proceeds to the next iteration of solving the problem.
The described set of components of the activity of the state system-subject of management corresponds to its missions as a system acting in the interests of survival, preservation and development of national potential.
In addition to the missionary problem of survival, preservation and development of national potential, in the state system-subject of management, as in any system, there is also "Own" the problem of survival, preservation and development ... To solve them, the system-subject of public administration must find the necessary resources. One of the sources of resources is the funds allocated by the state budget for the implementation of the functions of the system-subject of state administration. But, at the same time, having the ability to dispose of national production and the development of national potential, as well as the right to establish general rules of conduct for all subjects and objects of national government, the system-subject of public administration receives additional opportunities for its own resource provision, which can also occur to the detriment of solving the problem of developing national potential. For this reason harmonious combination is important two types of goals of the state system-subject of management:
missionary goals - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of national capacities, and
own goals - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of the very system-subject of public administration.
? The functioning of national production, considered in this case, as a system-object of public administration, corresponds to its missions in the environment of national potential, as a system that produces a system-result, thus solving missionary problem survival, preservation and development of national potential.
In national production, as well as in the system-subject of public administration, in addition to the missionary problem, there are "Own" problems of survival, preservation and development. To solve them, national production must find the necessary resources. One of the sources of resources is the national potential spent on building and maintaining the functioning of national production in the form of, for example, payment for the produced result system. But, on its part, the production system pursues its own goals of obtaining the greatest benefits from the production of the result system, which can also lead to damage to the development of national potential. For this reason harmonious combination is important two types of goals for the activities of national production, as a system-object of management:
missionary goals - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of national potential through the production and implementation of the result system, and
own goals - to ensure the survival, preservation and development of the production system itself.
The presence of missionary and personal goals of survival, preservation and development can be clearly shown for the system-result of public administration and for the public administration system as a whole.
Thus, the system of public administration and each of its parts (system-subject, system-object and system-result, its other parts) are aimed at achieving two types of goals - missionary and their own. Therefore, one of the tasks of managing a project of a public administration system is to contribute to the implementation of the goals of the public administration system and any part of it, at which consistent (harmonious) survival, preservation and development of the public administration system, national production and national potential. If the public administration system deviates from the mission in favor of its own goals, then this can lead to a violation of the integrity of the development of the environment. If, on the contrary, the public administration system deviates from its own goals in favor of missionary goals, then this can lead to a violation of the integrity of the development of the public administration system and, as a consequence, to a deterioration in the management of the development of national potential and to a deterioration in the functioning of social production.
The set of missionary and own goals of the state management system, built taking into account the influence of missionary and own goals of parts of the state management system, will be called systemic goal of public administration... When constructing a specific formula for the systemic goal of public administration, it is necessary to take into account the need for harmonious (coordinated) survival, preservation and development of the aggregate “public administration system, national production, national potential, components of the internal and external environment of the public administration system, national production, national potential”. The key task of constructing a formula for the systemic goal of public administration is to find a balance of development priorities for parts of a given set of subjects, objects and results of public administration.
To build a formula for the systemic goal of public administration and to achieve it in the practice of functioning, the state system-subject of management, as well as the state management system as a whole, and any part of it, carry out not only management, but also analysis, research, design, production, expertise, monitoring, archiving. For this reason, the structure of the state system would have to contain all the necessary units for the implementation of all components of the activity: analytical, research, design, production, management, expert, control, archival. In practice, of course, this is not feasible.
But at the same time, in essence, this means that the state system in its activities (including in management activities), if it intends to implement it systematically, must use the results of analysis, research, design, management, expertise, control (monitoring), archiving. Therefore, the problem of optimal distribution of activities and related functions between state and non-state structures is always relevant for state systemic management. In this case, the key task of constructing a formula for the systemic goal of public administration is transformed into a more complete task of finding a balance of development priorities for parts of the totality of subjects, objects and results of state and non-state activities.
Then public administration is considered as a subsystem of state activity as a whole. The systemic models of the interaction of these types of state activities, considered in Chapter 3, are necessary to ensure coordinated (harmonious) survival, preservation and development of a given set of subjects, objects and results of public administration and state activities in general.
Following the previously adopted definitions, consider systems philosophy as a methodology, developing in three directions: methodology of strategy, methodology of theory and methodology of practice, as applied, in this case, to public system management.
Systems philosophy of public administration - a set of models, principles, laws, rules and methods of systematic implementation of state management activities, a section of the doctrine on the method of systems philosophy, dedicated to issues of public administration (methodological basis of the strategy of public system management).
The method of systems philosophy of public administration - the method of constructing and implementing the theoretical foundations of the systematic implementation of state management activities (methodology of the theory of state systemic management).
The method of systemic philosophy of public administration is based on the results of the systemic philosophy of public administration, as a methodology, transforms them into a certain ordered set of models, principles, laws, rules in relation to public administration.
This can be state management activity in relation to the formation and implementation of international, national, regional, national, public, party, industrial, scientific, educational, educational, managerial, design, project, environmental, social, economic, private, family, collective, and also any other activities carried out in national production.
The method of systemic technology of public administration - a method of constructing and implementing a system technology project to solve a specific problem, task, to achieve a specific systemic goal of public administration (methodology of public system management practice).
The method of systemic technology of public administration is based on the method of systemic philosophy of public administration and on the general methodology of systemic philosophy, transforms them in relation to the practical construction of a specific systemic technology to solve a specific problem, task, to achieve a specific systemic goal of public administration.
System technology project public administration - a set of documents (legal acts) regulating the formation and practical implementation of the systemic technology of public administration (conceptual systemic technology of state systemic management).
A system technology project for a certain type of state management activity can be analytical, research, design, production, management, expert, control (monitoring), archival.
Projects of systemic technology of state management activities can be created as management subsystems (systems-subjects of public administration) of various types of national activities, such as international, regional, state, public, party, production, scientific, educational, educational, managerial, design, design, environmental , social, economic, private, family, collective, other types of it.
System technology of public administration - combining the capabilities of systems and technologies of public administration in the form of a systematic set of methods and means of practical formation, production and implementation of public management decisions, projects, programs, policies designed to solve a specific problem, task, to achieve a specific systemic goal of national production or its part (empirical system technology of public administration).
At the same time, the public administration system is considered as a way of organizing methods and means of achieving the goal of public administration, solving public administration problems, resolving public administration problems. In turn, the technology of public administration is considered as a way of organizing the methods and means of production of the product of public administration in the form of a government administrative decision (government project, program, policy, etc.), implemented in the object of public administration.
? State system management - a set of methodology, theory, projects and practice of systemic technologies of public administration.
1. 4. Integrity of public administration and sustainable development
(integrity, holistic changes and impacts, parts of the environment, holistic development strategy and public administration, integrity and consistency, integrity, integrity and consistency of public administration, public administration and the condition for sustainable development)
Based on the available scientific and unscientific knowledge, the following obvious statement can be postulated.
Integrity is a fundamental property of the human life environment, of which a person is a part.
Any environment, regardless of its format and type, has the property of integrity: space, planetary, national, regional, social, environmental, economic, family, human internal environment, student, professional, and others. Holistic environments of any format and kind can be represented and classified using a modeling tool such as general systems.
Integrity it is also a property of all parts of the environment, which they have initially, including the internal environment of a person. The concept of part of the environment is used for two reasons. As the format of our conscious perception increased, we began to refer to parts of the environment that initially, due to the previous level of limited human knowledge, we considered integral environments. This circumstance is especially evident when considering the human environment. When expanding a habitat, former habitats are considered part of the current or future habitat. The second reason - when studying the environment of life, it is productive to consider the environment as a whole, consisting of integral parts.
The concept of integrity is considered by systems philosophy in two meanings.
First: integrity is whole.
The whole and integrity as a whole is represented by systems philosophy in the form of systems, models of systems.
Second: integrity is the property of parts of the environment to participate in the whole.
Integrity as a property of parts of the environment to participate in the whole is presented by systems philosophy as consistency. Consistency can be considered as one of the properties of the environment model or part of the environment.
It follows that in a real system all its parts have the property of consistency, but they are not necessarily systems. At the same time, the system must have the property of consistency, allowing it to participate in those systems of the living environment, interaction with which it needs - "The system must be systemic" to ensure their survival, preservation and development.
In relation to some systems of the living environment, the system can be systemic, in relation to others - unsystematic... Consistency, as the description of the property of a certain object of modeling (system, including) to fulfill the conditions of participation in a certain system, can be assigned values from 0 (zero consistency) before 1 (complete consistency).
For completeness of the description of integrity, it is necessary to introduce the concept of non-systemicity. Non-systematic - this is a description of the properties of a certain object of modeling, reflecting its contradiction with the conceptual world of the environment as a whole. The functioning of non-systemic objects leads to conceptual changes in themselves due to the reaction of the functioning environment and / or to conceptual changes in the environment due to the influence of the non-systemic object. Non-systematicity, how the description of the property of a certain object of modeling (system, including) contradicts the condition of participation in a certain system, values from 0 (zero non-systemicity) before 1 (complete unsystematicity).
It can be noted that zero consistency and zero non-consistency reflect two approaches to describing indifferent attitude to systemic participation in the life of a certain part of the environment (in the sense of the missionary and own goals of the object in question, respectively). In turn, complete systematicity and complete non-systemicity reflect two approaches to the description interested participation in the life of this part of the environment (also in the sense of the missionary and own goals of the object in question, respectively).
It can also be noted that a part of a real system, as a rule, shows consistency and non-consistency in relation to this system at the same time.
Systematicity describes the tendencies towards the development of the existing whole, integrity, non-systemicity - the tendency towards the emergence of a new whole, integrity.
Obviously, the most significant assistance to the development of this system comes from those systems of the living environment in relation to which the functioning of this system is systematic. It is also obvious that the most significant threats to the destruction of the system come from those systems of the living environment in relation to which the functioning of this system is unsystematic. It is also obvious that the development strategy of the system should be based on finding a reasonable set of combinations of consistency and non-consistency (in the sense of its own and missionary goals of functioning) in relation to all other systems that make up its environment of life.
For an interrelated description of the consistency and non-consistency of a certain part of the environment (including the system), it can be determined that
Consistency can take values from +1 before +0 , a
Non-systematic - from -1 before -0.
So, within the framework of systems philosophy, the consistency of some activity is described as the consistency of this activity in relation to a certain part of the environment in which it is carried out. The environment in which any activity is carried out is known to be constantly changing. In other words, the consistency of some activity is not its property, provided once and for all. In this regard, ensuring the consistency of activities is an indispensable part of ensuring this activity at all stages of its life cycle. For this reason, any specialist needs professional knowledge, skills and abilities in the field of systems philosophy and other methodologies and theories devoted to ensuring the systematic nature of activities.
The environment develops without losing its integrity. In a discrete representation of development, it can be considered that in its development the environment passes from one integrity to another.
Therefore, any changes made by a person in the environment in accordance with certain intentions should lead to a new holistic environment of life. What should be the changes in the environment?
First, the changes must be holistic.
Changes made by a person in the environment in accordance with certain intentions should be integral parts of the environment that are created or changed. Then they can lead to a new coherent environment. Numerous examples indicate that changes that do not have the property of integrity do not "fit" into the environment. The environment rejects changes that are not holistic, or affects them, turning them into holistic formations. Therefore, an important problem of human activity is the problem of constructing the desired changes in the form of wholes.
Secondly, the impact leading to a holistic change in the environment must itself be holistic.
The impact produced by a person on the environment can be the impact of productive activity or a control action. In both cases, it should be a holistic productive impact or holistic management, respectively. Holistic management, in turn, is designed using the method of systems philosophy in the form of system management.
Thirdly, changes and impacts should be designed taking into account the system model of the integrity, which they are aimed at changing.
? Parts of the environment, as already noted, are also holistic environments. Consider the most important types of parts of the environment for further research.
Parts of the environment are its structures and processes.
Changes that a person designs can be processes and structures. Processes and structures as part of the environment are also wholes. Parts of the environment that are "smaller in volume" in comparison with the environment and containing processes and structures are holistic environments by definition. It can be argued that in order to solve the problem of constructing changes in the form of wholes, it is necessary to build processes and structures in the form of wholes.
The following important circumstance should also be noted.
Parts of the human life environment are the environment (external) and internal environment.
So, for example, for the production activity of a certain enterprise, the external (environment) environment contains, for example, sources of resources and consumers of products, as well as state and non-governmental organizations that regulate this type of activity, and other components. The internal environment contains the inner world of a person, and the world of his relations with people, not related to production relations. In this sense, the production system and the state regulator of this type of production activity provide interaction between the external and internal environments of the participants in the production process, contributing to the creation, for example, of a harmonious combination of their missionary and their own goals of life. It can be argued that only the integral effects of production and the state regulator on the internal environment of a person are acceptable, leading to its harmonious development as a DNIF-system.
Some acting change strategy , in accordance with which a given intention to make changes to the environment arises, is also an integrity that was previously perceived by the environment as an integral part of this intention. In this regard, the problem of the interaction of integers - the integrity of the current strategy of changes, the integrity of this change and the integrity of the environment - needs to be resolved. As an example, we can cite the problem of interaction between a certain current strategy of the country's development (strategy of changes), the program for the development of small and medium-sized businesses (this particular change) and the potential class of small and medium-sized owners (environment).
At the same time, the life activity environment is not static, changes are continuously introduced into the environment and not only at the will of a person. In the dynamics of development, the environment is constantly in the stage of change in integrity, in the stage of transition from the next holistic state to the next. In this sense, one more obvious statement can be postulated:
The human life environment contains a holistic core and the idea of holistic development.
We proceed from the premise that in each environment there is some integral fundamental principle that forms it, which is here called the core. Other parts of the surrounding world are attracted to it due to the fact that this fundamental principle, unlike them, previously acquired the desired form of integrity for them and has the property of involving parts of the world around it in the construction of an integral environment. This property is called, in turn, the idea of holistic development. Other parts are attracted to the integral core, which perceive this idea of integral development and change this environment in their development.
The environment, its integral core and the system of its integral development most likely contain conceptual and real (physical) components. The conceptual (ideal) world of the environment contains, apparently, some idea of the integral development of this environment inherent in the environment, as well as the conceptual world of the integral core. Resolving the contradictions between the idea of integral development inherent in the environment, as well as the conceptual world of the integral core of the environment, on the one hand, and the changes in the environment desired for a person, on the other hand, is one of the important tasks of designing human life activities, including management activities.
The real environment contains the physical implementation of the integral core (or part of it) and the idea of development, as well as a set of processes and development structures implemented in it by a person. In turn, the processes and development structures implemented by a person in the environment contradict the conceptual world of the environment.
Contradictions between the conceptual and real worlds of the environment Is another of those problems that need to be solved when designing and implementing intentions to change the environment. The main task is to create a transformation of the integral core, natural for the environment, in combination with the influence on the idea of the integral development of the environment from the side of the real world.
When studying a certain integrity, it is necessary to consider the totality of the internal and external environment of integrity. The interaction between the internal and external environments of integrity gives rise to the problem of studying the way of this interaction as integrity. If we are talking about the interaction of several wholes with the external environment, the problem of their integral interaction with some common external environment must be resolved.
At the same time, any integrity is a kind of aggregate of its parts-wholes and ensures the interaction of their internal environments with each other and with the external environment. Hence, we can conclude that
Any integrity is a way of interaction of the internal environments of its constituent parts with each other, as well as with the internal and external environments of the integrity itself.
Any integrity creates a kind of "Integrity" its parts, affects the processes and structures in these parts. It is appropriate in this case to turn again to the conclusion of Academician A.I. Oparin, given in the previous section: "It was not the parts that determined the organization of the whole, but the whole in its development created the" expediency "of the structure of the parts." Within the framework of the concepts of system philosophy, it is said about integrity, and it is meant that expediency and purposefulness are two sides of integrity.
In other words, following the thought of Acad. A.I. Oparin, it can be argued that not the parts determine the structure of the whole, but the whole in its development determines integrity parts, their processes and structures .
It is necessary, of course, to take into account the indisputable fact that any integrity is part of an infinite number of other wholes; all wholes, of which it is a part, affect its structure and life, its processes and structures. The set of wholes in which the given integrity under consideration participates is infinite and countable. Also, the number of wholes is infinite and countable as parts of a given integrity, which can be the subject of consideration by a person when carrying out research and other activities in relation to this integrity. Therefore, any part of this integrity is at the same time a part of some other "larger" integrity, which includes this integrity and which creates the integrity of the given integrity.
As already noted, these and many other problems of human development lead to the need for the study and practical formation of integrity as a property of the environment, which decisively influences the solution of problems of human development and the environment of his life. It is known that the study of integrity is most effectively carried out with the help of systems research, systems analysis, systems design, systems approach, and other types of systemic activities. The system (system model) acts as a model reflecting integrity. In this case, in applied research, in theoretical and philosophical constructions, they talk about the systemic nature of the world and its parts, about system models.
Human activity is aimed at implementing changes in a holistic environment and is part of these changes. It is obvious that human activity must be holistic. For the implementation of any practice of activity - research, analysis, design, production, management and others, this requirement is reflected as a requirement for systematic activity. It can be postulated that
A person must carry out systemic activities to create the desired changes in the environment of his life, of which he is a part .
The transformation of any activity into a systemic activity occurs due to the systemic nature of a person's internal potential (systemic knowledge, abilities, skills, etc.), and is also forced under the influence of the reaction of the integrity of the environment.
The method of systems philosophy creates a systematic nature of the internal potential of a person, allowing him to turn any kind of his activity into system activity, while studying, at the same time, the manifestations of the systemic nature of the environment of life. Systems philosophy uses the following definition, justified by the previous presentation, as the main definition of the system:
The system as a display of integrity is a way of interaction between the external and internal environments of the parts of the system.
? The need for systematic public administration to create holistic changes in the environment can be described as follows based on the formulated theses.
Integrity is a fundamental property of the public administration environment of which the state is a part.
The property of integrity is possessed by such public administration environments as national potential and national production, regional, social, ecological, economic environments, and others.
? The public administration environment develops without losing its integrity.
Therefore, any changes made by the state in the environment in accordance with certain intentions should lead to a new holistic environment of life.
Firstly, changes in the environment made by public administration must be holistic.
Secondly, the impact of public administration, leading, by design, to a holistic change in the environment (national potential or other) or part of it, itself must be integral.
Thirdly, changes in the environment, produced by public administration, and the impact of public administration should be designed taking into account the system model of the integral environment (social, industrial, environmental, other) to change which they are aimed at.
Parts of the government environment are also holistic environments.
Parts of the public administration environment are its structures and processes.
So, integral parts of the social, ecological, economic environment are, respectively, social, ecological, economic processes and structures. To build changes in social environments in the form of wholes, integral influences are needed on social processes and structures in the form of wholes, built taking into account the system models of these processes and structures.
The environment (external) and internal environment are parts of the public administration environment.
The external (environment) environment of public administration contains, for example, sources of resources for the functioning of the state, customers and consumers of public administration services, and other components. The external environment is the source of the missionary goals of the state. The internal environment contains the internal worlds of a civil servant, collectives of state bodies and their subdivisions, the civil service in general, dictating, in particular, their own, selfish goals of the state's life. The task of the state is to create a harmonious combination of missionary and personal goals of the life of a civil servant, collectives of state bodies and their subdivisions, and the civil service in general.
Some acting, perceived by the environment state strategy of change, in accordance with which this intention arises to make changes in the environment in the form of a state management decision, is also an integrity that was previously perceived by the environment as an integral part of this state decision. In this regard, one more problem needs to be resolved, which can be called the problem of the interaction of integrity - the integrity of the current state strategy of changes, the integrity of this state decision and the integrity of the environment. As an example, we can cite the problem of interaction between a certain state strategy for the development of youth (a strategy of changes), a program, for example, state support for providing housing for young families (a certain state decision) and youth - the young component of the country's human potential of the past, present and future time (environment).
At the same time, the environment of public administration is not static; changes are continuously introduced into the environment and not only at the will of the state. In the dynamics of its development, the public administration environment is constantly in the stage of integrity change, in the stage of transition from the next holistic state to the next. In this sense, one more obvious statement can be postulated:
The public administration environment contains a holistic core and the idea of holistic development.
A nation, the main environment of public administration, its integral core in the form of a state-forming ethnos and the system of its integral development contain conceptual and real (physical) components. The conceptual (ideal) world of a nation contains a certain idea inherent in the nation of the integral development of the nation, as well as the conceptual world of a state-forming ethnos. Resolving the contradictions between the conceptual world of the state-forming ethnos and the corresponding idea of the integral development of the nation, on the one hand, and the changes assumed by the state in order to develop the nation, on the other hand, is one of the important tasks of the state design of the development of the nation and state administration.
Contradictions between the conceptual and real worlds of the nation Is another of those problems that need to be resolved in the design and implementation of government management decisions. The main task that arises when solving this problem is to create a natural transformation for the nation of the integral core of the nation - the state-forming ethnos, in an organic combination with the influence on the idea of the integral development of the nation from the real world of the nation.
When researching, designing and implementing public administration, it is necessary to consider it as an interaction between the internal and external environments of the functioning of the system-subject of public administration. Hence, we can conclude that
State activity in general - it is a method of integral interaction of the internal environments of parts of the state with each other, as well as with the internal and external environments of state activity.
In turn,
Public administration - it is a method of integral interaction of the internal environments of the administrative activities of parts of the state with each other, as well as with the internal and external environments of public administration.
Parts of state administration are the administrative processes of the functioning of a civil servant, a state body, subdivisions of a state body, the state as a whole. The state (public service), as a system-subject of public administration, creates a kind of "Integrity" its parts, affects the processes and structures in these parts. In other words,
it is not the parts of the state that determine the organization of the state as a whole, but the state, as a whole, in its development creates the integrity of the structure of its parts.
Within the framework of the concepts of systems philosophy, it is said about integrity public administration, and it means that expediency and purposefulness are two sides of integrity. The following condition can be formulated: not parts of state administration determine the formation and implementation of state administration as a whole, but state administration, as a whole, in its development creates the integrity of the structure of its parts.
To create the desired development of national potential, the activities of the state must be systematic and the state must, among other things, carry out state systemic management.
State systemic management, aimed at the integral development of national potential, can combine on a single methodological basis of systemic philosophy a variety of approaches - national economic, departmental, interdepartmental and intersectoral, integrated, systemic, functional and structural, global, regional and others. State system management is implemented on the basis of holistic approach systems philosophy to solving management problems.
State systemic management is aimed at the integral development of national potential, within the framework of which condition for ensuring sustainable development of the country is formulated as follows:
national potentials of the past, present and future contain the integral core formed by the national government and the idea of the integral development of the national potential;
national activities include national systems management and national holistic development idea;
the integral core of the national potential is formed by the national systems management;
state activity contains state systemic management and the state idea of holistic development;
state activity is a system-forming part of national activity, state systemic management is a system-forming part of national systemic management, the state idea of integral development is a system-forming part of the national idea of integral development.
Obviously, in this setting, the integrity of the nation is formed and maintained activities of the state-forming ethnos and state systemic management.