Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Save DC Hospital

Part II
Russia's Relation to Universal History

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
November 14, 1996

(continued from PART I)

Footnotes to Part 2
Letter to a Russian Friend

The labor-movement paradigm

There are three qualities of "jerkable psychological strings" to be considered, to attain a functional, e.g., counter-intelligence, comprehension, respecting the most important internal political problems threatening Russia today. The relevant defect which defines each of the three qualities may be identified, respectively, in ascending order of intellectual cardinality, as "populist," intellectual, and moral.

It is important to proceed from what the socialist organizations, including the Soviet state, considered the related counterintelligence problem. One could drive a herd of cattle through the doors which those counterintelligence services left open: hence, the frequent, hysterical, bloody-handed resort to slaughtering the poor cattle, innocents included, because of the inability of the relevant security services, then, as in Russia today, to discover, and close the relevant "doors."

As the socialist movements attracted increasing aversive attention from police and related political agencies of governments, these movements accreted a variety of "rules of thumb" governing matters of internal security against problems of agents in their ranks. Among those "rules of thumb," one of the two most interesting, for purposes of this strategic study, is the extensive array of liturgies on the subject of the conflict between the role of loyalty to the nitty-gritty impulses of the "masses," as against the "sophisticated," and therefore inherently "alien" tendencies in thought endemic to all so-called "intellectuals." This doctrine was carried to its lunatic extreme in those currents which were, not accidentally, the most useful sort of relatively long-term assets of the very police-agents from which that populist's mantra was presumed to innoculate the socialist or related organizations.

Yet, there was a misplaced germ o truth buried under the pro- "nitty-gritty" irrationalism of the anarcho-syndicalist types.

The fact that the socialist movements are usually creations of powerful financier-oligarchy or analogous interests, and that they also often function in aversive environments, makes the issue of loyalty of attachments and commitments of primary importance, both within those organizations, and as matters of concern to strata of the population to which these organizations orient for their adopted constituencies. The dominant issue in the pre-1966-1969 socialist and related movements, especially the professedly Marxist ones, was loyalty to the interest of productive labor, and to the rightful interests of nations and nationalities. It was therefore elementary, until the global change from progress, to "post-industrial" utopianism, that the rough and simple counter-intelligence yardstick of such organizations was: "Where does a person's loyalty lie? To whom, is one attached; to what, is one committed?"

Without doubt, the difference between the proverbial careerist "hack," and the person of moral commitment in those socialist organizations, was the matter of shared, deep commitment to the interest of society and its posterity, such as commitment to the purpose of freeing slaves, fostering improvement in the conditions of life through investment in scientific and technological progress, uplifting those who suffer from imposed ignorance, and so on. The hack might defend such goals, but, as if with a French existentialist's shrug of the shoulders; the hack was the "business-like pragmatist," a spiritual cousin of that legendary used-car dealer who focuses upon selling what a prospect might be induced to believe about a vehicle, rather than providing the customer with something which works. Not being good, but being a "success in one's political career," was the mark of the socialist hack, in the same sense as the morally unwholesome sort of bureaucratic hack in anyone's politics, in any profession, in any business enteprise.

Thus, in his occasional, relatively more considerate moments, the hack would muster a patronizing smile at the story of "the good Samaritan." From the hack's cynical seed of personal, suppurating moral corruption, all kinds of evil Reeds and Bushes, including the socialist variety, will sprout. The issue of security, is primarily a moral one: to what principle is one committed axiomatically?

We should not simply ridicule the socialist who argues, that a person's degree of axiomatic dedication to the benefit of humanity, of a nation, of the sick, and so on, is the relevant question of security. Nonetheless, however well-intentioned in that degree, the socialist organizations were axiomatically incapable of addressing that moral issue efficiently. These qualities of commitment are matters of the person's sovereign, individual cognitive processes; therefore, these are matters located within that same intellectual domain which those radical reductionists known as anarcho-syndicalists, for example, viewed with categorical abhorrence, and the Marxists viewed as suspected deviations from that solid materialism of the scientific discovery set down by a wealthy British processer of slave-produced cotton, Frederick Engels: that human intelligence is an epiphenomenon of the "opposable thumb."

None of the relevant literature, nor other spokesmanship of the relevant subject strata, competently addresses that question of attachment and commitment. This was virtually inevitable: the crucial problem of internal political security confronting the Communists, in particular, was that the Communist and related movements were virtually all products of the so-called Enlightenment, as the case of Marx and the Communist movements is paradigmatic. Thus, their conception of human nature, and therefore of human and national interest, was of the genre of empiricists and other reductionists such as Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, and the Eighteenth-Century British and French materialists. In this respect, the ultimate internal securit threat to the socialist movements, and the Soviet state, lay within themselves.

It may have been their opponents who exploited the "string-jerk" variety of dupes within the Soviet society, but it was the implications of the materialism hegemonic within that society which fostered the proliferation of such dupes. As Shakespeare has written, often, the crucial fault lies within ourselves.

Putting to one side the anarchosyndicalist and materialist aberrations with which the self-styled Marxist organizations tended to pollute their attachment to a labor-movement constituency, the attachment itself was real, and, hacks aside, did provide a moral mooring for those organizations. The point we are stressing, is the relationship of this tradition to the way in which Lenin's Bolsheviks attached themselves, by moral commitment, to the defense and improvement of the well-being of the people of Soviet society.

The corruption of a commendable social commitment to the benefit of the families of society's working people, by infection with such aberrations as anarcho-syndicalist "anti-intellectualism," typifies the lowest form of "string-jerk" agentry: crude social, or ethnic prejudices. The influence of a doctrine, such as the reductionism of Aristotle, of Immanuel Kant, or frank empiricism, attacks the functioning of the intellectual powers of mind, and is not only more a sophisticated and complex mental and moral disorder than simple social prejudice; on this account, it is potentially more deadly, and evil. The right to name the third, most sophisticated of "jerkable strings," ought to be given to the Christian Apostle Paul, whose I Corinthians 13 summarizes Paul's Christian view of a principle, identified as agape, developed by Plato earlier. In military science, the fault would be identified as want of the quality which the famous Clausewitz's posthumously published Vom Kriege identifies by Clausewitz's use of the German term Entschlossenheit. it is not sufficient to have formal knoledge; one must have that peculiar quality of corresponding, commanding passion for truth and justice, which Plato contrasts to vulgar erotic passions, agape. Truth, in the absence of the specific quality of passion which compels one to act in the interest of truth and justice, is a dead thing, which on that account, ceases to be truth by virtue of inaction.

In summary, the three types of "jerkable strings," which transform socialist organizations, or members within them, into perhaps unwitting, but nonetheless effective agents of oligarchical influence, are: 1) crude social prejudices, for some ethnic, or other stratum, or against others; 2) the intellectual defect, represented as degrading hypotheses, such as Aristoteleanism or other forms of reductionism, which prompt the believer to act, as a virtual puppet, viciously against human nature, even contrary to what the relevant virtual puppet otherwise believes his intention to be; 3) that want of the quality of passion which compels one to act for knowable truth and justice.

Then, came post-industrial utopianism

The relevant issue for today is, what must happen at the point Soviet society began to abandon the commitment to improvement of the productive powers of labor through investment in scientific and technological progress?

As the shards of the former Soviet society lie eroding on the battlefield of a lost historical battle, the poet muses: This wretched scene is the tragedy of those Communists who were committed to the moral idea of being servants of humanity. How do we account for the manifest virtual loss of that moral commitment in the policy-making of Russia today?

The immediate cause of the Grand Guignol of crisis-ridden Russia today, is the "Reform" dictated to post-Soviet Russia, by Britain and Thatcher's dupe, U.S. President George Bush. That external factor contains no riddle. The crucial thing to be considered, is the pell-mell flight of so many prominent representatives of the Soviet system, into the embrace of thosebrands of outright fascism peddled by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy and its U.S. Republican Party affiliate, the International Republican Institute. The seed of Moscow's susceptibility to this destruction, was planted much earlier, beginning what is most fairly described as the neo-Bukharinist restoration which can be traced to the time of Khrushchev's reign.

The axiomatic quality of autochthonous contribution of Russians themselves to this disgusting condition of Russia today, is a disorder of the second, intellectual type. The potential for this disorder is rooted, epistemologically, in the "materialist method" theory. The Russian contribution to the present, post-1989 degradation of Russia is not simply a direct result of that "materialist method" as such, but, rather in the cumulatively corrosive effect of that adherence, under the special historical conditions set into motion during the so-called "Khrushchev period." Let us summarize those conditions here, as the writer has presented this dominant aspect of post-World War II world history in earlier locations.

We must trace the leading features of today's world history, including the present situation in Russia, to the fact that the death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt was most untimely. The removal of President Roosevelt from the leadership of the world's dominant power at that time, brought to power a President who was a willing dupe of the British imperial interest represented by outgoing Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill. Of most crucial significance, British control over President Harry S. Truman captured the world's leading power, the U.S.A., for support of the utopian nuclear-weapons policy of the Twentieth Century's most savagely racialist and rabid war-monger, Britain's Bertrand Russell. Russell's summary of British nuclear-weapons policy, in the September 1946 edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is the key to the main course of all leading features of world history from the death of Franklin Rooevelt to the present day. That Churchill-Russell nuclear-weapons policy has never been reversed; among other implications, that policy is key to any non-foolish understanding of the foreign relations, and internal conditions, of Russia today.

The underlying feature of that Churchill-Russell blend of mass-murderous racism and nuclear-weapons policy, is Churchill's and Russell's consistency with the entire sweep of British long-range strategic goals and policy since the days of that disgusting ancestor on whom Winston Churchill, throughout his entire adult life, sought to model himself: that man who, like Britain's George I, was a protégé and tool of the evil William of Orange, the first Duke of Marlborough.

The underlying feature of the role of the Venetian Party in the history of England since 1517, has been the misshaping of England into an instrument of Venice's commitment to wipe the existence of the modern sovereign nation-state from the face of our planet. Since Venice's narrow escape from imminent crushing defeat by France and her League of Cambrai allies, all of the history of European civilization has been governed by the conflict between the ancient oligarchical, imperial tradition, against the insurgency of the upstart modern nation-state republic, as first typified by Louis XI's France, and as best typified later by the U.S. Federal constitutional republic shaped by G. Leibniz's anti-Locke conceptions of natural law, and that that principle was best served under such Presidents as Washington and Lincoln. [ 44 ]

Since 1789, the center of world history has been, the struggle between the empires and imperial traditions of Europe against the influence of the constitutional and economic model represented by the intent and achievements of the Federal Constitution of the U.S.A. Through the entire period since 1763, when the creation of the future U.S.A. was only a considerable threat on London's horizon, the central commitment of the British ruling oligarchy, has been to subvert and destroy te United States and the influence of the American System as a model throughout the world. Who does not recognize that fact, knows nothing of importance about modern history.

As Russell stated with shameless clarity, in his September 1946 proposal for a "preventive" assault with nuclear weapons upon the Soviet Union, the purpose of Britain's nuclear-weapons policy, was to eliminate the continued existence of the sovereign nation-state from the surface of this planet: to establish actual world government. The refusal of the Stalin government to submit to Russell's nuclear threat, prompted the British and their U.S. political dupes to resort to a temporary alternative: to divide the world, as Churchill's notorious Fulton, Iowa address stated, between two military blocs, the Anglo-American against the Soviet. Thus, Russell et al. introduced the 1946-1989 age of a British-designed geopolitical balance of power, premised upon mutual, global nuclear terror between the two blocs.

To those who were paying attention to business at those times, about ten years before the 1988-1989 break-up of the Comecon, visible signs aleady posed the question: What would happen if the Soviet economy were to begin to collapse?

This writer posed that issue during the late 1970s and early 1980s, as during the 1982-1983 exploratory back-channel discussions he conducted with Soviet representatives, on the Reagan administration's behalf. He assumed, in 1983, that the Comecon economy had about five years remaining before it began to disintegrate, under trends existing during 1982-1983. In October 1988, he forecast publicly, in a Berlin press conference, and in a nationwide U.S. television broadcast, the immediate imminence of onset of such a collapse, beginning in eastern Europe. In both periods, 1982-1983, and 1988, he proposed alternatives. There were others, such as Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen, who plainly thought in directions similar to this writer.

Margaret Thatcher and her prize dupe, President George Bush, thought differentl: witness the "Reform" which has brought Russia, among other parts of the former Comecon, to the desperate verge of an explosion. The intent of the British oligarchy, and such among its assets as the U.S. financial oligarchs behind Bush, was to use the combination, of the collapse of Soviet power and their control over the U.S.A., to set immediately into motion, the eradication of the institutions of the nation-state from this planet, to replace the existing sovereign states of the world by regional supranational governmental agencies, all under the supreme power of a world government, centered in the United Nations Security Council: a one-world empire, under which regional supranational agencies would be satrapies, and the whole mass administered by unelected Non-Governmental Organizations certified as agents of the United Nations Organization as a supreme world government.

The correlative feature of this Russell scheme was the destruction of modern agro-industrial society. In short, the termination of the policy of increase of the productive powers of labor through fostering investment in infrastructure and scientific and technological progress, by means of introducing what we know today as a "neo-Malthusian post-industrial" utopianism enforced by supranational agencies under UNO world-government authority. Since, such a neo-Malthusian zero-technological-growth policy meant the planet could no longer support the presently existing level of population, Russell and his like have campaigned, since the end of World War I (!), for racialist policies of depopulation, targetting especially the "non-Caucasian" populations of the world for sharp reductions in numbers, even, in Russell's own 1923 written word, "by means which are disgusting even if they are necessary."

The practical question today, is, how did so many people in leading positions for shaping Russia's relations with other states, in Russia, as outside, become de facto agents of a policy of mass-murder through economic and related policy-means, wich is even more mass-murderous in its implications than the practices for which Nazis were indicated and convicted at Nuremberg?

There are two visible, relevant preparatory phases of political degeneration of influential strata within the Soviet Union which paved the way for the situation inside Russia today. It began under Khrushchev, coinciding with Khrushchev's extending his hand toward accepting Russell's nuclear-weapons policy. The so-called Pugwash Conference arrangements, notably the Quebec conference of 1958, are exemplary. After the missile-crisis of 1962, agreements were reached, along the lines of Russell's Dr. Leo Szilard's and other Pugwash designs, among the principal nuclear powers. Russell himself played a featured public role in those negotiations.

The gist of the matter is, that the combination of the missile crisis and the new agreements persuaded relevant parties that an actual general war between the two blocs were now unlikely, excepting diplomatically managed conflicts conducted, chiefly as surrogate warfare, "below the threshold of nuclear conflict." Thus, during the second half of the 1960s, a sharp phase-change emerged in the thinking of relevant leading policy-shaping circles of both the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. On the Soviet side, this turn fostered an accelerating intellectual corruption; witting neo-Bukharinites aside, more and more other Soviet figures were transformed into unwitting agents of the second, intellectual type.

The orientation accelerated, beginning under Khrushchev, toward modifying Soviet policy-making with increasingly generous doses of the forms of empiricist thought which might be fairly characterized as "generally accepted academic thought" internationally. The Soviet government's credulous relationship to the Cambridge (England) systems-analysis group of Lord Kaldor et al., via such channels as the Laxenberg, Austria International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), is exemplary of infection of some of the highest levels of the Soviet pparatus by that latter kind of corruption. Once the authority of the Soviet organization was cracked, beginning Gorbachev's London-blessed 1985 accession to the position of General Secretary of the CPSU, the impact of the cumulative corruption typified by the IIASA channel, ran rampant, like a locked-up wild beast in a zoo, whose cage-door had been suddenly left open.

Instead of a learning of the lesson of mistakes made earlier, there was a rush of more and more former Soviet figures into the arms of a U.S. Republican Party turning rapidly fascistic, under increasing influence of the Mont Pelerin Society and of the variety of "neo-conservatives" (fascists) whose political pedigrees trace back to the U.S. Bukharinites of the 1930s!

There are many professionally qualified figures in Russia still, who could provide effective leadership if the United States would change its own policy, to allow Russia to free itself from the present grip of the ruinous "Reform." In a nation whose centuries-old tradition tends to settle internal political differences with bullets, and with a lack of that kind of Entschlossenheit we have associated with the principle of agape, it would be immoral of outsiders, in the U.S.A., for example, to blame Russians for neglecting to overturn that mass-murderous "Reform" which we have continued to impose upon them.

That aside, it is urgent that influential Russians cease to be unwitting agents of that which is destroying Russia. Russians must become aware of the social, intellectual, and moral "strings" which turn them into virtual Shakespeare's Hamlets, bringing their own destruction upon themselves. The writer hopes that what is written here, will contribute to provoking the much-needed discussion of those matters. First, before bringing the foregoing elements of this discussion into identification of their underlying unity, we must take note of what is fairly identified as the best side of the Soviet legacy, and of the Czarist Russia which preceded it.

The Human Side of Russia

Consider a much underappreciated, but extremely relevant feature of life in the former Soviet Union.

At this point, the reader should reflect for a moment, on our earlier indictment of the academic and other economists. Recall the fundamental fallacy common to sundry varieties of all generally accepted academic economics, and accouting practice, in every nation, today: the fallacy of the either stated, or functionally implicit presumption, that "commodities produce commodities." The same incompetence pervades all that commonplace opinion and analysis, which has presumed, up to now, to compare the so-called "democracies" of the "West" with a so-called "communist system."

The same pathological state of mind which guides miseducated economists and accountants to leave out the "human cognitive equation" from the study of economic processes, has governed the polemics, on both sides, of the "communism versus capitalism" debate. A similar incompetence affects what silly U.S. Republican spokesmen are saying about China today. In all these cases, as in all generally accepted sociology, anthropology, and psychology taught in universities, or as offshoots of Freudian psychoanalysis today, the identical axiomatic incompetence pervades: a bestial misapprehension of the nature of human beings.

In the case of the Soviet Union, and Czarist Russia before it, it is indispensable to recognize that the people of Russia are neither communists, nor Czarists, nor even Russians; they are human beings. Whatever "system" one superimposes upon a population of human beings, in some fashion, in the final analysis, the actual characteristics which human nature imposes upon society will shine forth, to manifest its functional supremacy as the determining feature of history. This reality is most prominently featured in the phenomenon of revolutionary changes from one technology, to a more advanced one, in devastating wars and kindred crises, or in revolutionary changes in political systems.

In referring to "human nature" here, the writer references what has been said on this matter, above.

In face of any evidence of such change, all generally accepted academic forms of so-called comparison of "systems," inasmuch as they ignore, or misapprehend actual human nature, as the empiricists and materialists do, will collapse into intellectual bankruptcy, o this account. In the study of any specific case, such as a comparison of behavior of Russia's society under various phases of Czarist rule, under Bolshevism, and today, competence focuses upon the anomalous contrasts between the so-called "system," and expressions of human nature which slyly, or otherwise assert their presence.

The characteristic achievements of the Soviet Union were exemplified by the work of V.I. Vernadsky. The very name of "geobiochemistry" points attention in the relevant direction. The image so implied is brought into focus by noting Vernadsky's seemingly prophetic view of the possibilities of nuclear energy, as expressed by him publicly, in his official Soviet capacity, approximately seventy years ago. Relevant persons from among leading scientists in the "West" have attested to the excellence of Soviet science's work within these fields; more notably, for our purposes here, there are aspects of that Soviet practice to whose quality this writer can attest from the standpoint of his own special expertise. [ 45 ]

In the fine arts, the intellectual results have been relatively less impressive. Respecting musical performers, before and after 1917, Russia has produced some prodigious muscular and related capabilities, but, excepting the product of Romantic composers, where such refinements are of marginal moral significance, the product has generally suffered a profound crisis of interpretation. In the fine arts generally, Soviet standards tended to be permeated with a post-Classical decadence, analogous to the degeneration which gripped numbers of leading Vienna musical figures during the last gasp of the attacks on Brahms by the Wagner cult. Much of this, in Vienna and elsewhere, was as frankly satanic as the British theosophists' Vienna-based Lucifer magazine, in which anthroposoph Rudolf Steiner played a hand. Similarly, this veered toward the outright Satanism which Maxim Gorki preached to doting Bolshevik leaders, and others, in the notorious Grotto of the EmperorTiberius' and Alex Muenthe's pre-World War I Isle of Capri. [ 46 ]

Those considerations frame the portrait, so to speak. On the one side, we have undeniable effort of a great outburst of genuine scientific creativity, as we have defined creativity above. At the same time, the evidence is, that the methods of "blackboard mathematical physics" employed to present the results of such creativity, have been predominantly of that doctrinaire, formalist variety, which stifles creative scientific productivity. An inconsistency? Yes. A paradox? Yes: a delightful one, in fact. The true human nature of mankind, the developable, sovereign creative powers of the individual's cognitive processes, will seek to find self-expression, even in a Gulag, and even through the cracks in the prison-grillwork of the Euler-Lagrange pandemic of mathematical formalism.

The blame for this paradox does not lie with Soviet Russia, or with Marxism as such. It is inherent in that sodomic misconception of human nature intrinsic to the oligarchical tradition characteristic of societies whose cultural practice is molded by the "zero-technological-progress" inhering in the Diocletian Code, as in all pro-slavery, pro-serfdom societies, including the old Czarist empire. Under the Bolsheviks, of course, the official epistemological standpoint was the reductionist tradition of Aristotle and Paolo Sarpi, in British reductionism's so-called "materialist" costuming.

The fault in some of the best work on economics in Soviet Russia was that it was in the intellectual prison called "derivable mathematically at the blackboard by means consistent with the extant notion of generally accepted classroom mathematics:" in short, the fallacy of "production of commodities by commodities," in this guise. In short, the related susceptibility to the corrupting influence of Laxenberg-conduited, British "systems analysis."

However, beyond the prison walls of that academic parlor charade called "mathematical physics," experimental physics exists. Thebold discovering mind, once it leaves the protection of its natural habit, in that creative domain of cognition typified by the metaphors of experimental physics, must disguise itself as what it is not. It assumes the academic prison-house costume of mathematical formalism, goes to the lecture hall blackboard, and lies, mathematically of course, respecting the manner in which the reported discoveries were actually derived. In hearing the accomplished science of Russia, listening between the seams, so to speak, of its mathematical-physics' academic-prison-house uniforms, one hears reverberations of that same quality of genius which virtually all official histories of modern science seek to purge from the revolutionary work of D.I. Mendelyeev, or Wilhelm Weber, B. Riemann, C. Gauss, and so on.

Thus, the importance of the Leibniz-Gauss-Riemann tradition in science for those scientists of Russia who laid the foundations of Soviet science prior to the 1966-1972, world-wide cultural-paradigm shift to the "New Age" lunacy of "post-industrial" utopianism. [ 47 ]

The immediately relevant Russia case is rightly situated if we consider the same phenomenon much more broadly. However terrible conditions in modern European political systems have been, until the cultural downturn which began approximately thirty years ago, the worst conditions in Europe and the Americas were paradisiacal compared with cultural conditions of a prehistoric man, living as a virtual Yahoo, whose potential relative population-density was not in excess of several millions for our planet as a whole. [ 48 ] For expression of individual human nature's characteristic creative-cognitive impulse, any form of modern civilization, until about twenty-five years ago, even Nazi Germany, was a relative paradise. Indeed, relative to the rabidly irrationalist, existentialist, and hysterically mass-murderous "zero-growth" mentality, which has become rampant during the course of the recent thirty years of global "cultural-paradigm" downshift, coditions under Stalin were often less unfavorable, specifically, to expression of creative scientific impulses, than Russia, or the United States today!

Against that long-wave historical background, one may say, that the human creative spirit of the individual will seek out cracks in the prison-wall of any social system, to discover an avenue of escape, through which true human nature can be given some relatively appropriate expression. The seam in the wall has often been the metaphor which is the characteristic feature of all great Classical forms of plastic and non-plastic art. The same creative function of metaphor, which we find in Aeschylus, Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael Sanzio, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, and Friedrich Schiller, is the characteristic feature of physical scientific progress, as Riemann's notion of a progressive manifold of manifolds exemplifies this. As Haydn, Beethoven, and Brahms, most notably, found imperfected musical expressions of this embedded in the domain of folk-song, so, following Brahms' rule for this, [ 49 ] his protégé Antonin Dvorak demonstrated, with help from Harry Burleigh, the same spark of creative genius imparted by generations of African-American slaves, into the Negro Spiritual.

Putting aside such commonly recognized sorts of aversive factors, the key internal problem of the Soviet political-economy was what some Soviet officials used to describe as the "peasant problem." Soviet economics literature was well-populated with references to the disastrous "bottlenecks" which might be fairly laid, chiefly, to this "peasant problem."

Although Russia had taken the first steps toward the freeing of its serfs, on the recommendation of G. Leibniz to Czar Peter I, this was reversed later during the Eighteenth Century; the conditions of life worsened under the great feudalistic reaction introduced by a maddened, guilt-ridden Czar Alexander I, returned from Metternich's (sexual) Congress of Vienna, where emperors, kings, and other celebrities had contracted veereal diseases provided by Metternich's "swallows," in sexual acts closely supervised, and meticulously documented, by the watchful eye of Chancellor Metternich's secret police. Only when Britain's so-called "Crimean War" afforded Czar Alexander II the latitude to arouse Russia's patriotic spirit against the brutalized feudalist reaction imposed by Alexander's British-allied predecessors, and when Alexander, once again found Russia an ally in the United States, were the institutions of serfdom reversed, and a great industrialization of Russia begun under patriots such as D.I. Mendelyeev and Count Sergei Witte. The greatest numbers of Russia's population affected by Stolypin's parody of Witte's re-industrialization program, were recruited from aching centuries of a terrible feudal backwardness in what Karl Marx, for once, aptly named "the idiocy of rural life," a long crushing of the human nature of Russia's peasants according to the evil tradition of Diocletian's imperial Code.

Like all societies emerging from prolonged dark ages of that sort, Russia stumbled into the modern world, haltingly at first, as a "two tier" society. It came out of an habituated cultural tradition, in which the institutions integrated with feudalism had worked, systematically, to structure all of the institutions of Russia's feudal order to keep each section of the population in its assigned place, as Diocletian had prescribed, and as Byzantium had destroyed itself by following that imperial tradition. V.I. Vernadsky's political difficulties, under Czarism and also during significant parts of Soviet history, typify this. He was not so much a dissident within the Soviet system, as a dissident within all expressions of modern Russia's inherited cultural backwardness. He is typical, thus, of that moral quality which distinguishes a true creative-scientific mentality: he hates that which crushes the creative potential of the individual human personalities.

To make the point clear to U.S. readers, and clearer to Russian ones: Had tis writer, for example, been born in Soviet Russia in 1922, instead of a small city in the United States, and had he survived there for long enough to make that choice, the only option for him, with his hatred of the cruelty of that which was analogous to Russia's "peasant problem" inside the 1920s and 1930s U.S.A., would have been to seek out a place of honorable personal refuge in a scientific profession.

The writer can locate relevant, approximately comparable experience, in presenting such a supposition. During the writer's childhood and youth, nearly all those of his parents' generation, his teachers, and his peers, lied most of the time, on virtually every subject mentioned. What they said in public and related settings, was totally at odds with what they expressed as arguable beliefs, in private; in public, and in analogous social settings, they did not say what they believed; rather, they spoke diplomatically, sometimes as diplomatically even as a Talleyrand or Kissinger: they said what they considered it prudent, or otherwise advantageous, to be overhead saying. That problem has not suffered significant moral improvement during recent years.

In this writer's studies of some of the work of Soviet scientists in earlier times, he sensed he could "smell out" in such Russians precisely the same quality of "dissidence" which the writer himself had developed, initially, out of a childhood experience with the generally accepted form of, habitual, "company manners" lying of his parents, their peers, his teachers, and his own peers.

This quality of dissidence, in this writer, or in the treasured acquaintance with Russia's biological scientist Pobisk Kuznetsov, does not assume the virtually satanic form of asocial, dionysiac fury which one finds in rabidly irrational anarchists such as today's U.S. Libertarian Party leaders. One senses that the society of which one is a part is suffering a great cultural evil, a moral and intellectual sickness, and that the best way one can help one's society, is by rfusing to submit oneself to that same sickness. Riesman et al. might say that this writer was an "inner directed" personality, horrified by the Orwellian specter of "other-directedness" which continues to corrupt, and threatens to destroy the United States, still today.

There is no more ridiculous, pathetic folly, than the voter who wishes to have elected officials who are courageous enough to be trustworthy and honest, but who insists that such candidates must be part of the "mainstream" of popular belief in, at least, most of those popular lies which are supplied, at popular prices, to all credulous "other-directed" folk, by the relevant mass media and the polls. Usually, that voter is delivered exactly what he has bought; most eligible voters, have yet to draw the obvious lesson of this experience: that, perhaps the problem lies not in quality of the candidates, as much as in the voter's own execrably bad taste!

One meets the appropriate address to this problem of society, in Plato's writings, as in the Apostle Paul's celebrated I Corinthians13: one must be ruled by what Plato and Paul identify as agape, which Plato introduces, as a type, as "passion for justice," and for truth. One must be willing to become, a "good Samaritan" of the mind and soul, first, and of the needs of the suffering body, second. If one succeeds in addressing the first challenge, the appropriate means for addressing the second will be found.

Such dissidents within society are the tissue of the social organism in which progress is generated. The art of statesmanship, in the last analysis, lies in fostering a greater ration of such dissidents, and in facilitating their suitable employment. The Soviet system channelled those such dissidents which it did not crush into the domain of physical science and its immediate environs. It was V.I. Lenin himself, who set the pattern for this policy in his statement clarifying the matter of policy underlying his award of special rations to the experimental neurologist I.P. Pavlov; bringing back leading Russian scientists such as V.I. Vernadsky, were a better paradigm than the case of Pavlov. For all the faults of the Soviet science community, in which they were no worse than their "western" contemporaries, and sometimes better, this is the leading edge of cultural achievement bequeathed from Soviet society, and Russia before it, to Russia and the world today.

This role of Soviet science, in absorbing such dissidence to its advantage, is the presently living experience within the culture of Russia today, to which the people of Russia can turn for a comprehensible "model" of how a presently bankrupted economy of Russia may be rebuilt. Here, in this facet of Soviet experience, the people of Russia can find that heritage, within their society, which best expresses that within them which is truly human, that which must be fostered, if human nature is to be summoned efficiently to rescue Russia from its present nightmare. However, for this to succeed, we must, without deprecating the useful role of mathematics, shift the emphasis from the virtual reality of a mere mathematical physics, to that standpoint in experimental physics stressed by B. Riemann. The result of this search must be, that, in effect, the idea of science must be freed from the mind-deadening, soul-killing shackles of the Aristotelean tradition, to rediscover the true foundations of modern science, in the method of Plato.

The Need for a Literate policy

We come thus to the concluding proposition: How might a literate policy toward Russia today, be crafted by today's, predominantly, functionally illiterate U.S. statesmen? Such a warning points toward the kind of men and women in public life, who, with guidance of pollsters, might have learned to identify the relatively more fashionable opinions of today, but who are either incapable of formulating actual conceptions, or, if they were capable of doing so, do not permit such capabilities to interfere with the opportunism of their overriding devotio to expressing strong support for those received opinions deemed fashionable.

To that point, and with emphasis on the matter of defining the underlying basis for U.S.A. relations to Russia today, we conclude this study with identification and explication of this following one point: The means by which the condition of humanity is advanced, is the fostering of the development of the creative potential of the individual person's sovereign cognitive powers, combined with the ordering of society to such effect, as to foster the employment of the developed individual in those expressions of that developed creativity which are appropriate to the fostering of the increased potential relative population-density of humanity as a whole. In sum: to increase mankind's dominion in the universe, through Classical forms of artistic and scientific progress.

Will the cobbler's children wear shoes? Can we supply to U.S.A.-Russia relations, that product which the U.S.A. appears to have lost the art of manufacturing? Today, the educational system of the U.S.A. is destroying the minds of successive generations, by methods of "deconstruction" which are aptly represented by the racist prescriptions for systematic "downsizing" of African-Americans' cognitive development, coming out of Harvard University's Department of Education. Does the United States itself have any future existence, which it must thus relate to a future existence of Russia, if we continue to tolerate at Stanford University and elsewhere, bestializing, actually racialist, "politically correct" policies, such as the elimination of students' obligation to master the contributions of "Dead White European Males?" ("Keep them dumb, down, and short-lived, but make them think it was all their own idea.")

This returns us to the standpoint of Analysis Situs.

As we have accounted for this above, earlier, the not-entropic actuality of human nature can not be adduced on any lower level of conception than higher hypothesizing. What is said on the subject of "human nature," on any lesser level of reference than that, is only foolish babbling by functionally illiterate gossips, such as empiricist strains among sociologists, anthropologists, ecologists, and psychologists. As we demonstrated the case, the characteristic feature of human nature is its "not-entropy," an entropy analogous to a series of Riemannian manifolds, in the order n to n+1, corresponding to increase of mankind's potential relative population-density. This universal ordering of the relations of change, from one hypothesis to its successor, is the general principle of Analysis Situs, under which all human existence, all scientific qualities of knowledge, are subsumed.

We have also indicated how all human knowledge is ordered under this rule: the set of all permutations of relations, subsumed under this not-entropic characteristic, adduced for the nine-cell configuration we identified earlier, above.

The last feature of this matter to be considered in this report, is the form this not-entropic ordering assumes within the sovereign precincts of the individual cognitive processes.

The essential practical, historical consideration of statecraft, on this point, here, is, that mankind's progress from the Yahoo-like condition described by the archeologists for Africa, an estimated one millions and more years ago, is that this development represents an accretion of successive, valid discoveries of physical and related principle, as passed from the person who discovered each, to those individuals of that and later generations who have replicated the mental experience of the original discovery within the sovereign creative-cognitive processes wholly internal to the private mental processes of the individual qua individual: not explicitly communicable to others by means of language, or other modes of symbolic argument. It is that determining characteristic event, the which defines the functionally literate meaning of the term "history." It is the mental experience associated with the "non-informational,' implicit transmission of the indicated type of personal creative-cognitive experience, which is the empirical location of all properly conceived law, whether in the domain of physical science, or of the constitutional law of political society.

The crux of the matter is metaphor, in the sense that Thomas Hobbes sought to ban metaphor from the English language, and that Dryden and, Hobbes' dog, Alexander Pope, succeeded to the point of driving it away from their parodies of actual poetry. The metaphor of Classical strophic poetry, including ancient such poetry, was the original and continuing language of science. No alternative were possible.

The contemptible illiteracy of that so-called "information theory," devised by hoaxster Norbert Wiener, so popular among today's credulous dupes, is that any person who understood the rudiments of scientific method, knows, that the essential distinction of an original discovery of principle, is, that there exists no prior term, no previously possible grammatical construction in the language, no symbolic means, by means of which that principle might be explicitly signified. [ 50 ] Metaphor arises in poetry, music, and physical science, as the conjoining of two or more allusions ("ironies") within the same utterance, to such effect that the juxtaposition evokes a sense of an ontological paradox within the sentient mental processes of poet and hearer alike: this is of the form of the One/Many ontological paradox characteristic of Plato's Parmenides. Thus, the sentient mind of the hearer is made aware of the poet's intent to present the hearer's mind with a kind of puzzle, for the solution of which, no explicit clues, no symbolic clue, is to be found in a literal reading of the utterance itself.

If the hearer's mind constructs the solution for that puzzle (that metaphor), it becomes possible to verify the accuracy of the solution, not by "looking it up in the back of the textbook or in an encyclopedia, or on the "Internet," but, rather, by the kind ofpractice we associate with experimental physics. The solution to such a puzzle must, therefore, be expressible in the form of experimental practice which tests, in the real world, a principle for which no term, no possible theorem, previously existed.

In other words, the communication of an original, validatable discovery of physical principle, from one mind to another, can occur in the kind of process which Riemann's referenced habilitation dissertation presents. That Riemann would have thought of the matter in this way, is clear, if one reads his own other writings from that general period against the background in Classical epistemology to which he repeatedly refers, or clearly alludes.

This understanding of the educative process of communication, is the underlying principle of a Classical Christian humanism of the sort practiced by the Brothers of the Common Life, as prescribed by Friedrich Schiller and his follower Wilhelm von Humboldt, in opposition to the travesty which has become, increasingly, U.S. educational dogma since the apotheosis of that Fabian/fascist/socialist scoundrel, and Rockefeller lackey, John Dewey.

To the degree that each society develops reasonably good approximations of such a Christian humanist-education principle for replication of crucial discoveries of principle from past generations of mankind, into the coming generations, the mind of the pupil so benefitted is populated with the names, even, sometimes, the facial images, of those discoverers who live in the pupil's mind today, in the degree that the pupil has replicated in his, or her own mind, a living moment of creative cognition, which sprang first into life in the sovereign mental processes of one among the great human beings of earlier generations. This comprehension will reach as far back as even until thousands of years ago, among today's "dead white European males" of Plato's Academy at Athens, for example, or Archimedes. It should reach, also, to some unknown, early astrophysicist of Central Asia, six to eight thouand years ago, who first calculated, with impressive accuracy of approximation, the long equinoctial cycle of pre-Mesopotamian solar-sidereal astronomy.

The function of the nation-state, is to ensure that that standpoint in universal history is the basis for education and for the development of the culture of all humanity, and, also to ensure, by those dirigistic, anti- "free trade," anti-laissez-faire means rightly recognized for this purpose by France's Louis XI, and by the framers of the 1789 U.S. Federal Constitution, that society must focus its development, upon both emphasizing investment in scientific, technological, and related progress in the productive powers of labor, and in fostering the opportunities for developed young citizens, of "dissident" disposition, or otherwise, to find available niches in society where they may occupy themselves as world-historical personalities of universal history. Their function in such niches, is simply that of doing some not-entropic sort of good for the human species, pleasing the past generations who made their own existence possible, and blessing generations to come with the fruit of their labor.

That required condition of man in society, and of relations among nations, is what Leibniz signified by "happiness." This is the intent of the plainly anti-Locke emphasis upon Leibniz's doctrine of "happiness" in the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the embedded principle, including the celebrated "general welfare clause" of the 1789 U.S. Federal Constitution.

Respecting Russia, the United States must recognize two things. First of all, without a "crash-program project" approach to technology-driven revival of the presently wrecked, post-1989 physical economy of Russia, no rational recovery is possible. Unless we in the U.S.A. foster such a recovery, Russia is given no option for survival, except to play the part of a feral, enraged beast throughout, more immediately, the continent of Eurasia. It must be added, both to U.S. policy-makers, and to thinkers in Russia, that it should be clear, that, for historical reasons, the genius of the people of Russia as a whole, has no significant, presently articulated expression, but in those traditions of experimental physical science, including biophysics, which are now to found in the scientific cadres who must be assembled quickly, under the provenance of such great projects of reconstruction and progress as are urgently wanted for the benefit of both Russia itself and Eurasia more generally.

To TEXT of Part I
To footnotes- Part I


Use your back button to return to text

44. As Friedrich Schiller traces the history of European civilization as the elaboration of the continuing mortal conflict between the traditions of Solon of Athens and that of Sparta's slave-society under the influence of Lycurgus' code. The distinction to be made is, that a form of European state cosistent with the principle of Solon did not come into existence until France's Louis XI.

45. A case in point: In 1978, representatives of the Fusion Energy Foundation were invited to participate in a Soviet-sponsored international conference, on the subject of intertial-confinement (e.g., "laser") fusion. The participants met with this writer to learn what his requests might be. In light of the quarrel between the FEF and places such as Lawrence Livermore Laboratories (LLL), this writer suggested that the Soviets might have declassified aspects of their reliance upon B. Riemann's conception of isentropic compression for the development of the Soviet "hydrogen bomb." Papers representing such declassification would be most useful in the writer's and FEF's efforts to challenge the competence of virtual-reality devices, such as LLL's Lasnex. The FEF representatives were successful in filling this request. It was on this basis, that the writer proposed to proceed with EIR's computer-based quarterly economic forecast for the U.S. economy, which, during the 1979-1983 interval it was operational, was the only successful such forecast available in the public domain. This forecasting endeavor was prompted by the desire to demonstrate the Riemannian principle of isentropic compression by a useful application in some domain. This case is exemplary of those past generations of Russia's scientists, and who were, thus, rooted in the Classical scientific method of western Europe, especially the Germany scientific tradition of Gauss, Humboldt, Riemann. These are exceptionally qualified persons, of a quality wich will not be easily replicated today.

46.The two facts, that the Roman Empire was born on the Isle of Capri, during negotiations of an anti-Cleopatra alliance between Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus, and the priests of Mithra, and that the Emperor Tiberius directed the execution of Jesus Christ by his niece's husband, Pontius Pilate, from his palace on this place, gave the island a compelling symbolic importance for Satanists such as Alex Muenthe, Rudolf Steiner, Benito Mussolini, Nietzsche followers such as Adolf Hitler, Maxim Gorki, and numerous others. This is a brand of Satanism otherwise expressed by the notorious Georg Lukacs, the spiritual founder of the Frankfurt School of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Korsch, et al. In music and other art, late-Nineteenth-Century Romanticism and Twentieth-Century modernism, strongly reflect the influence of the kinds of Satan-cults which for a time adopted Capri as their professed international shrine. Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Adorno, Hannah Arendt, et al., and the satanic perversity of Dostoevsky, Gorki, Radek, Lukacs, and Bertolt Brecht, are, like the related pedophile cult-rings of today, typical of the increasing influence of this "New Age" form of deconstructionist vogues of modernism in art world-wide.

47. As this issue of EIR goes to the printer, reporter Rene Sanchez's headlined article, on page 1 of the Thursday, November 21, 1996 edition of the Washington Post screams: "Math-Science Study Faults U.S. Teaching, Curricula." Under that headline one is told, that a just-released report of the U.S. Department of Education, representing "The largest international study ever undertaken of how American students perform in math and science," shows, that "core problems with the teaching style and the courses that many American schools rely on to instruct students in math and science" produce a catastrophic failure, relative, for example, to compared nations such as Japan and Germany. The Post fairly sums up the facts of the report, as it reports those facts later in the article, by stating that the root of the failure in U.S. education, is that "most teachers only state concepts without fully developing them." This may be summarily restated as reflecting three facts: 1) that the U.S. has rejected the principle of the Humboldt humanist education program, which Alexander Dallas Bache introduced in Philadelphia, in creating the U.S. system of secondary schools, and has moved much further from the humanist method of inducing the students to replicate the mental experience of the original discovery, but, also, that 2) the U.S. teaching of mathematics and physical-science topics has fallen prey to the same long-term "deconstructionist" degeneration of education conduited into the same schools, and universities, through the Modern Language Association (MLA); 3) U.S. adults and students are far more advanced than most otherwise comparable nations in becoming a virtually decorticated "information society," the television-centered catalyst for a general degeneration in the cognitive potentials of both students and adults in the U.S.A. today. The contrast between the reality of experimental physics, and the shadowy "virtual reality" of mathematical physics constructed axiomatically on the basis of the Euler-Lagrange presumptions of continuity, is merely a less degenerate expression of the same principles responsible for the case which the Post attributes to the U.S. Department of Education. [ return to text ]

48. See, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "While Monetarism Dies," EIR, Oct. 25, 1996: chart, page 18.

49. Gustav Jenner, Johannes Brahms als Mensch, Lehrer und Kunstler: Studien und Erlebnisse (Marburg an der Lahn, Germany: N.G. Elwert'sche Velagsbuchhandlung, 1930). As referenced in A Manual on The Rudiments of Tuning and Registration, John Sigerson and Kathy Wolfe, eds. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1992): Cha. 11, "Artistic Beauty: Schiller Versus Goethe," pp. 199-228.

50. On the subject of Norbert Wiener's proclivities as a highly neurotic hoaxster, the celebrated Richard Courant and David Hilbert are already on record.

Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute.
Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.


The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244 Washington, DC 20041-0244

Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Save DC Hospital

Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2001. All Rights Reserved.