# Lenin, Stalin, Mikhail Degryarev and a European intellectual potential. Experimental essay - an attempt of biographical and political comparison

Владимир Владимирович Залесский

Lenin, Stalin, Mikhail Degryarev and a European intellectual potential. Experimental essay - an attempt of biographical and political comparison.


Mikhail Degtyarev worked for a long time as chairman of the State Duma Committee on Sports. On July 20, 2020, he became the acting governor of the Khabarovsk Territory.


He is not the first to whom fate gave the opportunity to suddenly take a responsible state post.


Well-known examples from this line of people are Lenin and Stalin.


Comparison of the biographical features of Lenin, Stalin and Mikhail Degtyarev can be interesting and useful.


In the essay '[MDXXX.] Liquidation of the supervisory-intellectual, space and literary intelligentsia. Common features and differences' (June 30, 2020). we have identified three large historical layers of the intelligentsia. We will detail, will clarify and supplement our conclusions.


The emergence of large layers of the intelligentsia in Russia (USSR) could be conditionally dated:


1364, which is recognized as the year of the establishment of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow; (east-republican intelligentsia),


1682, which is recognized as the year when the future Peter the Great received the title of tsar; (imperial (noble) intelligentsia),


1775 - the year of the final partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between Russia, Austria and Prussia; (mixed east-republican intelligentsia and imperial (noble) intelligentsia),


1917 - a multi-layered intelligentsia of the widest origin.


Lenin belonged (by origin) to the intermediate layer of the intelligentsia, which arose after the reforms of 1861-1865, carried out by Emperor Alexander II. However, the military intelligentsia (military doctors), perhaps, can somehow be identified as one of the elements of the imperial (noble) military intelligentsia ...


However, on the part of his father, Ilya Nikolaevich, Vladimir Lenin was a representative of intelligentsia in the second generation. The history about the ancestors of Ilya Nikolaevich gives conflicting information - perhaps they were people of non-European origin, recently [freshly] (by historical standards) involved, pulled into the cultural orbit of the Russian Empire.


Lenin was distinguished by a good family education and a very good gymnasium education. After the family period of his life, he made the habit of correct routine [organization of every day life] and intellectual work. His father, Ilya Nikolaevich, kept regular accurate records of meteorological observations for a long time, which brought up mental discipline in him. In addition, from the way of life of Ilya Nikolaevich, Vladimir Ilyich could get an idea of the way of life and the style of thinking of a state official.


The whole adult life of Vladimir Lenin was the distribution of time between (1) libraries (libraries in Paris, London and other large European cities), (2) organizational revolutionary (party) work, (3) reading, (4) physical activity (cycling, walking), (5) writing books and articles.


By 1917, Lenin's head was overflowing with a huge amount of information, original author's concepts of transforming the state and the world. All this information was ready to use.


However, if we take into account the historical intellectual roots of Lenin, then we can treat with understanding the results of his state activities.


The results were quite contradictory, both in domestic and foreign policy. War communism failed miserably. NEP - did not satisfy anyone. NEP could to led to a quick defeat in the rapidly approaching Second World War.


By coincidence, Lenin could rely on Bonch-Bruevich in the sphere of state organization, on Dzerzhinsky in the sphere of internal administrative organization, on Tukhachevsky in the military sphere, and on Krupskaya and Lunacharsky on general and cultural issues. Let us remember, for example, the decree on the creation of a cartographic service in Russia. This is one of (quite numerous) unique documents that could only be compiled by a person with an intellectual basis associated with European cultural roots (1364), with a wide thinking. Many people, having learned about the creation of a cartographic service in a belligerent, impoverished and hungry Soviet Russia, could only joke: "Why does a merchant need an accordion?" However, a part of the population had a similar attitude, also, to the space program - "and what is it for?" ...


Somehow, Lenin managed to get out of all the major failures (with the help of an effective environment, effective assistants?). But it was necessary to send him to (Leninskiy) Gorki ...


Lenin subtly felt the mood of the lower, poorly educated, low-cultured strata, those who considered themselves to be outsiders of the Empire, and - Lenin skillfully played on this element and with this element. In the long term, these exclusive skills could not lead to anything good.


An important factor in Lenin's victories was the low efficiency of the imperial bureaucracy, whose worldview had been degenerated [spoiled] by centuries of a despotic regime. Goremykin - at the all-Russian level, the atamans of the Don Host Oblast who shot themselves, and other personalities from this row (Denikin? Kolchak?) are sorrowful, bitter examples of people who, in their intellectual, cultural level, were completely unprepared for major changes and for independent activity.


Stalin was very lucky. He continued to rely on Dzerzhinsky. Krzhizhanovsky rose even more, after the time of Lenin.


The enormous intellectual potential of these people set a model for subsequent successful development for many decades.


Stalin distributed [partitioned] (following Lenin's example?) the own working time between (1) reading (he had three huge libraries), (2) work on texts and reflections on conceptual provisions, (3) communication with specialists, (4) organizational work.


If in the Turukhansk exile we see a half-impoverished person who cares primarily about the satisfaction of material, physiological needs, then in the thirties of the 20th century, Stalin grew into an independent giant intellectual figure capable of supporting the directions of movement that were set by Dzerzhinsky, Krzhizhanovsky and other representatives of the East-republican intelligentsia.


As for Mikhail Degtyarev ... We are not pretending to make any certain undeniable thoughts. But a brief acquaintance with his biography leads to the assumption that he comes from the layer of "Khrushchev intelligentsia."


Generally speaking, Khrushchev's policies were characterized by inconsistency and a low intellectual level. Someone (a suspicious observer) may see in the depths of this policy an evil cunning, a deeply hidden sabotage.


On the one hand, during the time of Khrushchev, many representatives of the technical intelligentsia came into the party apparatus. Was this a deliberate personnel policy? Or did Stalin's cadres need to be replaced by someone? Either way, the rise to power of representatives of the technical intelligentsia was perhaps a useful process.


On the other hand, a specific layer of the foreign exchange [foreign currency] intelligentsia was formed - those people who were associated with various types of assistance to our dear friends. And this aid was associated with huge foreign exchange flows (without enough control).


Some of the details of the biographical materials about Mikhail Degtyarev make it possible to see his (separate) intellectual and cultural roots among those who provided assistance to the heroic struggling peoples, sincere friends of the USSR ...


In biographical materials about Mikhail Degtyarev, we were unable to find references to either libraries or a reading. Let's not deny that de facto both a reading and libraries were, took place in the life of Mikhail Degtyarev ... There is a mention of the book.


Something like "from the autocracy of one to the autocracy of the other." As the name suggests, it is again about autocracy. About what, because of which, according our opinion, drowned the imperial bureaucracy after the arrival of 1917. Additionally, it can be assumed that, with an emphasis on autocracy, Mikhail Degtyarev is very far from the east-republican mentality.


How did Mikhail Degtyarev begin his activity as an interim governor of the Khabarovsk Territory? A separate essay can be devoted to this. But the media report about Mikhail Degtyarev's conversation with the protesters and about the Degtyarev's presentation of his book to the protesters. There is an intention to saturate the population of the Khabarovsk Territory with this book ...


There are many references to Mikhail Degtyarev's sports activities ...


Let's hope that Mikhail Degtyarev is a man of European worldview, not of [Maduro's] Venezuelan mentality ... Let's hope for the best ... However, against hopes for the best, we personally are directed by Degtyarev's book "The Prophet in His Fatherland." We have not read this book, but the Internet suggests that it is dedicated to Zhirinovsky. What's behind this name of the book? Naivety? Small intellectual development? Low level of intellectual independence? ... And, nevertheless, Mikhail Degtyarev tries to think, tries to write, he publishes, he draws up patents ... How to complete this essay? Let a readers draw their own conclusions ...


July 28, 2020 07:00


Translation from Russian into English: July 28, 2020 18:03. Владимир Владимирович Залесский 'Ленин, Сталин, Михаил Дегрярев и европейский интеллектуальный потенциал. Опыт биографо-политологического сравнения'.