Truth and myths about Lenin's statements. Can a cook run a state

"We are not utopians. We know that any unskilled worker and any cook are not capable of immediately entering into government. On this we agree with the Cadets, and with Breshkovskaya, and with Tsereteli. But we differ from these citizens in that we demand an immediate break with the prejudice that only rich officials or officials taken from rich families can govern the state, carry out the everyday, daily work of government. We demand that public administration be taught by conscious workers and soldiers, and that it be started immediately, i.e., that all the working people, all the poor, be immediately enlisted in this training.

We know that the Cadets also agree to teach the people about democracy. According to the best English and French sources, the ladies of the Cadets agree to give lectures to the servants on women's equality. And also at the next concert-rally, in front of thousands of people, kissing will be arranged on the stage: the Cadet lady lecturer will kiss Breshkovskaya, Breshkovskaya of the former minister Tsereteli, and the grateful people will learn in this way clearly what republican equality, freedom and brotherhood are ... "

Lenin V.I. Will the Bolsheviks keep state power, V.I. Lenin, Complete Works, fifth edition Political Literature Publishing House, 1978, v. 34, p. 315.

Here is what S.G. said on this topic. Kara-Murza in "Soviet Civilization" " : " A rare democratic politician or journalist did not mention Lenin, who supposedly said that a simple cook should govern the state. There was even a familiar metaphor "Lenin's cook".

In reality, V.I. Lenin says the exact opposite of what literally the entire democratic press attributed to him - with the assent of almost the entire intelligentsia. Moreover, he specifically sharpens the problem in order to show how primitive the thinking of the "February" litter Democrats is. For him, it seems obvious that any cook is not capable [being in the state of a cook] to govern the state ("believing in this would be a utopia"). There is no question that the cook should run the state.

It is worth the reader to think: how to call the behavior of many respectable intellectuals who continued to drive the myth of "Lenin's cook" into people's heads - despite the fact that they were repeatedly tried to point out their mistake. Both in person and through print. Then, in 1988-1990, we still could not understand: how is it possible? You poke a book with the exact text under his nose, and he blinks, and after half an hour again about Lenin and the cook."

V. I. Lenin did not say anything like that

Every cook must learn to run the state - there is no such phrase, such an idea anywhere. It is the distorted thought of V. I. Lenin, expressed by him in the article “Will the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?”, Written on October 14, 1917 and published in the same month by the Bolshevik monthly socio-political and literary journal Enlightenment No. 1-2 ( was published in St. Petersburg from December 1911 to June 1914. 27 issues were published.In October 1917, its publication resumed, but ended immediately).

"We are not utopians. We know that any unskilled worker and any cook is not capable of immediately entering into government. In this we agree with the Cadets, and with Breshkovskaya, and with Tsereteli. But we differ from these citizens in that we demand immediate a break with the prejudice that only the rich or taken from rich families are able to govern the state, to carry out the everyday, daily work of administration. all the working people, all the poor, immediately began to be involved in this training.

(Strange semantic error: on the one hand “any cook is not able to immediately enter into government”, with another: " state administration was taught by conscious workers and soldiers.. As if the consciousness of the soldiers and workers is a sufficient condition for "teaching the business of public administration." And this is not a typo, an inaccuracy in presentation, but a concept. After all, Lenin continues: “To manage the state in this spirit, we can immediately involve the state apparatus, ten million, if not twenty people ... Only we can create this apparatus, because ... we have conscious, disciplined ... workers. Conscious workers must lead, but they are in a position to draw the real masses of the working people and the oppressed into the cause of management.

But gradually Lenin's phrase about the place and role of the people in government was completely distorted. Solzhenitsyn already writes in The First Circle: “Education! .. What a mess came out with this universal seven-year-old, universal ten-year-old, with cook's children going to university! ... - how did he imagine it specifically? So that the cook does not cook on Fridays, but goes to sit at the Regional Executive Committee? A cook is a cook, she has to cook dinner. And managing people is a high skill, this can only be entrusted to special personnel ... "That is, not even" learning to manage ", but immediately" managing "

Or here: “The author of the report claimed that I am writing about the insolvency of the empresses solely because of their belonging to the so-called weaker sex and that the title of the chapter on Catherine I in the book “Russia without Peter” () is derogatory ... ”(E. V. Anisimov “Women at authorities in the 18th century as a problem”, “Bulletin of History, Literature, Art”, Moscow: Collection; Nauka, 2005, pp. 328-335)

The quote "any cook is capable of running the state" is distorted. In fact, in the article “Will the Bolsheviks Retain State Power,” Lenin writes: “We are not utopians. We know that any unskilled worker and any cook are not capable of immediately entering into government. In this we agree with the Cadets, and with Breshkovskaya, and with Tsereteli. But we differ from these citizens in that we demand an immediate break with the prejudice that only the rich or officials taken from wealthy families can govern the state, carry out the everyday, daily work of government. workers and soldiers, and that it should be started immediately, that is, all working people, all the poor, should immediately be involved in this training. (PSS, vol. 34, p. 315).

Lenin mentions precisely the cook and the laborer in order to emphasize the primitivism of the thinking of his then opponents, who imagined the Soviet power in precisely this way - as the power of "cooks".

Should a woman be in politics?

"World experience has long shown that the minimum of "female" seats in parliament is 10%, otherwise the vector of the country's development will irreparably shift towards "male showdowns", aggressive steps, such as a small "war". Men in the world of politics build their relations within the framework of : attack - defense. Women - in a different way, there are more chances for dialogue and cooperation ... Women in their speeches use words such as care, care, kindergarten, home more often. Men's questions are "heavy", women's - " soft". And to make the right decisions, you need a balance.

The participation of women deputies in the work of parliaments and other representative bodies is extremely important not only for women themselves, but also for society as a whole. As practice shows, for women, issues of ecology, child protection, health care, social protection of the population, etc., which are on the periphery of men's interests, come to the fore. Despite the difference in material, social, marital status, age, all women are concerned not so much with their own fate as with the problems of children and families. And these problems are growing year by year.” (Manzura Sharipova, journalist).

Lenin on the equality of women.

“Equality under the law is not yet equality in life. We need a female worker to achieve equality with a male worker not only in law, but also in life. For this, it is necessary that female workers take more and more part in management public enterprises and in government." ( Lenin V.I. "To Women Workers", - P.S.S., vol. 40, pp. 157-158).

" Pursuing the socialist ideal, we want to fight for the full realization of socialism, and here a very large field of work opens up for women. We are now seriously preparing to clear the ground for socialist construction, and the very construction of socialist society will begin only when, having achieved complete equality for women, we set about new work together with a woman freed from this petty, stupefying, unproductive work. This work will be enough for us for many, many years. This work cannot give quick results and does not produce a brilliant effect.

We are creating exemplary institutions, canteens, nurseries that would free a woman from the household. And it is here that the work of organizing all these institutions falls most of all on women. It must be admitted that now in Russia there are very few such institutions that would help a woman get out of the state of a domestic slave. There are an insignificant number of them, and the conditions in which the Soviet Republic is now placed—both military and food conditions, about which the comrades have spoken to you in detail here—hinder us in this work. But nevertheless it must be said that these institutions, relieving women from the position of a domestic slave, arise wherever there is the slightest opportunity for this.

To go into politics under the old capitalist society required special training, and therefore the participation of women in politics, even in the most advanced and free capitalist countries, was negligible. Our mission is to make politics accessible to every working woman." ( Lenin V.I. "On the Tasks of the Women's Labor Movement in the Soviet Republic").

Are the words of Lenin still relevant in our time?

The favorite technique of Lenin's opponents is to pull out a phrase from the text, add your comment, and now the meaning is exactly the opposite. And if you read the entire text, then the perception of the phrase will change completely. You need to study, study, and only then - work, work - manage.

“Now tell me something so that I can see you,” Socrates once addressed a silent visitor.

If Shuvalov had not said at the World Economic Forum that Russia should forget about innovative development as long as energy prices remain high, someone would probably still think that this person understands the economy.

Yes, easy oil money corrupts both the business environment and government officials. All the efforts of the elites, politicians and entrepreneurs are aimed at sharing this huge money, unearned by the labor of society. This makes the problem of innovation and modernization, technical progress and labor productivity growth, economic diversification and creation of new industries irrelevant. Why puzzle, invent something and take risks? In addition, in the short term, this direction does not promise such profits. Therefore, everyone is attracted by the colossal raw material pie, around it all the intrigues, struggle and cunning undercover combinations. Entire conspiracies are woven here, as in a detective novel: to whom and what to say, to whom to drive up, whose wife will say something to her husband. How interesting, how captivating - pure Dumas!

Shuvalov honestly admitted that there was nothing even to dream of a new, innovative economy. In our system, all that remains is to pray to the Almighty to drop these inflated prices before we die with this gratuitous money. That's when we sit down in a deep hole filled with a well-known slurry, only then will we start floundering and doing something. The struggle for innovation, modernization, construction of new factories and ships will begin. But while the cake is so charming, it smells so delicious that it deprives the mind - everyone, like bees on honey, rushes at him, forgetting everything in the world. If translated into scientific language, then many reputable economists have been talking about this for a long time.

But why is this happening? Because, I repeat once again, in our personnel policy, only two types of decisions are made - bad or very bad. Everywhere you look, completely unprepared people are appointed to the most responsible posts. Only because they are personally devoted to someone. Professionalism, knowledge and experience, moral qualities - all this does not matter.

The crisis of state economic management is evident, it is much more serious than oil prices. On Sunday, he returned from the Altai Territory, where he spoke at a conference. The event brought together many Siberian scientists, specialists, entrepreneurs. And the conversation still revolved around the incompetence of government decisions, about short-sightedness, about the lack of real forecast calculations and economic science itself - in any case, the government does not use it in any way. It selects precisely liberal monetarists who have never been engaged in long-term forecasting and planning. Liberal monetarists are waiting to see where the wise market will swing - the theory of rational expectations that the investor eventually makes a reasonable decision himself. But since Adam Smith, things have become a thousandfold more complicated.

Now, for the market to function intelligently, it needs to be told where to move. For this, science exists, and not only economics. The general concept of the development of the country and all factors of production should be developed by scientists of all specialties. But today social Darwinism is beginning in general in our country, Lysenkoism is actually the dispersal of science. What reasonable models can we talk about?

During the years of the revolution, the slogan was popular that any cook could become a people's commissar. Less than six months later, Lenin abandoned it. They themselves began to mock this slogan at party congresses. And by the way, as a result, the Soviet government was at that time one of the most qualified and prepared European governments. They attracted the largest scientists of tsarist Russia - natural scientists, soil scientists, physicists and chemists. Foreign experts were invited. So, during the crisis of 1929-1933, the best engineers of the West moved to us along with their factories, which went bankrupt there. This is one of the reasons for such high achievements of Soviet power. Then the power industry worked on coal. There was no smell of oil pie yet.

The starting point is May 1999. This colossal rise in oil prices began. There were reasons for that. Oil has ceased to be a market commodity, which is sold and bought depending on the need in the market, in accordance with the postulates of Adam Smith. Oil is now an exchange commodity and its price is determined by the exchange. Therefore, in recent years, prices have been consistently high, even during a crisis. Despite the fact that the world industry is almost not developing, and the demand is not seriously increasing, prices are rising or are kept at an exorbitant height above $100. They will collapse only after the exchange itself bursts. Unlike many economists, I don't think this can happen any time soon. The fact is that the great recession of 2011-2013 solved many problems and contradictions that had accumulated in the previous phase of the upward dynamics of the cycle (and were not resolved during the crisis of 2008-2009). Therefore, now there is no reason to talk about an imminent stock exchange crash. At least another 2-3 years for sure - the cycle has not been completed by half. Another thing is that, in contrast to previous years, there will be fluctuations - small bursts up and down with overall low growth rates in the developed centers of capitalism. High growth rates are still possible in Asia and some Latin American countries, but not in Europe, America or Japan. However, there will be no collapse. But in our country it is quite possible with such and such leadership of the economy.

Responsible persons of the Russian state radiate pessimism all the time. The prime minister says that we need to prepare for difficult years. I agree that with such a government, we really need to prepare for them. Ministers, too, one after another, "please" with gloomy predictions. How then to be business people? Of course, they will not invest in our economy. They take out capital. True, it is announced that foreigners do it. In fact, we do not have any foreigners, except in the raw materials sector - these are all domestic capitals, covered with foreign brands. And if I were them, I would also take capital out of the country with such a pessimistic attitude in the leadership, with unprepared and unprofessional people in the government. How can I be sure that they themselves will not artificially overwhelm the economy?

Take the Minister of Economic Development. On a personal level, he seems like a good guy. But as a minister, he is no good. What would you say about a minister who is convinced that his own ministry is useless? After all, his liberal-monetarist concept proceeds precisely from the fact that such a ministry only hinders and harms the economy. These are the people who become big bosses in the field of economics and finance. It is difficult to imagine a more irrational personnel policy.

History reference:

"Every cook will be able to run the state!" - everyone thinks that V.I. Lenin said so. But this phrase is taken out of context. What was she completely and why is she not mentioned?

In "Will the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?" (written in late September - early October 1917) Lenin declares: “We are not utopians. We know that any unskilled worker and any cook are not capable of immediately entering into government. On this we agree with the Cadets, and with Breshkovskaya, and with Tsereteli.”

V.I. Lenin here mentions a cook and a laborer in order to emphasize the primitivism of the thinking of his then opponents (who imagined the Soviet power in this way - as the power of "cooks"). However, he writes further: “But we differ from these citizens in that we demand an immediate break with the prejudice that only the rich or officials taken from wealthy families can manage the state, carry out the everyday, daily work of government. We demand that public administration be taught by conscious workers and soldiers and that it be started immediately, i.e., that all working people, all the poor, should immediately be enlisted in this training” (PSS, vol. 34, p. 315).

Sometimes this phrase is attributed to Trotsky, but Trotsky himself gave the authorship of the phrase to Lenin. “Lenin saw the most important task of the dictatorship in the democratization of government: “every cook must learn to manage the state”” Trotsky “Alarm”.

So it turns out - Trotsky tore out the quote and went around the world ... We quote, it turns out, Trotsky, and we blame all the bumps on V.I. Lenin!