"I Give This Order: Destroy the Country!"

(How the 'democrats' defeated Michurin)

D. I. Artamonov, Kandidat in Biology

Zavtra [Tomorrow], March 1994 No. 18(23), p. 4

The growth of industry in all countries, and not only in Russia, has been accompanied by worsening conditions in the environment that surrounds us. This problem was cleverly exploited in the 'democrats'' drive for power for the attainment of their own ends. In the mass media an impression was created about the catastrophic condition of nature in our country. One example of this are the outrageous words of one F. Shtil'mark, "The country in actual fact is turning practically into a huge zone of ecological catastrophe . . . whose end result has been the transformation of the richest country into the current union of ecological deserts."

But now the 'democrats' are in power and the same mass media has got its mouth full. Over the past three years the ecological situation in our country has gotten significantly worse for a number of reasons: there are no funds for pollution-abatement; under conditions of private enterprise no one is responsible for ecological problems; newly appearing businessmen are getting rich by plundering natural resources, while no one is even giving thought to their replenishment and preservation; ecology as a science is now in a pitiful state.

And there is no hope today for an improvement in the ecological situation, since that is possible only with economic improvement, and that will come no time soon under the 'democrats.'

And now is the very time to ask the participants in ecological activism during the period 1986-91: don't they feel deceived by the 'democrats?'

Let us recall when there was such a big hue and cry over the construction of the northern Moscow fossil fuel heating station. However, just recently the acting mayor of Moscow Luzhkov announced on TV that construction on it was beginning, and there was hardly a word said against it!

Let us recall how the people, incited by the democrats, noisily struggled against the construction of various industries in one place or another. The overwhelming majority of these sites were extremely crucial for the production of essential items for the people -- food and fodder additives, cleaning agents, plastic-- . . . Enterprises were designed but not built, built but not started up, were transformed to other uses, moved to other places . . . As a result huge funds were wasted, the productive capacity of the country withered, and the state was dealt an incalculable material blow. And the supreme leadership of the country in the person of M. S. Gorbachev, sitting on two stools, pretending now to be on your side, now on mine, by his tactics doubtless abetted the tragic course of events.

Let us recall how many critical arrows were launched at the unforgettable Minvodkhoz [the Ministry of Water Management]. The failings of this agency were evident to all; however, unfair accusations against the agency were excessive as well. But it seems that such a 'whipping boy,' a mad monster gobbling up the people's money, this freak that was destroying the socialist economy, this embodiment of every kind of bureaucratic vice--was needed by someone. But by whom? By the initiators of 'katastroika', of course. With one hand they generous subsidized it with billions taken from the state budget, while with the other incited the public against Minvodkhoz. And public opinion, represented by the most respected writers, fell into this trap.

Sergei Zalygin in his article "Povorot," [The Reversal], wrote: "in the political speech of M. S. Gorbachev to the 27th Party Congress gratitude was expressed to those writers who defend nature. Was this not support?" Using this support, writers, concerned about the tragedy of our homeland's nature, began a crusade not only against Minvodkhoz but also against "homegrown bureaucratic Soviet socialism," against the state apparat [bureaucracy], which, allegedly, "turned out to be unprepared for flexible thinking, for activity that required independence and responsibility," and against ruling bureaucrats, who were only really concerned about their own careers, offices, salaries, bonuses, and prestige. Under the guise of a struggle for nature protection, which in actual fact needed help, they began a campaign of discrediting and disgracing the country's administrative structure.

In what way did these premeditated ideological positions work their way into the consciousness of people living in Russia? This article will explore ecological myths and for that reason the book of Professor of History at the University of Arizona Douglas Weiner "Ekologiia v Sovetskoi Rossii. Arkhipelag svobody: zapovedniki i okhrana prirody" is at issue. Financial aid for it was provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Harvard Russian Research Center and the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. As we see, in the US the work of Douglas Weiner was accorded no small importance.

His work became a banner in the hands of our ecologists-partisans of perestroika, dissatisfied with their Fatherland, and struggling for "universal human values" and "a new world order."

The American propaganda machine differs from the communist one by its less odious nature; it is not as primitive and one-sided in its judgements.

Douglas Weiner writes: "For many it will be surprising that as early as the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s the Soviet Union was at the cutting edge in the development of the theory and practice of conservation. Russians were the first to propose setting aside specially protected territories for the study of ecological communities, and the Soviet . . . UNEP."

And these words, constituting in general well known truths, have moved editors of "demizdanii" [democratic publications] and reviewers to feelings of delight and tenderness. [umilenie] Meanwhile, Russian ecologists interested Douglas Weiner only insofar as they struggled against the socialist transformation of society: "Behind these questions is hidden the complex and little-known story of . . ." (quotes from Ekologiia v sovetskoi rossii)

D. Weiner asserts: "We come in the final analysis to the conclusion that the struggle between the supporters of the "conscious" over the "free-flowing" and the defenders of nature left an imprint on the development of Russian and Soviet culture." But could it really be that the same 'struggle' did not take place in the USA and in many other countries of the world? It is no accident that the the term "Prometheanism," which describes the so-called complex of human superiority over nature, was coined in the West and is widely used in literature there, especially sociological.

In my view it is absurd to counterpose scientists who seek to preserve nature in pristine condition to those who support pragmatic views about nature and to assert along with that that the first group are absolutely right while the second obviously are not.

Science at all times and in all places has been an arena for the competition of a variety of views and this is, doubtless, science's natural condition; the absence of a struggle among opinions would mean the death of science. Moreover, not in one economically developed country has original nature been preserved.

However, having had developed their economic potential these countries were able afterward to spend considerable sums on protecting and restoring nature. The protection of nature in its original form is possible only in Papua, where the people live a pitiful existence. If we don't want to imitate them, we must either follow the development models of the leading countries of the world or maximally assess their mistakes in the area of ecology and use the most sophisticated environmental technology, but in one or the other case it is essential that we develop our economic potential.

In every way elevating the partisans of pristine nature, the calculating Western ideologists not only pursued the goal of stopping the economic development of the USSR and destroying a great power but also conserving its natural resources, halting their use on behalf of the native population. Remember the recent historical howling by the Russian democratic press about how we are gobbling up our natural resources and that it is necessary to conserve them for our descendants.

Of course, what was meant was not concern about our children and grandchildren. The weaker the Russian economy, the worse our people's living standard, the better for Western businessmen. It is easier to clean out a hungry, impoverished Papuan than a well-armed, satieted and strong citizen of Russia.

The Russian people has been assidously fed the belief that nature in our country has been destroyed, that the atmosphere, the waters and the soils are poisoned, and that the natural resources were squandered by the 'kommuniaki'. But if nature is so devalued, plundered, should the Russians continued to be entrusted with running their 'Fatherland?' Wouldn't it be better to give the remaining natural resources away for a pittance to the Uncle from across the sea? And aren't our 'businessmen' willingly doing just that?!

In the Far East foreign companies just recently bought up timber for $3.00 a cubic meter at the same time that in the USA one cubic meter costs $70. The US firm "Weyerhaeuser" is currently engaged in negotiations aimed at acquiring a million hectares of forest in Khabarovsk krai, while in the Primorskii krai Americans have already illegally begun logging operations using Chinese labor. The South Korean firm "Hyundai" is going to log and prepare one million cubic meters of sawn wood. Local and regional authorities sell forests to foreign powers for hard currency without giving it another thought.

That which our enemies were unable to win through force became easy prey thanks to the efforts of both overseas (D. Weiner) and domestic (F. Shtil'mark) propagandists in the name of ecology.

D. Weiner writes: "Russian modernizers, especially those of a revolutionary cast of mind, saw themselves as missionaries, called on to creat a new, just society on the basis of conquered, subjgated nature, administered by a 'new kind of human being' who understood the world and who considered him/herself an omnipotent master of the World." But can it really be that no similar process of conquest and subjugation of nature occurred in the USA during the same period? There, that process goes on even more intensively, but without the flowery words about the construction of "a society based on social justice" and the creation of a "new man."

"Prometheanism," the subjugation and transformation of nature -- is not at all a characteristic feature of the Soviet system. And we, who are well informed about the empty phrasemongering of communist ideologues, must not be surprised that the transformation of nature in the USSR proceeded somewhat less intensively than in other countries of the world.

The 'democrats' in their media frenzy have clearly overestimated the scope of the transformation of nature in our country, having contrived to denigrate a number of things that have an indisputably positive value. Thus, for instance, someone was able to discredit successfully the idea of forest plantings in arid regions although that idea was correct in its basic outlines. Evidently someone wished to restore the Colchidian swamps and obliterate the introduced eucalypts and tea plantations of Western Georgia, such reminders of the transformation of nature.

Meanwhile, in any country of the world the situation with nature protection is a balance of two approaches: maximal conservation of natural resources and their rational use for the needs of the country's inhabitants. "The transformation of nature" has occurred in all developed nations of the world. It is possible to provide arguments against forest plantings in arid regions but all the same the benefits received from that outweigh the negative consequences. . .

I hypothesize that it is no accident that D. Weiner did not study the state of ecology in the USSR in the 1970s-1980s. In our country during that period it grew tremendously. I have written, for example, on important research conducted in many scientific institutions on the problem of the regreening of various territories, the recultivation of degraded landscapes, etc.

The hothouse growth of ecology in Russia was cut off by the 'democrats'' coming to power. Like a bird on the wing, they shot it down.

* * *

Possibly, I would not have noticed the modest work of D. Weiner had I not read the wonderful review of it by the editor-in-chief of Novyi mir [New World], S. P. Zalygin. [Quotes the review] About himself he write with a certain amount of sarcasm: "It is not without irony that I note: all the same all my life I have lived it as a Soviet man, and I am socialized as such to the limit. This Douglas Weiner fellow, as far as I understand, is, first of all, entirely Americanized and secondly, a professional."

In what area is Douglas Weiner a professional: in history, sociology, ecology or ideology? Upon reading his book I found nothing in it that could testify to any extraordinary knowledge on his part in the first three areas. But as an ideologist of the world of "universal human values" he, unquestionably, is an extraordinary fellow, perhaps even a step above our own "ideologists" of communism -- A. N. Iakovlev, L. M. Kravchuk, E. A. Shevardnadze and many others.

"His book -- is my life story," continues S. P. Zalygin. "And I will even dare to go so far as to say, not just mine, but our whole country's." "Yes, and could an authentic democracy ever be anti-Nature?"

It is amazing, but our "engineers of human souls" are totally unable to swear off ideological complexes, and have merely exchanged one ideological sign for its opposite. It is precisely this ideological "complex" that explains the fact that from article to article by one or another democratized (Westernized, per A. Zinov'ev) author one and the same oversalted accusations against the communists appear -- ad nauseum.

For the umpteenth time we have read wise evaluations about the Lysenko era and, of course, they are greased up with the famous phrase of I. V. Michurin about the subjugation of nature. And it never occurs to anyone that I. V. Michurin is an ornament to the Russian land. Both here in our country as well as abroad thanks to the "concerns" of those publicists who slavishly follow Western fashion a perception of him as a hoary reactionary -- practically a fellow traveller of T. D. Lysenko -- has congealed.

But in actual fact I. V. Michurin was a top-class selectioner,,, well-known around the world, while selection itself is a goose that lays the golden egg.

Scientists have established that from 1962 through 1976 the production of the most valuable grains rose about 50 per cent although sown area stayed just about the same. What accounted for this increase in yields? . . . the successes of selection . . .

Take note: I. V. Michurin was not recognized in tsarist Russia, is denigrated in post-Communist Russia, and only under Soviet rule did he receive his earned recognition and excellent conditions for his work. It is by far no accident that the practical-minded Americans assiduously tried to get him to emigrate to America and, indeed, were prepared not only to pay for his personal passage but also for the transshipment of the parcel of land on which he worked his miracles.

It is difficult to imagine that an American author would censure his own countryman--the equally outstanding selectioner Luther Burbank--for a misinterpreted phrase. Such a thing is possible only in "democratic" Russia!