In the USSR there was no such a majority of people who were decayed to the life on scrap-heap because of the state politics, neither in its high time, nor in the time of its degradation.

[377] Though some contemporary supporters of «Conspiracy» do not go deep into it.

[378] As a result of searching the Internet we found references only to the following editions:

1. Bogdanov A.A. “Tectology. Universal Organizing Science”, book 1 — 3, S-Petersburg, Moscow-Berlin, 1913 — 1922.

2. Bogdanov A.A. “Tectology. (Universal Organizing Science)” — second edition in 2 books: book 1 — 304 pages, book 2 — 351 pages — Moscow «Economica», 1989.

[379] If it were successful, then after publishing in 1913 the first chapters of this work of A.A. Bogdanov there would have been algorithmic reconstruction of the neo-sphere of the Earth and the problem of overcoming the Marxism would have been solved in some way in the first half of the 20th century. The history of the 20th century would be different.

[380] The author is А. Kitashov, biological department of the Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, the paper work dated by the year of 1995. The address of the paper in the Internet (June 2002): http://1.cellimm.bio.msu.ru/people/cetum/bogdanov.html (in the address “l” — Latin letters, but not the graphical signs for number “1” instead of the first symbol which is “one”).

[381] The author of the paper gives references to the page numbers of the Berlin edition of the “Tectology”, 1922, with the original punctuation, where possible.

[382] Yu.I. Mukhin in the aforementioned book «Murder of Stalin and Beria» (Moscow, «Crimea Bridge-9D», «Forum», 2002) on page 484 cites the lists of the books from Stalin’s library. Among them there are 2 books of A.A. Bogdanov «Brief course of Economics» that were published before the Revolution are mentioned.

[383] I.e. such, where Self-focused conception pretensions to express world-view positions and interests of all mankind.

[384] Those who think that this argument based on the paperwork is not convincing, may turn to the works of A.A. Bogdanov. In particular Self-focused (anthropo-focuced) atheism of a material kind is expressed in his article «A Mystery of Science», which may be found in the Internet and which is included in the catalog «Other authors» in the Information base of the USSR that is distributed on CDs.

[385] «There is no need, let say, to limit goals and subjects of the scientific researches by ethical demands. Ethics accumulates experience of the past life, including (may be even in the first place) experience of past failures. And science is always a search of new possibilities of society development and its adaptation to the surrounding conditions. In seeking (of course, not in use) there shouldn’t be any restrictions!» (From an article of academician N.N.Moiseev and professor of physics and mathematical science I.G.Pospelov «Set of Evolution and Mind», magazine «Priroda» № 6, 1990)

Though the authors write that «the main attribute of evolution process is its unpredictable character», but on the foundation of all the historical experience of crowd-“elitism” self-destruction of humanity is guaranteed, if crowd-“elitism” will still coincide with the absence of ethical restriction for goals and subjects of researches.

Since it is impossible to limit the investigation and use of the knowledge in the society and evil morals of the society will turn into evil any knowledge, then the only protection from this destruction is ethical, and morally conditioned in their essence, restrictions for goals and subjects of the researches that are applied by researchers themselves: scientific knowledge can’t be used for evil until it is not investigated; that is why barbarism of society, that decline the moral and ethical progress is the virtue for itself and for environment.

Let’s continue looking at this question about interrelation of morals and “Tectology” and turn to the edition of «Gorbachev-Fond» (creation of his starting capital is a special matter of moral and ethical and criminal and legal character) “Perestroika. 10 years later” (Moscow, “April-85”, 1995, circulation 2500 copies, i.e. the edition is under the secret classification “For elite only”). Page 159, art critic Andreeva I.A. says the following in a confused way (her self-rating, see p. 156):

«Moral basis — it is high-flown and complicated. But the elements of ethic are quite available to us». It is said after the words of the «physicist» — mathematician and say «ecologist», academic of Russian Academy of Sciences Moiseev N.N., went by the art critic («lyrist»):

«On the top (in the context he speaks about power structure) there may be a scoundrel, a rotter, a place-hunter, but if he is a clever man, many would be forgiven to him, because he would understand that what he does is useful for the state» (p. 148).

— No one said anything against it, in spite of the fact that academic actually identified morally conditioned interests of a clever scoundrel with the interests of the whole country. But it does not scare neither the academic, nor his listeners, because they have become just as immoral or of evil-moral as the scoundrel that are hypothetically in their attention. What scares them? — The academic gives an answer:

«What we were afraid of? We were afraid of what A.A. Bogdanov wrote in his “Tectology”: when some system (organization) appears it brings forth, desirably or not, its own interests. This is what happened with our system. There appeared a certain elite group that practically usurped the property of the great country».

— The academic is lying, because «this certain elite group» did not appear from nothing, it was generated by the principle that was earlier formulated by the academic: It is true that there was a day when clever scoundrels and rotters organized on the basis of Self-focused demonical atheistic moral and expressed their own low and dirty interests in the biblical doctrine of all-enslavement and the development of science that sees no Higher moral, expressed in the life of Creation, cover them up just as N.N.Moiseev did by referring to “Tectology”.

In this way N.N.Moiseev proved the point of J.V. Stalin in his rejection of «tectology» and of relatively similar in quality to it morally petrified atheistic organizational-managing theories to which «cybernetics» belongs as well.

[386] It is expressed in the life of Creation and due the power of its all-embracing character is identified by atheism with «immorality» of Nature. But righteousness is one for all. The difference is only in attitudes to it: it expresses the subjectivism of God and for all the rest, righteousness, as an ideal of their possible morality, is an objective from of Above-predetermined entity.

[387] We express hope that freedom-loving intelligentsia (if any of them is reading this text) has understood right away what is said in this thesis, even without reading “Tectology”.

But in our opinion, this terminological conceptual, the sense of which words was clear almost only to the author of “Tectology” — to

A.A. Bogdanov himself, — represents expression of the fact that his understanding of the general organization of Life as such was blurred, fragmentary, kaleidoscope-like. Exactly because of this unclear understanding of laws that were immanent to the analyzed by him «object = object» — Life as such — the volume of the «Tectology» turned out to be of 3 books and its terminological conceptual is rather «exotic» from the point of view of many even educated part of the society. As such «Tectology» of Bogdanov is not more than of a historical and textological interest, since it is easier and more effective to formulate all from the beginning rather than correct its different inaccuracies and errors and add something.