How to sell over the phone? Key tips and rules from the experience of successful telemarketers

“True eloquence is the ability to say everything that is needed and no more than is needed.”

F. La Rochefoucauld

…………………………..

Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin was not always a supporter of market mechanisms in the economy and was not always what was called “right”. There was a time before the revolution and in 1917 to 1921, when Bukharin was part of the radical left Bolsheviks, the very ones who were categorically against the presence of private property relations in the economic sphere.

But it was like this exactly until 1921, when Vladimir Lenin introduced the NEP. This became a turning point, not only for Bukharin, but for so many leftists who literally became “right” overnight.

Trotsky, Lenin and Bukharin

Then the “favorite” of the party was the extreme left

Thus began their first fall into sin. Having betrayed their former ideals, they betrayed themselves, and the first betrayal almost always entailed a series of new ones. For having betrayed once, betraying a second, third, fourth time will be much easier.

However, this is when we're talking about about political struggle, ideas, coalitions. that's one thing. But the homeland is different - the homeland can only be changed once.

Bukharin himself as a person turned out to be a typical politician, ready to take extreme measures to achieve his goal, ready to be hypocritical (double-deal) for the sake of success. He was never a particularly principled person. Bukharin took part in a conspiracy against Lenin, intending to arrest him; he suddenly switched from the left to the “right”.

Then, having already lost the internal political struggle to Stalin, he hid and began to form a closed opposition. Until it all ended with the defeat of his opposition group.

On the evening of March 5, 1938, the interrogation of the accused Nikolai Bukharin began in the Hall of the House of Unions

This is how it began......

"President. We move on to the interrogation of the defendant Bukharin.

Bukharin. I have a petition to the court on the following two points:

firstly, to give me the opportunity to freely express myself before the court, and secondly, to allow me, at the beginning of my presentation, to dwell more or less, as far as time allows, on the analysis of the ideological and political attitudes of the criminal “right-Trotskyist bloc” for the following reasons - firstly, because relatively little was said about this, secondly, it has a certain public interest and, thirdly, the citizen public prosecutor asked this question at the previous, if I’m not mistaken, meeting.

Vyshinsky. If the accused Bukharin intends to limit in any way the right of the state prosecutor to ask questions during his explanations, then I think that Comrade Chairman should explain to Bukharin that the right of the prosecutor to ask questions is based on the law.

Therefore, I request that this petition be dismissed, as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Bukharin. I misunderstood my petition.

Chairman. The first question is for the defendant Bukharin: do you confirm your testimony at the preliminary investigation about anti-Soviet activities?

Bukharin. I confirm my testimony completely and completely.

Chairman. What do you want to say about anti-Soviet activities? And Comrade Prosecutor has the right to ask questions.

Vyshinsky. Let me begin the interrogation of the accused Bukharin. Briefly state what exactly you plead guilty to.

Bukharin. Firstly, in belonging to the counter-revolutionary “right-Trotskyist bloc”.

Vyshinsky. Since what year?

Bukharin. Since the formation of the block. Even before this, I plead guilty to belonging to a counter-revolutionary organization of the right.

Vyshinsky. Since what year?

Bukharin. Approximately since 1928. I plead guilty to the fact that I was one of the largest leaders of this “right-Trotskyist bloc.”

I therefore recognize myself as guilty of what follows directly from this, guilty of the entire totality of crimes committed by this counter-revolutionary organization, regardless of whether I knew or did not know, whether I took or did not take direct part in this or that act, because I answer as one of the leaders, and not the switchman of a counter-revolutionary organization.

Vyshinsky. What goals did this counter-revolutionary organization pursue?

Bukharin. This counter-revolutionary organization, to put it briefly...

Vyshinsky. Yes, it's short for now.

Bukharin. She pursued, essentially speaking—although, so to speak, she may not have been sufficiently aware and did not dot all the “i”s—as her main goal was the restoration of capitalist relations in the USSR.

Vyshinsky. The overthrow of Soviet power?

Bukharin. The overthrow of Soviet power was a means to realize this goal.

Vyshinsky. By?

Bukharin. As is known...

Vyshinsky. By violent overthrow?

Bukharin. Yes, through the violent overthrow of this government.

Vyshinsky. With help?

Bukharin. By taking advantage of all the difficulties that encountered on the way of Soviet power, in particular, by using the war, which was prognostically in the future.

Vyshinsky. Which stood prognostically in perspective with whose help?

Bukharin. From foreign countries.

Vyshinsky. On conditions?

Bukharin. On the terms, to be specific, of a whole series of concessions.

Vyshinsky. Up to...

Bukharin. Up to territorial concessions.

Vyshinsky. That is?

Bukharin. If we dot all the i’s, on the terms of the dismemberment of the USSR.

Vyshinsky. Separation of entire regions and republics from the USSR?

Bukharin. Yes.

Vyshinsky. For example?

Bukharin. Ukraine, Primorye, Belarus .

Vyshinsky. In favor?

Bukharin. IN the benefit of the respective states, which geographically and politically...

Vyshinsky. Exactly?

Bukharin. In favor of Germany, in favor of Japan, and partly of England."

The goal of the right-Trotskyist bloc was to assist foreign powers in sawing up the USSR

Vyshinsky. So what was the agreement with the relevant circles? I know of one agreement that the bloc had.

Bukharin. Yes, the bloc had an agreement.

Vyshinsky. And also by weakening defense capabilities?

Bukharin. You see, this issue was not discussed, at least not in my presence.

Vyshinsky. What about sabotage?

Bukharin. The situation with sabotage was such that in the end, especially under the pressure of the Trotskyist part, the so-called contact center, which arose around 1933, despite a number of internal disagreements and manipulative political mechanics, which is of no interest to the investigation, - after various ups and downs, disputes and other things, a focus on sabotage was adopted.

Vyshinsky. Did this weaken the defense capability of our country?

Bukharin. Of course.

Vyshinsky. Consequently, there was a focus on weakening, on undermining defense capability?

Bukharin. This was not formal, but in essence it is so.

Vyshinsky. But were the actions and activities in this direction clear?

Bukharin. Yes.

Vyshinsky. Can you say the same about acts of sabotage?

Bukharin. About acts of sabotage, due to the division of labor and certain of my functions, which are known to you, I was mainly concerned with the problems of general leadership and the ideological side, which, of course, did not exclude either my awareness of the practical side of the matter, or the adoption of a whole series of my side of practical steps.

Vyshinsky. I understand that you had a division of labor.

Bukharin. But I, citizen Prosecutor, say that I am responsible for the block.

Vyshinsky. But the bloc you headed had the task of organizing acts of sabotage?

Bukharin. As far as I can judge from individual different things that pop up in my memory, this depends on the specific situation and specific conditions.

Vyshinsky. As you can see from the process, the situation was quite specific. Did you and Khodzhaev talk about how they do little harm and how they do bad harm?

Bukharin. There was no talk about speeding up the sabotage.

Vyshinsky. Let me ask the defendant Khodzhaev.

Chairman. Please.

Vyshinsky. Defendant Khodzhaev, did you have a conversation with Bukharin about speeding up the sabotage?

Khodzhaev. In August 1936, at my dacha, when I talked with Bukharin, he pointed out that sabotage work was poorly organized in our nationalist organization.

Vyshinsky. So what needs to be done?

Khodzhaev. We must intensify and not only intensify sabotage, but we must move on to organizing insurrection, terror and the like.

Vyshinsky. Accused Bukharin, is Khodzhaev speaking correctly?

Bukharin. No.

Vyshinsky. Did you have the task of organizing an insurgent movement?

Bukharin. There was a rebel orientation.

Vyshinsky. Was there any orientation? Are you on North Caucasus Slepkov was sent to organize this case? Did you send Yakovenko to Biysk for the same purpose?

Bukharin. Yes.

Vyshinsky. And this is not what Khodzhaev says in relation to Central Asia?

Bukharin. I thought that when you ask about Central Asia, then my answer should only talk about Central Asia.

Vyshinsky. This means that you deny this fact for Central Asia, but not the installation of the block, and I asked you about the installation of the block.

Bukharin. And I pointed out to you that this issue was resolved case by case, depending on geographical, political and other conditions.

Vyshinsky. Do you deny Khodzhaev's testimony? I have now invited Khodzhaev to testify against you because it is important for me to illustrate the fact that your “right-Trotskyist bloc” gave tasks, as you say, from case to case, depending on the situation, to organize an insurrectionary, sabotage, sabotage movement. Do you agree with this?

Bukharin. I agree with this. But I just need to clarify so that there is no confusion. Those uprisings that you spoke about took place in 1930, and the “right-Trotskyist bloc” was organized, as you know, Citizen Prosecutor, in 1933.

Vyshinsky. But his tactics were no different from those of your center right. Do you agree with this?

Bukharin. Agree.

Vyshinsky. Does this mean that the organization of the insurrectionary movement also took place in the activities of the “right-Trotskyist bloc”?

Bukharin. It took place.

Vyshinsky. And for this you are responsible?

Bukharin. I have already said that I am responsible for the entire set of actions .

Vyshinsky. Intent on organizing terrorist acts, killing party leaders and Soviet government did the block have?

Bukharin. It was, and I think that this organization should be dated to approximately 1932, in the fall.

Vyshinsky. What is your attitude to the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov? Was this murder also committed with the knowledge and instructions of the “bloc of rights and Trotskyists”?

Bukharin. I didn't know this.

Vyshinsky. I ask: was this murder committed with the knowledge and on the instructions of the “right-Trotskyist bloc”?

Bukharin. And I repeat that this is unknown to me, Citizen Prosecutor."

I'll stop here for a moment. Bukharin, having confessed to the totality of the charges, began to deny his involvement in the murder of Kirov. They say this terrorist act was not his doing.

Bukharin undertook to deny that he was involved in the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov

"Vyshinsky. Didn't you know specifically about the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov?

Bukharin. Not on purpose, but...

Vyshinsky. Let me ask the accused Rykov.

Chairman. Please.

Vyshinsky. Defendant Rykov, what do you know about the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov?

Rykov. I don’t know about any participation of the right and the right side of the bloc in the murder of Kirov.

Vyshinsky. In general, do you know about the preparation of terrorist acts—murders of party and government members?

Rykov. I, as one of the leaders of the right side of this bloc, participated in the organization of a number of terrorist groups and in the preparation of terrorist acts. As I said in my testimony, I do not know of a single decision of the right-wing center, through which I was related to the “right-Trotskyist bloc,” on the actual execution of murders...

Vyshinsky. About the actual implementation. So. Do you know that the “bloc of rights and Trotskyists” set one of its tasks to organize and commit terrorist acts against the leaders of the party and government?

Rykov. I said more than that, that I personally organized terrorist groups, and you are asking me whether I knew about these tasks through some third party.

Vyshinsky. I ask, did the “right-Trotskyist bloc” have anything to do with the murder of Comrade Kirov?

Rykov. In relation to the right side of this murder, I have no information, and therefore I am still convinced that the murder of Kirov was carried out by the Trotskyists, without the knowledge of the right. Of course, I might not have known about it."

........

Alexey Rykov also refused to admit guilt in the murder of Kirov

"Vyshinsky. Were you connected with Yenukidze?

Rykov. With Yenukidze? Very little.

Vyshinsky. Was he a member of the “right-Trotskyist bloc”?

Rykov. Has been there since 1933.

Vyshinsky. In this bloc, did he represent which part, Trotskyist or right-wing, which one did he gravitate towards?

Rykov. He must have represented the right one.

Vyshinsky. Okay, please sit down. Let the accused Yagoda ask. Accused Yagoda, do you know that Enukidze, whom accused Rykov was just talking about, represented the right side of the bloc and was directly related to organizing the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov?

Berry. Both Rykov and Bukharin are telling lies. Rykov and Enukidze participated in a meeting of the center where the issue of the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov was discussed.

Vyshinsky. Did the right have anything to do with this?

Berry. Direct, since the bloc is right-wing and Trotskyist.

Vyshinsky. Did the defendants Rykov and Bukharin, in particular, have anything to do with this murder?

Berry. Direct.

Vyshinsky. Did you have anything to do with this murder as a member of the “right-Trotskyist bloc”?

Berry. Had.

Vyshinsky. Are Bukharin and Rykov telling the truth now that they did not know about this?

Berry. This cannot be, because when Enukidze told me that they, that is, the “bloc of rights and Trotskyists,” had decided at a joint meeting the issue of committing a terrorist act against Kirov, I categorically objected...

Vyshinsky. Why?

Berry. I stated that I will not allow any terrorist acts. I thought it was completely unnecessary.

Vyshinsky. And dangerous for the organization?

Berry. Certainly.

Vyshinsky. Nevertheless?

Berry. Nevertheless, Yenukidze confirmed...

Vyshinsky. What?

Berry. What are they at this meeting...

Vyshinsky. Who are they?

Berry. Rykov and Enukidze at first categorically objected...

Vyshinsky. Against what?

Berry. Against committing a terrorist act, but under pressure from the rest of the “right-Trotskyist bloc”...

Vyshinsky. Predominantly Trotskyist?

Berry. Yes, under pressure from the rest of the “right-Trotskyist bloc” they agreed. That's what Yenukidze told me.

Vyshinsky. After that, did you personally take any measures to ensure that the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov was carried out?

Berry. Me personally?

Vyshinsky. Yes, as a member of the block.

Berry. I gave orders...

Vyshinsky. To whom?

Berry. To Leningrad Zaporozhets. It was a little different .

Vyshinsky. We'll talk about this later. Now I need to find out the participation of Rykov and Bukharin in this crime.

Berry. I gave orders to Zaporozhets. When Nikolaev was detained...

Vyshinsky. First time?

Berry. Yes. Zaporozhets arrived and reported to me that a man had been detained...

Vyshinsky. Which one has it in his briefcase?

Berry. There was a revolver and a diary. And he freed him.

Vyshinsky. Did you approve of this?

Berry. I took note of this.

Vyshinsky. And then you gave instructions not to create obstacles to ensure that Sergei Mironovich Kirov was killed?

Berry. Yes, I did... Not like that.

Vyshinsky. In a slightly different edition?

Berry. It wasn't like that, but it doesn't matter .

Vyshinsky. Did you give any instructions?

Berry. I confirmed.

Vyshinsky. Confirmed. Sit down."

...................................

Let's remember some details. The man who was detained with a pistol near Kirov’s house was Leonid Nikolaev. He was not properly checked and released. Then he was detained exactly the same time again and released again. Although his intentions regarding Kirov should have been clear to the “authorities”.

Leonid Nikolaev, a man with a weapon, who was condoned by the NKVD of the Leningrad region.

And then Nikolaev got into Smolny for the third time with weapons, waited there for Kirov for a long time, and after waiting, he fulfilled his plan.

Presiding (to the Prosecutor). Any questions?

Vyshinsky. One more question for Bukharin. Is your attitude towards terrorism positive or negative, towards terror against Soviet leaders?

Bukharin. I understand. The first time I raised the question of terror in this regard was during a conversation with Pyatakov, and I knew that Trotsky insisted on terrorist tactics. I objected then.

Vyshinsky. When was this?

Bukharin. But, in the end, Pyatakov was found mutual language under the formula that everything will resolve itself, and one way or another the differences will be settled, and then I reported to you, citizen state prosecutor...

Vyshinsky. They reported to the court in my presence...

Bukharin. I reported to the court in your presence that the orientation toward terror, in essence, was actually following Ryutin’s platform.

Vyshinsky. I understand. I want to know that your attitude towards terrorism was positive?

Bukharin. So what do you want to say?

Vyshinsky. That you were a supporter of killing the leaders of our party and government.

Bukharin. You ask... I, as a member of the “right-Trotskyist center,” was I a supporter...

Vyshinsky. Terrorist acts.

Bukharin. Was.

Vyshinsky. Against who?

Bukharin. Against the leaders of the party and government.

Vyshinsky. You will tell me the details later. Have you been such a supporter since about 1929-1930?

Bukharin. No, I think around 1932.

Vyshinsky. And in 1918, were you not a supporter of the murder of the leaders of our party and government?

Bukharin. No wasn `t.

Vyshinsky. Were you a supporter of Lenin's arrest?

Bukharin. Arrest? There were two such cases, of which I told Lenin himself about the first, but kept silent about the second for secrecy reasons, which I can give, if you wish, a more detailed explanation. It was.

Vyshinsky. It was?

Bukharin. Yes.

Vyshinsky. What about killing Vladimir Ilyich?

Bukharin. It was said for the first time regarding the detention for 24 hours. There was such a formula, but in the second...

Vyshinsky. What if Vladimir Ilyich doesn’t give up?

Bukharin. But Vladimir Ilyich, as you know, did not enter into armed struggle, he was not a brute force.

Vyshinsky. So you expected that Vladimir Ilyich, when you came to arrest him, would not resist?

Bukharin. You see, I can refer to another person. When the “left” Social Revolutionaries arrested Dzerzhinsky, he also did not offer armed resistance.

Vyshinsky. It depends each time on the specific situation. So, in this case, you didn’t count on resistance?

Bukharin. No.

Vyshinsky. Did you not count on the arrest of Comrade Stalin in 1918?

Bukharin. Then there were several conversations regarding...

Vyshinsky. I’m not asking about conversations, but about the plan to arrest Comrade Stalin.

Bukharin. And I say that if I do not agree with your characterization of this as a plan, then allow me to prove to the court what actually happened. Then, one might say, we didn’t have a plan, but we had a conversation.

Vyshinsky. About what?

Bukharin. There was a conversation regarding the formation of, again, a new government of “left communists”.

Vyshinsky. I ask: did you have a plan for the arrest of Comrade Stalin in 1918?

Bukharin. Not Stalin, but there was a plan to arrest Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov.

Vyshinsky. All three—Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov?

Bukharin. Absolutely right.

Vyshinsky. So, not Comrade Stalin, but Comrades Stalin, Lenin and Sverdlov?

Bukharin. Yes sir.

Vyshinsky. Was there a plan for arrest?

Bukharin. I say: there was not a plan, but conversations about this.

Vyshinsky. What about the murder of comrades Stalin, Lenin and Sverdlov?

Bukharin. In no case.

Vyshinsky. I will petition the court to call witnesses on this issue at the end of the hearing today or at the next court hearing : a former active member of the group of “left communists” Yakovleva, a former active member of the group of “left communists” Osinsky, Mantsev and then the “left” Socialist Revolutionaries, members of the Central Committee of the “left” Socialist Revolutionaries Karelin and Kamkov in order to interrogate them on the question of whether whether and what plan of arrest and murder did Bukharin, the “left communists” whom he then led, together with the “left” Socialist Revolutionaries, have in relation to comrades Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov. I have no questions yet.

Bukharin. Let me begin.

Presiding (after meeting with members of the court). The court decided to satisfy the state prosecutor's request to call Yakovleva, Osinsky, Mantsev, Karelin and Kamkov as witnesses.

Vyshinsky. This satisfies me completely.

Chairman. Do you have any questions for Bukharin yet?

Vyshinsky. Not yet.

Chairman. I explain to the defendant Bukharin that he does not have a defensive speech and does not have the last word.

Bukharin. I understand it.

Chairman. Therefore, if you want to say something about your criminal anti-Soviet activities, please, you have the floor.

Bukharin. I want to dwell on the question of the restoration of capitalism. Will you allow me?

Vyshinsky. Of course, this is your main specialty."

...............................

This is a very important point in the entire trial. Bukharin tells what all this was for, what goals their bloc pursued, what motivated them

On the morning of March 5, 1938, Nikolai Bukharin ascended to the oratory for the penultimate time, using the right given to him by law and court

Bukharin. I would like to first dwell on ideological principles, not in the sense of rejecting responsibility for practical criminal, counter-revolutionary activities. I would not at all want the proletarian court to form precisely such an opinion.

I want to answer the question that the citizen state prosecutor asked Rakovsky - in the name of why the “right-Trotskyist bloc” carried out such a criminal struggle against Soviet power .

I am aware that I am not a lecturer and should not give sermons here, but that I am a defendant who must bear responsibility as a criminal standing before the court of a proletarian country.

But precisely because it seemed to me that this process had public importance and this question has been covered extremely little, I thought it would be useful to dwell on a program that has never been written down anywhere, on the practical program of the “right-Trotskyist bloc” and open the brackets of one formula - what is the restoration of capitalism, the way it was realized and conceived in the circles of the “right-Trotskyist bloc.”

I repeat that when I want to dwell on this side of the matter. I by no means want to relieve myself of responsibility for various practical things, for my counter-revolutionary crimes. But I want to say that I was not a switchman of the counter-revolution, but one of the leaders of the counter-revolution, and as one of the leaders I am responsible to a much greater extent, I bear a much greater responsibility than is the case with any of the switchmen.

So I cannot be suspected of wanting to sneak away or brush aside responsibility, even if I was not even a member of a right-wing Trotskyist organization.

The court and public opinion of our country, as well as the public opinion of other countries, since we are talking about progressive humanity, will be able to judge how people reached such a degree, how we all turned into fierce counter-revolutionaries, traitors to the socialist homeland, how we turned into spies, terrorists, restorers of capitalism and, in the end, what are the ideas and political guidelines of the “right-Trotskyist bloc.”

We committed betrayal, crime, treason. But in the name of what did we undertake this matter? We turned into a rebel detachment, organized terrorist groups, engaged in sabotage, wanted to overthrow the valiant leadership of Stalin, the Soviet power of the proletariat.

One of the very common answers is that the logic of the struggle forced us to be counter-revolutionaries, conspirators, traitors, that it led us to such a shame, to such a crime, as a result of which we are in the dock. I’m not saying that such things don’t happen in public life, there is a logic here, the logic of struggle is combined with methods of struggle, with an attitude .

I would like to dwell on these data, although I am convinced that, in fact, such terminology sounds rather strange in relation to such criminal activity, but nevertheless it seems to me that it is still important to dwell on this.

It has been proven many times and chewed on tens of thousands of times that the right deviation, when it was just emerging and was in an embryonic state, from the moment of its inception set the task of restoring capitalism.

I'm not going to talk about this. I wanted to talk about the other side of the matter, from a much more important point of view, from the objective side of this matter, because here the problem of sanity and judgment arises from the point of view of the crimes revealed in court, especially since I am one of the leaders in the dock. We need to start from the starting point here.

The right-wing counter-revolutionaries were, as if at first, a “deviation”, as if, at first glance, those who began with dissatisfaction in connection with collectivization, with dissatisfaction in connection with industrialization, that, supposedly, industrialization was ruining production. This was, at first glance, the main thing. Then the Ryutin platform came out.

When all the state machines, all the means, everything best forces were thrown into the industrialization of the country, into collectivization, we found ourselves, literally within 24 hours, on the other side, we found ourselves with fists, with counter-revolutionaries , we then found ourselves with the capitalist remnants that then still existed in the field of commodity circulation. This is where the main meaning follows; the assessment, from a subjective point of view, is clear.

Here we have a very interesting process of revaluation of the individual economy, creeping into its idealization, into the idealization of the owner. Such was the evolution. The program is a prosperous peasant farm of an individual, and the fist, in fact, turns into an end in itself .

He makes fun of collective farms. At that time, we, counter-revolutionary conspirators, increasingly had the following psychology: collective farms are the music of the future.

We need to develop rich owners . Such a huge revolution took place in attitudes and in psychology. In 1917, it would not have occurred to any of the party members, including me, to feel sorry for any killed White Guards, and during the period of liquidation of the kulaks, in 1929-1930, we felt sorry for the dispossessed for so-called humanitarian reasons. Which of us would have thought to blame the devastation in our economy in 1919, to blame this devastation on the Bolsheviks, and not on sabotage? No one.

It would just sound completely outright like cheating. But already in 1928, I myself gave a formula regarding the military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry, that is, I imputed the costs of the class struggle not to the class hostile to the proletariat, but precisely to the leadership of the proletariat itself. This is a 180 degree turn.

This means that here ideological and political attitudes have developed into counter-revolutionary attitudes. The kulak economy and its interests became in fact a program point. The logic of struggle led to the logic of ideas and to a change in our psychology, to a counter-revolutionization of our goals.

Take industry. At first we shouted against over-industrialization, excessive budgetary tension, and so on. But in essence it was software requirement, was the ideal of a kulak-agrarian country with an industrial overlay. What about psychologically?

And psychologically, at one time we preached socialist industrialism, with a shrug of the shoulders, with irony, and then with embitterment, we basically looked at our huge, gigantically growing factories, as some kind of voracious monsters that devour everything and take away funds consumption from the general public, and that they pose a known danger. The heroic efforts of frontline workers...

Chairman. Defendant Bukharin, you again do not understand. You don't have the last word now. You were asked to testify about your anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary activities, and you are giving a lecture. In the last word you can say whatever you want. This is the third time I'm explaining to you."

.............................

The presiding judge Vasily Stepanovich Ulrich more than once had to remind Bukharin that he was not at his lecture, but in court

Bukharin. Then let me give you a very brief...

Vyshinsky. Tell me, defendant Bukharin, how practically this took the form of anti-Soviet activity for you.

Bukharin. Then let me list some program points. And now I will move on to the presentation of my counter-revolutionary practical activities. Is this possible, citizen chairman?

Chairman. Keep it short please. You will have the opportunity to speak as your own advocate.

Bukharin. This is not my defense, this is my self-accusation. I didn’t say a single word in my defense.

If I practically formulate my program setting, it will be in relation to the economy -state capitalism, individual economic peasant, reduction of collective farms, foreign concessions, concession to monopoly foreign trade and the result is the capitalization of the country.

Vyshinsky. What were your goals? What was your general forecast?

Bukharin. The forecast was that there would be a greater tilt towards capitalism.

Vyshinsky. But it turned out?

Bukharin. But it turned out to be completely different.

Vyshinsky. But it turned out to be a complete victory of socialism.

Bukharin. It turned out to be a complete victory of socialism.

Vyshinsky. And the complete collapse of your forecast.

Bukharin. And the complete collapse of our forecast. Within the country, our actual program—this must, it seems to me, be said in all words—is a slide toward bourgeois-democratic freedom, toward a coalition, because freedom of parties flows from a bloc with the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and others;

the coalition follows quite logically from the blockade for the fight, because if you select allies for overthrowing the government, then on the second day, in the event of a mental victory, they would be accomplices of power. Sliding not only onto the rails of bourgeois-democratic freedom, but, in the political sense, onto rails where there are undoubtedly elements of Caesarism.

Vyshinsky. Just fascism, you say.

Bukharin. If in the circles of the “right-Trotskyist bloc” there was an ideological orientation towards the kulaks and at the same time an orientation towards a palace and coup d’état, towards a military conspiracy, towards the praetorian guard of counter-revolutionaries, then this is nothing more than elements of fascism.

If those aspects of state capitalism that I spoke about operate in the economic field...

Vyshinsky. In short, you have slipped into outright rabid fascism.

Bukharin. Yes, this is correct, although we did not dot all the i's. This is the formulation that characterizes us as conspirators, restorers of capitalism, and is correct from all points of view. And quite naturally, this was accompanied by the degeneration and degeneration of our entire ideology, our entire practice and method of struggle.

Now let me go straight to the presentation of my criminal activities.

Vyshinsky. Maybe first you can ask me two or three biographical questions?

Bukharin. Please.

Vyshinsky. Have you lived in Austria?

Bukharin. Lived

Vyshinsky. For a long time?

Bukharin. 1912-1913.

Vyshinsky. Did you have any contact with the Austrian police?

Bukharin. Did not have.

Vyshinsky. Did you live in America?

Bukharin. Yes.

Vyshinsky. For a long time?

Bukharin. For a long time.

Vyshinsky. How many months?

Bukharin. Seven months.

Vyshinsky. Were you not connected with the police in America?

Bukharin. Absolutely not.

Vyshinsky. You traveled from America to Russia through...

Bukharin. Through Japan.

Vyshinsky. How long did you stay there?

Bukharin. A week.

Vyshinsky. You weren't recruited this week?

Bukharin. If you want to ask such questions...

Vyshinsky. I have the right, based on the Criminal Procedure Code, to ask such questions.

Chairman. The prosecutor has all the more the right to ask such a question, because Bukharin is accused of attempting to murder party leaders back in 1918, of raising your hand against the life of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin back in 1918.

Vyshinsky. I do not leave the framework of the Criminal Procedure Code. Anything—you can say no, and I can ask.

Bukharin. Absolutely correct.

Chairman. The consent of the defendant is not required.

Vyshinsky. Have you made any contacts with the police?

Bukharin. Absolutely.

Vyshinsky. How is Chernov on the bus? I'm asking you about connections with any police agency.

Bukharin. No affiliations with any police agencies.

Vyshinsky. Then why did you so easily come to the block that was engaged in espionage work?

Bukharin . I know absolutely nothing about spy work.

Vyshinsky. How do you not know?

Bukharin. So.

Vyshinsky. What did the block do?

Bukharin. There were two testimonies regarding espionage - Sharangovich and Ivanov, that is, two provocateurs.

Vyshinsky. Defendant Bukharin, do you consider Rykov a provocateur?

Bukharin. No, I don't think so.

Vyshinsky (to Rykov). Defendant Rykov, do you know that the “bloc of rights and Trotskyists” carried out espionage work?

Rykov. I know that there were organizations that carried out espionage work.

Vyshinsky. Tell me, did the Belarusian national-fascist organization, which is part of your “right-Trotskyist bloc”, led by the accused Sharangovich, conduct espionage work?

Rykov. I have already said this.

Vyshinsky. Conducted espionage work?

Rykov. Yes.

Vyshinsky. Was she connected with Polish intelligence?

Rykov. Yes.

Vyshinsky. Did you know about this?

Rykov. Knew.

Vyshinsky. But Bukharin didn’t know?

Rykov. In my opinion, Bukharin also knew.

Vyshinsky. So, accused Bukharin, it is not Sharangovich who is talking about this, but your friend Rykov.

Bukharin. But still, I didn't know.

Chairman. Comrade Prosecutor, do you have any more questions?

Vyshinsky. I would like to explain to the accused Bukharin. Do you now understand why I asked you about Austria?

Bukharin. The connection with the Austrian police was as follows. that I was sitting in a fortress in Austria.

Vyshinsky. Accused Sharangovich, were you a Polish spy, although you were in prison?

Sharangovich. He was there, although he was sitting.

Bukharin. I was in a Swedish prison, twice in a Russian prison, and in a German prison.

Vyshinsky. The fact that you were in prison does not mean that you could not have been a spy.

Accused Rykov, you confirm that after all the time in prison different countries Did Bukharin, together with you, know about Sharangovich’s spy connection with Polish intelligence? Did you know and approve of this?

Rykov. I knew about organizations that conduct espionage work .

Vyshinsky. The fact that Bukharin was in different prisons did not prevent him from approving the connection of his accomplices with Polish intelligence. Do you understand this?

Rykov. No, I don't understand.

Vyshinsky. Bukharin understands this.

Bukharin. I understand, but I deny it.

Chairman. Continue on.

Bukharin. I must briefly talk about the stages. My counter-revolutionary activity, essentially speaking, since we are talking about the right deviation, about its evolution up to the “right-Trotskyist bloc” with the corresponding methods of struggle, with the corresponding criminal actions, in fact, was consciously laid down back in 1919-1920, when I put together a certain group from my students at Sverdlovsk University, which very quickly began to develop into a faction.

The composition of this group is known, it is in the investigative materials, and, as far as I can tell from the remarks of the citizen Prosecutor, he is aware of this.

Vyshinsky. Among your students was Slepkov, whom you sent to the North Caucasus to organize uprisings?

Bukharin. Absolutely right. I can give a few more facts.

Vyshinsky. The same kind?

Bukharin. No, not that kind.

Vyshinsky. But this type?

Bukharin. No.

Vyshinsky. Well, like this?

Bukharin. Excuse me, in one sense I cannot reveal all the contents.

Vyshinsky. Continue.

Bukharin. A well-known personnel cell was created, which later became one of the constituent parts of the total counter-revolutionary organization of the right, and then, consequently, “into the right-Trotskyist bloc.”

Around 1923, I wrote a so-called memorandum, which was supposed to be handed over to the Central Committee, but I did not include it there, and it was circulated in the circles of this “school”, in which a whole series of attitudes emerged, which then grew, blossomed and bore corresponding poisonous fruits. There I said that in the leadership of the party there will be one crisis after another...

Vyshinsky. Now we are completely uninterested in what you said there.

Bukharin. In 1928, when the country experienced elements of crisis in relations between the proletariat and the peasantry, and the party leadership led by Stalin outlined a line to overcome difficulties and attack the kulaks, an opposition began to take shape—at first only as an opposition.

One of the episodes is that this year I came to the then head of the OGPU, G.G., for biased materials. Yagoda, who gave me appropriately selected materials, which I then used to form my counter-revolutionary ideology and corresponding actions based on it."

........................

The prosecution unsuccessfully tried to force Rykov and Bukharin to confess to espionage, but one way or another they hit the wall of non-confession. The investigative bodies of the NKVD and the USSR Prosecutor's Office were never able to collect all the full-fledged reliable evidence of their involvement in espionage in order to completely expose them.

Prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky, realizing that he would not be able to get Rykov and Bukharin to confess to espionage, changed his tactics. He began to ask questions about the history of the organization of the “right” in the CPSU (b).

Prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky was a very strong speaker, who never, under any circumstances, got lost in court, holding the blow and the initiative

The experienced orator Bukharin had a very, very strong opponent

"Vyshinsky. When did your counter-revolutionary right-wing organization take shape?

Bukharin. My rapprochement with Tomsky and Rykov dates back to approximately 1928-1929, then connections and probing among the then members of the Central Committee , illegal meetings, which were illegal in relation to the Central Committee, and therefore, the organization crossed the boundaries of Soviet state legality, and on this basis, a unique organization of leadership of the right-wing organization quickly grew, which can be depicted as a hierarchical ladder, something like this:

troika—Rykov, Tomsky and me, which was then part of the Politburo, opposition members of the Central Committee, which in their attitudes were then already developing into a counter-revolutionary group, then various groups, the main components which should be named as follows:

Bukharin and his notorious “school”, firstly, Tomsky and the cadres of trade unionists—secondly, Rykov and his secretaries and people of the Soviet apparatus—thirdly, Uglanov with Moscow district workers and the group at the Industrial Academy—fourthly.

Thus, the top of this counter-revolutionary organization was formed here.

Vyshinsky. Where did Yagoda go?

Bukharin. Yagoda stood aside.

Vyshinsky. Was he involved with you?

Bukharin. Yes, he was tied up.

Vyshinsky. Did he help you select biased material?

Bukharin. Absolutely right.

Vyshinsky. So, he was a participant...

Bukharin. I I’m talking now about the hierarchical ladder of leadership, and therefore about Yagoda...

Vyshinsky. I didn’t just want to offend the accused Yagoda.

Bukharin. Here the search for blocks began. Firstly, my meeting with Kamenev at his apartment. Secondly, a meeting with Pyatakov in the hospital, at which Kamenev was also present. Thirdly, a meeting with Kamenev at Schmidt’s dacha.

I forgot to say that back in 1928, on the basis of and in connection with the speech of the opposition, which had not yet developed into counter-revolutionary attitudes, representatives of an entire group of the Central Committee and on the basis of the corresponding plan, I drew up the so-called platform of 1928.

I mention it not because it was widely circulated and not because, as is known, its ideas then formed the basis of all practical activities and it became an ideologically formative principle, but because in the second sounding with the Trotskyist-Zinovievite circles. namely, during a meeting with Kamenev and Pyatakov, I showed the economic part of this platform to the said persons.

I don't know if you'll be interested in details...

Chairman. In my opinion, these episodes can be told briefly.

Bukharin. Fine. Meeting with Kamenev at his apartment. There were harsh slanderous conversations about the party leadership. party regime, hunger organization, civil war in the country, slandering the party leadership, and so on, and so on.

Date at the hospital . I repeat that since here the economic platform received this well-known sound, there was no agreement here, but there was probing, probing and an attempt at agreement.

And finally, thirdly, a date at Vasily Schmidt’s dacha , who himself was not there at that time and which was attended by me, my secretary Tseitlin, Kamenev and Tomsky.

The conversation here was relatively brief and consisted of discussing the tactics that we, the members of the Central Committee who were in opposition, should adhere to at the then upcoming plenum of the Central Committee. Moreover, Kamenev’s position was that he egged us on to speak, and we also waited.

So I consider all these three attempts as a search for a criminal connection and a criminal blockade against the leadership of the party and against the party with those circles that were grouped around Kamenev-Zinoviev, on the one hand, and the Trotskyist Pyatakov, on the other.

In 1930-1931, the next stage in the development of the counter-revolutionary organization of the right began. At that time, there was a great aggravation in the country of the class struggle, sabotage of the kulaks, resistance of the kulaks to party policies, and so on.

I consider this stage to be a transition to “double-entry bookkeeping” across the entire front. The troika turned into an illegal center, and therefore, if earlier this troika was the head of opposition circles, then it has now turned into the center of an illegal counter-revolutionary organization. And since they, I repeat, were illegal in relation to the party, they thereby became illegal in relation to the bodies of Soviet power.

Closely adjacent to this illegal center was Enukidze, who had connections with this center through Tomsky . Close to him then also stood Uglanov, whose share in the party organization was quite large, because in the recent past, around this time, he led the Moscow party organization.

At the same time, around the end of 1931, the participants in the so-called “school” were transferred to the periphery—to Voronezh, Samara, Leningrad, Novosibirsk, and this fact of their transfer to the periphery was used for counter-revolutionary purposes even then.

Vyshinsky. How was it used?

Bukharin. It was used in the sense that we, members of this illegal troika, members of the right-wing center, including myself, give these decomposed people a direct task, a direct order, first of all, about recruiting people. As for Yagoda, as far as my memory serves me, according to Rykov, he then demanded a special position for himself, precisely at that period with particular persistence.

Vyshinsky. In what sense of a special position?

Bukharin. A special position within the right-wing organization in the sense of particularly conspiratorial forms of cover, which is quite understandable in connection with the post he holds in the official Soviet hierarchy.

Vyshinsky. Has he achieved this position?

Bukharin. He achieved this position. Around the fall of 1932, the next stage in the development of the right-wing organization began, namely: the transition to the tactics of violent overthrow of Soviet power.

Vyshinsky. What year do you start it?

Bukharin. I start it around the summer of 1932 . But I, a citizen state prosecutor, must say that in general in all this periodization it is necessary to keep in mind that it is conditional in nature, because, for example, I will point out the fact that Yakovenko was sent with the consent of me and the right center; I mentioned the facts about which you questioned me and about which I gave you an affirmative answer. They date back to an earlier period.

From this I only conclude that the discrepancy between the dates can in no way serve as a refutation of the criminality of one or another act, because there was no sharply delineated border here. In addition, in some cases, as in the case of Yakovenko, the situation was so hot that it caused a corresponding criminal reaction on our part.

Moving on to the tactics of violent overthrow, in general I date the moments when the so-called Ryutin platform was recorded."

..............................

I’ll stop here and explain something. Bukharin chose a tactic that reduced the degree of guilt by reducing the volume of crimes he committed. Simply put, he mitigated the more aggravating moments as much as possible.

One of these moments was the very history of the bloc of rightists and Trotskyists. He claims that the bloc was formed around 1932 and at the same time the focus was on terror (i.e. armed struggle). Then, when the so-called Ryutinskaya (Uglanovskaya) platform came out.

However, there is other evidence. This is Amber Draw, who I have quoted many times before.

Amber Dro argued that Bukharin and the opposition relied on terror against the authorities back in 1929, setting the goal of destroying the current course

In addition, Amber Dro claimed that the alliance of the “right” and the Trotskyists was formed at the same time, in 1929

This was three years before the Ryutin platform

That is, Bukharin reduced his counter-revolutionary activities directly related to terror for three whole years. At the trial, he kept silent about the fact that they “rightists” almost immediately agreed to a political alliance with the Trotskyists.

"Bukharin. Quite a lot has been said here about the Ryutin platform, and perhaps there is no need to dwell on it. It was called Ryutinsky for conspiratorial purposes, to insure against failure; it was called Ryutinsky in order to cover up the right center and its most leading figures.

In addition, I must say more: it seems to me that the Ryutin platform—I therefore allow myself to hold your attention for a few minutes longer—the Ryutin platform, as far as I remember during the trial, this platform of the right-wing counter-revolutionary organization, was, perhaps, already common the actual platform of other groups, including Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotskyists.

Just at this very moment a situation had arisen that Trotsky had to throw off his leftist uniform. When it came to the exact formulations of what needed to be done in the end, his right-wing platform was immediately revealed, that is, he had to talk about decollectivization and so on.

Vyshinsky. That is, you also armed Trotskyism ideologically?

Bukharin. Absolutely right. Here the balance of forces was such that Trotsky put pressure in the sense of intensifying the methods of struggle, and we, to a certain extent, armed him ideologically (to the Prosecutor). No more need about the Ryutin platform?

Vyshinsky. It's up to you.

Bukharin. No, I'm asking, are you interested in this or not?

Vyshinsky. I'm interested in your crime.

Bukharin. Okay, but there are so many of these crimes, Citizen Prosecutor, that you need to choose the most significant ones.

Vyshinsky. I am interested in all of them, not just a selection, but from beginning to end.

Chairman. _ While you are still beating around the bush, don’t say anything about crimes.

Bukharin. So you don’t consider an illegal organization a crime, and you don’t consider Ryutin’s platform a crime either?

Vyshinsky. That's not the point, but they tell you that you're beating around the bush.

Chairman. Defendant Bukharin, I ask you not to argue, but to speak if you want to speak.

Bukharin. I will speak."

Chairman. In 15 minutes, according to the regulations, the meeting should be over, I ask you to wrap up your thoughts or end it.

Vyshinsky. You were talking about Yagoda here. I want to ask Yagoda. Accused Yagoda, please tell me, did you make a demand to the bloc that you be placed in a particularly secretive position?

Berry. Yes, such a requirement was on my part.

Vyshinsky. Do you remember under what circumstances it was and with whom you talked about it?

Berry. I spoke with Rykov.

Vyshinsky. Accused Rykov, do you confirm this?

Rykov. I confirm that I already spoke about this in my preliminary testimony.

Vyshinsky. Continue.

Bukharin. The Ryutin platform recorded a transition to the tactics of violent overthrow of Soviet power .

In this regard, it seems to me that we need to dwell on the 1932 conference. These sent out peripheral workers, who mainly consisted of these “young people”, returned from their places and on the initiative of Slepkov and with my sanction, they convened a conference at the end of the summer of 1932, at which there were reports from the places.

Vyshinsky. Illegal?

Bukharin. Illegal. The conference was illegal, the work was illegal, the reports were illegal and the reports were about illegal work.

Vyshinsky. The conference was counter-revolutionary, the reports were counter-revolutionary and the reports were about counter-revolutionary work?

Bukharin. Yes, all this was counter-revolutionary.

At this conference, among the items on the agenda was, by the way, the question of the Ryutin platform, and the conference tested this Ryutin platform. After this, a meeting of the “three” plus Uglanov took place.

I did not participate in this meeting because I was on vacation, but upon returning from vacation I completely agreed with this platform and take full responsibility for it. The Ryutin platform was tested on behalf of the right center. The essence of Ryutin’s platform included a “palace coup”, terror, and a course towards a direct link with the Trotskyists.

By this time, the idea of ​​“ palace coup" Initially, this idea was expressed by Tomsky, who was associated with Enukidze.

This idea came to Tomsky in connection with the possibility of using the official position of Enukidze, in whose hands the Kremlin security was then concentrated . We have here the logic of the struggle and disappearance of ways for legal work, the development of this idea, the strengthening of the connection between Tomsky and Enukidze and Rykov and Yagoda. Tomsky said that Enukidze agreed to take an active part in this coup.

Tomsky also said that Yenukidze recruited Peterson. And here, to put it ironically, from an academic formulation of the question, the question matured into a practical formulation, because the elements of organizing this revolution were evident.

Consequently, even then a plan was outlined and organizational forces were selected to implement this plan, that is, to recruit people to carry out a “palace coup.” At that time, a political blockade arose with Kamenev and Zinoviev. During this period there were meetings with Syrtsov and Lominadze.

I must say, I only ask that the court does not understand this to mean that I want to soften my charges, that in this group there was a politically not entirely indifferent tendency, that the right was not united with the Trotskyists, the Trotskyists counted on terror, and the right hoped for insurrection movement. The rightists oriented the organization toward mass action.

I think that this is not a mitigation, but in this case I am telling what happened and what was known from the reports that took place at that time. We hoped to attract the masses.

I talked with Pyatakov, Tomsky and Rykov. Rykov talked with Kamenev and Zinoviev with Pyatakov.

In the summer of 1932, I spoke for the second time at the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry with Pyatakov. It was very easy for me to talk then, since I worked under the leadership of Pyatakov. He was my master then. I had to go into his office on business without arousing any suspicion. The fact that I spent a long time in his office did not arouse any suspicion. You never know what things could happen!”

...............................

There is one more point here - the “right” defendants, first of all Bukharin, blamed the main responsibility for terror on the Trotists and Trotsky himself. Again, with great calculation - to avoid responsibility for the murders of Soviet leaders.

“Right-wing” defendants Yagoda, Bukharin and Rykov shifted the main responsibility for terror to L. Trotsky and his supporters

The tactic is convenient - Pyatakov is dead, and Trotsky is behind the cordon, this can be transferred to him

Vyshinsky. Have you used all legal opportunities for illegal conversations?

Bukharin. I used legal opportunities for anti-Soviet, illegal purposes. Pyatakov spoke in this conversation, which took place in the summer of 1932, about a meeting with Sedov regarding Trotsky’s stance on terror.

At that time, Pyatakov and I believed that these were not our ideas, but we decided that we would very quickly find a common language and that differences in the fight against Soviet power would be eliminated. Tomsky and Rykov, maybe I’m wrong, spoke with Kamenev and Sokolnikov.

I remember that at that time Tomsky especially insisted on carrying out a coup d'etat and concentrating all forces, while members of the right center were focused on the insurrectionary movement.

By the end of 1932, the Ryutin platform dates back to the autumn-late summer of 1932, the conference dates back...

Chairman. The meeting is coming to an end, finish.

Bukharin. Then I’ll just end with the thought that by the end of 1932 a counter-revolutionary bloc of rightists, Trotskyists and Kamenevites-Zinovievites had already been created.

Chairman. This concludes the meeting. The next meeting will take place on March 7 at 11 am.

PRESIDENT:

Armed military lawyer V.V. Ulrikh, Chairman of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR

SECRETARY:

Military lawyer 1st rank A. A. Butner"

..................................

According to the transcript of the meeting, we see all the tactics of the accused leaders of the “right” - Rykov, Bukharin and partly Yagoda

• They deny blaming espionage
• Rykov and Bukharin protect each other
• They hide the fact that they agreed to terror and an alliance with the Trotskyists back in 1929
• They claim that they were against terror
• They shift responsibility for terror to Trotsky and the Trotskyists

This was the strategy for their defense. In some places they sought to minimize their participation in specific criminal activities

Philosophy

Gr. IPz-13, Dronov Sergey Evgenievich

Question 1: Why do you think Kant contrasts the “life of the cosmos” and the inner life of the individual and at the same time compares two types of these very different processes in their meanings for a thinking person?

Why does Kant contrast the “life of the cosmos” and the inner life of the individual, because these are two different worlds. The first of them is that it is impossible to feel, to see how big and incredible it is interesting world where the laws of physics do not work, it is impossible to visit it to an ordinary person, you can only imagine it, rather than with the second world, which you can see, feel, and draw certain conclusions. And it compares these worlds, because they are one whole, we are this piece of “matter”

Question 2: How is the given characteristic of philosophy related to the “self-awareness” of an individual? What is, in your opinion, “inner work”? What do you think is needed for it to happen: money, comfort, well-being and happiness, self-dissatisfaction, internal anxiety? Personal awareness of responsibility for using the “gift of life”, for living happily?

“Self-awareness” of a person is how this or that person evaluates the situation around him, around people. After all, we are all different and we perceive the same thing differently, this may depend on the mood, on the status of the person, or on the readiness to accept it.

“Inner doing” is our creativity and we can diversify it within ourselves and carry it through ourselves the way we need it or based on other motives; without it, we would be like robots.

To do this, you need to set goals and go towards them gradually, everyone will have different goals, different approaches, desires, aspirations, some may give up these goals without reaching them. For example, for the goal “Money”, you need to set the goal of education, many good friends and, of course, a well-paid job.

Question 3: Highlight in text keywords. Briefly formulate the main idea of ​​the fragment's content?

We learn much more through the senses than through the intellect. In philosophical knowledge the integrity of man is known. Intelligence often means spirit. A person has feelings, he can use them to learn about a person better, for example, this feeling of love....

Question 4: Give specific examples of the relationship between the basic elements of a worldview?

The everyday worldview, a primitive view of the world, is formed through observation of man, nature, work, living conditions

A philosophical worldview, an in-depth “scientific” view of society and the world, one’s own place in it, a person’s understanding and assessment of the meaning of his life, the destinies of humanity, as well as a set of generalized philosophical, scientific, legal, social, moral, religious, aesthetic values, beliefs, beliefs and ideals of people.

Religious worldview, belief in the supernatural, for example the worship of gods, each race has its own god whom they worship or simply believe

Question 5: In what ways do their views on the role of philosophers’ philosophy in society coincide and in what ways do they differ?

They coincide in that until philosophy “reigns” in the state, they will not get rid of all evil. Because people with a low spiritual outlook come to power for their own needs, they are not interested in the fate of their people.

Where they differed, I didn’t notice this; everyone was philosophizing, as would be the case if philosophy were a priority in power.

Question 6: Read the article below by L.A. Lyakhovetsky and try to identify the basis of the author’s position on the issue of concepts of the origin of philosophy.

In my opinion, the origin of philosophy began when the first person began to reflect and think about what surrounds him.

And if according to the text, then the concept of philosophy is absent in historical and philosophical science, but the origin of philosophy is recorded in literature.

There are still disputes about the relationship of myths to philosophy, because myths can also be classified as them, since there are more speculations about them than real facts.

Question 7: What evidence does A.N. provide for the primacy of non-existence? Chanyshev?

Non-existence is like a shadow, there is no escape from it, it is everywhere, there is no escape from it, it always hides behind existence, it can only let go for a moment. It is impossible to see or feel her, but she is always there and, as it turns out, she never left, she was behind her.

Question 8: How is philosophical anthropology related to other sciences, such as ethics, psychology, biology?

All these sciences, in one way or another, highlight the physical or spiritual integrity of a person. And only anthropology, including metaphysics, can unite them.

Question 9: Why is the question of suicide a fundamental question in philosophy?

Because here we need to understand not the consequences of suicide, but its cause. What contributed to this, why couldn’t I solve these problems in another way, because any problem can be solved, everywhere you can find a way out of this situation.

Question 10: Is it possible to agree with this statement by I. Prigogine and I. Stengers? Is A. Einstein right about everything?

Certainly. Everyone is looking for a way out of this current situation in different ways. I'm tired of this gray and cruel world, with her wrong attitude towards things, that’s why such people were brought, for example, to the temple.

I think so, but scientists are a slightly different people, with their own views on the world, so for them, it is better if they are “isolated” from society.

PHYSICS

Describe in more detail one of the discoveries in natural science that contributed to the scientific revolution of the 20th century. (ticket no. 2)

We can highlight the following discoveries in natural science that led to the scientific revolutions of the 20th century:

Astronomy: Model of the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe.

Geology: Tectonics lithospheric plates. The theory of neomobilism and related theories of the origin of minerals.

Physics: Shift of the reference point from matter to energy and from matter to field; Relativity of space and time (A. Einstein's Theory of Relativity); Wave-particle duality.

Biology: Models of the origin of life.

Genetics: The mechanism of life reproduction.

Ecology: Interaction of living things with the environment.

Scientific revolution- the process of a radical, qualitative revolution in knowledge and ideas about the world, caused by scientific achievements and discoveries; This is a radical breakdown in ideas about the structure of the world and the position of man in it, a great turn in thinking, a turning point in the development of science.
The period of the “newest revolution” coincides with the entry of capitalism, the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th century. The development of, first of all, physics in all its manifestations (nuclear, energy, radar, the quantum physics etc.). Discoveries and inventions in physics make it possible to create not only new instruments, but also research methods in other fields of knowledge. Physical methods determined the successes of chemistry, geology, and astronomy.
-discovery of electromagnetic waves;
-shortwave electromagnetic radiation;
-radioactivity;
-electron;
-light pressure;
-introduction of the idea of ​​energy quantization;
-creation of the theory of relativity;
-radioactive decay;
-atomic model

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. In physics, outstanding discoveries were made that destroyed previous ideas about matter. The discovery of the electron (1897), then the proton, photon and neutron showed that the atom has complex structure. The study of the structure of the atom becomes the most important task of physics of the 20th century.
After the discovery of the electron, proton, photon, neutron, the existence of large number new elementary particles. Including:
-positron
-mesons
-hyperons
-particle resonances
-neutrino
-antineutrino, etc.

Elementary particles are now usually divided into traces. Classes:

At first, when the number of known elementary particles was limited to the electron, neuron and proton, the prevailing view was that the atom consisted of these elementary “building blocks”. However, the actual picture of the structure of matter turned out to be even more complex than one could imagine. It turned out that elementary particles can undergo mutual transformations, as a result of which some of them disappear and some appear. Unstable microparticles break up into other, more stable ones.

Physics plays the role of a stimulator in relation to other branches of natural science. For example, the invention of the electron microscope and the introduction of the method of labeled atoms caused a revolution in all of biology, physiology, and biochemistry.

Scientific revolutions made it possible to formulate a trace. General patterns of world development:
-Evolution of nature (from the Universe to quarks)

Self-organization (from inanimate systems to the biosphere).

Systematic connection between inanimate nature, living nature and humans (ecology).

Immanence (an inherent property arising from the nature of an object or phenomenon) of natural systems in space and time.

The relativity of the division into subject and object

3. Define the concept of “scientific picture of the world”

Scientific picture of the world(NKM) - a system of ideas about the properties and patterns of reality (really existing world), built as a result of generalization and synthesis of scientific concepts and principles, as well as a methodology for obtaining scientific knowledge.

Key tips from experience successful specialists for telephone sales:

1. Briefly state what your business is about.

Surprisingly, most salespeople have difficulty and confusingly describing their activities over the phone. So, the phrase “we are engaged in IT outsourcing” sounds deadly.

Instead, it's better to say, “We make software for dairies. It allows you to reduce costs by 15-40%.” Practice: in 10-15 seconds, tell 15 friends and acquaintances what the essence of your business is. If they can understand it, your wording is good.

2. Prepare for tough questions.

Call 20 key companies in your area, introduce yourself as a client and record on speakerphone the managers' answers to questions that perplex you. Analyze, select the best options and implement them yourself.

3. Know your business inside and out.

If you don’t understand what you’re selling, the first highly specialized question (“What’s your gluten?”) will confuse you and could ruin the deal. Find out the meaning of the most common terms in your industry in a dictionary and actively use them in conversation. This will add weight to you as an expert.

4. Don’t burden your interlocutor with a long, tongue-twister monologue.

One of typical mistakes in sales - the desire to dump all available information on a potential client from the threshold, without allowing him to get a word in edgewise. The person on the other end of the line will be grateful to you if you briefly and clearly state your proposal in a calm tone, and, most likely, will want to continue communication.

For example, the following speech combination works well: “Good afternoon, my name is Andrey. (Pause, don't rush!) We are dedicated to supplying energy efficient light bulbs to businesses in your sector. We are entering the Moscow market with a new product line. We decide on key companies and will work with them on special terms. I would like to explain the essence and understand whether we can cooperate with you.”

5. Control the conversation.

To hide uncertainty and seize the initiative, some salespeople begin to speak in a condescending and authoritative manner. The goal is to make it clear that the subscriber does not understand anything about the matter and must listen to everything “ knowledgeable people" As practice shows, this behavior sharply repels customers.

The other side of the coin is a too soft, timid approach and a complete denial of one’s own benefit. “I’m just for a minute... I don’t want to take up your time... please read our commercial proposal...” Pleading, frightened intonations give the interlocutor the impression that he is dealing with an inexperienced newcomer, and to enter into an agreement with him business relationship not worth it.

Here's an effective speech technique for seizing the initiative: “To save time, let's do this. I will ask a few questions (on volumes, documents, preferences), then I will list options to choose from. If you like it overall, we’ll talk in detail. If not, no big deal. Fine?" This gives you permission to ask questions and allows you to control the conversation.

Surprisingly, most salespeople have difficulty and confusingly describing their activities over the phone. So, the phrase “we are engaged in IT outsourcing” sounds deadly. Instead, it's better to say, “We make software for dairies. It allows you to reduce costs by 15–40%.” Practice: in 10–15 seconds, tell 15 friends and acquaintances what the essence of your business is. If they understand, your wording is good.

2. Prepare for tough questions

Call 20 key companies in your area, introduce yourself as a client and record on speakerphone the managers' answers to questions that perplex you. Analyze, select the best options and implement them yourself.

3. Know your business inside and out

If you don’t understand what you’re selling, the first highly specialized question (“What’s your gluten?”) will confuse you and could ruin the deal. Find out the meaning of the most common terms in your industry in a dictionary and actively use them in conversation. This will add weight to you as an expert.

4. Don’t burden your interlocutor with a long monologue-tongue twister

One of the typical mistakes in sales is the desire to dump all available information on a potential client from the threshold, without allowing him to get a word in edgewise. The person on the other end of the line will be grateful to you if you briefly and clearly state your proposal in a calm tone, and, most likely, will want to continue communication.
For example, the following speech combination works well: “Good afternoon, my name is Andrey. (Pause, don't rush!) We are dedicated to supplying energy efficient light bulbs to businesses in your sector. We are entering the Moscow market with a new product line. We decide on key companies - we will work with them on special conditions. I would like to explain the essence and understand whether we can cooperate with you.”

5. Control the conversation

To hide uncertainty and seize the initiative, some salespeople begin to speak in a condescending and authoritative manner. The goal is to make it clear that the subscriber does not understand anything about the matter and should listen to “knowledgeable people” in everything. As practice shows, this behavior sharply repels customers.
The other side of the coin is a too soft, timid approach and a complete denial of one’s own benefit. “Just for a minute... I don’t want to take up your time... please read our commercial proposal...” Pleading, frightened intonations give the interlocutor the impression that he is dealing with an inexperienced newcomer, and it is not worth entering into a business relationship with him.
Here's an effective speech technique for seizing the initiative: “To save time, let's do this. I will ask a few questions (on volumes, documents, preferences), then I will list options to choose from. If you like it overall, we’ll talk in detail. If not, no big deal. Fine?" This gives you permission to ask questions and allows you to control the conversation.