In our opinion, for the morally healthy man, a thief cannot be DEARER than a bloodsucker, because both a thief and a bloodsucker are enslaved by vice, and vice arouse not tenderness, but disgust. That is, the thesis "a thief is dearer than a bloodsucker" — "Freudian slip", expressing solidarity with the thieves, including "great combinators". And accepting this thesis without objections — the same expression of solidarity with thieves, as the proclamation of the thesis itself.
But for us in this case it is important not that all participants in the program, not having objected to the lyrical hero of J.A. Brodsky, admitted by default their solidarity with the regime of the "great combinator"; for us the important is the other: from the point of view of a thief — the one who punishes thieves and protects workers from various types of parasitism, especially systematically organized parasitism under the authority of the regime of the "great combinator"[17], — is a tyrant, a despot, a bloodsucker.
However, the one who eradicates parasitism, including suppressing parasites, not necessarily is the tyrant, despot, bloodsucker, "grand inquisitor". The fact is that real democracy is not boiling down to elective procedures and observance of their periodicity: history knows many tyrannies, received ruling mandates by the organization of exactly formally democratic procedures of voting on certain questions. Real, not formal, democracy — is the first and foremost the freedom (at least of most people) in the previously defined sense of the word, but not only those or other procedures of nominating by the people their representatives into authorities. Therefore its main characteristic property— responsiveness of authorities to the aspirations of the people, which finds its expression in practical politics, as well as protecting the future of the people from their own vices, inherited from the past. Responsiveness to the aspirations and protecting the future of the people from vices requires discipline in the state apparatus, and accordingly — the ruthless removal from the state apparatus of those who violate this discipline. That is, we can agree with the view, expressed by G.A. Yavlinsky in one of the telecasts in the Soviet times: if I want to have a democracy in the society, in the state apparatus I must have a dictatorship.
And in doing so real democracy must solve the same problems in relation to the production and distribution of "earthly bread", self-protection of the system and its reproduction in the succession of generations, which "grand inquisitor" laid on himself, though on the principles of differently understood justice.
Therefore, from the point of view of "combinators" — the tyranny of the "grand inquisitor" and real democracy are indistinguishable: both for the "great combinator" — tyranny, which prevents him from "freely combinatoring". But for the conscientious worker, the tyranny of the "great combinator", the tyranny of the "grand inquisitor" and activities aimed at building real democracy and ensuring real freedom of personality — three differences. And the most disgusting tyranny — the tyranny of the regime of the "great combinator", representing itself as a true democracy and freedom.
Because and in the conditions of the tyranny of the regime of the "great combinator" someone needs to work a lot, but at the same time is doomed for poverty, thus the "de-Stalinization", implementing from moral and world-view positions of the "great combinator", can never achieve success. It can succeed only in a society consisting mainly of "combinators", but such a society cannot exist because there is no one to supply it with products of their labour.
The prospects of "de-Stalinization", implementing from moral and world-view positions of the "great combinator", exacerbated also by the historically objective fact, that the entire range of activities of the regime, led by J.V. Stalin, does not fit into the scheme of "regime of the grand inquisitor". Although the inquisitorial component in it was really present and there were happening, among the other, mass abuses of the "inquisitorial power", however there was something that was alien to the meaning of life of the "grand inquisitor", how this meaning was expressed by F.M. Dostoyevsky.
Marxism — is the political project indeed meeting the goals of the mission, which the Grand Inquisitor of F.M. Dostoyevsky laid upon himself, because on the base of the philosophy, that leads the reader away from consideration of the problem of predictability of the consequences of one or another life choice, society is not capable to self-ruling and therefore can not be free. In addition, the political economy of Marxism is based on categories, which have no place in the real economic activities of the society. With these two features, the doctrine of socialism — is just the bait to an otherwise organized slavery that fully complies with the sociological views of the grand inquisitor.
And if Stalin really would be the epitome of the grand inquisitor of F.M. Dostoyevsky, the contents of his collected works would be different: he would not have touched in his works issues, that undermine both the power of the regime of the "grand inquisitor" and the regime of the "great combinator", the epitome of which became the real capitalism, based on the ideas of bourgeois liberalism.
In particular, among the individual rights in the Soviet Union was included and the right for labour, as guaranteed both by the Constitutions of the country of 1936 and 1977, and by the practice of government management of the economy. About this right and its role in ensuring freedom of personality J.V. Stalin was speaking in 1936 already:
"It's hard for me to imagine what kind of "personal freedom" an unemployed may have, who goes hungry and finds no application of his labour. The true freedom is available only where the exploitation is eradicated, where there is no oppression of any people by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not trembling because tomorrow may lose job, housing, bread. Only in such society personal and any other freedom is possible in reality, not on paper" (from the talk with the chairman of the newspaper association Roy Howard, March 1, 1936).
Besides, Stalin did not reduce all the rights of the individual to the duty to work, as do the slaveholders, but thought that an effective implementation of the freedom of the individual requires the development of the culture of a society, and respectively — development of the personalities of the members of this society.
"It is necessary, thirdly, to achieve such cultural growth of society, which would ensure to all members of society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that members of society have the opportunity to receive education sufficient to become active figures of the social development..." [J.V. Stalin. Economic problems of socialism in the USSR. — Moscow: separate edition, State publishing house of political literature. 1952., p. 68, italic text selection is ours].