Military Review

Sergey Chernyakhovsky: Lenin won because he felt what millions want

51
From the editors of KM.RU. Talking about the October Revolution, or, if you will, the October Revolution (does not contradict one another) will, of course, be incomplete without a discussion of the phenomenon of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin). Genius or villain (“the main political criminal of the twentieth century,” according to Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s terminology), destroyer or creator, creator of “the world's first state of workers and peasants” or bloody executioner - the forerunner of Stalin, Jew and Mason or head of the World International - and this is only few topics for eternal debates about the role of Vladimir Ilyich’s personality in stories. Discussions about him if they are inferior in intensity, then only disputes about Stalin. It is virtually impossible to treat him indifferently, and this means that he left his mark in world history. What is this trail? Everyone has their own opinion. The political scientist Sergey Chernyakhovsky has one.




Lenin, of course, is the central figure of October 1917 of the year, although not only him. With all the fluctuations of public opinion, his role and personality and today cause a positive attitude among far more people than a negative one.

Five years ago, 48% of Russian citizens spoke of its positive role in history, 30% spoke about its negative role. At that, only six years ago, the ratio was different: with the plus sign of Lenin, then 40% was evaluated, and with the minus sign - 36%. That is, his figure and role are positively assessed not only by the majority, but by the growing majority of the population, while his opponents are not just a minority, but diminishing.

And all these figures, we note, are obtained in the present era, when not a single memorable date passes without the media filling out the broadcast in one way or another with negative assessments of the role and personality of Vladimir Ilyich.

As for how he is estimated in the world, according to the catalog of the Library of the US Congress, Lenin ranks third among historical figures in the number of monographs devoted to him. Only two people are ahead of him - Marx and Kant. Although, however, it is unlikely to fully reflect the impact that he himself had on the world.
The scale of his personality can hardly be in doubt for anyone who at least partially remains in positions of minimal sobriety of assessments. Hence all the curses in his address.

There are two main accusations against Lenin: the first is “the German spy”, the second is “the destroyer of the Russian traditional way of life”.

The first statement is not only not confirmed by anything intelligible and remains at the level of maxims in the spirit of NTV and Echo of Moscow, but simply absurdly. The role of the spy is too inconsistent with the scale of what was done by him, both of what was destroyed and what was created.

The petty accusation only proves that those who hate him do not have the courage to say why they hate him, just as there are no arguments comparable to the scale of a person’s personality that predetermined the course of the history of the world in the twentieth and most likely in the twenty-first century. For some, he is the people's leader and the largest political theorist, for others he is a hated villain.

If we move away from assessments caused by political sympathies or antipathies, then let's speculate: who is Lenin after all? What did he do and what could he do?

Lenin is undoubtedly the most successful political figure of the twentieth century, and, most likely, of almost the entire history. He caught and realized the trends in the world in his era, took power in a huge country, kept it with fierce resistance from those who are called "overthrown classes", created a new statehood, laid the foundations of the new economy and the new national and world project. And despite the fact that, in reality, he remained in power for a little over four years.

Moreover, he really practically changed the world, because after October 1917, the world could no longer be what it was before. He destroyed the old, obviously outdated, device of the modern world and opened the way for the search and construction of the new. Not only in Russia - all over the world. That is, he was undoubtedly the most successful, and the most ambitious of all political strategists of history.

He created such an effective and professional political organization that it was able to defeat not only direct opponents (the guard structures of the old empire), but also competitors (other political parties of then-Russia that are far from being as amorphous as political parties of modern Russia). It is not even important that this party was able to overthrow the old government and keep the government in its hands, but that this party itself was created as a kind of proto-state structure that could become the backbone of the new statehood after the old one had practically broken up; and as soon as this structure was destroyed in 90, the state itself collapsed.

After the seizure of power, the main center and main focus of Lenin's activity was, despite unsubstantiated accusations, not the suppression and division, but the construction: the building of self-government, the building of the state, the building of production.

The electrification plan was adopted in 1920, but electrification becomes a priority of the revolutionary government during the years of the Civil War: in 1918, Lenin accepted the Graftio plan for the construction of the Volkhov hydropower station, and in 1919, they began to build the Kashira power plant. In the spring of 1919, Lenin resumes the abandoned construction of the Shaturskaya TPP ... And the listing of what the 1917 of the year began to build and build after October can be multiplied and multiplied.

Issues of organization of production - this is what was in the center of attention, and what its activities were directed at. To organize a new production meant to make Russia a technically advanced country in the world, not to mention the fact that at the same time working on these tasks, he was able to first repel external military intervention (aggression) of at least 15 powers, including the most powerful, and then force the leaders of the western world who won the World War, to accept the conditions of existence, dictated by the leader of the Russian revolution.

Why did it succeed? What was his strength? In colossal empathy - and social, and historical, and political.

Lenin turned out to be intellectually stronger than Russian liberals and Russian Westernizers, having managed to find the forces and the path that could solve modernization problems without destroying the basic value characteristics of a country's task - to be able to preserve Russia's traditional priority of justice over rationality.

He turned out to be intellectually stronger than the Slavophiles, managing to understand that it is impossible to ensure the preservation of the priorities of justice without combining them with rationality and technocracy.

He turned out to be intellectually stronger than the Russian dogmatic Marxists, who believed that a socialist revolution was impossible in Russia, because its basic class, the workers, was a minority, and they viewed the Russian peasantry as "a continuous reactionary mass." Lenin was able to understand the revolutionary and creative potential of the Russian peasantry and to understand what was his main concern — concern for the land.

The land question in general must be solved not by a socialist, but also by a bourgeois revolution. In France, the allotment of land to peasants was carried out by the revolution of 1789-93. and Napoleon.

Theoretically, if the imperial power was responsible and adequate, it could and should have solved this task long before 1917. And even more so the first Provisional Government was to solve this problem immediately after the February revolution. And all the more so the government of Kerensky had to decide it, because the resolution of the agrarian question was the main demand of his party. As he will say later, in October, Lenin: “What is this party that had to be overthrown in order to carry out its program?”

Lenin won because all the time he felt what millions want. He knew that the distribution of land to the peasants was not a socialist revolution, but the most radical development of capitalism in the countryside. But he knew that the Russian peasants wanted it, and therefore it must be done, because its main strength is in their support, and since it is much more progressive than what it was in Russia before.

By the way, even Stolypin, now fashionable, he reproached not so much for the direction of his actions, as for their inconsistency, and wrote that he was leading Russia along a progressive path, but in the most reactionary way.

Why did the Social Revolutionaries and Kerensky fail to resolve the question of the land and execute their own program, but could he? Not only because the first did not have enough determination, but because they always offered to wait. To wait until the elections to the Constituent Assembly are held, which they themselves also delayed as much as possible; wait for it to make the necessary laws; wait until the land cadastre is compiled; to wait for the surveyors to be prepared in the required number, - and so on to infinity.

Lenin knew that to behave this way towards the peasants meant to mock them and arouse their hatred. And he made it easier - he passed a decree in which he declared: “The earth is yours in perpetual use. Buybacks are canceled. Get organized and take it into your own hands. ”

Those who accuse him of enmity towards everything Russian and of destroying the Russian way of life simply cannot clearly say that they mean it, or they mean only the world of the possessing estates and autocratic courtiers, although it is in them This time was already a minimum of Russian.

The Russian world, the Russian way of life and the Russian mentality lived in those who worked - in the peasants, in the workers, in the Russian engineers. And with all the accusations of churches closing down and persecuting priests, it was the alienation of the latter from the Russian people that caused their alienation from them.

Actually, Lenin was the leader of the Russian national revolution, the leader of the uprising of the Russian people against the property class that had lost its national roots. And in this respect, he would today have to be the idol of not only the Communists, but also, no less, consistent nationalists.

It can be said that Lenin broke into this world from the future in order, like Peter the Great, to reintroduce not only Russia, but all of humanity. It is possible with no less reason to assert that this world itself, faced with its own inability to solve its problems, gave birth to and called on Lenin to rise with his help to a new stage of development.

In any case, it is clear that the impact they have on the world and modern civilization is enormous and almost incomparable with the influence of any other politician. Boris Strugatsky once clearly defined the role of Lenin, saying that he practically created a new world.

As long as there are people who scold Lenin, it only means that they fear and hate him. Some - because of fear for the privileges assigned to them, others - because they feel his personal superiority that is unattainable for them.

Hatred of Lenin is only a manifestation of a sense of self-psychological complex-mindedness and envy of those who feel that they are unable to stand on a par with him.

Yes, and also: the first Russian Constitution was given to the people in 1918 after all by Lenin too.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2012/11/07/istoriya-khkh-veka/696811-lenin-pobedil-potomu-chto-chuvstvoval-chego-khotyat-mi
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. vlad007
    vlad007 9 November 2017 06: 32 New
    +4
    How much can you dig in the past? It is necessary to create a new modern economy, industry, army, science!
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 9 November 2017 06: 36 New
      +9
      Quote: vlad007
      How much can you dig in the past? It is necessary to create a new modern economy, industry, army, science!

      once ... on TV how many women (excuse me) delve into Lenin ... was not up to the economy. fool
      1. Ilya-spb
        Ilya-spb 9 November 2017 18: 33 New
        +2
        Without the past, there is no future!

        Without knowing the history, not knowing the events and their causes in the past, we cannot move forward with the goal of effective development.

        But Russia needs precisely a movement forward, creative development!
    2. dSK
      dSK 9 November 2017 06: 39 New
      10
      Every day publication: revolution - the mummy of Lenin, the mummy of Lenin - revolution;
      Who benefits from this?
      1. AUL
        AUL 9 November 2017 08: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: dsk
        Who benefits from this?
        Anyone interested in new cult of personality!
        1. badens1111
          badens1111 9 November 2017 10: 04 New
          +4
          Quote: AUL
          To those who are interested in a new cult of personality!

          Stupid.
          In order to have a CULT, you must have a PERSONALITY.
          Do you have any?
          No matter how you look, it’s crooked, then oblique, or even Ksyushad ...
          1. AUL
            AUL 9 November 2017 15: 20 New
            +2
            Yes, it’s obvious that the guarantor has bad things to do if he hides behind Ksyushad!
            1. badens1111
              badens1111 9 November 2017 18: 00 New
              +1
              Quote: AUL
              Yes, it’s obvious that the guarantor has bad things to do if he hides behind Ksyushad!

              And what does the guarantor have to do with it and why did Ksyushad surrender to him if she is an embodiment of what the country does not need for nothing?
            2. AUL
              AUL 9 November 2017 18: 08 New
              +1
              Quote: AUL
              Yes, it’s obvious that the guarantor has bad things to do if he hides behind Ksyushad!

              For those in the tank: Mediocre girls carry quite ugly friends with them to shine on their background.
              1. badens1111
                badens1111 10 November 2017 10: 37 New
                0
                Quote: AUL
                Mediocre girls carry quite ugly friends with them to shine against their background.

                Ksyushad and Bozena Rynska, two lapdogs in the sandbox.
    3. Stas157
      Stas157 9 November 2017 08: 37 New
      12
      Quote: vlad007
      How much can you dig in the past? It is necessary to create a new modern economy, industry, army, science!

      There is no future without the past. Our power has already been decided. She does not accept the achievements of October, as well as her main figure of Lenin. Peskov openly said that there is no need to celebrate the October Revolution!
      Now the authorities are trying to reformat in the same spirit into the consciousness of the electorate. And about the burial of Lenin, in that chile. It resembles overtone window technology. By throwing into the society discussions about the burial of the leader. After all, look at how many suggestions, how many articles appeared suddenly out of nowhere, on this topic. It creates artificially hype out of the blue.
      And as soon as at least half of the population is in favor, they will announce that the whole society wants to bury Lenin! Well, they’ll do their dirty deed.
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter 9 November 2017 14: 36 New
        +6
        Quote: Stas157
        She does not accept the achievements of October,

        He doesn’t accept achievements, but he also takes advantage of them, privatizing Gagarin’s flight and winning the Second World War.
        And as for Lenin, someone at VO coolly said that "those who try to bury Lenin-Lenin will bury them faster"
        1. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter 9 November 2017 15: 13 New
          +5
          Here is she quote
          “There is a feeling: if someone begins to bury Lenin, Lenin will bury them in return.”
        2. badens1111
          badens1111 9 November 2017 18: 01 New
          +3
          Quote: Stroporez
          "those who try to bury Lenin-Lenin will bury them faster"

          The quote belongs to Z. Prilepin, answered her with some sort of regular black anti-Soviet ...
          1. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter 9 November 2017 20: 56 New
            +3
            Quote: badens1111
            The quote belongs to Z. Prilepin, answered her with some sort of regular black anti-Soviet ...

            Thank you Buddy !!! drinks I almost broke the Internet belay Searched for ....... wassat
            Now I’ll get better .. and again in the battle! yes good
            That’s what it means, Kamrad is Kamrad!
            for this case I have a song.
    4. Basil50
      Basil50 9 November 2017 09: 48 New
      11
      Digging in the past is necessary.
      In the RUSSIAN EMPIRE by 1917 those who were sold as goods were still alive. Try on yourself that you and your loved ones put up for auction.
      I met data that from the RUSSIAN EMPIRE under Nicholas II, about seven million people emigrated to the USA. And this is until 1905. In the country, besides the royal penal servitude and royal prisons, church prisons existed. Prison life is presented in Butyrka, where, in addition to slingshots and blocks, they stand on which all prisoners were flogged, with the exception of noblemen.
      It must be reminded that V AND LENIN and the Bolshevik party abandoned the conspirators and created the country anew.
      It is required to remember this so as not to be fooled by all sorts of different nonsense.
    5. badens1111
      badens1111 9 November 2017 10: 01 New
      +8
      Quote: vlad007
      How much can you dig in the past? It is necessary to create a new modern economy, industry, army, science!

      Oops ... and who was in the way? In 1991-1993, where did they dunk us? As sober smart heads from among all kinds of academicians, editors and political scientists now say, they called us into the future with a human face, and led us into the past with a capitalist snout. now we’re “developing” It drowned, it burned down, they didn’t put it there.
      And note, for example, the well-known Mr. Ivashov, for example, says the future belongs to socialism, the Nobel laureate J. Alferov is the same, but all sorts of different grefs, curls Nabiullins, Zhirinovsky, Sytins, Svanidze other drandins from all screens do not yell .. Give capitalism .. and give society the very same capitalism in which the body does not so much improve its health as it withers ..
      So "modern economy, industry, science with, development within the framework of a liberal dope, market and other husks in this economic and political formation, nothing will come of it. Even if they demonstrate something breakthrough, but you dig in ... the foundation of what is known, studied and prepared was already in the one of the previous formation which only Chubais did not smear with mud.
      The conservatory is in need of repair .. that’s what is essentially needed in the country ..
    6. iouris
      iouris 10 November 2017 00: 18 New
      +4
      Quote: vlad007
      How much can you dig in the past? It is necessary to create a new modern economy

      On what basis should I create? Before you start something, you need to solve the main issues. Have you ever thought at least once that over 25 years of Soviet power, in conditions of isolation, power was created that broke the war machine of the Hitler Reich, and for some reason nothing is being created on the socio-economic base on which our democratic republic stands. Unless street racers breed like flies.
      If you want to achieve something, then it would be necessary to understand the issue. Nobody will do it for you. It is necessary to study, study and study in order to create a new viable (competitive). When you study, you have to "dig". As an option: hollow, hollow, and understanding will come later.
      PS Lenin was not just “feeling,” Lenin was a prominent scientist, analyst, theorist, and talented political practitioner. In order to understand its role and significance (or to refute this statement), it is necessary to deeply study not only its main works, but also other currents of social thought of that time. Otherwise, it is better not to touch this topic.
    7. Awaz
      Awaz 10 November 2017 19: 38 New
      0
      you need to know history so that you don’t make mistakes. Then the future will be a little better ...
  2. VS
    VS 9 November 2017 08: 48 New
    10
    Lenin picked up Power in Russia - creates the next Provisional Government and then he convenes the Constituent Assembly. At that meeting, in February 18th, a little more than 700 people arrived in total of more than 400 people. There is a quorum and you can chat about the “ways of Russia's development” ... The Bolsheviks got about 25% of the seats in this MEETING. But on the “quorum” - the Bolsheviks got TOGETHER with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, who were on equal terms with the BOPS in Russia — about 100 votes out of 400 !!!
    Sverdlov, the head of the Soviet government - albeit temporary, - proposed the adoption of the Declaration on the Protection of the Rights of Workers, but the remaining deputies from other parties - the Cadets and other liberals - refused to accept it.
    Then the Bolsheviks TOGETHER with the essays and left the Constituent Assembly, depriving the quorum of the meeting in this way))) and therefore LEGITIMITY)) After which the Constituent Assembly scattered by itself))) After which the Bolsheviks and essays finally legitimize their power and begin to rule - having received bloodless power in Russia .. And here the “whites”, represented by the Kaledin and Kornilov — representatives of those who took the tsar and arrested him — the February people, who got the sort of majority in the Constituent Assembly — begin the Civil War))) - and the authorities, including - finally))) ... And the West did not help them either - with interventions ... Although Trotsky himself did everything to unleash the Civil War and continue ...
    Then, for tactical purposes, the Bolsheviks had to liberalize the economy, a kind of rollback to capitalism in Russia.))) What had to be done also due to the confrontation between the supporters of Stalin and Trotsky, who had a majority in the Bolshevik party - in the influence of the same "heads of administrations" on the ground - i.e. in the Central Committee. The Trotskyists were the main supporters of the NEP - what began in the late 20s, when the Trotskyists bluntly declared - we must return to capitalism completely - because the world revolution does not happen))) ....
    The Stalinists came to power completely - after the Trotskyists were unable to overthrow Stalin and his supporters in the “37th.”, Brought Russia to second place in the world in economics - literally in 15 years)) By 1941))) With the arrival of Trotskyists and Gaidar Chubais to power - not the February 90s but the Trotskyists - Russia - slipped to 6th place in the world - only Honduras are below us - and still can not return to the indicators in the economy of the RSFSR in 1991)) ) I.e. - during the 25 years of the Trotskyist rule - Russia has lost nobility in its territory and economy - more than Hitler killed in our Second World War ...
  3. Ural resident
    Ural resident 9 November 2017 10: 23 New
    +2
    Lenin is the best, Lenin is the best, Lenin is the leader. These are the conclusions from the article.
    Thank you - I listened to this from childhood. Do not want anymore
    1. CONTROL
      CONTROL 9 November 2017 11: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: A resident of the Urals
      Lenin is the best, Lenin is the best, Lenin is the leader. These are the conclusions from the article.
      Thank you - I listened to this from childhood. Do not want anymore

      WHAT DO YOU WANT? more specifically ... directly in words, not hints!
      but here, on the forum - some want: - a drink; - bite hard; - never work and that everything was ... But to say - either they don’t know the words, or - bye! - shy ...
      Because since childhood they listened - all of the above, and much more is the same - this is not good! and not because kapitalizmus, but simply - ga! d.s: yours is ...
    2. badens1111
      badens1111 10 November 2017 09: 52 New
      +2
      Quote: A resident of the Urals
      Do not want anymore

      Well, and how, have heard enough of Yeltsin, it became better?
    3. Krabik
      Krabik 11 November 2017 03: 50 New
      +1
      You can listen to Svanidze if he is closer to you.
    4. captain
      captain 11 November 2017 16: 09 New
      0
      Quote: A resident of the Urals
      Lenin is the best, Lenin is the best, Lenin is the leader. These are the conclusions from the article.
      Thank you - I listened to this from childhood. Do not want anymore

      Lenin won because he deceived the peasants.
      1. badens1111
        badens1111 11 November 2017 16: 18 New
        +2
        Quote: captain
        that he deceived the peasants.

        Stupid did not come up with anything?
        What is the deception? In tractors and mechanization? Or in the fact that the world-eaters were dispersed?
        From the same .. a certain asphalt peasant, Afanasyev sang something like that in 90 ...
    5. ver_
      ver_ 14 November 2017 04: 47 New
      0
      .. well, the congress of Jewish communities rapes Claudia, and not only her, from morning till night, tirelessly ..
  4. Gardamir
    Gardamir 9 November 2017 11: 01 New
    +7
    Bondarchuk-Parvus, Khabensky-Trotsky-Kolchak and Mironov-Lenin convinced me. The Bolsheviks were agents of foreign intelligence, the sixes of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. In vain, I pulled on Starikov. There is no arguing against the facts, as well as the powerful talent of the listed cultural masters. I vividly imagine how everything happened.

    Lenin's first conversation took place, of course, with the German Ludendorff in a safe flat, in Switzerland still.

    Ludendorf: "Do you understand, Lenin, what needs to be done, how will you come to Russia?"

    Lenin: “I am not complaining about the memory. Bayonets in the land, a world without annexations and indemnities. We will publish secret protocols. We’ll kill your ambassador later, hehe. ”

    Ludendorff darkens: “This is not enough. How inconsiderate you are, agent. Certainly - factories for workers, land - for peasants. And get down to eradicating illiteracy. Your homelessness also bothers us very much. We highlight our best agent, he is a Pole. Let him create this ... Cheka. By the way, at the same time, it will not allow your counts and princes to export values ​​to us abroad. We will instruct him. Pass through the mansions, look for safes. They there paintings, gold hid for export unmeasured. We don’t need someone else’s, there’s nowhere to put our own. ”

    Lenin: “Too much goes beyond a sealed wagon, huh? About illiteracy and homelessness was not a bazaar. Still order free medicine to introduce. Add to. "


    turn

    Ludendorff makes it clear with a glance that he now dictates the conditions. Lenin fussyly (would not change his mind a sealed carriage to give) hides an impressive list and walks off with a small walk. “The lip is not a fool for this imperialist,” he thinks. “We would only grab loans, send children to the sorbonne, and this one dictated how much!”

    Then Lenin and other masters had to get around. Each climbed to him with his own. Americans and Japanese demanded to expel them from the Far East. The British were tired of sucking oil in the Caucasus and exporting ore from the Russian North-West. The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, smiling venomously, advised against repaying their debts. In general, all creditors begged the Bolsheviks to throw them for money. The French behaved more impudently than others. Writing down their tasks, Lenin was hunching, grunting and scratching his bald head. At some point, he wanted to completely abandon a business trip to Russia. Imagine: the frogmen obliged the Bolsheviks to defeat Kolchak’s army, regain gold reserves, annex Ukraine, repel the aggression of Poland, and when Civil was almost over (Lenin was amazed: “Isn’t it all?” - to him: “You write down, we ask questions here”), foreign intelligence agents will have to carry out a small but responsible assignment. Leaving ungrateful Russia, they warned Lenin that her benefactors would try to leave a splinter in her ass, namely, the traitor Wrangel in Crimea. “You must knock out this nits, our hirelings, from the peninsula,” Lenin said dryly. - Take Crimea to yourself. He is unnecessary to us. Here is our small but responsible assignment. ”

    And bogged down the claws of the corrupt Bolsheviks. The appetites of the English-French and the Rothschilds-Rockefellers grew and grew. Their agents had to create defense industries, acquire an atomic bomb, fly into space. Gagarin, by the way, was sent to space by the Rothschilds - it was a pity for them to send their American. It is strange that Starikov did not dop up to this. But he has time to improve.

    The main thing is not a word of conspiracy theories. The above are just the facts! The flow of convincing facts of corruption of Lenin, Trotsky and the company. They completed all the tasks of their owners, worked out a sealed wagon. By the fruits you know the tree. Give us more Bondarchuk parvus, Mironov-Lenin and Khabensky-Trotsky. We will believe that it was these clowns who once shook the world.
  5. leonardo_1971
    leonardo_1971 9 November 2017 11: 08 New
    +5
    And I personally was offended that such a great date was simply ignored.
    1. stas
      stas 9 November 2017 14: 55 New
      +1
      There was a command from the Tsar. Why do former communists hate more than non-partisan workers and collective farmers. Who create profit for the bourgeoisie, and they guzzle and do not choke. Only the proletariat will crush them.
  6. stas
    stas 9 November 2017 11: 54 New
    +6
    Mr. Putin, hold a referendum on Russia's development paths.
    But Putin will not do this, because he knows how people will vote, and his plans do not coincide with the desire of the people.
    Well, and who owns the power in Russia, certainly not the people.
    The Constitution is written beautifully, and in response to power, the Figs and not power, by themselves are few.
  7. Radikal
    Radikal 9 November 2017 13: 30 New
    +5
    As long as there are people who scold Lenin, it only means that they fear and hate him. Some - because of fear for the privileges assigned to them, others - because they feel his personal superiority that is unattainable for them.
    Exactly so - the mental and moral “pygmies” always hate bright outstanding personalities, for the lack of their own qualities in themselves! yes
    1. stas
      stas 9 November 2017 14: 51 New
      +2
      Our Putin authorities are afraid of Lenin and Stalin, they will come and take away the stolen goods.
      The thief’s nightmare - he stole, stole, and everything returned to the owners of the stolen goods.
      There is only one answer - capitalism, even with Putin’s face, is not needed in Russia. There are other words, but administrators will not offend Putin, although Putin will do without VO administrators. Plum in one place, always interferes.
      But I would like to know where Putin leads us, but we do not need Putin’s capitalist paradise.
      1. Krabik
        Krabik 11 November 2017 05: 43 New
        +1
        You have already decided everything for everyone;)

        Putin already said he leads us to democracy and capitalism.

        A different path involves the 1917 revolution with unknown consequences.
        And of course with mass slaughter and terror, as it was before.

        Without these not beautiful moments, the current ruling elite cannot be removed.

        And another logical question arises: are the fighters against capitalism ready to sacrifice themselves and their children for a possible bright future ?!
  8. Radikal
    Radikal 9 November 2017 13: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: badens1111
    Quote: AUL
    To those who are interested in a new cult of personality!

    Stupid.
    In order to have a CULT, you must have a PERSONALITY.
    Do you have any?
    No matter how you look, it’s crooked, then oblique, or even Ksyushad ...

    good
  9. Radikal
    Radikal 9 November 2017 13: 33 New
    +2
    Quote: A resident of the Urals
    Lenin is the best, Lenin is the best, Lenin is the leader. These are the conclusions from the article.
    Thank you - I listened to this from childhood. Do not want anymore

    Then to you on "Peacemaker"! wassat
  10. Cook
    Cook 9 November 2017 14: 27 New
    +3
    Quote: stas
    Mr. Putin, hold a referendum on Russia's development paths.
    But Putin will not do this, because he knows how people will vote, and his plans do not coincide with the desire of the people.
    Well, and who owns the power in Russia, certainly not the people.
    The Constitution is written beautifully, and in response to power, the Figs and not power, by themselves are few.


    Well, well, held a referendum on GDP. Most supported socialism, where do you start? What will be the forms of ownership of the means of production? Will all enterprises be nationalized? How will you execute the already concluded contracts? What to do with joint-stock companies, what to do with minority shareholders? What will be the structure of the economy, which financial system do you prefer? Will we trade with the West, or will we build autorcy? I think that this is precisely what needs to be discussed before any referenda are held, and not advocate for all the good versus all the bad. The union fell apart when I was 32 years old, that is, my upbringing and education are quite normal. But at the same time, I quite clearly remember not so few of his shortcomings, and I just don’t want just a thoughtless repetition of the USSR. For example, I see, naturally simplified, a model of a socially oriented state, where strategic sectors belong to state structures, subject to the availability of centralized planning of their activities. Medicine and education, here too. Everything else (consumer goods, services, etc.) should be given to small and medium-sized businesses. It makes sense to argue about this, and not whether Vladimir Ilyich was good or bad. Even without our discussion, he had already taken his rightful place in history, having created the world's first state of workers and peasants.
    1. stas
      stas 9 November 2017 15: 02 New
      +2
      Kuuk, you're a weirdo. We must not argue but do things.
      As for posit.t, this is to the liberals at the ECHO.
      The road will be overpowered by the walking one, not the one arguing.
      1. Cook
        Cook 9 November 2017 15: 12 New
        +1
        To do things, you need to know what to do. Every road begins with the first step, so I ask where do you start? Again, "take everything and share"? (C)
  11. noodles
    noodles 9 November 2017 16: 03 New
    +5
    A good article, calm without schizophrenic facts! From the comments I liked the one where the appeal to everyone sounds — stop picking yourselves in history — you won’t get it back anymore and you won’t redo it — you just have to accept it, it's our story! I also liked the definitions of Lenin's critics as people of the lowest intellect and lack of personality as such! Ilyich didn’t twist, he created a new world and managed to shake the old sneaky-rotten and hated millions of Russian people !! And what detractors created it, actually threw the country into the 19th century! And the last one was tired of reading and listening to political clowns who could only make people laugh and scream with their eyes wide at TOK SHOW about the days and personalities who cannot answer them! These critics are not able to discuss the problems of today — the problems of the development of the country — the problems of how to employ and feed people — how in the modern world to create a country in which everyone is needed by their homeland!
  12. Radikal
    Radikal 9 November 2017 20: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: Cook
    Quote: stas
    Mr. Putin, hold a referendum on Russia's development paths.
    But Putin will not do this, because he knows how people will vote, and his plans do not coincide with the desire of the people.
    Well, and who owns the power in Russia, certainly not the people.
    The Constitution is written beautifully, and in response to power, the Figs and not power, by themselves are few.


    Well, well, held a referendum on GDP. Most supported socialism, where do you start? What will be the forms of ownership of the means of production? Will all enterprises be nationalized? How will you execute the already concluded contracts? What to do with joint-stock companies, what to do with minority shareholders? What will be the structure of the economy, which financial system do you prefer? Will we trade with the West, or will we build autorcy? I think that this is precisely what needs to be discussed before any referenda are held, and not advocate for all the good versus all the bad. The union fell apart when I was 32 years old, that is, my upbringing and education are quite normal. But at the same time, I quite clearly remember not so few of his shortcomings, and I just don’t want just a thoughtless repetition of the USSR. For example, I see, naturally simplified, a model of a socially oriented state, where strategic sectors belong to state structures, subject to the availability of centralized planning of their activities. Medicine and education, here too. Everything else (consumer goods, services, etc.) should be given to small and medium-sized businesses. It makes sense to argue about this, and not whether Vladimir Ilyich was good or bad. Even without our discussion, he had already taken his rightful place in history, having created the world's first state of workers and peasants.

    yes good
  13. Father
    Father 9 November 2017 23: 26 New
    0
    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil: On imposed “reconciliation” with Soviet history.

    Not so long ago, in one political show on the central Russian channel, the theme of “reconciliation” (red and white) was raised. Everything was organized as an informational continuation of the installation in the center of Moscow of busts of red terrorists Ulyanov and Dzhugashvili, the rulers of the USSR, among the rulers of Russia - Orthodox monarchs.

    In the issue of "reconciliation", the presenters actively defended and glorified Dzhugashvili. Apparently in their minds the praise of a man who has drowned a country in blood contributes to some kind of reconciliation. But this is particular. The main problem is different.

    The doctrine of "reconciliation" that they are trying to impose on us today is a complete intellectual insignificance. Her wording and arguments cited in her defense do not stand up to criticism.

    The doctrine of "reconciliation" can be represented in the form of two interrelated provisions:
    - not a single period in our history (and therefore the figures of this period, and activities in this period) can be evaluated exclusively negatively;
    - There was a lot of good in every period of history.

    From this, a conclusion is drawn about the possibility and necessity of "reconciliation" and pride for all periods of history. By the way, any pride is a mortal sin.

    The first position is explained by the fact that "this is all our story." This is the so-called idea of ​​"unity and continuity" of history. It is stated that if the historical period is “ours”, then it cannot be negative, in principle. Such is moral relativism, which is an abomination to God: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Is. 5:20).

    No, an objective and honest view should recognize any historical period as it really was. Whether we lived or our ancestors in this historical period in such a place or not - it does not matter.

    The villain does not become righteous from the fact that he lived on the same land where we live. Evil does not turn into good from what our ancestors did. Although it must be said here that often these were not our ancestors, but their fellow citizens of other faiths or foreigners in general.

    Obviously, a moral assessment by the criterion “ours-alien” is absurd and, by definition, impossible. It is not only absurd, but also extremely harmful: instead of drawing the right conclusions from the past, starting treatment and getting better, we are offered the disease and the wounds inflicted on us as normal. Naturally, nothing good will come of it.

    The second provision informs us that in any period (in our case, in the Soviet one) there was a lot of good. On verification, and this statement is untenable.

    The whole question is what is good and what is bad. If this question is correctly answered, then there will be no reason to believe that during the Soviet period there was “a lot of good”.

    When they say that there was something good, they usually mean the presence of some material objects and their use by people. Simply put, they built factories, barracks there, and sausage at 2.20.

    But this, by definition, is a false statement. The construction and presence in the state of many objects of the military industry or large engineering structures does not mean that it is good or bad. Material objects, by themselves, are outside the ethical division into good-bad, good-evil.

    Good or bad is about the actions of people in the light of Christian Commandments. Now, if you take the Soviet period: total propaganda of godlessness was carried out, persecution of the Church was carried out, the population was forced to de facto slave labor, expropriations, collectivization were carried out, infanticide was legalized, mass repressions were carried out, etc. In fact, the violation of all the commandments of the Decalogue was legalized or declared, to one degree or another, the norm. All this is evil in the literal sense of the word, in spite of some accompanying material result, which is quite achievable under a different political regime. Robbery is evil, despite the fact that the robber receives material gain or even classifies it as a “common fund” for subsequent “fair” distribution between criminals. Thus, it turns out that all the main activity of the Soviet government for verification turns out to be a common evil.

    Strictly speaking, we cannot evaluate the Soviet period in any other way. But they may object to us and say that wealth, material objects, nevertheless, are a kind of good for a person. In the proper sense, no, this is not good, it is not good, it is not good. However, we can partially accept this statement, because there are some reasons for this: human life, our body depends on material objects - housing, food, clothes. And these objects can be considered good, although not in their own, not in the ethical sense.

    The first thing that needs to be said here: material objects were beautifully created on the territory of historical Russia before the Soviet power (Russian Empire), during the Soviet power (Finland) and after the Soviet power (Russian Federation), and of course they were successfully created abroad (USA, Germany, France, Japan). Therefore, to say that there was something specifically “good” was not necessary. It makes no sense to pass this off as an achievement. Rye grew both in the USSR and in Canada. But this objective reality of our world does not make the Soviet period “good”. The same applies to the fight against crime: yes, in the days of the USSR they caught criminals, well, that’s what they do in any state - that’s the duty and direct interest of any government.

    The second thing to notice. Since they are trying to impose on us a godless, consumeristic, materialistic view of ethics, let us raise the question of price, quality, efficiency, expediency, and alternativeness of all these material “achievements” of the Soviet period. If we will not only reflect on the fact of the existence of a particular material object, but also think about the fact - whether it was needed at all, and whether it was worth at least one drop of blood (often the price was tens of thousands of lives), then we we conclude that in these material objects there is nothing outstanding. If you understand that millions of people were destroyed (minus 50 million during the reign of Dzhugashvili), then all this “good” is “nullified” even from a materialistic point of view.

    But again we repeat. Material objects, in and of themselves, are neither good nor bad. Therefore, the discourse itself, which discusses the presence or absence of material objects as something good or bad, is erroneous.

    The doctrine of "reconciliation" is completely untenable. It seems that only three categories of people can share it, or rather promote it: those who, under the slogans of "reconciliation," want to bring about a red revenge; who unprincipled fulfills a political order; and those with intellectual paralysis. Well, in a normal situation, it is impossible to defend absurd ideas, which, moreover, have long been discussed in detail.

    It is clear why and for what purpose this doctrine is driven by some people in power. There are no questions here. But how this is done is simply ridiculous; it can never give the desired result.

    You can be at peace with fellow citizens, even if they are adherents of leftist extremist ideology (and all leftist ideologies are extremist in one way or another). This is possible if law enforcement agencies will successfully work. But one cannot reconcile with evil, one cannot justify evil deeds and false ideology. And it is absolutely unimportant here - our story or this is the story of a neighbor, whether there were material achievements or not. Any honest, self-conscious, and thinking person understands this.


    Source: Today.Ru
    http://www.segodnia.ru/content/194366
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 10 November 2017 05: 32 New
      +2
      No, an objective and honest view should recognize any historical period as it really was. Whether we lived or our ancestors in this historical period in such a place or not - it does not matter
      Oh how. Drink some water and explain it to the Amers and the British. When they accept it and spit out their story, then we will think about it, but do we need it? .....
      Only in that order. And then again, we disarm, and they will think.
    2. badens1111
      badens1111 10 November 2017 09: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Father
      http://www.segodnia.ru/content/194366

      This makes no sense.
      Sheer nonsense of those who would like the country another bloody mess, in the name of total domination over the country and people to please the West and even better under the control of the West, and the name is that those who have gone mad from thirst arrived at all costs and their information service.
      Quote: Father
      You can be at peace with fellow citizens, even if they are adherents of leftist extremist ideology (and all left-wing ideologies are extremist to one degree or another). This is possible if law enforcement agencies work successfully..

      Oh .. how?
      This is perceived as a CALL, and in any other way, to liberal despotism and repression, well, it is necessary to agree on what fear of the Reds, apologists of dubious democracy and no less rotten liberalism ...
  14. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 10 November 2017 05: 23 New
    +1
    "Let's hit Stalin on Lenin!" (but without Lenin, there would be no Stalin)
    "Let's hit Lenin across Stalin!" (without Stalin, who would have thought of Lenin?)
    The unity and struggle of opposites is obtained, however.
    1. badens1111
      badens1111 10 November 2017 10: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      but.

      Quotes from Judah and Goebbels Perestroika itself:

      In an introduction to the publication of the Black Book of Communism in Russian, Yakovlev said:

      "... ... I studied the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Mao and other" classics "of Marxism, the founders of a new religion - the religion of hatred, revenge and atheism. <...> Once upon a time, more than 40 years ago, I realized that Marxism-Leninism is not science, but journalism - cannibalistic and Samoyedic. Since I lived and worked in the highest "orbits" of the regime, including the highest one - in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee under Gorbachev - I had a good idea that all these theories and plans are nonsense, and most importantly, what the regime was holding on to is the nomenclature apparatus, personnel, people, The figures were different: sensible, stupid, just stupid, but they were all cynics, every one of them, including me, publicly prayed to false idols, the ritual was holiness, and kept true convictions to ourselves.
      After the XX Congress, in the super-narrow circle of our closest friends and associates, we often discussed the problems of democratization of the country and society. They chose a simple, like a sledgehammer, method of propagating the "ideas" of late Lenin. <...> A group of true, not imaginary reformers, developed (of course, verbally) the following plan: to strike at Stalin, at Stalinism with the authority of Lenin. And then, if successful, Plekhanov and Social Democracy beat Lenin, liberalism and "moral socialism" - revolutionism in general. <...>
      The Soviet totalitarian regime could be destroyed only through the glasnost and totalitarian discipline of the party, under the cover of the interests of perfecting socialism. <...> Looking back, I can proudly say that the cunning, but very simple tactics - the mechanisms of totalitarianism against the system of totalitarianism - worked. "
      "... For the sake of business, I had to retreat and to dissemble. I myself am sinful - I have been misleading more than once. I spoke about the“ renewal of socialism ”, but I myself knew what was going on."
  15. Shurale
    Shurale 10 November 2017 07: 08 New
    +1
    Sergey Chernyakhovsky: Lenin won because he felt what millions want

    Yes, everyone there perfectly understood what millions want, but only the Bolsheviks did it.
  16. captain
    captain 10 November 2017 09: 15 New
    +3
    Dear author, do you even bother to read the First Constitution and explain to the peasants why one worker had rights as many as five peasants. He did not give the people a constitution (80% of the population were peasants) but to his beloved. He was afraid that the Social Revolutionaries would win, so the peasants equated 5 with 1.
    1. badens1111
      badens1111 10 November 2017 10: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: captain
      Do you even bother to read the First Constitution

      Is that all you saw in that Constitution?
      Do you need the Social Revolutionaries?
      But didn’t they unleash the Civil War with the Belys, and didn’t they then organize riots in the country? And there is much more blood on the Socialist Revolutionaries ..
      “There have never been such constitutions in the world as ours,” said Vladimir Ilyich. “It contains the experience of the struggle and organization of the proletarian masses against the exploiters both within the country and around the world. We have a store of experience in the struggle. And this reserve of experience has given to us is a clear confirmation that organized workers created Soviet power without officials, without a standing army, without the privileges actually made for the bourgeoisie, made this struggle basically no worse than they did and created the foundation for new construction in factories "
      Author (s) of publication: T. REMEZOVA →
      Source: History Journal, No. 6, June 1938, C. 3-14
      http://libmonster.ru/m/articles/view/%D0%9F%D0%95
      %D0%A0%D0%92%D0%90%D0%AF-%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%9D%D0%A1
      %D0%A2%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%A3%D0%A6%D0%98%D0%AF-%D0%A0
      %D0%A1%D0%A4%D0%A1%D0%A0
  17. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur 13 November 2017 02: 50 New
    0
    Great article. No matter how hard the "psychologically notorious" figures were pushing, Lenin was and remains the greatest historical figure.
  18. Normal ok
    Normal ok 17 November 2017 00: 56 New
    0
    Sergey Chernyakhovsky: Lenin won because he felt what millions want

    Add: he did not just feel, he perfectly took advantage of their Wishlist. In general, he spread the peasants to the land and the soldiers to the world.