Military Review

Fake Leninists

28



November 7 The 1917 of the year radically changed the map of the world. And even after the treacherous destruction of the USSR, the influence of the Great October Revolution on the political and socio-economic situation in Russia, the former Soviet republics, and the countries that built socialism, persists.

The internal and external factors that led to rebirth, and then to the collapse of the USSR and the discrediting of the CPSU, after 1953, matured gradually, in stages. A significant role, directly and indirectly, in the long-term and, it seems, carefully planned process was played by the post-Stalinist elite. All this was stated in connection with the 50 anniversary of the October Revolution, and it is still celebrated, for example, in the People's Republic of China and in Cuba, where the construction of socialism continues, taking into account both the national specifics and the consequences of the death of the USSR, its leading and guiding. And in other countries of the Communist Party, the liberation movements did not abandon socialist construction, moreover they did not switch to the defamation of the Soviet Union and the ideals of October (“Socialism is returning”).

Significantly, the statement of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, promulgated by 6 in November 1967: “The October Revolution in Russia marked a new era in stories of humanity, in the creation of a world without imperialism, without capitalism and without exploitation ... Stalin pointed out: “The October revolution cannot be considered only a revolution within the national framework. It is above all a revolution of the international, world order ... ”But after Stalin, the party and state leadership usurped a handful of the largest individuals within the CPSU represented by Khrushchev who embarked on the capitalist path. This revisionist group under the guise of a "nation-wide state" plunged the Soviet people under the yoke of the new bourgeois privileged stratum. Communist morality and morals, fostered by Lenin and Stalin, are plunging ever deeper into the icy waters of lies, selfishness, acquisitiveness. ” It was also noted there: “In the USSR and some other socialist countries, where power has been usurped by modern revisionists, a comprehensive restoration of capitalism is gradually developing.” So "the dictatorship of the proletariat can still turn into the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie." Therefore, it is necessary to “vigilantly prevent the usurpation of party and state leadership from within by people like Khrushchev, the entry of a socialist country on the path of the“ peaceful evolution ”of socialism towards capitalism. And uproot revisionism. ”

Frames really decide everything. Noteworthy is the assessment of Mao Zedong expressed in 1973: “Stalin, in his last years of his life, fake“ associates ”were not allowed to nominate young cadres for leadership positions. We took into account this tragic lesson, which ended with Stalin’s quick “departure” and the coming of the reincarnation revisionists to power. ” So how did you take into account this lesson in China? The Taiwanese Zhongyang Zhibao 22 of December 1977 noted: “In the People's Republic of China, from 1967 to 1975, 8,6 of a million personnel workers advanced in the period from 1975 to 1976 of a million from 1,2 to October ... Millions of people came to the lower and middle levels. ” These conclusions are repeated in the six-part documentary film “The Soviet Union: 20 years since the death of the party and the state”, which was commissioned by the Central Committee of the CPC.

Similar assessments were given by major statesmen who were not communists. Charles de Gaulle: “Stalin had enormous prestige and not only in Russia. He knew how not to panic when losing and not to enjoy victories. And he has more victories than defeats. Stalin’s Russia is not the old Russia that perished along with the monarchy. But the Stalinist state without successors worthy of Stalin is doomed. Stalin is not a thing of the past - he disappeared into the future. And Khrushchev literally wants to oppose himself to Stalin and the Stalinist style. This deliberateness is very often to the detriment of Khrushchev and the authority of the USSR. ” Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia (1932 – 1974): “My meetings with Soviet leaders after Stalin convince us that there are no decent successors in his leadership. Due to many reasons, the rigid but effective system of governing the country, implemented under Stalin, weakens after it. It becomes more demonstrative than real. And in my opinion, there is no continuity in the managerial, economic and other actions of the Soviet leaders after Stalin. "

An interesting modern Cuban assessment of Stalin and the subsequent period in the USSR and the CPSU. According to the publication Cuba Debate of 16 in May of 2016, “a monetary reform is being carried out in 1947, which was obviously confiscatory. This decision helped to strengthen the country's monetary system and raise the standard of living of Soviet citizens. Soviet military spending in 1950 was 17 percent of GDP, in 1960 - 11,1 percent: much more than US defense spending. Such a sharp increase in defense spending has created a serious obstacle to the growth of the USSR economy. Nevertheless, due to the increase in these costs, military parity with the West was achieved. And the USSR achieved the greatest success in the rocket and space sphere ... After Stalin’s death, March 5, 1953, a struggle for power began within the CPSU, accompanied by a redistribution of power functions between various party-state structures. In January 1955, Khrushchev succeeded in resigning Malenkov from the post of chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, and the center of power moved to him ... At the end of 50, the beginning of 60, a slowdown in economic growth and labor productivity became more pronounced. At the XXII Congress of the CPSU in 1961, measures to combat the Stalin personality cult were intensified, which led to the final break of bilateral ties with China, to a confrontation between the two largest Communist parties in the world, which lasted until the 1989 year. And it caused a split in the communist parties of many countries, which had a very negative impact on the revolutionary liberation movement in the world. ” In the USSR, "the mechanisms for the eradication of bureaucratic forms of governance were never created." And "socialism, if not consciously assimilated, it remains on the surface."
Author:
Originator:
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/39764
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 12 November 2017 15: 31
    +5
    Good analysis ...
    1. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 12 November 2017 16: 41
      11
      Khrushchev forbade the KGB to operatively control the party nomenclature, after which it was only necessary to wait for the most corrupt, the most vile, the most corrupt ones to climb up and devour the state.
      1. MrK
        MrK 26 July 2018 15: 06
        0
        Quote: Nikolai S.
        Khrushchev forbade the KGB to quickly control party nomenclature,

        This is true. But the question arises: what are the incentive motives of the grub?
        What were the motivations for the appearance of a revealing report at the XX Party Congress?
        First, without trampling the predecessor in the mud, hoping for Khrushchev’s recognition as leader after Stalin was unthinkable. Not! Stalin, after his death, remained a competitor for Khrushchev, who had to be humiliated and destroyed by any means. It turned out that kicking a dead lion is a pleasure - it does not give up.
        The second motive was the desire of Khrushchev to return the party to the management of economic activity of the state. Lead everyone, for no reason, without answering and not obeying anyone.
        There is a third motive. In fact, the so-called party elite was weighed down by the fact that acquired by “overwork” can not only be passed on to children, but it is not their property. And as I wanted. This is the main reason for the 1991 counter-revolution of the year.
        The fourth motive, and perhaps the most important, was a terrible fear of the remnants of the "Leninist Guard" for their deeds. Indeed, all of them had hands, as Khrushchev himself put it, had an elbow in blood. Khrushchev and people like him, wanted not only to rule the country, but also to have guarantees that they would never be dragged on the rack, no matter what they did while in leadership positions.
        The 20th Congress of the CPSU gave them such guarantees in the form of an indulgence for the release of all sins, both past and future. The whole mystery of Khrushchev and his associates is not worth a damn: this is THE SITTING IN THEIR SOULS DEMANDING ANIMAL FEAR AND PAINFUL THIRST FOR AUTHORITY.
        From the article: STALIN REPRESSIONS OF THE 30-X. ARE YOU SURE THAT THEY ARE STALIN? http://www.proza.ru/2017/06/13/60
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 5 August 2018 18: 09
      0
      in a long-term and, it seems, carefully planned process, the post-Stalinist elite played.

      she-this - part (?) of the Stalinist government
      unity and struggle ...
  2. VadimSt
    VadimSt 12 November 2017 15: 51
    +3
    All right! Moreover, it should be noted that practically all the years of the existence of the USSR, they were “led” by immigrants, as they say now, from neighboring countries — Stalin (Georgia), Brezhnev (Ukraine). Yes, and not without famous Khrushchev, from 1938 to 1948, was tied to the first posts in Ukraine. Amazingly, it is these two countries, the “closest friends” of modern Russia!
  3. captain
    captain 12 November 2017 15: 58
    12
    The struggle for power in the CPSU has always been. And not only in the CPSU, in any other party of any state. Stalin cannot be called a true Leninist. He was against Leninist national politics, against the new administrative structure of the country. He was against the destruction of the church; he was in favor of removing her from the state and depriving her of land. Lenin and Trotsky were destroyers, they sought to arrange a world revolution, and they did not care how many Russians and other peoples of Russia remained after the fire of the world revolution. Lenin closed the faculties of history at universities and banned the teaching of the history of pre-revolutionary Russia at school. Stalin in the 1932 revived the historical faculties in universities and in the 1936 study of the history of pre-revolutionary Russia in schools. Stalin stopped the pogroms of churches and the destruction of monuments to historical figures of Russia. The Communists destroyed the grave of Admiral Ushakov and still cannot find the remains of this great man, destroyed the grave of Bagration, etc. And true Leninists smashed everything that would remind of the greatness of Russia before 1917. Stalin won in the struggle for power and stopped the complete mockery of Leninists over the history of Russia. With his death, the Trotskyites and their heirs who were not finished by him raised their heads again. Stalin was the only ruler during the Soviet era who revived the greatness of Russia. The merits of Lenin and Trotsky are not here.
    1. svp67
      svp67 12 November 2017 16: 55
      +2
      Quote: captain
      And not only in the CPSU, in any other party of any state.
      The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is not without this struggle.
      I will say in any state there is a struggle for power, just at different levels. That we are not witnesses of how this was done and is being done now in the USA ...
    2. VadimSt
      VadimSt 12 November 2017 17: 04
      +9
      + 100! Moreover, it was under Stalin, and not the “Leninists,” that the historical connection of Russia with its past was restored and this happened, upon the approval of orders and medals to them. Suvorov, Kutuzov, Ushakov, Nakhimov, and the Order of Glory, in fact, was an analogue of St. George's crosses. As well as the fact that the revival of the Guard and Cossack units is a fact of inheritance of the history of Russia!
    3. Karen
      Karen 12 November 2017 18: 21
      0
      The captain, add, pzhst, in your comment P.S. that Karen also thinks so. :)
    4. urman
      urman 12 November 2017 19: 57
      +3
      Quote: captain
      Stalin was the only ruler during the Soviet era who revived the greatness of Russia.

      good good At 150% I agree.
    5. RUSS
      RUSS 13 November 2017 16: 11
      0
      It is ridiculous to read that under Stalin there was no persecution of the church and that temples were not destroyed under him. The Cathedral of Christ the Savior was blown up by whom?
      1. rumatam
        rumatam 13 November 2017 20: 06
        0
        laugh what he blew up?
        1. RUSS
          RUSS 13 November 2017 20: 17
          0
          Quote: rumatam
          laugh what he blew up?

          By order of Stalin, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was blown up.
  4. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 November 2017 16: 21
    +1
    Author, I’ll put you + for Charles’s quote. Ready: the bull's-eye.
    Life shows that revision is triumphant, and classical socialism is in the past.
    Look at the example of China: the so-called Free Economic Zone (in 1987??, And now
  5. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 12 November 2017 16: 28
    +7
    Some ideological naphthalene is being pulled out ...
    What are the Leninists? Who is fake than others? Who is the most fake? belay
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 12 November 2017 16: 45
      +6
      Today is the day of the authors - "specific sense". It is demonstrated what happens when people can write, they are not afraid of it, but foam is in the head. There was just material about dirty Europe and the lack of latrines ... now here it is ... Well - everything is compared in comparison. Tomorrow is Monday and this will not happen!
      1. Horseman without a head
        Horseman without a head 12 November 2017 17: 40
        18
        Keep good
      2. Curious
        Curious 12 November 2017 19: 22
        +2
        Polyfoam is a high-tech product. I am for the classic chaff. Moreover, it is environmentally friendly.
  6. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 November 2017 18: 36
    +2
    Quote: parusnik
    Good analysis ...

    But one-sided. Listen to the author and you will believe that Lenin and Stalin are honored in China and Cuba, but in kind there .... In 1984, Free Economic Zones appear in China, where the union is forbidden, the working day as needed by the owner, fell ill and farewell (as our people said) Media), and is this possible under Stalin? Now they have private companies where the owner sets the weekend himself, now I can name: Huawei, Global (?) And some other automobiles. Hong Kong, and there EVERYTHING belongs to the West and the inner life is also in a Western manner. This, even now, is NOT POSSIBLE with us. Somewhere, Fidel Castro declares a week-long mourning for John Paul2 (Wojtyla is anti-communist and Russophobia), and during his lifetime he acted better than McCain (he even admits that the USSR was among the victors in WWII) ', and the Pole, that the Soviet Union, that the Reich .
    Now in Cuba, blue is respected and they were in line for FREE US ships, and shifts are given only to FAITHFUL HATCHERS
  7. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 November 2017 18: 41
    +3
    Quote: VadimSt
    + 100! Moreover, it was under Stalin, and not the “Leninists,” that the historical connection of Russia with its past was restored and this happened, upon the approval of orders and medals to them. Suvorov, Kutuzov, Ushakov, Nakhimov, and the Order of Glory, in fact, was an analogue of St. George's crosses. As well as the fact that the revival of the Guard and Cossack units is a fact of inheritance of the history of Russia!

    I agree with you: Stalin, unlike Bronstein and Co., knew and VALUED THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE, and those young men only dreamed about the World Revolution, and we had consumables for them
  8. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 November 2017 18: 43
    +3
    Quote: captain
    The struggle for power in the CPSU has always been. And not only in the CPSU, in any other party of any state. Stalin cannot be called a true Leninist. He was against Leninist national politics, against the new administrative structure of the country. He was against the destruction of the church; he was in favor of removing her from the state and depriving her of land. Lenin and Trotsky were destroyers, they sought to arrange a world revolution, and they did not care how many Russians and other peoples of Russia remained after the fire of the world revolution. Lenin closed the faculties of history at universities and banned the teaching of the history of pre-revolutionary Russia at school. Stalin in the 1932 revived the historical faculties in universities and in the 1936 study of the history of pre-revolutionary Russia in schools. Stalin stopped the pogroms of churches and the destruction of monuments to historical figures of Russia. The Communists destroyed the grave of Admiral Ushakov and still cannot find the remains of this great man, destroyed the grave of Bagration, etc. And true Leninists smashed everything that would remind of the greatness of Russia before 1917. Stalin won in the struggle for power and stopped the complete mockery of Leninists over the history of Russia. With his death, the Trotskyites and their heirs who were not finished by him raised their heads again. Stalin was the only ruler during the Soviet era who revived the greatness of Russia. The merits of Lenin and Trotsky are not here.

    100% for!
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 13 November 2017 16: 13
      0
      good cool and tasteful !!!
  9. Flying Dutchman
    Flying Dutchman 12 November 2017 19: 12
    +3
    Well, as regards the struggle in the "ranks of the Bolsheviks," some are misinterpreting: about 15 parties from the Bolsheviks to the extreme right ESRs and anarchists took part in the Revolution, and they were also in the beginning and in leading posts in politics and economics, and in the army. That’s where this struggle came from “among the Bolsheviks” and why there was confusion until Stalin raked this confusion and rabble, for which Stalin and the rabble are nice to hate Stalin and Beria. As it turned out after the death of Stalin, there were enough different scatter and rabble to bring the country to collapse. And the author correctly determined the beginning of the collapse of the USSR. Only now the current "Communist Parties" do not understand this.
    1. MrK
      MrK 26 July 2018 14: 38
      0
      Quote: Flying Dutchman
      The struggle for power in the CPSU has always been. And not only in the CPSU, in any other party of any state.


      The question is not in the presence or obsession of the struggle. The question is what is the fight going for?
      For loot, for kurshavely, for apartments in London. Or for the vision of building socialism in the USSR.

      Quote: Flying Dutchman
      Stalin cannot be called a true Leninist. He was against Leninist national politics, against the new administrative structure of the country.


      Do not know the story, sir. Lenin was for the Stalinist national tile. But the nomenclature in Georgia and Ukraine stood on its hind legs. I had to create a voluntary association of republics in the USSR. And write the right to enter the constitution.
      Quote: Flying Dutchman
      And true Leninists smashed everything that would remind of the greatness of Russia until 1917

      And what did you want from them. decades of hard labor, links. Of course, these people instilled in themselves hatred not only of tsarist power, but also of the history of the country.
  10. Ural resident
    Ural resident 12 November 2017 20: 46
    +1
    I did not understand anything from the article.
    moreover, "here is a handful of the largest persons represented by Khrushchev inside the CPSU who have embarked on the capitalist path" - which capitalist path? Our trouble was just that there was no economy. and a little capitalism would not hurt. People would live well and have private property would not rush in the 90s.
    The political system of the Soviet Union was in principle correct. There was no economy and simple things.
    1. Alexander Greene
      Alexander Greene 12 November 2017 23: 12
      +2
      Quote: Resident of the Urals
      Our trouble was just that there was no economy. and a little capitalism would not hurt. People would live well and have private property would not rush in the 90s.

      In the Stalinist USSR, the economy was just based on two pillars:
      1. two-level scale of prices at which all means of production were withdrawn from commodity circulation,
      2. Orientation of enterprises to reduce production costs.
      This economy, which began to be called Stalin's, made it possible to lower prices for all goods annually; the real ruble was increasingly filled with goods.
      And a little capitalism was just planted by Khrushchev, as soon as he sold the MTS agricultural equipment to the collective farms, so immediately the food prices rose, because the collective farms had to include the cost of equipment in the cost of goods.
      And Kosygin finished off the Stalinist economy, which transferred all industrial enterprises to self-financing, that is, to profit. All planned indicators began to be given in monetary terms, while under Stalin, indicators were calculated in terms of production. And then the distortions began. It became not profitable to produce cheap products; they began to be washed out. so there was a deficit.
    2. MrK
      MrK 26 July 2018 14: 49
      0
      Quote: Resident of the Urals
      and a little capitalism would not hurt.

      Stalin taught that as capitalism does not arise by itself, but grows out of feudalism. So socialism grows out of capitalism. And he takes not only the best of him, but also his vices.
      I want to remind you that at the time of Stalin's death in the USSR there were more than 114 000 non-state enterprises that produced, for example, more than 40% of furniture, more than 70% of tableware, more than 30% of knitwear, almost 100% of goods for children. In the field of catering - more than 40% of restaurants, cafes, canteens, etc. were not state-owned, almost 45% of the retail trade turnover in the USSR of the 50-x model was given by cooperation, etc. This is "your little capitalism would not hurt"
      And during the Great Patriotic War, cooperatives carried out up to 40% of the state defense order.

      And the difference between cooperation under Stalin and in 1989 is as follows.
      Under Stalin, there was a principle: one share in a cooperative - one voice is independent of the size of the share.
      In 1989, private enterprises were called cooperatives, where the owner of any employed employee could put cancer
      1. MrK
        MrK 26 July 2018 14: 59
        0
        Quote: mrark
        It became not profitable to produce cheap products; they began to be washed out. so there was a deficit.

        In fact, all the deficits appeared after Khrushchev demolished the cooperation and declared the private trader a speculator. And the Kosygin-Liberman reform only exacerbated the negative processes in the economy.
        All this on the shelves is laid out in the book “CURSED” SOVIET AUTHORITY ..., on Proza.ru.