Background of the national protest
In the era of social and political upheavals that take place in our country, the question of where the domestic opposition draws its strength and resources comes from. Today, you can find a lot of materials on the Web that all these financial and logistical pillars are brought in from the outside, but only if external forces are trying to maintain instability on the territory of one sixth part (or already one seventh) of land? Perhaps there is in Russia and its own internal tradition of national protest, which has become a kind of expression of the opposition traditions of the new time?
And, if at least a little to deepen with the Soviet historythen you can find your own traditions and your own financing channels, about which it was not customary to say not only that when you were within your borders of the Land of the Soviets, but even in the so-called dashing nineties. Of course, the question of whether such traditions are purely internal remains open, because it is not a secret to anyone that any protest movement in our country very often, or rather, always, evokes keen interest and indispensable support in foreign countries.
It often happens that the protest moods of some were used and used to solve their goals by those forces that have nothing to do with what is happening. In this variant, the main thing is to catch the wave, and then try to set your own conditions on this wave. One of these protest movements, which is today considered a landmark in the Soviet era, was the Novocherkassk workers' movement. The background of this event is quite everyday. People decided to express their protest to the plant’s management due to the fact that while maintaining the factory’s wage level, the output rate was increased by one third, which forced Novocherkassk workers to work more for the same money.
The plant’s leadership could well have resolved issues with the plant’s assets, as they say, through civilized means, but, unfortunately, the leadership itself launched the flywheel of serious hostility. As a result of pogroms and executions during the actual uprising of workers in Novocherkassk, according to official data, 26 people were killed, according to an unofficial version, more than 80 factory workers. Seven factory workers after the investigation were sentenced to death - the execution.
Such an event could not go unnoticed by the so-called creative opposition, which began to form precisely in the mid-sixties as a special dissident class. The usual protest, which was born on the basis of a decrease in the standard of living, was immediately decided to be turned into total deficiencies of the Soviet leadership, which was certainly more acute in comparison with such utilitarian issues as a reduction in real wages. There were thoughts about creating a special fund, into which everyone could contribute to assist the families of victims of political repression.
It would seem that the idea is not bad at all, because the funds to this fund, which was finally formed by the 1973 year, were received on a voluntary basis. However, as evidenced by the active individuals themselves who were involved in the creation of this fund, the lion’s share of all funds was transferred to the fund by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. And after all, Alexander Isaevich, to put it mildly, subjected the Novocherkassk events to a peculiar interpretation, saying almost that the factory workers in the Rostov region openly opposed Soviet power.
In this regard, the question arises: where did the simple anti-Soviet writer have money for in order to actively help repressed Soviet citizens and also their families. According to unconfirmed data, the total treasury of Alexander Isaevich himself during his residence abroad amounted to a very substantial sum in terms of the Soviet currency - in 8 million rubles. Most of these solid means, Alexander Isaevich, reportedly received from the editions of his work "The Archipelago GULag." He sponsored a serious percentage of his fees for the Russian Public Foundation organized by him (in Zurich). The fund acted in a very simple way: the money from those who were not indifferent, including Solzhenitsyn himself, went to the common treasury, and then the so-called managers worked with money. Svetlana Pavlenkova was the regional manager of the fund in the USSR for the period from 1974 to 1979. She was engaged in creating packages and money transfers to political prisoners and their families.
For understandable reasons, it is difficult to find information in open access that relates to exactly what amounts went through the ROF created, but it is obvious that these amounts were not symbolic at all. The materials relating to the biography of Alexander Isayevich, says that he transferred tens of thousands of rubles to help the fund.
According to Kommersant, ROF was exempt from all types of taxes with the right to open branches in other Western countries while maintaining tax privileges.
In this regard, it is quite possible to say that the USSR State Security Committee adequately covered the eyes of the activities of the branches of this fund. Given the level of agent relations that the KGB had, it is foolish to assume that during 10 years they knew little about the activities of the foundation’s “enterprises”. It turns out that the employees of the competent authorities themselves indirectly supported the activities of the foundation in order to solve their tasks. It is foolish to assume that the creators of the Russian Public Foundation thought that they were encircling the security officers around the finger and holding their operational activities of the financial plan with the highest degree of conspiracy. But something else catches the eye: during the activities of this Foundation in the USSR, dozens of people who had one or another relationship were arrested and sentenced to different terms.
A strange business turns out: the creator of the Foundation was decided to be expelled from the country, but at the same time his sponsorship for a clearly anti-Soviet organization was not set up, but allowed the Foundation to work in a certain way with the adoption of preventive measures against the ROF employees. Everything is somehow too thin ...
The KGB did not particularly oppose even when Alexander Isaevich’s awards were taken out of the country, which even no one began to confiscate.
Based on this, each of the readers has the right to make his own conclusion about the traditions of the national protest and about the attitude of the authorities towards this protest. Perhaps a domestic protest is nothing more than the other side of a single medal, which is called a big political game, and in such a game there are always kings, queens and many pawns.
At the same time, as can be seen, Western countries have never disdained to cling to opposition (real or ostentatious) in order to try to loosen the situation in the USSR (Russia) at any price. And here it does not matter if the Novocherkassk workers are unhappy with their difficult financial situation or some representatives of the modern opposition are dissatisfied with the dull color of Lexus. The main thing is to catch in time the same breeze of discontent and then persistently sprinkle the bleeding place with salt. And this is the sponsors of the protests were able to do at all times.
Sources used:
http://www.c-society.ru/main.php?ID=533972
http://solzhenicyn.ru/modules/pages/Informaciya_KGB_o_deyatelnosti_Solzhenicyna_za_rubezhom.html
http://ttolk.ru/?p=11298
And, if at least a little to deepen with the Soviet historythen you can find your own traditions and your own financing channels, about which it was not customary to say not only that when you were within your borders of the Land of the Soviets, but even in the so-called dashing nineties. Of course, the question of whether such traditions are purely internal remains open, because it is not a secret to anyone that any protest movement in our country very often, or rather, always, evokes keen interest and indispensable support in foreign countries.
It often happens that the protest moods of some were used and used to solve their goals by those forces that have nothing to do with what is happening. In this variant, the main thing is to catch the wave, and then try to set your own conditions on this wave. One of these protest movements, which is today considered a landmark in the Soviet era, was the Novocherkassk workers' movement. The background of this event is quite everyday. People decided to express their protest to the plant’s management due to the fact that while maintaining the factory’s wage level, the output rate was increased by one third, which forced Novocherkassk workers to work more for the same money.
The plant’s leadership could well have resolved issues with the plant’s assets, as they say, through civilized means, but, unfortunately, the leadership itself launched the flywheel of serious hostility. As a result of pogroms and executions during the actual uprising of workers in Novocherkassk, according to official data, 26 people were killed, according to an unofficial version, more than 80 factory workers. Seven factory workers after the investigation were sentenced to death - the execution.
Such an event could not go unnoticed by the so-called creative opposition, which began to form precisely in the mid-sixties as a special dissident class. The usual protest, which was born on the basis of a decrease in the standard of living, was immediately decided to be turned into total deficiencies of the Soviet leadership, which was certainly more acute in comparison with such utilitarian issues as a reduction in real wages. There were thoughts about creating a special fund, into which everyone could contribute to assist the families of victims of political repression.
It would seem that the idea is not bad at all, because the funds to this fund, which was finally formed by the 1973 year, were received on a voluntary basis. However, as evidenced by the active individuals themselves who were involved in the creation of this fund, the lion’s share of all funds was transferred to the fund by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. And after all, Alexander Isaevich, to put it mildly, subjected the Novocherkassk events to a peculiar interpretation, saying almost that the factory workers in the Rostov region openly opposed Soviet power.
In this regard, the question arises: where did the simple anti-Soviet writer have money for in order to actively help repressed Soviet citizens and also their families. According to unconfirmed data, the total treasury of Alexander Isaevich himself during his residence abroad amounted to a very substantial sum in terms of the Soviet currency - in 8 million rubles. Most of these solid means, Alexander Isaevich, reportedly received from the editions of his work "The Archipelago GULag." He sponsored a serious percentage of his fees for the Russian Public Foundation organized by him (in Zurich). The fund acted in a very simple way: the money from those who were not indifferent, including Solzhenitsyn himself, went to the common treasury, and then the so-called managers worked with money. Svetlana Pavlenkova was the regional manager of the fund in the USSR for the period from 1974 to 1979. She was engaged in creating packages and money transfers to political prisoners and their families.
For understandable reasons, it is difficult to find information in open access that relates to exactly what amounts went through the ROF created, but it is obvious that these amounts were not symbolic at all. The materials relating to the biography of Alexander Isayevich, says that he transferred tens of thousands of rubles to help the fund.
According to Kommersant, ROF was exempt from all types of taxes with the right to open branches in other Western countries while maintaining tax privileges.
In this regard, it is quite possible to say that the USSR State Security Committee adequately covered the eyes of the activities of the branches of this fund. Given the level of agent relations that the KGB had, it is foolish to assume that during 10 years they knew little about the activities of the foundation’s “enterprises”. It turns out that the employees of the competent authorities themselves indirectly supported the activities of the foundation in order to solve their tasks. It is foolish to assume that the creators of the Russian Public Foundation thought that they were encircling the security officers around the finger and holding their operational activities of the financial plan with the highest degree of conspiracy. But something else catches the eye: during the activities of this Foundation in the USSR, dozens of people who had one or another relationship were arrested and sentenced to different terms.
A strange business turns out: the creator of the Foundation was decided to be expelled from the country, but at the same time his sponsorship for a clearly anti-Soviet organization was not set up, but allowed the Foundation to work in a certain way with the adoption of preventive measures against the ROF employees. Everything is somehow too thin ...
The KGB did not particularly oppose even when Alexander Isaevich’s awards were taken out of the country, which even no one began to confiscate.
Based on this, each of the readers has the right to make his own conclusion about the traditions of the national protest and about the attitude of the authorities towards this protest. Perhaps a domestic protest is nothing more than the other side of a single medal, which is called a big political game, and in such a game there are always kings, queens and many pawns.
At the same time, as can be seen, Western countries have never disdained to cling to opposition (real or ostentatious) in order to try to loosen the situation in the USSR (Russia) at any price. And here it does not matter if the Novocherkassk workers are unhappy with their difficult financial situation or some representatives of the modern opposition are dissatisfied with the dull color of Lexus. The main thing is to catch in time the same breeze of discontent and then persistently sprinkle the bleeding place with salt. And this is the sponsors of the protests were able to do at all times.
Sources used:
http://www.c-society.ru/main.php?ID=533972
http://solzhenicyn.ru/modules/pages/Informaciya_KGB_o_deyatelnosti_Solzhenicyna_za_rubezhom.html
http://ttolk.ru/?p=11298
Information