After Stalin, there were no communists in the USSR


After Stalin, in the USSR (and even more so in modern Russia) there were no and no communists. This phrase is often pronounced enough to emphasize that the CPSU at one time “turned the wrong way”, in fact abandoning the goals originally set for the party (then with a different name).


The situation that struck the party, which is far from communist ideals, really gives reason to reflect on the fact that after Joseph Stalin the communists in our country were transferred. Instead of state interests, the party switched to protecting the interests of the elite.

Some representatives of the party elite, of course, made attempts to “reconfigure” the management regime, but in the end, instead of “reconfiguration” came the well-known Gorbachev perestroika, which turned out to not even be a perestroika, but a complete demolition of everything and everything.

We were rebuilt to the point that we lost our country, we lost our ideals, we lost confidence in tomorrow and our understanding of why and for whom all this was created by decades of hard work.

The end of the USSR suggests that the CPSU did not give a damn about the support system of state institutions. The party began to boil in its own juice with a tightly closed lid.

The situation with Gorbachev’s perestroika, glasnost and other innovations that preceded the collapse of a great country is contemplated by the author of the Russophobia issue on the tired optimist channel.

Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aerodrome 29 January 2020 06: 36 New
    • 11
    • 4
    +7
    After Stalin, there were no communists in the USSR
    and now, no, and even more so. there are pocket "opposition" mongrels.
    1. Hunter 2 29 January 2020 06: 55 New
      • 21
      • 7
      +14
      In the manual - No! But ordinary Communists where did they go? There are enough of them - honest and decent people, negatively related to Zyuganov and the company.
      That is why immediately all under one comb ???
      1. Aerodrome 29 January 2020 07: 03 New
        • 14
        • 4
        +10
        Quote: Hunter 2
        In the manual - No! But ordinary Communists where did they go? There are enough of them - honest and decent people, negatively related to Zyuganov and the company.
        That is why immediately all under one comb ???

        gee ... there are honest and decent people in any party, and even in prison ... but they do not "rule".
      2. mark1 29 January 2020 07: 05 New
        • 5
        • 7
        -2
        Quote: Hunter 2
        But ordinary Communists where did they go?

        Indeed - where did the 19 million ordinary communists go? The numerical growth of the CPSU went until 000 inclusive, and then again! - and everyone was mistaken or deceived (well, just small children).
        1. Hunter 2 29 January 2020 07: 27 New
          • 16
          • 6
          +10
          Quote: mark1

          Indeed - where did the 19 million ordinary communists go? The numerical growth of the CPSU went until 000 inclusive, and then again! - and everyone was mistaken or deceived (well, just small children).

          Not lost and not mistaken! Yes - Many were really Fooled! For example, My Grandfather joined the party on the Front in 1944 .... he remained Communist until the end, cursing the Sword and the Alkash. He left in 1997.
          I do not at all share the ideas of communism, but I will not allow slandering the rank-and-file Communists (not opportunists and opportunists).
          1. mark1 29 January 2020 08: 44 New
            • 1
            • 4
            -3
            Quote: Hunter 2
            but also denigrate the rank and file Communists (not opportunists and opportunists) I won’t.

            Yes who "non-conjuncturists and opportunists " does it blacken? The question is, what percentage of these worthy people were in the total 19 million mass?
            1. Hunter 2 29 January 2020 08: 53 New
              • 10
              • 3
              +7
              Quote: mark1

              Yes who "non-conjuncturists and opportunists " does it blacken? The question is, what percentage of these worthy people were in the total 19 million mass?

              But how do I know how many there were? I’m not St. Peter with the keys to Paradise (knowing all the actions and thoughts of people).
              One knew exactly - Grandpa! Then he laughed at Him ... and now I Regret ... that Little He said - How Proud of Him!
        2. bessmertniy 29 January 2020 07: 28 New
          • 6
          • 7
          -1
          For the most part, the Communists, to the collapse of the USSR, were simply a herd of sheep, whom Gorbachev and Yeltsin led — whom to “slaughter” and whom — into a bright entrepreneurial future through the theft of socialist property. hi
          1. Karen 29 January 2020 07: 55 New
            • 5
            • 6
            -1
            Quote: bessmertniy
            For the most part, the Communists for the collapse of the USSR were simply a herd of sheep, whom Gorbachev and Yeltsin

            He noted more than once ... Back in 1928, Professor of the Red Professor Litvinov explained to his listeners the truths: "A party is a herd of sheep ..."
            1. solzh 29 January 2020 14: 23 New
              • 8
              • 1
              +7
              Quote: Karen
              He noted more than once ... Back in 1928, Professor of the Red Professor Litvinov explained to his listeners the truths: "A party is a herd of sheep ..."

              They invented or prompted who?
              1. Karen 29 January 2020 14: 31 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Once subtracted from a paper book from his library.
                1. solzh 29 January 2020 14: 33 New
                  • 9
                  • 1
                  +8
                  And it is possible in more detail. As I understand it, based on your comment, you were told this somewhere or you read it somewhere. Interesting to know.
                  Quote: Karen
                  Once subtracted from his paper book.
                  1. Karen 29 January 2020 14: 37 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    With rare exceptions, he threw his "political" library in another city several years ago ... If I remember correctly, I read it in Episkoposov’s book "XX Century" ...
                    1. solzh 29 January 2020 14: 40 New
                      • 5
                      • 1
                      +4
                      Thank. I will try to find it on the internet, read it. You just know what I think, well, in principle, Litvinov could not say that. He would have been reminded of this phrase in 1937 or a little later, and he would have shared his fate with others.
                      1. Karen 29 January 2020 14: 42 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Here comrades have already noted to me in the comments that Litvinov was ground ... :)
                      2. solzh 29 January 2020 14: 45 New
                        • 7
                        • 0
                        +7
                        Oh how! I just read a biography of Litvinov, he died his own death. It was true that in his biography it was written based on the recollections of the same Mikoyan and Sudoplatov that they wanted to kill him, but they did not kill him and the reason why this decision was not made was not indicated.
        3. solzh 29 January 2020 14: 23 New
          • 9
          • 2
          +7
          Quote: bessmertniy
          For the most part, the Communists were simply a herd of rams.

          Judge by yourself?
      3. polar fox 29 January 2020 07: 55 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        Quote: mark1
        The numerical growth of the CPSU went until 1989 inclusive, and then again! - and everyone was mistaken or deceived (well, just small children).

        it’s you on a direct line from the guarantor ask why he changed his shoes so famously ...
      4. mark1 29 January 2020 11: 34 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Judging by the action, "ordinary communists started moving - is that how many minuses should I fly 18?" what
    2. Ros 56 29 January 2020 08: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      So the comb is golden, that’s the thing. hi
    3. efimich41 30 January 2020 14: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "Hunter 2 (Alexey) Yesterday, 06:55 AM NEW
      +12
      In the manual - No! But ordinary Communists where did they go? There are enough of them - honest and decent people, negatively related to Zyuganov and the company.
      That’s why immediately all under one comb ??? "

      They did not object to the criminal leadership of the CPSU, i.e. agreed with the collapse of the USSR and took part in the plundering of the national economy. What kind of communists are these? I believe that after the renaming of the All-Union Communist Party of Communists, there were no communists left.
    4. Krasnoyarsk 2 February 2020 19: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Hunter 2
      In the manual - No! But ordinary Communists where did they go? There are enough of them - honest and decent people, negatively related to Zyuganov and the company.
      That is why immediately all under one comb ???

      That's it! I think the title of the article is incorrect. It would be right to say - in the highest echelons of power.
  2. nikvic46 29 January 2020 07: 24 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Aerodromnyy. The Communists themselves allowed to be imprisoned in the state. budget. What kind of opposition is there.
    1. bessmertniy 29 January 2020 07: 59 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      They believed that in any situation they would not lose. BUT "counted - wept." request
  3. Basil50 29 January 2020 11: 48 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    airfield
    The author initially began to * lead away *. In 1953, a military coup took place. This coup began with the assassination of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.
    Why the coup occurred is another question, but how many heroes of the Great Patriotic War suddenly ended up in prisons, and bandits and those who served the Germans were released. It was under Khrushchev that batons appeared in the police and were allowed to beat the detainees. It was during Khrushchev that there were almost twice as many arrested, and before that criminals and traitors were released, and then they were rehabilitated.
    Who sat in the place of bandits and policemen?
  • Vladimir_2U 29 January 2020 06: 36 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Not quite so, of course, because the revisionism of the Stalinist principles did not begin immediately after the death of Stalin, but after the strengthening of Khrushchev in power.
  • Far B 29 January 2020 06: 41 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    party (then with a different name)
    The CPSU (b) was renamed the CPSU in 1952, during the life of the ITT.
    there were no communists
    Provocative statement, implies all party members. But, if the top rotted - this does not mean that careerists were all at all levels.
    But the top, of course, has rotted. And how could she not rot when Kukuruznik forbade the bodies to develop a leading party composition? Impunity is the same.
    1. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 06: 48 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      By developing top management, bodies become omnipotent. and in fact the state becomes under the control of the leadership of these very bodies. you get the same impunity just in a different way. for you will not even have a clue who really runs the state. therefore, security officials will always be limited in such matters.
      1. Far B 29 January 2020 06: 52 New
        • 6
        • 3
        +3
        developing top management bodies become omnipotent
        That is, you can’t touch it at all ??? Damn, the priest Ulyulyukaev set free with a clear conscience ...
        In fact, the issue of control over the country's leadership is completely resolved. And in Stalin's time, he suddenly worked.
        And it’s not about the leadership of the country, but about the leading party membership. A little different things.
        1. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 07: 07 New
          • 4
          • 6
          -2
          not so of course) you need to look for a balance. no one has yet achieved it, but you have to try. and in the Stalin era, he also did not work. just because in essence, as now, all was solved by one person.
          1. Far B 29 January 2020 07: 21 New
            • 8
            • 3
            +5
            Worked. In more or less degree. Rather, more - any member of the country's collegial governing body knew that he was not immune from all the "very, very best." I dare to assume because he one man made better decisions than the present one man not?
            1. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 07: 23 New
              • 4
              • 5
              -1
              perhaps. I do not want to condemn these or those decisions or, on the contrary, to support. what was it was.
        2. vladcub 29 January 2020 08: 16 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Far In
          developing top management bodies become omnipotent
          That is, you can’t touch it at all ??? Damn, the priest Ulyulyukaev set free with a clear conscience ...
          In fact, the issue of control over the country's leadership is completely resolved. And in Stalin's time, he suddenly worked.
          And it’s not about the leadership of the country, but about the leading party membership. A little different things.

          But in my opinion the essence is one "tip" on the spit on ideas.
          Stalin, in 1937, foresaw that the distributor would not be brought to good.
          Here is what Stalin said at the Plenum of the CPSU (B.): "Party groups in the Soviets, and especially in the executive committees of the Soviets, often turned into bodies that replace the work of the Soviets, into bodies that decide everything .... it will be necessary to enter the next party congress with the proposal to cancel the clause of the Charter of the CPSU (b) on the organization of party groups in the Soviets.
          While Stalin was alive, it was possible to hammer a bolt on the skinners with party tickets!
          1. Sergej1972 26 February 2020 15: 43 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            However, despite criticism of Stalin, the situation has not changed in this regard. And party groups were not canceled.
    2. vladcub 29 January 2020 07: 42 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      "the top certainly rotted" people say: "the fish stinks from the head."
      “that careerists were completely at all levels” no, but they are the most noticeable. The latter did EVERYTHING possible to remove the ideological from the leadership, and as a result: "Belovezhskaya posdelki"
  • apro 29 January 2020 07: 14 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    After consolidating power and the state, the Soviet civilization project ended up in a theoretical impasse. Instead of working out management methods, it began to cook in past dogmas suitable for struggle, but they didn’t do anything with the planned and progressive construction of Soviet society.
    1. Far B 29 January 2020 07: 41 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      rested after hardening power and state to a theoretical impasse
      Oh really ??? Under Stalin, in your opinion, the power and the state were fragile? Is not Soviet the project rested, namely party. It was not for nothing that Stalin at the 52nd Congress planned to transfer the full control to the Soviets, and leave the party only as a curator of the ideological. Not fused.
      And the fact that the evolution of the theory of Marxism is necessary was said by Stalin himself: "Without theory, we will die, death!".
      1. apro 29 January 2020 07: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Far In
        This is not a Soviet project, but a party project.

        One does not cancel the other. It was the Communist Party that was the main engine of the Soviet project. And the problems in the party were reflected in all spheres of Soviet society.
        1. Far B 29 January 2020 08: 40 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          it is the party of communists
          Do not exaggerate. It was not in vain that they wrote in the WWII, "in case of death, please consider me a communist." Having a membership card and being a communist are very different things.
      2. Egoza 29 January 2020 08: 44 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Quote: Far In
        It was not for nothing that Stalin at the 52nd Congress planned to transfer the full control to the Soviets, and leave the party only as a curator of the ideological. Not fused.

        That's what they poisoned for! And how then they tried to remove those who could support and lead the country by the Stalinist course ..... just remember Masherov. and you yourself know.
      3. Sergej1972 26 February 2020 15: 44 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        The materials of the 19th congress do not testify to this at all.
  • rocket757 29 January 2020 07: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The situation that struck the party, which is far from communist ideals, really gives reason to reflect on the fact that after Joseph Stalin the communists in our country transferred

    This, of course, is unlikely ... but after all, the fish goes dead from the head, and climb to the top, climb, all sorts of different. This is not something new or unusual.
    A system based on the personal characteristics of the top leaders is very vulnerable later, when worthy people leave, and everyone crawls to the top .... everyone, in short.
    1. Mestny 29 January 2020 08: 46 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      On the other hand, with "real democracy", just about anyone climb. And then they only yell and swear among themselves.
      Only an authoritarian system can move forward quickly. Another question is if suddenly the direction of movement is incorrect.
      1. rocket757 29 January 2020 09: 34 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        There is no ideally reliable system. Both there and there, it depends heavily on the personality of the governing.
        Absolutely reliable methods of protection, correction, any system has not been created either ...
        Which is better, what is worse, is a rhetorical question, and as long as the history of mankind.
        1. Mestny 29 January 2020 10: 11 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Here is more specific.
          For a dash forward, a quick solution to problems, a dictatorship is needed.
          In a quiet area of ​​the trajectory, democracy can be. All the same, no strategy will be born from the mass talking room, albeit sluggish and slow.
  • bessmertniy 29 January 2020 07: 25 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The Communist Party was reborn when it began to be guided not by the elementary criteria of justice in building the future of the country, but by the principles of the redistribution of its benefits in favor of thieves and enterprising people who know how to circumvent laws. hi
    1. rocket757 29 January 2020 09: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I can’t say that this is what happens ... it happens in different ways. There are no guarantees and no system has learned to defend itself in such a way that absolutely. The process is ongoing and it will continue .....
  • nikvic46 29 January 2020 07: 36 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    After Stalin's death, the party was divided into factions. And the struggle was serious. The debate was how to live on. After a significant congress, the number of members of the CPSU increased sharply. And besides various shushers, the front-line soldiers remained in the party. And while they were working, the party was still fulfilling its inertia tasks. At one time, Molotov said that the money that we invest in the virgin lands could be of great benefit within Russia. And here is the notorious base of communism. In fact, the people of power have already built it, not starting to build it. And in fact, being in market economy, it all goes on.
  • Amateur 29 January 2020 07: 52 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: carstorm 11
    By developing top management, bodies become omnipotent. and in fact the state becomes under the control of the leadership of these very bodies.

    I apologize for the long quote, but the statement that "the organs are above the party" belongs to N. Khrushchev and is false. It was the refusal to control the top of the party that ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR.
    On December 1, 1938, a resolution was adopted by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, "On the Procedure for Coordinating Arrests." It was signed by Stalin and Molotov. The decision once again confirmed the abolition of the sovereign “triples” and at the same time restored the provisions of Stalin’s decree of February 13, 1937 on the inadmissibility of arrests of production leaders without the permission of the respective people's commissars. Moreover, the decision broadened the range of arrests, which the NKVD was supposed to receive a sanction from production people's commissariats. The resolution said: "Permission to arrest executives of the People’s Commissariats of the Union and Union Republics and equivalent central institutions (heads of departments and departments, trust managers and their deputies, directors and deputy directors of industrial enterprises, state farms, etc.), and also serving in various institutions of engineers, agronomists, professors, doctors, managers, scientists, educational and research institutions - are given in agreement with the corresponding People’s Commissars of the USSR or Union Republics, by affiliation. "
    It was also forbidden to arrest members and candidates for membership of the CPSU (b) without prior agreement "with the first secretaries, and in their absence, with the second secretaries of district, or city, or district, or regional, or regional committees of the CPSU (b), or the Central Committee National Communist Parties ".
    The arrests of senior workers demanded the permission of the highest party or Soviet leadership. From now on, permission was required from the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to arrest the communists "who occupy leading positions in the People’s Commissariats of the USSR and equivalent central institutions, or against responsible communist workers of party, Soviet and economic institutions." The resolution prohibited the arrest of deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Supreme Soviets of the Union and Autonomous Republics without the consent of the chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR or the chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Councils of the Union and Autonomous Republics. Arrests of servicemen of the highest, senior and middle commanding personnel could be made only "in agreement with the people's commissar of defense or the people's commissar of the Navy."
  • Van 16 29 January 2020 08: 05 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    At one time, his grandfather had a chance to work in Belarus, and then with very great respect he later treated Masherov. "Real Communist" - his words.
    1. Sergej1972 29 January 2020 13: 39 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I read a lot of good things about Zimyanin. But these two prominent representatives of Belarus in the Soviet leadership could not stand each other.
  • Barmaleyka 29 January 2020 08: 14 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    After Stalin, there were no and no communists in the USSR (and even more so in modern Russia).
    Well, this is of course bust, there were also another question: how much and the fact that they were not allowed to the authorities
  • CommanderDIVA 29 January 2020 08: 36 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Stalin was primarily a Bolshevik, a comrade-in-arms of Lenin, and as the veterans told, the difference between the Bolshevik and the Communist was significant, primarily in the ideological sphere, already in the 60-70s of the last century the Bolsheviks died out in the CPSU
    1. knn54 29 January 2020 11: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The Bolsheviks saw Lenin alive, and the Communists saw him at the tomb. Well, in the Mausoleum, although the essence does not change.
  • Jarserge 29 January 2020 09: 19 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    After Stalin's death, the uninhabited Trotskyists came to power. Illiterate merciless and self-confident
    1. Nasrat 29 January 2020 09: 30 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: Jarserge
      After Stalin's death, the uninhabited Trotskyists came to power. Illiterate merciless and self-confident

      Trotskyists ??? Their own Stalin led all .... from where so many Trotskyists then? But the same Khrushchev, so generally faithful Stalinist ... Stalin moved him everywhere ... In 1929, studying at the industrial academy in Moscow Nikita Khrushchev met Joseph Stalin's wife Nadezhda Alliluyeva, who studied there, thanks to which he becomes secretary party committee. With this actually began the party career of Khrushchev. in 1931 he was already the first secretary of the Bauman district committee, in 1934 the first secretary of the Kiev regional committee, then from 1935 to 1938 he was the first secretary of the Moscow regional committee of the party. since 1938, Khrushchev became the first secretary of the central committee of the Communist Party and Ukraine, and in 1939 a member of the Politburo. In 1949, Khrushchev again moved to Moscow as the first secretary of the Moscow regional party committee. In 1953, after the death of Joseph Stalin, he became the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Dizzying career !!! Stalin took a direct part in it .... so that Khrushchev is a faithful Stalinist ... but after 1953 Khrushchev revised his views on Stalin ... wassat
      1. Jarserge 29 January 2020 11: 56 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        No one ever succeeded in getting ALL out. This is the first. Second, reveal the "modest" term behind which lies the reason why Khrushchev was removed. VOLUNTARISM. This is pure and undisguised Trotskyism. From which the USSR was never able to get rid of until its last minute, supporting, almost always at the expense of various regimes around the world, for the sake of the “fire of the world revolution”, “the cause of the triumph of socialism”. The slogan is not important
        1. Serg65 30 January 2020 12: 03 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Jarserge
          This is pure and undisguised Trotskyism.

          If Trotsky was a faithful Leninist and Lenin himself considered Lev Davidovich to be the second person in the RSDLP (b), then did Lenin also be a Trotskyist? Then there is a vague suspicion ... did Stalin remove the Trotskyist Lenin?
        2. Essex62 2 February 2020 08: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In promoting the cause of socialism around the world is necessary. Counteraction of the counter, the ability to spoil, provoke flower beds is sharply limited by socialist legality in such countries. It was not for nothing that Stalin did his best to include as many countries of Eastern Europe as possible into the orbit of socialism. And only the presence of a vigorous bomb among the Masons did not allow to attract frogs and others to this matter. Having lost the foothold on our continent, the Freemasons to shit and carry out subversive activities in promoting the selfish-baryzh idea would be difficult.
    2. Nasrat 29 January 2020 09: 37 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      In our country, there is no culture of political life in the government ... It never existed .. (tsarism, totalitarianism, the dominant role of a single party, etc.)
      Therefore, the role of the "king" in our country determines the historical period - a good "king" - a good time, a bad "king" - a bad time, for the people ... And until now, everything is based on this ... when something changes in this regard, the life of the people will also change ... the life of the people will not depend so much on who sits on the "throne" ....
      1. Jarserge 29 January 2020 12: 02 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        What nonsense do you say. And where is the culture of "political life in government"? And in general, what kind of beast is this? No need to "ride on the ears" of Western agitation. Not everything is as healthy as it seems to you in the West both historically and in the present.
    3. AU Ivanov. 29 January 2020 12: 13 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Faithful Leninists came, not Trotskyists. Although the difference between Leninists and Trotskyists is minimal.
      1. Jarserge 29 January 2020 12: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I understand that perhaps because of your youth, you might not fall asleep in the lessons of Marxism-Leninism or simply not remember. The difference between the Trotskyists and Leninists and the Stalinists is simple. The Trotskyists considered Russia a log in the fire of the world revolution, the first step, of little value and unpromising. Leninists and Stalinists were statesmen who built the state, and built socialism in one state, practically refused to spread the "fire of the world revolution." The USSR returned to what kind of fire inflamed with the reign of Nikita Khrushchev
        1. Sergej1972 29 January 2020 13: 47 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          And the support of the Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean communists, and how to evaluate the support of the left forces during the civil war in Greece? Or the establishment of socialist regimes in Eastern Europe? Or the support of the Communist Parties of France, Italy, Spain? And the creation of Cominform? And Zhdanov’s speech about two opposing camps? It was all under Stalin.
        2. parusnik 29 January 2020 17: 50 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          hi I do not agree with you that Khrushchev fanned the fire of the world revolution, but the fact that he supported the nationalist revolutions with a socialist connotation is a fact ... Egypt, A. Nasser was the "best" friend of the USSR, cut Egyptian communists to the ground, the same thing happened in Syria , Iraq, Algeria, Indonesia ...
          1. Sergej1972 26 February 2020 15: 47 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            In Indonesia, the Communists were massacred in 1965, after Suharto came to power. Under Socarno, they were very influential.
        3. Serg65 30 January 2020 12: 10 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Jarserge
          Trotskyists considered Russia a log in the fire of the world revolution, the first step, low value and unpromising. Leninists and the Stalinists were statesmen who built the state, and built socialism in one state

          Have you read Lenin yourself? You are our ideological ..
          Comrades! our revolution is experiencing an extremely critical time. This crisis coincided with the great crisis of the growth of the world socialist revolution and the struggle against it of world imperialism. The responsible leaders of our party have a gigantic task, the failure of which threatens the complete collapse of the internationalist proletarian movement. A moment such that procrastination is truly death


          Lenin V.I. Complete Works Volume 34 Page 385
  • Gardamir 29 January 2020 09: 51 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Title about Stalin, article about Gorbachev. Maybe let's go ahead and talk about today's communists. No, not Zyuganov, others. About the members of the CPSU comrades Putin, Medvedev, Matvienko and others.
    1. AU Ivanov. 29 January 2020 10: 12 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Well, in our elite these members prevail. Not the CPSU, so the Komsomol. The Communist Party after Stalin turned into an incubator of careerists. Stalin was right when he wanted to remove the party from power by transferring it to the Soviets. It would be a completely different country.
    2. Jarserge 29 January 2020 12: 04 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Today there are NO Communists in the political horizon of Russia. There is a petty-bourgeois Communist Party party parasitizing on communist slogans and ideas.
      1. parusnik 29 January 2020 17: 53 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        I agree. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation supports private ownership of the means of production ...
    3. Serg65 30 January 2020 12: 13 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Gardamir
      No, not Zyuganov, others

      Well, why, let's talk about the current pseudo-communists .. for example, about Sergey Levchenko Giorgievich?
  • malyvalv 29 January 2020 11: 27 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    As the classics of Marxism said, "being determines consciousness." If the younger generation by the 70s in the USSR did not hold a hammer or a hammer in their hands, then where did the Communists come from among them? So Gorbachev and his comrades appeared. And they say there was no democracy in the USSR.
  • Astra wild 29 January 2020 13: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Colleagues, I do not accept the term itself: "Russophobia" it is not correct. What is a phobia - "fear, fear" of the Greek Phobos.
    It is not fair to identify Communists only with Russians to K. Marx, the ideas of communism. Were the Russians only communists? But Shaumyan, and Musa Jalil, and Dolores Ibaruri, and Ernst Telman, Ruben Ibaruri, and only the Russian Communists perished at the front? And so beloved Vladkub, Stalin?
  • place 29 January 2020 16: 50 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    COMMUNISM - INITIALLY DETERMINED AS A PART OF THE WORKING MOVEMENT, LEADING THE FIGHT FOR A POLITICAL LIVING. Such a movement in Russia was, although weak, but during the period of a huge influx of population from villages to cities, it was dissolved in the mass of descendants of serf cattle. As the classic used to say: "class-conscious workers will drown like a fly in milk." Communism is generally an international matter and corresponds to the most developed countries ... I believe that Stalin already understood the prospects in the 30s ... ... To the servile tribe and the servile orders, keep it up!
    1. Serg65 30 January 2020 12: 20 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: ort
      Stalin already in the 30s understood the prospects

      what Ahh, so did he turn the peasants into slaves?
  • Guazdilla 29 January 2020 20: 49 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    After Stalin, there were no communists in the USSR.

    Strange, in Israel they also did not increase after Stalin.
  • old friend 5 February 2020 03: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But wasn’t Koba himself doing his best? Who is responsible for clearing the party from people who are able to have and defend their point of view? After 1937-38 it is impossible to imagine that any of the "party comrades" would express an alternative point of view (not to mention advocating) and survive. Who is directly to blame for the fact that after his death those who turned out to be at the top? Sorry, but he himself laid the foundation for all subsequent problems of the party and the USSR as a whole.