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.

Comments

[Aerodrome]

After Stalin, there were no communists in the USSR

and now, not even more so. there are pocket "opposition" dogs.

[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 ???

[Aerodrome]

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 are not the ones who "rule".

[mark1]

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).

[Hunter 2]

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).

[mark1]

Quote: Hunter 2

but also denigrate the rank and file Communists (not opportunists and opportunists) I won’t.

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

[Hunter 2]

Quote: mark1

Who is "non-opportunists 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!

[bessmertniy]

Before the collapse of the USSR, the communists for the most part were just a herd of sheep, whom Gorbachev and Yeltsin were leading - some to "slaughter", and some - to a bright entrepreneurial future through the plundering of socialist property.

[Karen]

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 it more than once ... Back in 1928, Professor of the Red Professorship Litvinov explained to his listeners common truths: "The party is a herd of sheep ..."

[solzh]

Quote: Karen

He noted it more than once ... Back in 1928, Professor of the Red Professorship Litvinov explained to his listeners common truths: "The party is a herd of sheep ..."

They invented or prompted who?

[Karen]

Once subtracted from a paper book from his library.

[solzh]

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.

[Karen]

I threw my "political" library in another city several years ago with rare exceptions in the trash ... If I remember correctly, I read it from Episkoposov's book "XX century" ...

[solzh]

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.

[Karen]

Here comrades have already noted to me in the comments that Litvinov was ground ... :)

[solzh]

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.

[solzh]

Quote: bessmertniy

For the most part, the Communists were simply a herd of rams.

Judge by yourself?

[polar fox]

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 ...

[mark1]

Judging by the oeaktsii, "ordinary communists have started to move, how many minuses should I get 18?"

[Ros 56]

So the comb is golden, that’s the thing.

[efimich41]

"Hunter 2 (Alexey) Yesterday, 06:55 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 one size fits all at once ??? "

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.

[Krasnoyarsk]

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.

[nikvic46]

Aerodromnyy. The Communists themselves allowed to be imprisoned in the state. budget. What kind of opposition is there.

[bessmertniy]

They believed that they would not lose in any case. BUT "they calculated and wept".

[Basil50]

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]

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]

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.

[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. 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.

[Far B]

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.

[carstorm 11]

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.

[Far B]

Have worked. In more or less degree. Rather, in the greater part - any member of the collegial governing body of the country knew that he was not immune from all the "very best". I dare to guess because he one man made better decisions than the present one man not?

[carstorm 11]

perhaps. I do not want to condemn these or those decisions or, on the contrary, to support. what was it was.

[vladcub]

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.

And in my opinion the essence is one "tip" for spitting 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 All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks): "Party groups in the Soviets, and especially in the executive committees of the Soviets, have often turned into bodies that replace the work of the councils, the bodies that decide everything ... it will be necessary to enter the next party congress with a proposal to abolish 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!

[Sergej1972]

However, despite criticism of Stalin, the situation has not changed in this regard. And party groups were not canceled.

[vladcub]

"the top is definitely rotten" people say: "the fish stinks from the head."
"that at all levels there were all careerists" no, but they are the most noticeable. The latter did everything possible to remove the ideological from the leadership, and as a result: "Belovezhskaya posedelki"

[apro]

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.

[Far B]

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 that the evolution of the theory of Marxism is necessary, said the same Stalin: "Without a theory, we die, death!"

[apro]

Quote: Dalny V

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.

[Far B]

it is the party of communists

Don't exaggerate. In WWII, it was not in vain that they wrote before the battle "in case of death, please consider me a communist" Having a membership card and being a communist are very different things.

[Egoza]

Quote: Dalny V

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.

[Sergej1972]

The materials of the 19th congress do not testify to this at all.

[rocket757]

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.

[Mestny]

On the other hand, under "real democracy," just about anyone gets involved. And then they just yell and swear among themselves.
Only an authoritarian system can move forward quickly. Another question is if suddenly the direction of movement is incorrect.

[rocket757]

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.

[Mestny]

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]

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.

[rocket757]

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]

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]

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 lengthy quotation, but the statement that "the organs are becoming above the party" belongs to N. Khrushchev and is false. It was the renunciation of control over the top of the party that ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR.

On December 1, 1938, a resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) "On the procedure for coordinating arrests" was adopted. It was signed by Stalin and Molotov. The resolution once again confirmed the abolition of the omnipotent "triplets" and at the same time restored the provisions of Stalin's instructions of February 13, 1937 on the inadmissibility of arresting production managers without the permission of the respective people's commissars. Moreover, the decree expanded the circle of arrests, for which the NKVD was to receive a sanction from the production commissariats. The decree read: "Permission for arrests of the leading workers of the People's Commissariats of the Union and the Union republics and central institutions equated to them (heads of departments and heads of departments, managers of trusts and their deputies, directors and deputy directors of industrial enterprises, state farms, etc.), and also employed in various institutions of engineers, agronomists, professors, doctors, managers, scientists, educational and research institutions - are given in agreement with the relevant People's Commissars of the USSR or union republics, according to their affiliation. "
It was also forbidden to arrest members and candidates for membership of the CPSU (b) without the consent of "the first secretaries, and in their absence, with the second secretaries of the 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 officials required permission from the highest party or Soviet leadership. Henceforth, permission from the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was required to arrest communists "holding leading positions in the USSR People's Commissariats and central institutions equated to them, or in relation to responsible communist workers in party, Soviet and economic institutions." The decree prohibited the arrest of deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Supreme Soviets of union and autonomous republics without the consent of the chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR or chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of union and autonomous republics. Arrests of military personnel of the highest, senior and middle commanding staff could be carried out only "in agreement with the People's Commissar of Defense or the People's Commissar of the Navy."

[Van 16]

At one time, my grandfather had a chance to work in Belarus, and then he treated Masherov with great respect. "A real communist" - his words.

[Sergej1972]

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]

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]

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

[knn54]

The Bolsheviks saw Lenin alive, and the Communists saw him at the tomb. Well, in the Mausoleum, although the essence does not change.

[Jarserge]

After Stalin's death, the uninhabited Trotskyists came to power. Illiterate merciless and self-confident

[Nasrat]

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 ...

[Jarserge]

Nobody has ever succeeded in removing ALL. This is the first thing. 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 could not get rid of until its last minute, supporting, almost always to its own detriment, various regimes around the world, for the sake of the "fire of the world revolution", "the triumph of socialism." The slogan is not important

[Serg65]

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?

[Essex62]

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.

[Nasrat]

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 "tsar" in our country is determined by the historical period - a good "tsar" is a good time, a bad "tsar" is a bad time for the people ... And everything still rests 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" ...

[Jarserge]

What nonsense do you say. And where is the culture of "political life in state governance"? And in general, what kind of animal is this? There is no need to "go over the ears" with Western agitation. Not everything is as great as it seems to you in the West, both historically and in the present.

[AU Ivanov.]

Faithful Leninists came, not Trotskyists. Although the difference between Leninists and Trotskyists is minimal.

[Jarserge]

I understand that perhaps due to your youth you could not fall asleep in the lessons of Marxism-Leninism or simply not remember. The difference between Trotskyists and Leninists, and even Stalinists, is simple. The Trotskyists considered Russia a log in the fire of the world revolution, the first step, of little value and unpromising. The Leninists and Stalinists were statists who built the state and built socialism in one state, practically refused to spread the "fire of the world revolution". To what kind of fire was the USSR returned with the accession of Nikita Khrushchev

[Sergej1972]

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.

[parusnik]

I do not agree with you that Khrushchev fanned the fire of the world revolution, but the fact that he supported nationalist revolutions with a socialist tinge is a fact ... Egypt, A. Nasser was the "best" friend of the USSR, slaughtered the Egyptian communists to the core, the same thing happened in Syria , Iraq, Algeria, Indonesia ...

[Sergej1972]

In Indonesia, the Communists were massacred in 1965, after Suharto came to power. Under Socarno, they were very influential.

[Serg65]

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]

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.

[AU Ivanov.]

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.

[Jarserge]

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.

[parusnik]

I agree. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation supports private ownership of the means of production ...

[Serg65]

Quote: Gardamir

No, not Zyuganov, others

Well, why, let's talk about the current pseudo-communists .. for example, about Sergey Levchenko Giorgievich?

[malyvalv]

As the classics of Marxism said - "being determines consciousness." If the younger generation by the 70s in the USSR did not hold a sickle 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]

Colleagues, I do not accept the term itself: "russophobia" it is not correct. What is phobia - "fear, fear" from 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]

COMMUNISM - INITIALLY DEFINED AS A PART OF THE WORKERS 'MOVEMENT, LEADING THE FIGHT FOR POLITICAL DOMINANCE. Such a movement in Russia was, albeit weak, but during the period of a gigantic influx of population from villages to cities, it dissolved in the mass of the descendants of the serf cattle. As the classic used to say: "class-conscious workers will drown like a fly in milk." Communism, in general, is an international matter and corresponds to the most developed countries ... I believe that Stalin already in the 30s understood the prospects ...... To the servile tribe and servile orders, keep it up!

[Serg65]

Quote: ort

Stalin already in the 30s understood the prospects

Ahh, so did he turn the peasants into slaves?

[Guazdilla]

After Stalin, there were no communists in the USSR.

Strange, in Israel they also did not increase after Stalin.

[old friend]

Didn't Koba himself put maximum effort into this? Who is responsible for cleansing 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" expressed an alternative point of view (not to mention defending) and survived. Who is directly to blame that after his death those who turned out to be at the top? Sorry, but with his own hands he laid the foundation for all subsequent problems of the party and the USSR as a whole.