The capitalist formation: the creation of the working class as a double gift to the capitalists


Agrarian revolution



The end of serfdom dealt a heavy blow to the power of the Lords, but they still retained ownership of large tracts of land. It was from this position that the old masters began their counteroffensive against the free peasants of England.

The expansion of trade in the fourteenth century also created a growing demand for wool, of which England was the main exporter. In response, landowners began to forcibly evict their feudal tenants in order to turn entire villages into sheep breeding sites. The importance of this lucrative trade for the English nobility can be seen even today in the woolen bag on which the Lord Speaker is still sitting in the House of Lords.

The result of this outright robbery was the deprivation of property of many thousands of peasants, many of whom had no choice but to roam the earth in search of work or alms. This problem became so widespread that in 1489, Henry VII issued the first of a series of laws aimed at reducing the expulsion of peasants from rural areas.

The discovery of America and the ensuing giant rise in trade only added fuel to the fire. Throughout the Tudor period, agricultural production was shifted toward cash crops for the market, which led to the new breed of capitalist farmers hiring landless beggars as workers.

However, even this new mode of production was not enough to absorb the flood of poverty. In the end, the class of beggars "vagabonds" became so large that it forced Queen Elizabeth I to introduce a special "poor tariff" back in 1601 (at the same time, it was stipulated that "unlicensed beggars" would be executed without mercy as criminals).

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the expropriation and crowding out of the rural masses took an official form through the adoption of a number of laws in parliament. This was a disaster for the rural population: it actually brought the English peasantry to extinction by the 19th century, but it provided a huge army of poor workers for growing industry in and around the cities. It was this process of legalized theft that gave rise to the capitalist "property rights", which the modern advocates of capitalism admire so much.

State


Another myth that surrounds the birth of capitalism is that it was achieved thanks to the innovative economic activities of enterprising people as opposed to the dead hand of the state. This tale is regularly erased when the modern state is forced to carry out reforms under the pressure of workers, but always, whenever the opportunity arises, tries to cancel these reforms. In all respects, our future captains of industry and commerce depended on the most brutal government repression to defend their class interests.

Absolutism arose from the contradictions of a dying feudal society: the feudal monarchy rested alternately on landowners, the bourgeoisie and the peasantry. With one hand the monarchy restrained the expropriation of the peasantry, and with the other, acting usually in their own interests, in fact accelerated the development of capitalism.

Selling land expropriated from the church after the Reformation at reduced prices, for example, was a huge gift to the emerging 16th century capitalist farmers. Similarly, the establishment of colonial monopolies by all the absolutist monarchies of Western Europe provided substantial protection for the early development of the manufactory.

However, precisely because of its transitional and contradictory nature, this form of state at a certain moment comes into sharp conflict with the interests of the bourgeoisie. Once the bourgeoisie has seized economic domination, it should be able to govern in its own interests. Thus, the last vestiges of the feudal political system became only one more obstacle to the great striving for the accumulation of capital.

Beginning with the Dutch War of Independence, when the bourgeoisie embarked on the path of conquering political power, a wave of revolutions swept across Europe. In her struggle against the old order, she combined everything healthy and progressive in society under the slogan of "freedom." Sweeping away the particularism of the past, the revolutionaries cleared the way for the development of a truly national market. Instead of the arbitrary privileges of absolutism, they demanded "the rule of law", which in practice always meant the rule of the bourgeoisie.

But the great and tragic contradiction of all these movements was that, as in the English Revolution, they ultimately gave power not to the peasants and artisans, who were the backbone of the revolutionary armies, but to a new, even more powerful class of exploiters, about which our modern lovers freedoms tend to forget.

After the "burial" of absolutism, the state completely passed into the possession of the new land aristocracy, "bankocracy" and large industrialists, either in the form of a republic, or, most often, a constitutional monarchy.

Anyone who doubts the significance of this for the development of capitalism should only look at the measures taken by the English parliament after the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688: the enclosures have turned from widespread abuse into deliberate politics; The Bank of England was created along with "national debt" - a debt to none other than capitalist speculators; legislation on "maximum wages" was introduced, while workers' options for negotiating better pay and conditions were, of course, prohibited.

The concentrated power of the state was used “to accelerate, by the greenhouse method, the process of turning the feudal mode of production into a capitalist method,” wrote Marx in Capital (vol. 1), adding that “violence is the midwife of every old society, pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic force. "

It should also be noted that in this "golden age of freedom and enlightenment" not a single worker or poor peasant had either the right to vote or political representation in any form. In fact, the rising capitalist landowners and manufacturers needed state power to regulate wages in their own favor and extend the working day.

In fact, only when their own tyranny in the workplace was ensured, the capitalist class began to tolerate any political freedoms on the part of the workers, and even then they had to be limited so as not to violate their sacred right to private property, that is, the fruits of centuries theft.

The birth of the working class


The development of society is ultimately determined by the development of the productive forces of mankind. But technology itself is unable to change society - it is itself socially determined. The ancient Greeks discovered steam energy long before bourgeois Europe. The German inventor Anton Müller back in 1529 created a loom capable of weaving several pieces of fabric at the same time. The result was not the industrial revolution, but, on the contrary, the killing of inventors by local city councils.

In England, the agrarian and political revolutions of the 16th and 17th centuries laid the foundation for the industrial revolution. Without the creation of an “excess" population of proletarians, the growth of agricultural productivity and the gigantic benefits bestowed on the capitalists by the conquest of political power, such a huge social transformation would be unthinkable.

The newly created proletariat was quickly set in motion, usually under the yoke of brutal repression, but there remained one more obstacle to unlimited freedom of capitalist exploitation-guilds. Having established strict rules and restrictions in industry, the guild system, which itself was a product of the struggle of the early bourgeoisie, became a suffocating obstacle to the free development of the capitalist mode of production. In fact, the first wool production recorded in the 16th century was closed by local guilds precisely because it threatened their monopoly.

The first cotton mill was actually created outside of any major city, in Roiton, Lancashire, in order to avoid the resistance of what remained of the guilds in 1764. This quickly established a model of what would become a factory system.

Restrictions on wages that existed for centuries were finally lifted in 1813. They were now, according to Marx, an “absurd anomaly”, since the capitalists were free to dictate to their workers the wages and working conditions, as they pleased. The development of capitalist production (with the help of a state chained in chain mail) finally led to the creation of a "working class which, by its upbringing, tradition and habit, looks at the requirements of this mode of production as self-evident natural laws."

As this new, more “civilized” form of exploitation took hold of more and more areas of production, the British ruling class suddenly discovered that the slaves working on its colonial plantations were also human. But when in 1833 it finally abolished slavery in its colonies, the British government paid £ 20 million in compensation not to slaves, but to 3000 families who owned slaves for their loss of "property." This figure in today's terms is about 16,5 billion pounds: a huge gift to slave owners, which they quickly used in English factories, Irish farms and Indian plantations.

Slavery was not abolished because it was immoral; it was canceled because it was unprofitable. It would be foolish to persist in such an expensive and unproductive venture when a discerning investor can squeeze unprecedented profits from the blood of the “free-born slaves” of Britain and its colonies.

But the creation of the working class gave the capitalists a double gift. He not only created their profit from the excess labor of workers, but also created the means by which these profits could be realized - the first in stories really a massive consumer market.

The average peasant never bought a lot of food or clothing, because he himself ground the grain and wove his own clothes. The peasantry’s deprivation meant that it not only depended on the capitalists in terms of labor and wages, but also had to spend this wage on basic necessities, such as food and clothing, from none other than the same capitalists (considered in nationwide).

Later, in the 19th century, the British state used tariffs to destroy the Indian home spinning industry and flood the market with fabric often spun from Indian cotton. Thus, the role of India as a colony has shifted from being solely a source of production (which it remained) to being also a huge prisoner market. Thus, the Indian masses, like their British counterparts, paid twice for their exploitation by the British capitalists.

This played an important role both in the rise of British capitalism and in the struggle for Indian independence. In 1921, the Indian National Congress adopted a flag containing an image of a spinning wheel to symbolize domestic industry, destroyed by British competition. This spinning wheel is still preserved (partially) in the Indian flag today, although it has been changed into the Buddhist chakra wheel.

The importance of mass consumption for capitalism can be seen today on an even grander scale. The consequence of this in our culture is uncontrolled consumption and debts that put pressure on us as individuals. We must not only work, but also buy. In this sense, supply determines demand to the same extent that demand determines supply.

New fight


Now there is capital, fully formed and “bleeding from every pore” (as Marx put it). Since then, the freedom of capital continues to be reflected and the source in the lack of freedom of people. But he also laid the foundation for a new and more serious struggle.

The bourgeoisie is a class born of the struggle between feudal lords and serfs. In the end, she managed to seize power, transform the state for her own purposes and use it to destroy the old order. So the working class was created by the endless desire of capitalism to exploit human labor. Like the medieval serfs, modern workers give most of their lives to the parasitic class of owners. But, having taken into the hands of society as a whole, the enormous productive forces created by their own labor, the working people of the whole world can forever end class oppression and open a new era of genuine freedom for all of humanity.
Author:
Photos used:
rbth.com
Articles from this series:
Freedom and slavery. The birth of a capitalist formation
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B 10 February 2020 06: 12 New
    • 13
    • 7
    +6
    State

    Another myth that surrounds the birth of capitalism
    Sorry, of course, but where is the first myth? Are there any other myths in the article?
    In general, everything is viewed through the prism of the history of England. Although the development of capitalism in Europe was much more influenced by the processes that took place in France, and to an even greater extent - in the free cities of the Hanseatic League.
    And yes, the theme of usury is not completely disclosed. Article - C grade. With a big stretch.
    1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 06: 45 New
      • 20
      • 5
      +15
      Here is the first part - https://topwar.ru/167440-svoboda-i-rabstvo-rozhdenie-kapitalisticheskoj-formacii-chast-1.html
      The first myth is that "capitalism is freedom." This is not my first year in the Marxist milieu, and I know well that this kind of slogan is popular among the right.
      1. Far B 10 February 2020 06: 54 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Thanks for clarifying. It’s just not clear that this is the second part, there are no references to the first - go and guess. And yet, the theme of usury, as one of the main grave diggers of feudalism, in my opinion, would be worth revealing - ultimately, it was the usurers who bought up where and, having entered into force, and took away many mortgaged and replenished latifundia, castles for debts , titles, coats of arms.
        1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 07: 02 New
          • 18
          • 1
          +17
          I just wanted to show that capitalism was not born out of freedom. And that precisely thanks to the same slave labor in the colonies, the present large imperialists have become so rich, so powerful. True, I think that we also need an article about why there are just one cap. countries are economic giants, while others are not.
          1. Far B 10 February 2020 07: 17 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            capitalism was not born out of freedom
            So any political system is not born out of freedom and has little to do with freedom. Even anarchy, the mother of order)))
            Nevertheless, capitalism gives almost complete freedom to individual (very separate) homo individuals: for example, a certain David Rockefeller performed six heart transplant surgeries. Isn't that freedom? True, in the end, all the same, the fins were glued together.
          2. Stas157 10 February 2020 09: 15 New
            • 11
            • 2
            +9
            Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
            True i think need another article and about why now one cap. countries are economic giants, while others are not.

            Thanks for the article. It will be great if you write more. I am sure that many would read with interest about why some countries are rich and others are poor.

            I think this comes from the very essence of egoistic capitalism. Unfriendly competition, the cult of consumption, the desire to earn at the expense of (to the detriment of) others ... That is, all that is contrary to the spirit of socialism.
          3. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 09: 23 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
            I just wanted to show that capitalism was not born out of freedom. ...... True, I think that we also need an article about why there are just one cap. countries are economic giants, while others are not.
            hi Of course I need such an article! Maybe a whole cycle good My first comment is far below!
          4. Alex Nevs 10 February 2020 09: 47 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            So, after all, you are not the first year in a Marxist environment - and you don’t know? (I'm talking about economic giants). In order not to be unfounded, we ask you to clarify how many you are in the Marxist environment?
          5. parusnik 10 February 2020 14: 29 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            True, I think that we also need an article about why there are just one cap. countries are economic giants, while others are not.
            .... hi Oh, how you need ... thank you for the article ..
          6. aybolyt678 11 February 2020 15: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
            that capitalism was not born out of freedom.

            any freedom is someone’s lack of freedom smile , or at worst encumbrance .....
        2. Mart 10 February 2020 08: 17 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          It’s just not clear that this is the second part, there are no references to the first - go and guess.


          The link to the beginning of the material is in the first paragraph. It is duplicated at the end of the article, after the words "Articles from this series."
          1. Far B 10 February 2020 08: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is not a link, it is ... Samsonov in the same way marks the word "history", and the link simply leads to the "History" section. After that, the desire to follow such "links" somehow disappears.
            duplicated at the end of the article, after the words "Articles in this series"
            For some reason, the phrase "articles from this series" has ceased to be displayed to me (and something else too). Why - FIG knows. Enemies are dirty, intended.
      2. Monster_Fat 10 February 2020 07: 06 New
        • 11
        • 7
        +4
        This is not my first year in a Marxist environment,

        Cool. And where, you can find this one. "Marxist environment" habitat? what Actually, it’s like .... "the proletariat, as the main driving force of the revolution" - at the moment, rested in the Bose, it was replaced by an apolitical, "office plankton and freelance." In addition, there was a quiet revolution in capitalist relations — the classical form — money — goods — money (or goods — money — goods) was replaced by the formula money — virtual goods — money and money — money — money, that is, modern capitalism, which is basically its financial side, which is closely connected with the political component of production, is, in general, not necessary, as is the "state" itself. And how is it now taken into account by the modern "Marxist-Leninist theory"? What consequences and prospects are seen in the "Marxist environment"? wink
        1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 07: 17 New
          • 15
          • 4
          +11
          Theoretical base at 0.
          "he was replaced by the apolitical," office plankton and freelance "" - that's just the category of employees (teachers, secretaries, etc.) who are forced to sell their strength and time for food - are also proletarians (there are simply manual workers (factory workers, miners , etc.), but there are mental workers).
          "the classical form of money-commodity-money (or commodity-money-commodity) was replaced by the formula money-virtual commodity-money and money-money-money, that is, modern capitalism, which is basically its financial side, which is closely connected with the political component production, in general, is not necessary "- firstly, it has not gone anywhere. For commodity production cannot disappear under capitalism; secondly - what kind of virtual product are we talking about (if, for example, about video games, then I will upset you again - they are also created by workers); thirdly, when financial capital (banks) didn’t need production (do you know that laptops, computers, etc. are the result of production (I’ll say that the same cobalt for gadgets is mined by children in the Congo)?), and did not need a state (by which this very capital controls)?
          "And how is it now taken into account by the modern" Marxist-Leninist theory "? What consequences and prospects are seen in the" Marxist environment "?" - did you read "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism"? So there (with the exception of strengthening financial capital) everything fits the description of today.
        2. kalibr 10 February 2020 07: 22 New
          • 5
          • 18
          -13
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          And how is it now taken into account by the modern "Marxist-Leninist theory"? What consequences and prospects are seen in the "Marxist environment"?

          They do not see each other. Until now, only dogma! Well, as an example - Cuba and South Korea
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. kalibr 10 February 2020 08: 30 New
              • 5
              • 15
              -10
              I wanted to write North, of course. And the countries of the "showcase" socialism ... where are they? Or didn’t the money swell with us?
              1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 08: 36 New
                • 14
                • 4
                +10
                They were swelling, only this was not a socialist practice, but the practice of the bourgeois CPSU, which thus supported the rulers there (the same bourgeois ones).
                1. kalibr 10 February 2020 10: 38 New
                  • 3
                  • 7
                  -4
                  Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
                  only this is not socialist practice, but the practice of the bourgeois CPSU, which thus supported the rulers there (the same bourgeois).

                  But then, what could seduce countries that followed the socialist path? The Americans in South Korea “swelled” to create a window of capitalism, and we, therefore, should not have helped post-war Poland, China, Korea, Cuba, the Central African Republic, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Vietnam, Cambodia ... Yes, and help something began under Stalin yet, and not under Khrushchev. The logic of development required this. In a word, there is only one result, as in the fairy tale about Kibalchish - "They fought, they fought, but only they themselves crashed!"
              2. hohol95 10 February 2020 10: 41 New
                • 7
                • 2
                +5
                And didn’t they make a “showcase of capitalism” from Greece for neighboring socialist countries? And what has become of this "shop window" now? Stapa is not needed and must return all funds invested in it.
          2. IS-80_RVGK2 10 February 2020 15: 33 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: kalibr
            They do not see each other.

            Why did you decide that?
            Quote: kalibr
            Until now, only dogma!

            Significant bias in favor of financial capital. Well, actually what? What is this fundamentally changing?
        3. BAI
          BAI 10 February 2020 08: 42 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          modern capitalism, which is mainly its financial side, which is closely associated with the political component of production, in general, is not needed

          Money is needed in order to have material wealth; you will not be full of moral satisfaction. And where to get them if there is no production?
          1. Monster_Fat 10 February 2020 09: 07 New
            • 8
            • 8
            0
            E-uh, my friend, you’re mired in outdated “commodity” dogmas ... You even didn’t notice that the “commodity” production went into the background and was replaced .... well, for example, a “commodity” called credit, a virtual turnover goods and services that do not exist and never will be, that is, a future, deferred production, which is affectionately called "an inflated exchange bubble," besides .... well, there is crypto, trade in services for promotion, rent and so on. the main money supply is concentrated in these areas and the "adult" "interests" are spinning .. Money safely left commodity production and migrated to the sphere of speculation, creation of services, etc. It is no coincidence that some economists see the salvation of the world economy in the destruction of ... exchanges, replacing them with a "list of producers of goods and services with direct access", canceling brokerage and intermediary services, subcontracting and outsourcing, as well as ...... "Sharia banking" .... wink
            1. IS-80_RVGK2 10 February 2020 15: 34 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: Monster_Fat
              E-uh, my friend, but you are mired in outdated "commodity" dogmas ...

              They are as obsolete as the laws of physics. laughing
            2. BAI
              BAI 10 February 2020 17: 10 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Specifically, what will the billionaire consume for lunch: an environmentally friendly pig or a stock bubble?
              Going somewhere on Roll Royce or Sharia banking? Etc.
        4. Arlen 10 February 2020 13: 09 New
          • 11
          • 1
          +10
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          there was a quiet revolution in capitalist relations-the classic form-money-commodity-money (or commodity-money-commodity) was replaced

          Nothing changed. Everything remained in its place. As the formula was, it has remained and will continue to be the main economic formula. And what you say is "replaced by the formula money-virtual goods-money and money-money-money" so this is nothing more than the formula "goods-money-goods" (virtual goods are the same goods, and money is also a commodity otherwise there would be no different financial exchanges and other pyramids).
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          the proletariat, as the main driving force of the revolution "-at the moment, rested in the Bose

          “The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the two main social classes defined in the theory of Marxism. Both of these social groups depend on ownership of the means of production and are interdependent on each other. For the bourgeoisie, the proletariat is a source of profit, and for the proletariat the bourgeoisie is a source of employment.”
          As you can see, nothing has changed, except for the concepts of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, these terms are rarely used. From the middle of the 20th century, the capitalists, in order to hide the "stratification of society" and pull the proletariat from the ideas of Marxism, introduced the term "middle class". And now in the West, and in our country as well, it is not customary to call a spade a spade, but to call it a contrived term, for example: not capitalism - but free market relations, but the meaning is the same, but the names are different.
          1. sleeve 12 February 2020 05: 09 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I agree with the second part of the statement ...
        5. sleeve 12 February 2020 05: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Oh-oh-oh ... What is that judgment? Where did the proletariat go? What is office plankton as a driving force? The proletariat undertook to acquire other national features. And plankton is just heard louder from the Internet, so it seems that it affects. It was not for this that they created it and planted it on the network so that self-awareness would grow.
      3. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 09: 19 New
        • 9
        • 4
        +5
        Lovely article! Just a holiday! Everything is combined together, the whole story! good + + + + + +
        True, I'm talking about poor rate Elizabeth will need to be read. Separately. It’s clear what this is about, but I’ll clarify.
        There were some misunderstandings when I read before request the British ---- Dickens, Thomas Hardy, Henry Fielding ---- before it would be necessary to learn all the facts from the article by heart. laughing hi
        1. Monster_Fat 10 February 2020 09: 31 New
          • 6
          • 5
          +1
          I liked more about the "proletariat", which in fact, soon soon will be replaced by robots and which will subsist on "unconditional payment" and this is how all this is taken into account in the modern "Marxist-Leninist" "environment" .... and did not wait for an explanation ....- like "read, the old instructions, everything is there" ... yeah. smile
          1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 10: 00 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            I assume that you, dear Monster, will be a little older than me!
            But this “little bit.” Gives you knowledge of the theory.
            I don’t have it, not only how much the theory did not try to understand ---- it is not given to me.
            This Article helps me streamline. laughing
          2. IS-80_RVGK2 10 February 2020 15: 40 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Monster_Fat
            I liked more about the "proletariat", which in fact, soon soon will be replaced by robots and which will subsist on "unconditional payment" and this is how all this is taken into account in the modern "Marxist-Leninist" "environment" .... and did not wait for an explanation ....- like "read, the old instructions, everything is there" ... yeah.

            You would not rush to conclusions. How will it even function with such a scheme? One will work, a hundred do nothing and enjoy all the benefits? One hundred with a bipod with a spoon? You yourself are not funny? This is the death of capitalism.
  2. DMB 75 10 February 2020 06: 12 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    Like the medieval serfs, modern workers give most of their lives to the parasitic class of owners. But, having taken into the hands of society as a whole, the huge productive forces created by their own labor, the working people of the whole world can forever end class oppression and open a new era of genuine freedom for all of humanity.


    It will endure everything - and broad, clear
    Breast pave the way for himself.
    It is a pity only - to live in this wonderful time
    I don’t have to - neither to me, nor to you.
    1. depressant 10 February 2020 07: 29 New
      • 12
      • 2
      +10
      Among the exploited there will always be someone who himself wants to become an exploiter. In view of the obvious advantages of the situation. Feudalism didn’t give such an opportunity - rarely did people favor literacy on the nobility. The slogan of capitalism "Everything is in your hands" is rather false due to the unequal grip of different people. Our slogan once was "Cling, row, or you won’t have time!" Now - "So we will connect the tenacity of our rake with the right to keep the gear hooked by the law! Hold forever! And whoever didn’t loot in time, please leave and not delay our movement to paradise."
      1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 09: 31 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Lyudmila! hi welcome! Your comments are always "" not in the eyebrow, but in the eye ""!
        1. depressant 10 February 2020 10: 00 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          Thanks ))
          Only the Author takes away from talking about our present day (in two senses - the bottom and the day). I would talk about amendments to the Constitution and the current way of governing Russia. It turns out a paradox. It seems that capitalism is at least so declared, and the country is governed by presidential decrees, as if we had feudalism. So after all, for failure to comply with the royal decrees, heads were chopped or, at best, exiled to Siberia. Now decrees are not implemented by 80% (the media and ROSSTAT embellish the situation as they can), but their heads do not fly - capitalism. I figured that by casting a “yes” on the vote on the proposed amendments, the content of which has long been spelled out in current laws, I will thereby approve the Constitution as a whole. And then fear takes me - what do I subscribe to? It is said: "Reading the contract with the bank, read what is in lower case in small letters")) They say that there are already hundreds of sentences in small letters.
          1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 10: 18 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Lyudmila, regarding the Constitution, I have the assumption that after the adoption of the amendments it will sound again that they did not understand that amendments are needed again and in practice it turns out that in a few steps all social guarantees will be destroyed. Small print several times.
            ..... accordingly, and the team is selected suitable. Some kind of absurdity.
          2. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 10: 37 New
            • 2
            • 7
            -5
            Yes, we did not build any capitalism. Private ownership of the means of production is not capitalism yet. The name "country of a victorious bureaucracy" is more suitable for our country.
            1. depressant 10 February 2020 10: 59 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Ivanov, support.
              Even earlier, the disgraced deputy from the Liberal Democratic Party, Mitrofanov (it doesn’t matter to me why he was scorched there), expressed the very true opinion that Russia was always governed not by the tsar, not by capitalists and communists, but by bureaucrats. So he said bluntly, addressing the rich: "You think it was you who took power in the 91st? No, we bureaucrats took it!" If you estimate, it turns out. Look how we are compressed by the laws of man. And if reasonable. The law is unfair by definition, but should be as close to justice as possible. And where is it? To get closer to a fair solution to the problem, a simple man maneuvers between laws, like traps. Maneuver everyone! Because our laws, thanks to the money of the rich, have become one of the tools for their gain. And since we have few rich people (who succeeded, he became), it turns out that the injustice of the law is compensated by the non-bindingness of its implementation. And such laws continue to be cumbersome. Once I happened to read a certain law. Understood nothing. Bureaucratic language is unreadable!
  3. samarin1969 10 February 2020 06: 27 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    Thanks to the author: did not know some facts. You can check and apply.
    The word "serfs", however, is not entirely correct in relation to the rural inhabitants of England.

    The problem of "lack of freedom" and "decay" of the Russian Empire against the background of the described abominations does not look so exceptional. Moreover, in France there was a “complete Germinal.” And the situation of German, Belgian, Italian workers was even worse.
    With all the inhuman laws, the British elite very effectively defended national interests. And personal culture was at a high level. Against this background, modern Russian "neophytes" of capitalism and parliamentarism look wretched: they are not even suitable for "apprentices." bully
    1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 06: 55 New
      • 16
      • 2
      +14
      It’s just that our bourgeoisie has to get rid of what remains of the USSR.
      The Western bourgeoisie, with its economic power over the countries of the so-called "third world", with the possibility of transferring the means of production to these countries (thereby beginning to overexploit the local population, while weakening exploitation at home), it is a little easier to obscure the class conflict within their countries (though, judging by what is happening in the same USA - the main imperialist (China and Russia after it) of the world, such a system fails, as a result of which fascization (that is, the transition from bourgeois democracy, where the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie exists, but a little weakened, to the direct dictatorship of the bourgeoisie)).
      1. rocket757 10 February 2020 07: 08 New
        • 12
        • 1
        +11
        Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
        It’s just that our bourgeoisie has to get rid of what remains of the USSR.

        But this is true! They are trying to etch everything and everything without disdain by any means ... if their will were, the opportunity would be etched by everyone all at once, but so far there is what is. They will clean the brains of the younger generation and ... but they won’t succeed, no matter how much they would like it !!! The ghost of all that was will roam the world and cover society here and there!
        1. kalibr 10 February 2020 07: 19 New
          • 5
          • 9
          -4
          Quote: rocket757
          will roam the world and cover society here and there!

          "Do not spare bullets, do not give single volleys!" - this will end.
          1. rocket757 10 February 2020 08: 46 New
            • 12
            • 1
            +11
            Quote: kalibr
            "Do not spare bullets, do not give single volleys!" - this will end.

            And whom and when did it save from the inevitable?
            In addition, now the methods are developed, sophisticated, at first glance, more “peaceful” ones are used, but they are quite, quite effective in terms of effectiveness.
            1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 09: 39 New
              • 9
              • 1
              +8
              Quote: rocket757
              ..... And whom and when did it save from the inevitable?
              In addition, now the methods are developed, sophisticated, at first glance, more “peaceful” ones are used, but they are quite, quite effective in terms of effectiveness.
              I just can not help but join your conversation! Greetings, Victor! hi ! Yes, by peaceful and sophisticated methods, you can very strongly push them against the wall of people! What will not breathe! Then all at once and see clearly!
              1. rocket757 10 February 2020 09: 51 New
                • 9
                • 1
                +8
                Quote: Reptiloid
                by peaceful and sophisticated methods you can very strongly push them to the wall of people! What will not breathe! Then all at once and see clearly!

                Hi Dmitry soldier
                That is the "skill" of modern servants of the exploiters, that they, using sophisticated methods, can confuse the people so that they, bearing the "capitalist service", continue to exist in the illusion that this is how it should be and it should be.
                1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 10: 08 New
                  • 6
                  • 1
                  +5
                  Quote: rocket757
                  ...... people can be confused so that they, carrying the "capitalist service" continue to exist in the illusion that this is how it should be, it should be so.
                  I think this illusion is limited in time, Victor. As they say? You can’t always deceive everyone? The larger the gap between living conditions, the faster unravel !!!!!!
                  1. kalibr 10 February 2020 10: 54 New
                    • 2
                    • 3
                    -1
                    Quote: Reptiloid
                    You can’t always deceive everyone?

                    Dmitry can, as much as possible. Otherwise, we would have long had the Socialist States of America, and their coat of arms would have had a crossed hammer and an ear of corn. You just have to change ... technology!
                    1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 11: 03 New
                      • 4
                      • 1
                      +3
                      Vyacheslav Olegovich! I'm crying crying crying You wrote somewhere nearby that you yourself developed (applied) methods .....
                      So what? Where is the gratitude for this? Too shy to say, do you live crowded in the same socialist apartment from the 70s? I don’t know what title they gave for 40 years of work as a teacher? It seems not? Penalty is small, as you wrote.
                      Here is just an example of this deception.
                      1. kalibr 10 February 2020 18: 32 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Dmitry! Not everything is measured for money. There are also such concepts as creative freedom, the ability to do what you love without looking at this very ... money. And I live in an old apartment. And the daughter is already ... oh, what. And although the pension is not large, I’ve been skiing around the whole family for 10 years, and before that I’ve at least a month’s annual sea. That is, life was a pleasure, and it’s worth it, to do only what you like, and that you also paid for it,
                      2. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 20: 09 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        So, my daughter lived very, very recently with you, I remember .... And even earlier ---- both mother and stepfather and grandfather and grandmother .... We have houses like yours that were built and considered in the 60s good, better block Khrushchev .. They are now quite warm. But you often complained about the harassment of relatives .....
                        So that, Vyacheslav Olegovich, could those customers of the techniques somehow express their gratitude to you.
                      3. kalibr 11 February 2020 15: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You, Dmitry, wrote some absurdity. To express gratitude ... but people should do their job well. Homes should be warm, bread tasty, toilet paper soft. Thanks to everyone?
                      4. Reptiloid 11 February 2020 16: 11 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Somehow suddenly, you, Vyacheslav Olegovich, turned 180 ° and wrote 2 comments, incomparable with your previous comments, for life lol Well, okay, what am I? Perhaps you wrote nonsense laughing hi
      2. kalibr 10 February 2020 10: 08 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Quote: rocket757
        In addition, now the methods are developed, sophisticated, at first glance, more “peaceful” ones are used, but they are quite, quite effective in terms of effectiveness.
        Reply

        I myself developed them and even applied them! So here it is 100% true! About "volleys" this is for the "red words".
        1. rocket757 10 February 2020 10: 34 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: kalibr
          So here it is 100% true!

          What one can develop, apply, on someone else to break and the answer can send.
          There are no absolutely guaranteed methods to deceive, confuse everyone and everything, there is always a untangler. not today, so tomorrow.
          The only question is who will be more convincing.
          1. kalibr 10 February 2020 10: 46 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Quote: rocket757
            The only question is who will be more convincing.

            Victor! You think right! But ... the worker will not prove more convincing! So the one who goes to work for him, that is, an equal in intellect to the one who invented this? But he will not work with such intelligence on ... because, as it is unprofitable, we live once. It means that certain people are the winners again, and again everything is back to square one.
            1. rocket757 10 February 2020 11: 48 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: kalibr
              But ... the worker will not prove more convincing!

              But this is NOT a FACT!
              Talker, this can be a profession ... but TALENTED, CONVINCING TALKER, this is all a vocation.
              Anyone who has a gift / talent can engage in self-education, self-training and with due diligence, some are stuck in the belt of a professional, mediocre talker.
              In short, it happens in different ways.
              Quote: kalibr
              with such intelligence will not work on ... because it is unprofitable

              And this is not a fact ... how many mediocre people we have, where to listen, look disgusting. It’s quite talented people that they don’t go where they think everything happens at a level to which they don’t want to go down.
              so on some kind of independent, autonomous "boot", you can read quite literate, talented texts.
              Quote: kalibr
              It means that certain people are the winners again, and again everything is back to square one.

              Different people win. It all depends on the human mass that they want to influence.
              The herd will most often lead ... bar \ en \ goats \ ate. But the flock, pride and the like ... everything is much more complicated there, not defined in advance.
              1. kalibr 10 February 2020 18: 36 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                the herd will most often lead ... bar \ en \ goats \ ate. But the flock, pride and the like ... everything is much more complicated, not defined in advance. [/ Quote]
                You should read my book "Public Opinion Management Technologies", this will add to you theoretical and practical knowledge in this area.
                1. rocket757 10 February 2020 19: 10 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  What for. I don’t need to convince anyone of something on abstract topics. And by profession, I have enough knowledge. Technician, everything is clear, follow the news, study, teach people, EVERYTHING.
                  PS ... the fact that sometimes the leader of the flock becomes a “sweet-voiced goat / ate” happens ... but after all, one other battle / hunt / conflict and everything falls into place, the one who is supposed to go to the barbecue, of course, if the flock of time kept her skins on carcasses, and did not crucify them on the walls of more SMART rivals.
                  The one who is glad to be deceived will be deceived.
              2. kalibr 11 February 2020 15: 53 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: rocket757
                but a TALENT, CONVINCING TALKER, this is all a vocation.
                Anyone who has a gift / talent can engage in self-education, self-training and with due diligence, some are stuck in the belt of a professional, mediocre talker.

                That's right too. But in the end, it will no longer be a worker from the machine, but a person with a different culture and needs. People with money will always agree with him!
                1. rocket757 11 February 2020 16: 30 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Also, the option is not so rare, rather rather frequent.
                  Human nature .... do not fix, do not add.
          2. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 11: 08 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: rocket757
            ..... There are no absolutely guaranteed methods to deceive, confuse everyone and everything, there is always a untangler. not today, so tomorrow.
            The only question is who will be more convincing.
            Yes, Victor, that's it! Only at the first stage, this unraveler should want to unravel and be ready to recognize the unpleasant, maybe humiliating for himself. And do not close your eyes to it. And do not lie to yourself and others
            1. rocket757 10 February 2020 11: 49 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Everything is simple \ everything is complicated, everything depends on the people themselves.
              1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 12: 23 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Victor, now from the Author’s profile I learned about another article that I, it turns out, missed. And you read.
                1. rocket757 10 February 2020 12: 43 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  This is a continuation of the topic. Then there wasn’t much discussion, all the same people are worried about vital matters that are closer to the “body”.
                  In general, in the Soviet school they normally gave material and general provisions could be studied even then. Of course, understanding comes with age, usually, but the basis is laid earlier.
                  In general, it is quite understandable.
                2. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 13: 28 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Quote: rocket757
                  ...... In general, in the Soviet school they normally gave material and general provisions could be studied even then. Of course, understanding comes with age, usually, but the basis is laid earlier.
                  In general, it is quite understandable.
                  Well yes! In the Soviet school! 30 years ago! And where is this school now? that's it! This ability to study this theory was instilled in school. And if I understand that, only small parts. For example, if you listen to the left stories on the network with examples, it seems to be understandable. And if without examples --- nothing. However, in the article of the Dear Author, just examples are given, because somehow he immediately turned on.
                3. rocket757 10 February 2020 13: 46 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  If you wish, if necessary, you can dive loudly and even deeper!
                  The site, all the same with its own specifics ... although, completely separate one from the other will not work. Everything in this life is interconnected.
                4. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 14: 13 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Well, of course! laughing wassat Dive closer and walk along the bottom without thinking, ...... and then abandon ... What has not been done for years ---- quickly do not catch up. No, I will be as far as understanding
  • Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 07: 26 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    Just at the same time that our managers (and ministers, officials, presidents are precisely managers, executors of the will of the bourgeoisie (by the way, this was once again demonstrated when the same Sechin and other bourgeois fell under sanctions, and "our" state immediately rushed to help the poor oligarchs)) play the role of patriots, while promoting ideas about the revival of “Russia that we lost”, that RI didn’t live so badly (it’s just that some kind of grandfather put a mine / bomb / firecracker), that the USSR did not produce anything but galoshes, and still a lot of rubbish (which is not surprising, because if you depict in a good light (even once) the USSR and its leaders, then the people may be interested in Marxism).
    1. depressant 10 February 2020 08: 10 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Author, we lost our Soviet system, in fact the most fair, because it took the most ugly form of exploitation of the metropolis. The RSFSR was exploited by the outskirts of the empire, as well as by the colonies - social. camp, as well as the "freedom-loving peoples" of Africa, Asia and South America. An unprecedented phenomenon - colonialism is the opposite. People understood this and said their "Yes to hell!" By principle, so do not get to anyone. The altruism of the political system was to be combined with a certain share of state egoism. You can’t help all the poor, the breadth of the soul is not infinite, when too little remains of the soul itself. In addition, the replacement of a private owner with a means of production by a state one demanded from the latter that which he did not have - a combination of mind and morality. Starting with Khrushchev - neither one nor the other. It was difficult to sit on gigantic flows of money and resist the urge to merge them into your pocket. Leaked. Technologically behind. A possible murmur of the people is blocked by the strengthening of the feudal component of the law.
      1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 08: 18 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        Illiterate text.
        "The RSFSR was exploited by the outskirts of the empire, as well as by the colonies - the social camp, and also by the" freedom-loving peoples "of Africa, Asia and South America. An unprecedented phenomenon - colonialism is the opposite." - Firstly, from what hangover the RSFSR was exploited by the republics? Secondly, according to your logic, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Europe are exploiting the United States, which is nonsense
        1. depressant 10 February 2020 09: 17 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          The author, the impression is that you rarely go to VO)))
          If you put together the memories and impressions of colleagues, it turns out that the standard of living of an ordinary citizen in the RSFSR compared with other republics that make up the Union was lower than in these republics, and over time - their living standards grew, and in the RSFSR - - fell. Which was very noticeable. Especially in the last decade of the life of the Union. If it were the other way around, the Union would not have taken place at all.
          And by the way, you did not propose to talk about what happened, but about what became - you gave an unambiguous hint.
          1. SOVIET UNION 2 10 February 2020 09: 53 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            Translated from a comment into Russian, it will sound like this. The outskirts of the Union were fat, and Moscow was in poverty. Today, justice has triumphed! And now the outskirts of Russia are in poverty. and Moscow is eating! The article is very reminiscent of the plot of modern Russia. In England, for the sake of profit, people were made poor and still executed for their poverty. Is Russia not following this path today? Russia, like England in those years, is trying to get rid of extra people. Is optimization not getting rid of extra people? All in the name of economic efficiency (read-profit)!
          2. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 10: 33 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: depressant
            ..... If you put together the memories and impressions of colleagues, it turns out that the standard of living of an ordinary citizen in the RSFSR compared with other republics that make up the Union was lower than in these republics, and over time - their living standards increased , and in the RSFSR - fell. Which was very noticeable. Especially in the last decade of the life of the Union. .

            Little of! Absolutely everyone remembers that when they used to communicate with residents from other republics, they boasted and were proud of how they were getting better.
            And when in this century, I talked with visitors from the former republics, then there were memories, as it used to be good, and to a blogger who it was ---- there is no understanding or knowledge. And it will not be likely.
      2. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 09: 51 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Yes, Lyudmila. Then, they could not even imagine that what the country was spending on creating a social camp and the entire “support group”, ----- a handful of domestic oligarchs will get! This result was not even in thought.
        If those countries supported the USSR in the international arena, then domestic oligarchs what?
    2. parusnik 10 February 2020 14: 47 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      There are roads that we choose, and there are roads that choose us, the main thing is not to make a mistake at the crossroads ... It seems that they were wrong .. If the world does not turn to face socialism, it will still live with real capitalism and its further development, it will turn out So: Planet Shelezyak, no water, no minerals. Populated by robots ... Further development of capitalism, it is like a slow nuclear war ...
      1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 15: 50 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Yes, Alex! Wrong. But not everyone understands this until now, and I do not mean exclusively rich people
  • Cowbra 10 February 2020 08: 09 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: samarin1969
    UK elite defended national interests very effectively

    During the enclosure - it was the genocide of the nation winked
    1. SOVIET UNION 2 10 February 2020 09: 54 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      During the enclosure - it was the genocide of the nation
      Is raw material for export not synonymous with enclosure?
      1. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 10: 32 New
        • 5
        • 10
        -5
        Raw materials for export are the legacy of the underdeveloped Soviet economy. And the country was planted on a raw material needle in the early 70s, due to the fact that non-commodity goods of the USSR were not quoted on the world market due to technological backwardness.
        1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 10: 50 New
          • 7
          • 2
          +5
          Quote: AU Ivanov.
          Raw materials for export are the legacy of the underdeveloped Soviet economy.

          Two of you on the story. the world gas station was originally the United States, the United States rose in the export of oil and tobacco, and now it exports only soybeans wassat Production in the country is generally over. The USSR produced almost ALL
          About England wrote above.
          1. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 11: 14 New
            • 4
            • 9
            -5
            From the fact that American companies removed some of the production from the United States, they did not cease to be American. Next: US manufactured goods account for 75%. There is no question of any raw material economy. The USSR yes, indeed, in view of the closed economy and lack of competition, everything was done on its own, which led to a lag in almost all sectors, with rare exceptions.
            1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 11: 41 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +5
              Ceased, my dear, ceased. Such offices are called TNCs - transnational, Trump is now fighting with them and losing - for example, Amazon has not paid taxes for 2 years. and you can’t squeeze them - they will leave calmly from the USA and lose part of the market, but there will be no hemorrhoids at all, and there will also be no need to comply with sanctions laughing But in the United States there will be a bunch of unemployed - a crisis. Because Bezos and Trump and the tax 2 years sends in all languages ​​of the world.
              China receives taxes for the iPhone manufactured in China, its full cost, with taxes and transport - the buyer pays in the USA, that is, the USA pays taxes to China!
              Oh yeah, but the profit does not go to the state, but to the OLIGARCH, and the United States receives a vegetable to help)))
              Also, in terms of economics, it’s not good for you, to say the least.
              1. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 11: 52 New
                • 4
                • 6
                -2
                The profit from the sale of iPhones is not received by China. Profit is received by Apple - the owner of the brand. Owners of automobile brands whose cars are assembled in the territory of the Russian Federation also make a profit in the same way. The transfer of production to other countries is just the way to minimize production costs, in order to obtain greater profit.
                1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 12: 24 New
                  • 7
                  • 3
                  +4
                  Who receives taxes from production in China? China. Who is exporting products? China. Payment for rental of premises and utilities who? Taxes from workers who? China. Who gets jobs? China.
                  It is the state. And all this is with money. except jobs, but they are also paid by China, not by China, from profit.
                  And all this is paid by the end user. Woodpecker with a hamburger and a flag of mattress coloring.
                  It’s not necessary to demonstrate so clearly that at school you have problems with all subjects laughing
                  1. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 13: 11 New
                    • 3
                    • 5
                    -2
                    Who makes a profit from iPhone sales? Apple Where are the developers of hardware and software? In the USA, state of California. What is the number one company by market capitalization in the world? Apple Who owns the lion's share of patents. Apple Who is at the top of the largest US taxpayers? Apple again. China plays the role of a collector of not the highest qualification. And where will the workers from Chinese factories go if the Yabloko will transfer production, well, at least to Russia or India? Beyond the gate.
                    1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 13: 28 New
                      • 4
                      • 5
                      -1
                      Quote: AU Ivanov.
                      Who makes a profit from iPhone sales?

                      To school, urgently to school! Who are Apple - TNCs, what does the USA get from them - hemorrhoids, who makes a profit? OLIGARCH!
                      I already wrote this, so you - to school, learn to read!
                      Tired of trolls, even if they were original - no, the level of the second class, spat out a pacifier - syshiya-syshia! Alena Mask and iPhone! Who blew into my smoothie? laughing
                    2. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 13: 37 New
                      • 3
                      • 5
                      -2
                      Just in the USA, Apple pays taxes. They evade taxation in those countries in which their subsidiaries and branches operate.
                      Well, in the end, who is the richest country in the world?
      2. depressant 10 February 2020 11: 14 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Well, Ivanov, this is not entirely true. There is a part of truth in your words, but not all. We suffered huge losses in the Second World War - both human and material, it was necessary to recover. Only the RSFSR was scientifically and technologically advanced, which was forced to drag on itself both the restoration and the nourishing feeding of the allied bloodsuckers, and the creation of industry for them to link the country (this was a good gift!). If the government after Stalin were smarter, more loyal to the country, you would have reached the advanced technological level. Sooner or later, hands would reach small things like clothes, shoes, household items, cars. History slipped idiots and traitors as leaders of the country. Just from this sad experience you need to draw conclusions. The head of state must be a Person.
        1. Serg65 11 February 2020 10: 15 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: depressant
          Only the RSFSR was scientifically and technologically advanced, which was forced to drag on itself both the restoration and the plentiful feeding of the allied bloodsuckers, and the creation of industry for them to link the country

          what Interesting you, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, reason! That is, judging by your logic, the government of the USSR, headed by Stalin, should have been free to all the Union republics, so that they would not feed them and not spend money on their development? But the fact that part of the shipbuilding industry, the cotton processing industry, the oil industry, most of the food base, has historically happened so, would it remain in these republics, are you not interested in that? It was simply not necessary to lay a national mine under the foundations of the country, when Comrade Lenin and Comrade Stalin, as the continuer of Lenin’s covenants, in the fight against “Russian chauvinism” did not divide the country into national apartments in the hope of the help of the national elites! And for your information, the persecution of Russians in the national suburbs did not begin in the 91-92s, but in the distant 1926!
          Quote: depressant
          If the government after Stalin were smarter, more loyal to the country, you would have reached the advanced technological level

          laughing Lyudmila Yakovlevna, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, well, where is this utopia from? Even after the great industrialization, we bought machines and technologies abroad! To enter the advanced technological level, we need competition or the Chinese path of development — open our country to international capital!
          Quote: depressant
          History slipped idiots and traitors as leaders of the country

          laughing To paraphrase Comrade Kaganovich .... each History has its own name and surname .... in this case, this History is called Comrade Stalin! In the struggle for power, Stalin picked up loyal performers and each of them was a person, and when these performers, after the death of the leader, were left face to face with reality, they scuffled like spiders in a bank! laughing This is such a story!
          Quote: depressant
          The head of state must be a Person.

          Golden words and I, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, fully support you in this!
    2. Cowbra 10 February 2020 10: 48 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
      Is raw material for export not synonymous with enclosure?

      In the sense of wool? Well yes. Sheep sheared, her nation sheared ...
      Then they exported tea for export - also raw materials ... "The English Empire rose on the tea trade" - "Money cards two trunks"
  • pmkemcity 10 February 2020 06: 50 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    Full confusion.
  • Amateur 10 February 2020 06: 56 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    C. Marx V. Zyryanov. "Capital" remake number 2
    1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 07: 04 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      winked My pride is satisfied ....
      1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 14: 18 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
        winked My pride is satisfied ....

        hi We look forward to the release of the complete works good
  • rocket757 10 February 2020 07: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    the modern state is forced to carry out reforms under the pressure of workers, but always, whenever the opportunity arises, tries to cancel these reforms.

    This was obvious before, but now it’s straight, straight, the process is FULL !!!
    1. depressant 10 February 2020 08: 43 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Yes, ditching the socialist state, we took responsibility for rolling civilization down the stairs. And if we think that here, in Russia, everything is bad, then it is "worse" beyond the hill - now there is no light! As a result, everyone is afraid - both exploited and exploiters.
      For example, in his message “Forks are waiting for us,” billionaire Nick Hanader in 2014 addressed the rich layer of the United States with these words: “If we continue to feed inequality, the result will be a riot.” He said so, bearing in mind that bankruptcies, closures, cases, mass layoffs will become the inevitable consequence of the riot, which will further aggravate the situation. The billionaire Ray Dalio, the financier and founder of the investment company Britgewater Associates, recently spoke with the article “The world is crazy and the system is broken”. His article has a slightly different meaning - the swing of the crisis swing, but implicitly the same underlying meaning: "the frayer's greed destroyed". Now there is no ideological counterbalance in the form of the USSR, which, by the fact of its existence, forced it to maintain the appetites of the exploiters, and therefore, to smooth out the ugliness of capitalism in the form of crises.
      And those who ruined the USSR are still alive. I mean myself. I didn’t stop, I ruined it. An experience. What could be done? And this is not an exclamation of self-justification. This is a call for the future - what could be done?
      1. rocket757 10 February 2020 09: 05 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: depressant
        And those who ruined the USSR are still alive.

        This is not a reason to suffer and delve indefinitely in the past. We must move forward.
        Quote: depressant
        we took responsibility for rolling civilization down the stairs. And if we think that here, in Russia, everything is bad, then it is "worse" beyond the hill - now there is no light! As a result, everyone is afraid - both exploited and exploiters.

        Capitalists, exploiters, in general, breathed a sigh of relief when the Soviet Union ceased to be.
        All the same, a clear example of the Land of Soviets, for the entire working people in the world, was of great importance!
        But this is not the end. Upcoming events may lead to various changes.
        1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 14: 27 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: rocket757
          ..... Capitalists, exploiters, in general, breathed a sigh of relief when the USSR ceased to be. All the same, a clear example of the Land of Soviets, for the whole working people in the world, was of great importance! ...... Events to come may lead to various changes.

          And in fact, these 70 years, this is not a defeat, this is experience, this is a visual result for the whole world. These are progressive changes all over the planet.
          After all, capitalism did not immediately reach. Socialism will be restored.
          1. rocket757 10 February 2020 14: 47 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Reptiloid
            After all, capitalism did not immediately reach

            And what can capitalism achieve! He simply moves on to the next stage, imperialism .... He doesn’t change his essence, he cannot change. The exploitation of man by man remains unchanging and determining in him.
            1. Reptiloid 10 February 2020 15: 40 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: rocket757
              Quote: Reptiloid
              After all, capitalism did not immediately reach

              And what can capitalism achieve! .......
              I had in mind the strengthening of positions hi increase in profits ....
      2. SOVIET UNION 2 10 February 2020 09: 58 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Judging by the cultivation of radical Islam, we were far from being prepared for socialism and communism!
  • Chieftain 10 February 2020 07: 04 New
    • 5
    • 15
    -10
    capitalists oligarchs of course bloodsuckers and parasites but what kind of communist nonsense is this article minus clearly
    1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 07: 28 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      So lovers of the market ran up ...
    2. SOVIET UNION 2 10 February 2020 10: 01 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And lovers of writing out salaries, bonuses and bonuses, are these not communists? To each according to his needs! Is this the principle of communism or capitalism? Where is the economic rationale for paying salaries, bonuses and bonuses?
  • Lamata 10 February 2020 07: 09 New
    • 12
    • 3
    +9
    Thanks to the author for the article !!! All for the referendum in April, fail amendments. !!!)))
    1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 07: 41 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      But there wasn’t enough NOD ...
      1. Lamata 10 February 2020 08: 11 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        I am by no means NODovets)))) on the proposed by the guarantor I consider complete nonsense. Including for the working people. Moreover, Cyril, who got into the constitution with his God, why is this for the people? I am for Platoshkin)))
  • kalibr 10 February 2020 07: 16 New
    • 8
    • 7
    +1
    But, having taken into the hands of society as a whole, the enormous productive forces created by their own labor, the working people of the whole world can forever end class oppression and open a new era of genuine freedom for all of humanity.
    Nonsense! Have already tried it once. Could not do without those who are more educated and smarter. These got the best rations, benefits. An interlayer was created ... they have children, those preferences ... But the workers as they were below remained so. Krupskaya floors did not soap at the cottage of Lenin. With such trifles it started!
    1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 07: 37 New
      • 12
      • 4
      +8
      Are you aware that the same Zhdanov proposed (at the 18th Congress of the CPSU (B.)) To gradually move the Central Committee away from governing the country?
      Do you know that the proletariat of the USSR couldn’t immediately take power into its own hands, because in most of it it was illiterate?
      Do you know that even after the victory of the revolution, the counter-revolutionary forces still remain and are waging a struggle within the state for a return to pre-revolutionary times?
      Did you know that after the Second World War, which mowed down most of the party (about 4 mil. Communists and about 3 mil.
      Do you know that during the years of Stalin many books were published on communist education, upbringing and self-education, but after the arrival of the counter-revolutionary forces, the leader of which was the notorious maize, most of them were removed from libraries and shops?
      1. Maki Avellevich 10 February 2020 07: 44 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
        Do you know that even after the victory of the revolution, the counter-revolutionary forces still remain and are waging a struggle within the state for a return to pre-revolutionary times?
        Did you know that after the Second World War, which mowed down most of the party (about 4 mil. Communists and about 3 mil.

        the chilly wind of 1917 blows from your rhetoric.
        Less lyrics!
        give practical suggestions and actions! cheers comrades!
        1. kalibr 10 February 2020 08: 25 New
          • 5
          • 6
          -1
          Quote: Maki Avellevich
          Less lyrics!
          give practical suggestions and actions! cheers comrades!

          But he can write nothing but lyrics, Dmitry! Because there are only two ways: the first parliamentary talking room, where the bourgeoisie is obviously stronger. Look at the drawings of the Danish communist artist Gerluf Bidstrup - everything is clearly shown and there is no need to read. The second - with weapons in hand. There are chances. But ... who, today, amid the spread of international terrorism, would dare to call on him? Moreover, with arms in hand, without support "from there" all the same, one cannot win. So ... we can talk about attempts to change the legal system by forces of a foreign power. And this ... So for the current commies the situation is stalemate. Either accusation of state terrorism or calls for the whole world to vote for the Communist Party or its clone parties. What is funny.
      2. Lamata 10 February 2020 08: 13 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        What holes did the party patch? Was there a much-needed quantitative ratio of party members to the party in the country? Remember the purges of 20 years.
        1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 08: 14 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Holes of leading party cadres.
          1. Lamata 10 February 2020 08: 23 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            It seemed to be enough for the management staff, although I will not argue.
          2. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 12: 02 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Why should leading cadres be precisely party members? Professionals should run the country, regardless of their beliefs. Moreover, the USSR, based on the name, positioned itself as a country in which power belonged to the Soviets (which actually did not exist). This is also true for other areas of activity. How can “advanced Marxist theory” affect the quality of work of the same surgeon, pilot, or factory director?
            The party’s task is ideology, propaganda, but not interference in the government of the country.
      3. kalibr 10 February 2020 08: 18 New
        • 7
        • 7
        0
        Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
        but after the arrival of the counter-revolutionary forces,

        I know. But what kind of system is this, where ... the enemy forces come to power under the dictatorship of the proletariat and the presence of the CPSU. Toothless kind of dictatorship and party are all from impotent people. Why didn’t our forces come to power in the USA, France, England ... In Australia there were 5 Communist Parties! Why didn’t they bring anyone to power? How much money we swelled into all this, but ... figs to you.
        1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 08: 33 New
          • 9
          • 4
          +5
          The dictatorship of the proletariat, as such, was abolished. They removed this point from the constitution, covering it with the fact that he allegedly fulfilled his own.
          “Toothless kind of dictatorship and party entirely from impotent people” - people were very poorly engaged in the conduct of Marxist education. And as for the party - are you saying that after a group of the old guard (Malenkov, Kaganovich, Molotov) tried to remove Khrushch, they themselves were thrown out of the party?
          “Why didn’t our forces come to power in the USA, France, England ...” First of all, it is worth saying that the wave of revolutions that followed the WOSR in Russia was drowned (say, thanks to the Social Democracy that went over to the bourgeoisie). Secondly, it is worth mentioning that in 1943 (why was the "sovereign" anthem instead of the "International") the Western imperialists ultimately told Stalin "a second front will be opened only after the Comintern is dissolved." Stalin had no choice. But later, the Kominform was created, which replaced the Comintern (however, under Khrushchev it was liquidated by leaving the foreign communist parties to themselves (which led to the fact that some parties were bent, some became like the Communist Party - opportunist, honor dissolved themselves) (well, then opportunism CPSU (peaceful coexistence of systems), the decomposition of the party and counter-revolution))). Thirdly, the famous McCarthyism. By the way, the same Reagan (why he became president), during the years of McCarthyism, gave out to the CIA artists who were either communists or sympathizing with communists.
          "How much money we swelled into all this, but ... figs to you." - this is where the decomposition of the party and its bourgeoisie can be traced. The CPSU did not help theorists, not the revolutionary organizers, but simply supported the chairs with bags of money.
          1. bober1982 10 February 2020 08: 50 New
            • 4
            • 4
            0
            Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
            The Western imperialists ultimately told Stalin "a second front will not be opened until the Comintern is dissolved." Stalin had no choice

            Not quite so, Stalin always did not like the "stubborn" internationalists, he regarded them as emigrant socialists who had divorced themselves from Russian reality. Nobody, of course, set an ultimatum to Stalin.
            1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 08: 59 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +5
              That's just a coincidence - the dissolution of the Comintern was during the war, and not before.
              And yes - how can one talk about the tenacity of internationalists when Stalin himself, being a Marxist-Leninist, was an internationalist.
              1. bober1982 10 February 2020 09: 08 New
                • 5
                • 4
                +1
                Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
                when Stalin himself, being a Marxist-Leninist, was an internationalist.

                Stalin was never an internationalist, even before the revolution he opposed the leadership of the party from exile, where a whole clan of Marxists settled who, according to Stalin, were engaged in international "games."
                It is strange that you do not know this.
                1. Vladimir Zyryanov 10 February 2020 09: 13 New
                  • 6
                  • 1
                  +5
                  Read such works of Stalin, as:
                  "Questions of Leninism."
                  , "Marxism and questions of linguistics", "Marxism and the national question", "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR." You will be very surprised that Stalin was a Marxist.
                  1. bober1982 10 February 2020 09: 21 New
                    • 3
                    • 3
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
                    You will be very surprised that Stalin was a Marxist.

                    He was not an internationalist, we are talking about this.
                    VI Prague Conference, 1912
                    VI Congress of the RSDLP, 1917
                    Baku committee
                    Stalin actively opposed the so-called internationalists, by the way, and against Trotsky, already at that time.
                    1. DNS-a42 10 February 2020 14: 19 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: bober1982
                      He was not an internationalist, we are talking about this.

                      Stalin:
                      What does the deviation towards nationalism mean - all the same, is it a deviation towards Great Russian nationalism or a deviation towards local nationalism? The deviation towards nationalism is the adaptation of the internationalist policy of the working class to the nationalist policy of the bourgeoisie. The deviation towards nationalism reflects the attempts of "one's own", "national" bourgeoisie to undermine the Soviet system and restore capitalism. The source of both deviations, as you see, is common. This is a departure from Leninist internationalism. If you want to keep both deviations under fire, you must first of all hit this source, those who deviate from internationalism - it doesn’t matter whether it is a deviation to local nationalism or a deviation to Great-Russian nationalism. ("Report to the 13th Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Vol. 361, p. XNUMX.)
                      1. bober1982 10 February 2020 14: 37 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        We are talking about the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943, which became the stronghold of international Trotskyists (internationalists)
                        Quote: DNS-a42
                        This is a departure from Leninist internationalism.

                        Stalin had to reckon with Lenin, and he, in turn, with Stalin, they seemed to complement each other - one was engaged in practical work, including the expropriation of expropriators, and the other in cozy Swiss cafes thought over the ideas of European socialists, as applied to Russia. It must be borne in mind that there was a sharp struggle with all kinds of party groups, Trotsky, the Bundists and similar internationals.
                      2. DNS-a42 10 February 2020 14: 52 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        All communists are internationalists, this is the essence of Marxism. To bourgeois nationalism, only proletarian internationalism can be opposed.

                        Lenin was no less a practitioner. And Stalin was also a strong theoretician, although, of course, he was inferior to Lenin.

                        Stalin and Lenin criticized the Bund for its nationalism and separatism. But Lenin defamed Trotsky for his inconsistent position on many issues.
                      3. bober1982 10 February 2020 15: 00 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        Quote: DNS-a42
                        All communists are internationalists, this is the essence of Marxism. Bourgeois nationalism can only be opposed by proletarian internationalism.

                        For a long time it was all, once this head was hammered of course, but now what? It was and has passed.
                      4. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 16: 33 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        You talk about internationalism to the Chinese Communists. Cheer them up.
      4. Alex Nevs 10 February 2020 10: 01 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The hardest part. CPSU = - = - Money bag. Inextricable ..... at the last stage. And on the initial Ogogo. This dilemma had to be solved. But no ... not hotstsa lose Privileges, money, power. Here the CPSU and self-decomposing. And then it will be ahead.Fair The capitalist State is a great absurd stupidity = ordinary RAKE. BUT!!! will help in the initial stage to "lift up".
      5. kalibr 10 February 2020 10: 01 New
        • 4
        • 6
        -2
        There are justifications for everything. The reality is this. They made us the 91st, but we were not able to do it, with all our “isms”. Why? Because they are smarter, more educated, richer. There was a saying in Russia: "Don't be smart with the smart, don't fight the rich, don't fight the strong." Our ancestors were smarter than the Red-bellied.
      6. parusnik 10 February 2020 15: 02 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Well, the International, Stalin dismissed not only under the pressure of Western countries .. There was also disappointment in the European proletariat ... Stalin, there was nothing to compare ... Remember, the mass movement in Europe, during the years of the civil war, Hands off, from the Soviet Russia!? .. When they went on strike, they refused to ship steamboats with weapons for the White armies, etc. ... And not a single protest during the Great Patriotic War .. Czech workers faithfully forged weapons for the Reich until the last day .. This is so for example ... True, the writer Kozhevnikov in one of his stories justified it .. they say they could not work not high quality, the patamushta was a working conscience ... The reason you mentioned is only one of many ..
  • Squelcher 10 February 2020 08: 43 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    And non-partisan victims in the Second World War, their minority was? The Communists, having absolute administrative resources and power, were able to ruin the country by creating an imbalance both in the economy and in the minds of people (one at the party meeting, the other in the kitchen) and completely discredited and trampled on their ideals.
    The first counter-revolutionary who was?
    Stalin essentially rejected the Communist classical doctrine of the world revolution. The world revolution that Marx and Engels spoke of was supposed to happen simultaneously in all countries, or at least in the most developed ones. They believed that the cooperation of communism and capitalism was impossible in principle. Stalin, on the other hand, chose a more moderate tactic and proclaimed the construction of socialism on the territory of the USSR. He refused to provide assistance to the European Communists and established diplomatic relations with the capitalist countries.
    1. depressant 10 February 2020 09: 25 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Colleague, and you paid attention to how cleverly respected Author translated the arrows from the conversation about what we have, to the conversation that "Oh, how bad it was - oh, oh!" Which means, damn it, good now!
    2. dauria 10 February 2020 10: 05 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      The world revolution that Marx and Engels spoke of was supposed to happen simultaneously in all countries, or at least in the most developed ones.


      Denied the first Lenin, not Stalin. In the works "On the Slogan of the United States of Europe" and "The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution." He was the first to distort Marxism. Marx did not even have a “world revolution”, but a gradual growth of socialism simultaneously within developed countries. Lenin said "Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action," we ourselves, with a mustache, will break the weakest link in capitalism — that is, in Russia.

      And author, you have a cart in front of the horse. Formations do not change because someone wanted power. Only kings are changed this way. They change when old relationships interfere with productivity growth.
      The country produces little, cannot provide a modern army and navy, loses to its neighbors and either disappears or revolution.
      Capitalism is more effective than feudalism. It is based on the division of labor, both manual and machine. More iron, copper, fabrics, weapons, agricultural equipment, food - and voila, the ships are sheathed in copper and the soldiers are fed with guns.
      And now, dear Communist, explain how you are going to overtake capitalism right now, from the threshold. As already today, build industrial relations between people. Stalin did not offer, there was real capitalism in its extreme monopolistic form. One owner (albeit darling), the rest of the wage workers without ownership of the means of production ..
      1. To be or not to be 10 February 2020 13: 55 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        dauria (Aleksey) Today, 10:05
        "... when old relationships hinder productivity growth ..."
        Did socialist production relations hinder the growth of socialist productive forces before the collapse of the USSR ???? hi
        .. and say Thatcher (?) walks on the Internet ... "Margaret Thatcher: How we destroyed the USSR
        “The Soviet Union is a country that posed a serious threat to the Western world. I am not talking about a military threat. She, in fact, was not. Our countries are quite well armed, including nuclear weapons.

        I mean the economic threat. Thanks to a planned policy and a peculiar combination of moral and material incentives, the Soviet Union managed to achieve high economic indicators. The percentage of growth in gross national product was approximately two times higher than in our countries. If we take into account the enormous natural resources of the USSR, then with the rational management of the economy the Soviet Union had very real opportunities to oust us from world markets. "
        A beautiful schedule is given on the Internet ..
        .... see Peaks - wars and crises
        1. dauria 10 February 2020 14: 36 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Is it before the collapse of the USSR that socialist production relations hindered the growth of socialist productive forces


          There was no revolution during the collapse of the USSR. It’s just that one capitalist monopolist was discredited by several smaller capitalists and with specific surnames. And there were no "socialist" productive forces. There was monopoly capitalism, which had a huge advantage during the preparation of wars, the wars themselves and the cataclysms. Hitler also revoked patents before the war - use it for everyone. No competition, just planning. Factories produce what is said, not what they want.
          What is not our "socialism" in the economy?
          In the US there is a special form - presidential rule for such a period.
          But all the time you won’t ride this. In peacetime, people ask questions - "I want a car, I want a video player, an apartment, I want to work for myself and my family." And he has nothing to shut up his mouth, planned production without competition is slow. What, isn’t that so?
          Well, or bring the "Communists" from Mars, with irremovable firmware in the brain of the "moral code of the builder of communism." And make sure that their children from birth can not change the firmware. In short - create robots. People are not suitable for this.
  • SOVIET UNION 2 10 February 2020 10: 07 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Well, how many times capitalism has fallen into crisis! And where are the cries that capitalism is ineffective? If capitalism is effective, why constant crises? And after all, no one forbade capitalism after crises to try again, again and again! Is capitalism in the world on the rise or at its peak today? Why are there so many poor and homeless under capitalism? What is there in the joke about socialism and capitalism held by a red thread? Capitalism to prevent the poor !? Where does poverty come from under capitalism?
    1. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 10: 26 New
      • 3
      • 8
      -5
      Capitalism slipped into crises and more than once. Nevertheless, capitalism is more alive than all living things. But socialism rested in a Bose, unable to withstand competition. The reservation of socialism in the form of the DPRK and Cuba does not count.
      1. To be or not to be 10 February 2020 13: 43 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        But socialism rested in the Bose ...
        This was first warned by V.I. Lenin and then I.V. Stalin when he spoke of the victory of socialism in the USSR. On March 3, 1937, Stalin developed this principle of Bolshevism in his report to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks: the theory that with each advance we make, the class struggle should fade more and more, that as our successes the class enemy becomes more and more tame.
        This is not only a rotten theory, but also a dangerous theory, because it puts our people to sleep, leads them into a trap, and gives the class enemy the opportunity to recover in the struggle against Soviet power.
        On the contrary, the more we move forward, the more success we have, the more the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes will become embittered, the sooner they will go to more acute forms of struggle, the more they will harm the Soviet state, the more they will clutch at the most desperate the means of struggle as the last means of the doomed ... "(I. Stalin" On the shortcomings of party work and measures to eliminate the Trotskyist and other double-dealing people "//" A word to Comrade Stalin. "M., 1995, p. 121-122). .
        How right he was. The petty-bourgeois element., Which penetrated the very tops of the party and the state, was also the very counter-revolutionary force. that mold. which turned the country's development into sleep. into wild capitalism. . and for the sake of their selfish interests and the interests of the united west, and not the peoples of a multinational country.
        Then Vyacheslav Matuzov and Igor Shishkin talk about how the preparations for perestroika went. What goals did her architects pursue?
        1. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 14: 22 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          What is petty-bourgeois element? The natural desire of a person to live securely and comfortably? After all, you won’t be fed up with the idea.
          1. To be or not to be 10 February 2020 14: 27 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Live .but not at the expense of the other majority. and with their own hands and legs ..
            Under capitalism, not everyone can be capitalists ..
          2. iouris 10 February 2020 23: 55 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: AU Ivanov.
            What is petty-bourgeois element?

            Low economic efficiency and ... elements, i.e. the inability to control the development of the economy, destructive competition .... Then monopolies come and the "petty bourgeoisie" (the "dark element") becomes the lumpen proletariat. The desire of one person to live in comfort is most often satisfied at the expense of many others.
  • BAI
    BAI 10 February 2020 08: 36 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    The Bank of England was created along with "national debt" - a debt to none other than capitalist speculators

    It can also be noted that the birth of banks gave rise to crises. There were no crises before banks.
  • To be or not to be 10 February 2020 10: 29 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    1. V.I. Lenin in the pamphlet The Great Initiative: “Classes are called 1. large groups of people who differ in their place in the historically defined system of social production, 2. by their relationship (mostly fixed and formalized in laws) to means production, 3. by their role in the social organization of labor, and, therefore, 4. by the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are such groups of people from which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain way of social economy. ” (V.I. Lenin, Soch., Vol. 29, ed. 4, p. 388.)

    2. The adopted definition of "" "PUBLIC CLASSES - in accordance with the Marxist interpretation - large groups of people who differ among themselves primarily in their economic situation, their attitude to the material means of production (some are owners of the means of production, others not), therefore, and their attitude to the distribution of the social product and resource of power (slaves and slave owners, feudal lords and peasants, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) .Aggravation of class contradictions within the framework of one formation leads to various forms of class struggle, which in Marxist theory is considered as the driving force of the development of society. The logical result of the development of the class struggle is the social revolution (the “midwife of progress”), which gives rise to a new, more progressive socio-economic formation. Thus, Marxism viewed the entire history of the development of at least Western society as the history of the struggle between the exploited and the exploited Russian classes. The modern interpretation of the concept of “social class” is significantly different from the Marxist one. In addition to income and property, class-forming factors are also considered such as: education, social prestige, or the degree of public recognition, professional qualifications, a resource of power (including spiritual), access to various sources of information, etc. According to modern stratification, it is customary to distinguish between the so-called. “Upper class” or “class of elites”, a very heterogeneous “middle class” (the basis of stability of a modern, modernizing industrial society), “lower class” and “social bottom”.

    In Western sociology, it is generally accepted that, due to increased social mobility, the boundaries between modern classes are blurred, penetration from one class to another is maximally facilitated, property relations are playing an ever smaller role, and education, awareness, capacity for work, determination, efficiency of each individual, his personal moral and social qualities.

    Glossary of terms and concepts in social studies. Compiled by A.M. Lopukhov. 7th ed. rel. and add. M., 2013, p. 156-158.

    3. And S. Kara-Murza interesting (a dispute about the concept of class):
    "On the transformation of peasants into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie"

    Source: https://leninism.su/books/3595-sovetskaya-czivilizacziya-otryvki.html?start=5
    https://leninism.su/books/3595-sovetskaya-czivilizacziya-otryvki.html?start=5
  • iouris 10 February 2020 11: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Who created the working class ("the double gift of the bourgeoisie") - the Lord?
  • Robert 10 February 2020 12: 09 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5

    Here it’s not bad about capitalism:
    https://communitarian.ru/posts/filosofi/kapitalizm_kak_eres_zhidovstvuyuschih_ot_pokloneniya_mamone_do_unichtozheniya_roda_chelovecheskogo_26112015
  • nikvic46 10 February 2020 12: 44 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    We often say "Ivan does not remember kinship." This expression refers to those people who do not remember what left the USSR to Russia. Dozens of hydroelectric power stations, thousands of railways, thousands of runways at airfields. And metallurgical plants that are still used But all this costs trillions of dollars. It’s one thing to modernize, and another thing to build. Many criticize the international politics of the USSR. Our state did not become. And world terrorism revived. Because with the departure of the USSR, many countries died. And confrontations began there. Now we boast that we fed the people. This is important. But where do the legs grow from?
    1. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 13: 33 New
      • 3
      • 9
      -6
      Inheritance? Thousands of kilometers of railways and not a kilometer of expressways. The speed of movement of a freight car is 200 km / day, almost like on horses. Thousands of airfields. What landing systems were equipped with most of these airfields, do not want to tell? Do you know how we deciphered OSB (landing system equipment belonging to the class of inaccurate)? The Main Landing System - because basically they sat on it. Metallurgical plants, which along the shaft were ahead of the rest. And in terms of quality?
      1. nikvic46 10 February 2020 19: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Andrew. But Russia has built new railways. One runway is just what it costs. You better not explain. And of course the new state created nuclear weapons? And space exploration? We are still flying on Soyuz. Thousands of factories have been destroyed. Whoever did this is a real liberal. Read yourself Solzhenitsyn. Yeltsin is a teacher for future times.
      2. SETSET 10 February 2020 19: 58 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        AS Ivanov! Before you write your stupid things about the course-glide path landing systems, learn the materiel ... SP-80, SP-90 and so on. And do not forget the RSP. One ignorant babble and not only spitting on Russia. Immediately not a Russian!
        1. AU Ivanov. 10 February 2020 20: 21 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          What is the relationship of OSB + CPD to ILS, I can’t imagine. How many airfields in the North were equipped with a course-glide path?
          1. SETSET 10 February 2020 20: 50 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: AU Ivanov.

            What is the relationship of OSB + CPD to ILS, I can’t imagine. How many airfields in the North were equipped with a course-glide path?

            Read carefully about the instrumental landing system ILS and SP-50 on the same Wikipedia. Everything is written there for sure. They are united by the principle of operation of the equipment. And all the new large and medium airports have been equipped and equipped with instrumental course-glide path landing systems of the type SP-90 and newer. For example, the airport of Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, etc. And these systems have great accuracy. The RSP consisted of a survey, dispatch, landing radar (company Tesla Czechoslovakia RP-4G), and it was easy to land on it, and so - it was used to control the approach ... No need to write fables about the USSR.
    2. iouris 10 February 2020 15: 08 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: nikvic46
      Now we boast that we fed the people. This is important.

      Forgot the joke: "Shoot. But be sure to drink some tea."
  • Undecim 10 February 2020 13: 23 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    I thought Samsonov on the pitch! And here is someone Zyryanov! Bolivar cannot stand two stories!
    In the 17th and 18th centuries, the expropriation and crowding out of the rural masses took an official form through the adoption of a number of laws in parliament. This was a disaster for the rural population: it actually brought the English peasantry to extinction by the 19th century.
    By the 19th century, the peasantry in Britain accounted for 65% of the population. In France, 85%. Therefore, extinction by the XIX century is not necessary. As for the change in the ratio of rural and urban population during the XNUMXth century towards urbanization, this process with extinction has nothing to do.
  • Undecim 10 February 2020 14: 36 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    But, having taken into the hands of society as a whole, the enormous productive forces created by their own labor, the working people of the whole world can forever end class oppression and open a new era of genuine freedom for all of humanity.
    The author immediately to the armored car and to Finlyadsky station. In bronze! Here on the site you can assemble a whole sculptural group of "canons-Marxists" to collect. No one will understand that long ago Marxism has gone forward and operating with Marxist dogmas is only harmful.
    1. iouris 10 February 2020 15: 10 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      The article is a reflection of a textbook on istmatism in the mind of the author (“the author sees SO”). There is no subject for scientific discussion.
      1. kalibr 11 February 2020 15: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: iouris
        The article is a reflection of a textbook on istmatism in the mind of the author (“the author sees SO”). There is no subject for scientific discussion.

        That's it!