Military Review

Socialism versus capitalism: is there a chance

407

In the XNUMXst century, the socialist path of development still has its many supporters. Moreover, more and more people are becoming aware of the injustice of the capitalist system. But does socialism have a future?


Late 1980s - early 1990s became a time of global disillusionment with socialism. Due to a number of political, economic, social reasons, the socialist camp collapsed - the Soviet Union collapsed, the states that formed in its place took capitalist tracks, following the USSR, developing countries from Angola to Mongolia began to hastily say goodbye to socialism. Nevertheless, a number of states did not turn off the socialist path chosen in the middle of the twentieth century. China, Vietnam, Cuba, not to mention the DPRK, today continue to call themselves socialist states.

The fundamental value of socialism for humanity lies in the fact that the interests of society, social justice are placed above the interests of individual prosperity. In other words, the choice between socialism and capitalism is also an ideological choice between "we" and "I", between collectivism and individualism.

Today we can all observe how the self-interest and ambition of individuals and groups of individuals ruin entire countries, how nature is destroyed in the interests of corporations, wars are unleashed, millions of people wander around the world in search of a better life, unable to establish their lives in their native countries. All this is a direct consequence of capitalism, which puts the material benefit of some at the expense of infringement and oppression of others at the forefront.

In the modern sense, socialism does not imply a total expropriation of property, a ban on doing business, but its main distinguishing feature is the absence of large capitalists who would own national resources, land, subsoil, and transport arteries. This is where socialism has a chance today.

There is no doubt that in a country where there is a developed small business with many private shops and cafes, bakeries and hairdressers, dental surgeries and entertainment centers, life is more comfortable and pleasant than in a "barracks" society like North Korea. However, all the most important industries, natural resources, land - all this in the optimal variant should be owned not even by the state, but by the people who, through the state, manage their resources and the proceeds from the exploitation of these resources go to the needs of society, and do not settle in foreign banks and spent on overconsumption of the few oligarchy and the big bourgeoisie.


China is in no hurry to say goodbye to socialist ideology


Today, both in Russia and in other countries, new generations of people have grown up, but socialism remains attractive among young people as well. And this is not accidental: young people see how the last possibilities of vertical social mobility are overlapping, how the lack of money dooms a person to being at the bottom of the social ladder without any chances to rise up. Yes, there are especially active, especially talented, strong and smart ones who manage to break through from rags to riches, but these are exceptions to the general rule. Free education and health care are the achievements of socialism, which the capitalist countries would not have thought about in their time, if it were not for the "specter of communism" wandering around Europe and the authorities of these countries would not be afraid of socialist revolutions.

The Soviet state had many of its own shortcomings, problems and contradictions, otherwise it would not have ceased to exist. But it cannot be denied that the Soviet government in a short time managed to completely eliminate illiteracy, ensure the availability of health care throughout the vast territory, industrialize the country, creating industrial enterprises and infrastructure even in the most remote corners, in the national republics, where before, in addition to agriculture and crafts, nothing happened.

Thirty years have passed since the collapse of the Soviet state, but both in Russia and in other post-Soviet republics, the Soviet legacy continues to "eat up" - from aircraft and ships to "Khrushchevs" and public utilities infrastructure. Only a small part of what was created over such a period in Soviet times has been created, and is this not evidence of a certain advantage of socialism in solving the most important problems for society?

There is no doubt that the choice between socialism and capitalism remains relevant today, and a real improvement in the lives of millions of people, giving a new impetus to the development of the country's economy is possible only within the framework of a radical transformation of the socio-economic system. No matter how much you fight corruption, no matter how much you count the dachas of officials and top managers or the cost of their yachts and decorations, but without the transformation of the social system itself, the very structure of society, management and distribution of justice cannot be achieved.
Author:
407 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Finches
    Finches 9 September 2020 08: 14 New
    -1
    Unfortunately, there is no chance today! The brains of young people are washed out by the cult of consumerism so that their interests do not extend beyond the iPhone ... If you go down to form!
    1. 210ox
      210ox 9 September 2020 08: 20 New
      39
      Controversial statement. Brains are quickly ventilated by poverty, a sudden need to sell their iPhone in order to survive. And such an outcome is quite likely in the foreseeable future. There are too many office plankton, lawyers and economists in the country (I'm not talking about the hands of drivers at all), and there are fewer and fewer hard workers. We will not feed this crowd.
      1. Finches
        Finches 9 September 2020 08: 35 New
        -15
        Even in the poorest countries of Asia and Africa, there is no demand for Socialism, but there is more from ignorance, and in our country from knowledge, on the contrary, the propaganda of Western values ​​is so strong that even poverty will only lead to a Ukrainian scenario of a change of power, and not to a social revolution. we will change Putin to Navalny, it will become much worse, but everyone will be happy, especially the United States, because, damn it, democracy! Here we need a long-term and systematic approach, we need a strong left-wing party, charismatic leaders, and not a big top of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation or clowns like Grudinin or Platoshkin. We have to start from scratch ... We need a new theory!
        1. 210ox
          210ox 9 September 2020 09: 06 New
          19
          Why change to Navalny? This sanitary pad has already been thrown away. Only will stink more. It's bad that the electoral field in the country has been cleaned out. There is Putin and there are freaks. There are plenty of worthy people, both statists and economists. So who will let them go? Something all this vaguely reminds me of the end of the 70s ...
          1. Xnumx vis
            Xnumx vis 9 September 2020 16: 09 New
            +3
            Quote: 210ox
            ... There are plenty of worthy people, both statists and economists.

            Now such disgusting characters climb to power through the Communist Party of Russia that social equality will not come soon.
            1. Maki Avellevich
              Maki Avellevich 11 September 2020 10: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: 30 vis
              social equality will not come soon.

              social equality, like any other, does not exist in nature. empty slogans.

              the pursuit of effective social / economic lifts and equal opportunities to acquire knowledge is a real and achievable goal of society.
        2. WIKI
          WIKI 9 September 2020 09: 26 New
          +7
          Quote: Finches
          A long-term and systematic approach is needed here,

          Is the VVP board based on exactly what you claim? On a deep study of the ways of development of the country, and minimization of the negative consequences of the decisions made.
          1. prior
            prior 9 September 2020 12: 02 New
            15
            As a result of the execution of plans to optimize everything and everything, carried out by the Kremlin's effective optimizers, Russia will soon come to a complete "optimist".
            And socialism has a future, an example of which is China.
            1. CSKA
              CSKA 9 September 2020 14: 30 New
              +1
              Quote: prior
              And socialism has a future, an example of which is China

              Where did you find socialism in the PRC? In the title? Do you even understand what socialism is?
              1. prior
                prior 9 September 2020 14: 50 New
                +1
                What? Is communism already in China? Well, you must ...
                1. CSKA
                  CSKA 9 September 2020 15: 00 New
                  +3
                  Quote: prior
                  What? Is communism already in China? Well, you must ...

                  There is capitalism in the PRC, but the Communist Party is in power.
                  1. prior
                    prior 9 September 2020 15: 35 New
                    +2
                    It turns out that China is not China, but just some kind of capitalist India.
                    1. CSKA
                      CSKA 10 September 2020 12: 51 New
                      +3
                      Quote: prior
                      It turns out that China is not China, but just some kind of capitalist India.

                      It turns out that the PRC lives by the rules of a market economy, where a significant part of heavy industry belongs to the state and the power belongs to the Communist Party.
                      Capitalism is an economic system of production and distribution based on private property, legal equality and free enterprise. The main criterion for making economic decisions is the desire to increase capital, to make a profit.
                      What of this is not in the PRC?))))))
                      1. prior
                        prior 10 September 2020 13: 39 New
                        -2
                        The difference between ... isms is only in how the profits are distributed.
                        To whom "tops", and to whom "roots" ....
                        Everything else is bookish nonsense.
                      2. CSKA
                        CSKA 10 September 2020 15: 50 New
                        -1
                        Quote: prior
                        only in how the profit is distributed.

                        Any individual entrepreneur, LLC or Corporation decides how to distribute profits. How much to invest in production, modernization or dividends is decided by the board of directors. All these sayings about tops and roots are nonsense. There are economic concepts. And even in a state corporation, which, in the PRC, and in the Russian Federation, is full, the state receives dividends, not the people.
                        Quote: prior
                        Everything else is bookish nonsense.

                        ))))) This is not nonsense. Read more books, this is useful if you do not want to be in politics and economics at the level of a drunk locksmith from your yard.
                      3. Aag
                        Aag 13 September 2020 20: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: CSKA
                        Quote: prior
                        only in how the profit is distributed.

                        Any individual entrepreneur, LLC or Corporation decides how to distribute profits. How much to invest in production, modernization or dividends is decided by the board of directors. All these sayings about tops and roots are nonsense. There are economic concepts. And even in a state corporation, which, in the PRC, and in the Russian Federation, is full, the state receives dividends, not the people.
                        Quote: prior
                        Everything else is bookish nonsense.

                        ))))) This is not nonsense. Read more books, this is useful if you do not want to be in politics and economics at the level of a drunk locksmith from your yard.

                        In general, I agree ..
                        It was only about the drunkard's locksmith ... In today's reality, with the necessary qualifications, it is a vanishing species. Besides, against the background of other characters, it is not the most harmful!
              2. aybolyt678
                aybolyt678 15 September 2020 18: 40 New
                +1
                Quote: CSKA
                There is capitalism in the PRC, but the Communist Party is in power.

                In the PRC, capitalism is highly limited, for example, a private trader is prohibited from having more than 6 workers in agriculture, the backbone industries in industry are state-owned, i.e. machine-tool building is state-owned and machine tools are private, public execution for corruption payment of a check for cartridges to relatives, Renmin ribao in Russian, is in the internet, to help.
          2. mat-vey
            mat-vey 9 September 2020 14: 55 New
            +1
            Quote: CSKA
            Do you even understand what socialism is?

            and what is this?
            1. CSKA
              CSKA 9 September 2020 15: 10 New
              -9
              Quote: mat-vey
              and what is this?

              Explain to you what socialism is? For whom? Socialism according to your Marx or your Lenin?
              1. mat-vey
                mat-vey 9 September 2020 15: 14 New
                +2
                Quote: CSKA
                Explain to you what socialism is? For whom? Socialism according to your Marx or your Lenin?

                Have already explained - you can not continue ...
                1. CSKA
                  CSKA 10 September 2020 12: 03 New
                  -2
                  Quote: mat-vey
                  Have already explained - you can not continue ...

                  ))))) So it became clear that you are pseudo communist-socialists yourself do not know what your communism and socialism are. But you are amateurs to chat and engage in delusional criticism.
                  1. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 10 September 2020 12: 13 New
                    +5
                    Quote: CSKA
                    So it became clear that you pseudo communist-socialists do not know what your communism and socialism are.

                    After
                    Quote: CSKA
                    Socialism according to your Marx or your Lenin?

                    It became clear that you are just an Internet troll ...
                  2. CSKA
                    CSKA 10 September 2020 15: 29 New
                    -2
                    Quote: mat-vey
                    It became clear that you are just an Internet troll ...

                    ))))) For your information, Marx and Lenin have different views on socialism. And there are several types of socialism itself. But you are not physically able to read something, you are only able to chat. And the only way out of your headless opportunity to study the issue you found was only to accuse the apanent of being a troll or a liberal, or someone else.
                  3. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 10 September 2020 15: 37 New
                    +1
                    Quote: CSKA
                    For your information, Marx and Lenin have different views on socialism.

                    Was Lenin aware of it? Like Marx, this is the first or lowest phase of communist society ...
                    Quote: CSKA
                    And there are several types of socialism itself.

                    The dictatorship of the proletariat is always a dictatorship, and if it does not exist then it is not socialism ..
                  4. CSKA
                    CSKA 10 September 2020 16: 04 New
                    -2
                    Quote: mat-vey
                    Was Lenin aware of it? Like Marx, this is the first or lowest phase of communist society ...

                    What does communism have to do with it? They had a different understanding of socialism. And your utopian communism is irrelevant here.
                    The Marxist understanding of socialism is the self-government of the working people, the "withering away" of the state, public (not state) ownership of the means of production. Lenin believed that "... socialism is nothing more than a state-capitalist monopoly, aimed at the benefit of the entire people and so far ceased to be a capitalist monopoly."
                    So do not confuse warm with soft.
                    Quote: mat-vey
                    The dictatorship of the proletariat is always a dictatorship, and if it does not exist then this is not socialism

                    laughing You know how to make pseudo communists laugh. And in what country was this dictatorship? Not really in the USSR?))))
                    Even if you are a pseudo communist-socialist, try to strain yourself and read what socialism is, the main thing is completely different.
                  5. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 10 September 2020 16: 18 New
                    +2
                    In his work "On left-wing childishness ...", answering critics who accused him of substituting the goal of building socialism with the construction of a state cap, Lenin says that he never concealed the goal of building a state cap, as proof of which he refers to the very "Threatening catastrophe ...", whence his statement is quoted.
                    Clarifies that the state cap is the last stage, between which and the stage of socialism there are no intermediate ones, the complete preparation of socialism, and socialism is a step forward from the state cap. That is, not socialism.
                  6. CSKA
                    CSKA 10 September 2020 17: 55 New
                    -3
                    With these words you confirmed that Marx and Lenin had different views on socialism.
                  7. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 10 September 2020 17: 58 New
                    +2
                    Quote: CSKA
                    With these words you confirmed that Marx and Lenin had different views on socialism.

                    And how are they different? In the fact that both of them considered it a transitional period? And that the transition period can proceed differently in different countries?
              2. mat-vey
                mat-vey 10 September 2020 16: 35 New
                +1
                Quote: CSKA
                So do not confuse warm with soft.

                You are trying to pass off individual stages and steps as something integral. And in each country it will be different and of different duration - the transition period is different everywhere, since everyone has different conditions.
                "State capitalism is economically incomparably higher than our present economy, this is, firstly. And secondly, there is nothing terrible in it for Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is ensured." - "the power of the workers and the poor is guaranteed." this is the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
              3. CSKA
                CSKA 10 September 2020 18: 03 New
                -1
                Quote: mat-vey
                And in each country it will be different and of different duration - the transition period is different everywhere, since the conditions are different for everyone.

                Well, OK. Various. But when will unified socialism come to the present socialist countries? Or maybe he is not one at all. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. There are many varieties of socialism themselves. And it is not clear which of them is real socialism. The term itself:
                Socialism - Ryad economic and social systemscharacterized by state and / or public control over the economy, means of production and resource allocation.
                Quote: mat-vey
                State capitalism is economically incomparably higher than our current economy

                It depends on what kind of state capitalism you mean? If by Lenin, then of course not. And where did you get the idea that it is higher? And if, as a model of capitalism, under which the state and capital merge, there is a desire of the authorities to take control of large private business, then it is very close.
                Quote: mat-vey
                And secondly, there is nothing terrible in it for the Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is ensured. "-" the power of the workers and the poor is ensured. "This is the" dictatorship of the proletariat. "

                )))) Do you seriously believe that the proletariat ruled the USSR, and not the party elite? do not make me laugh.
              4. mat-vey
                mat-vey 10 September 2020 18: 16 New
                +2
                Quote: CSKA
                Do you seriously believe that the proletariat ruled the USSR, and not the party leadership? do not make me laugh.

                Do you seriously think that the USSR built socialism? Yes, it was building it. But as soon as Khrushch introduced the concept of profit, the country took a giant step back and began to mark time ...
                ".... the worst and middle of them, in stupidity and spinelessness, lag behind the bourgeoisie, intimidated by it; the best did not understand that the teachers of socialism were not talking about the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism in vain and not in vain emphasized the" long agony of childbirth " a new society, and this new society is again an abstraction, which can not be embodied in life otherwise than through a series of various, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state. "
                Quote: CSKA
                There are many varieties of socialism themselves. And it is not clear which of them is real socialism. The term itself:
                Socialism is a set of economic and social systems characterized by state and / or public control over the economy, the means of production and the distribution of resources.

                Yes, yes, yes - again, the stages of the path are passed off as the final goal, or they are accepted ...
                Since there is a possibility of the restoration of capitalism, it means that socialism has not been built, but is still in the process ...
              5. CSKA
                CSKA 11 September 2020 13: 16 New
                0
                Quote: mat-vey
                Do you seriously think that the USSR built socialism?

                Of course not. In the USSR, there was capitalism with a state monopoly.
                Quote: mat-vey
                Yes, yes, yes - again stages of the path

                Not stages and paths, but varieties. In the PRC and Vietnam it is like socialism, but in fact capitalism, and in the DPRK and Cuba it is like socialism, and in fact capitalism with a state monopoly in everything, and the state is the party elite.
                Even the semblance of socialism according to Marx was not built anywhere from the socialist countries.
              6. mat-vey
                mat-vey 13 September 2020 14: 09 New
                0
                Quote: CSKA
                Of course not. In the USSR, there was capitalism with a state monopoly.

                Well then, let's clarify - what is "socialism" in your opinion and what is "capitalism"?
              7. aybolyt678
                aybolyt678 15 September 2020 18: 51 New
                0
                Quote: CSKA
                but in fact capitalism with a state monopoly in everything, and the state is the party elite.

                a very emasculated concept of the state. The Soviet state was ruined by the party and trade elite who had access to distribution, I would say appendicitis, but in fact the secret bourgeoisie. And the state is also an army and many other things.
                Capitalism is the pursuit of profit, socialism is free housing, medicine and education, maybe pensions. We still have elements of socialism. BUT more and more capitalism. The progressive scale of taxation is also socialism, it is, as it were, the replacement of the state monopoly with the means of production, an attempt to redistribute material wealth in favor of society. HER was not accepted.
          3. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 10 September 2020 20: 48 New
            -3
            Quote: CSKA
            Do you seriously believe that the proletariat ruled the USSR, and not the party leadership? do not make me laugh.

            Well, at first they tried to force the workers and peasants to manage, but that's bad luck, the workers and peasants didn't need it. request and now they are talking about "people's power" again, like the fact that in the 30s was not considered, let's go again.
            in my opinion it smells of the same scam as "democracy" yes
          4. mat-vey
            mat-vey 11 September 2020 04: 56 New
            +2
            Quote: SanichSan
            smacks of me

            And in my opinion it is necessary not only to read - "the teachers of socialism did not speak in vain about the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism and did not emphasize in vain the" long agony of childbirth "of the new society, and this new society is again an abstraction that cannot be embodied in life otherwise , as through a series of various, imperfect concrete attempts ", but to understand what is written here ...
          5. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 12 September 2020 14: 42 New
            0
            Quote: mat-vey
            but to understand what is written here ...

            in in. understand. to understand that for the implementation of this concept a long-term reformatting of society is needed, since now all these methods are known and scientifically substantiated. the task seems to be simplifying relative to the last century, but a number of still unresolved problems remain.
            who will carry out this process? the country's leadership? some politician? the politician will make titanic efforts to give the delegated power to some kind of abstraction called "people" ??? despite the fact that for this he must reformat the consciousness of the masses and himself sees how this is done and how it works and continue to do this, seeing that this structure, people, can anyone turn anywhere ??? belay he must not be altruistic, he must be crazy! yes
          6. mat-vey
            mat-vey 13 September 2020 14: 01 New
            +3
            Quote: SanichSan
            who will carry out this process? the country's leadership? some politician?

            Well, this is really not a smooth process - there are people like Lenin and Stalin, they took a step forward, and then there may be a rollback and walking in circles ...
            That is why they strive to slander and erase the experience of previous generations.
        3. Aag
          Aag 13 September 2020 20: 21 New
          0
          Quote: mat-vey
          Quote: SanichSan
          smacks of me

          And in my opinion it is necessary not only to read - "the teachers of socialism did not speak in vain about the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism and did not emphasize in vain the" long agony of childbirth "of the new society, and this new society is again an abstraction that cannot be embodied in life otherwise , as through a series of various, imperfect concrete attempts ", but to understand what is written here ...

          I may be wrong, the engineering faculty at the military-political school did not greatly contribute to the study of the topic ... As far as I remember, the classics of ML always talked about building communism. Socialism is a transitional stage. It seems that they stumbled on this ...
        4. mat-vey
          mat-vey 14 September 2020 06: 09 New
          0
          Quote: AAG
          Quote: mat-vey
          Quote: SanichSan
          smacks of me

          And in my opinion it is necessary not only to read - "the teachers of socialism did not speak in vain about the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism and did not emphasize in vain the" long agony of childbirth "of the new society, and this new society is again an abstraction that cannot be embodied in life otherwise , as through a series of various, imperfect concrete attempts ", but to understand what is written here ...

          I may be wrong, the engineering faculty at the military-political school did not greatly contribute to the study of the topic ... As far as I remember, the classics of ML always talked about building communism. Socialism is a transitional stage. It seems that they stumbled on this ...

          Quote: AAG
          It looks like they stumbled on this ...

          Do you also have a time machine?
        5. Aag
          Aag 14 September 2020 06: 28 New
          0
          "Do you also have a time machine?"
          You know the answer. good But this does not mean that you need to walk on the old rake. negative
        6. mat-vey
          mat-vey 14 September 2020 06: 47 New
          0
          Quote: AAG
          You know the answer.

          And there are even two of them - the second one you did not even try to get acquainted with the works of Lenin ...
        7. Aag
          Aag 14 September 2020 07: 57 New
          0
          Quote: mat-vey
          Quote: AAG
          You know the answer.

          And there are even two of them - the second one you did not even try to get acquainted with the works of Lenin ...

          A bold statement ...
        8. mat-vey
          mat-vey 14 September 2020 09: 25 New
          0
          Quote: AAG
          A bold statement ...

          Well, if you had read "On the" left "childishness and petty-bourgeoisness, then all this would not have sounded ..
        9. Aag
          Aag 14 September 2020 18: 15 New
          0
          Quote: mat-vey
          Quote: AAG
          A bold statement ...

          Well, if you had read "On the" left "childishness and petty-bourgeoisness, then all this would not have sounded ..

          I think I did.)) Only more than thirty years ago. I don’t even remember which discipline: "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", "Scientific Communism", or something else ... I confess, Lenin's MSS did not become my reference book. And what, in your opinion, should I have learned from this article? The need to build state capitalism? The difference between the "left" and the "right" communists? Or perhaps, realize that before fighting world imperialism, you need to wait until "Will the proletariat of Germany rise?")))
          In general, the discussion of the topic of the article, imperceptibly for those participating in the polemic, turned into a quiz on the knowledge of the works of the classics of M-L-ma. Moreover, each of the participants insists on his own interpretation of the concepts and definitions of the data from the classics ... I remember they taught: "Marxism-Leninism living science, not dogmatic, developing ... ". In other words, not included in the list of exact ones!)))
        10. aybolyt678
          aybolyt678 15 September 2020 07: 34 New
          0
          Quote: AAG
          In general, the discussion of the topic of the article, imperceptibly for those participating in the polemic, turned into a quiz on the knowledge of the works of the classics of ML-ma.

          I agree with you, but here's another problem: the classics did not face the question of creating a system of training and educating leaders, in the end, this is what destroyed the USSR, and is now destroying Russia
        11. mat-vey
          mat-vey Today, 07: 26 New
          0
          Quote: aybolyt678
          перед классиками не стояло вопроса создания системы подготовки и воспитания лидеров

          Лидерами рождаются ...
        12. aybolyt678
          aybolyt678 Today, 10: 16 New
          0
          Quote: mat-vey
          Лидерами рождаются .

          рождаются беспомощными комочками биомассы. Способность к лидерству это лишь тип нервной системы и жизненный опыт с выработанными навыками, глубина интеллекта. Лидером можно быть в детском саду, армии, тюрьме и Думе. Сталину углубляли интеллект сначала Библией потом Марксом, потом ограблением банка, ссылками, съездами, войнами. Для кого то университет - тюремная камера.
          Готовят ведь военных в училищах! почему было не создать университет где готовят управляющих страной? с жесточайшей системой отбора по харизме? умении ориентироваться в экономике, психологии?
    2. mat-vey
      mat-vey Today, 07: 30 New
      0
      Quote: AAG
      .Помниться учили:" марксизм-ленинизм,-живая наука,не догматичная,развивающаяся...". Другими словами,не входящяя в перечень точных!)))

      Вы наверное удивитесь,но физика тоже живая наука ,а не догматичная ...хотя и "точная" ..
      Quote: AAG
      ..Признаюсь, ПСС В.И.Ленина не стало моей настольной книгой. И что же я,на Ваш взгляд, должен был вынести из преведённой статьи?

      Ну "не вынесли " ни чего ,так и не вынесли чего тогда рассуждать-философствовать на эту тему?
  2. CSKA
    CSKA 11 September 2020 13: 18 New
    -1
    Quote: SanichSan
    Well, at first they tried to force the workers and peasants to manage, but that's bad luck, the workers and peasants didn't need it.

    Give an example?
    Quote: SanichSan
    and now they are talking about "people's power" again, like the fact that in the 30s was not considered, let's go again.

    In the 30s, there was no people's power.
    Quote: SanichSan
    in my opinion it smells of the same scam as "democracy"

    The paradox is that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority to the minority, but people have not yet come up with a better option.
  3. Sanichsan
    Sanichsan 12 September 2020 13: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: CSKA
    Give an example?

    have you heard about the obligatory meetings on collective farms and at enterprises? the case of the industrial party, as an exception, when all labor collectives made a decision on this issue, and quite rightly resented the abolition of the execution.
    Quote: CSKA
    In the 30s, there was no people's power.

    in fact, it was not, but at least the idealist revolutionaries who had not yet died by that time tried to organize it.
    Quote: CSKA
    The paradox is that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority to the minority, but people have not yet come up with a better option.

    olo !! wake up !!! dictatorship is power, and ANY power is exclusively individual concept. the masses are only a tool by which a very specific person exercises his power. collective consciousness does not exist! at least for now. so all these stories about democracy or the dictatorship of the proletariat are nothing more than a screen to cover up manipulations with public opinion!
    somehow hi
  4. mat-vey
    mat-vey 13 September 2020 14: 02 New
    0
    Quote: CSKA
    The paradox is that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority to the minority, but people have not yet come up with a better option.

    The paradox is that the Soviet regime is also a democracy - whether you like it or not ...
  5. Aag
    Aag 13 September 2020 20: 06 New
    0
    "The dictatorship of the proletariat is always a dictatorship, and if it does not exist then it is not socialism .."
    You are pulling the phrase out of its temporary context ...
  6. mat-vey
    mat-vey 14 September 2020 06: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: AAG
    "The dictatorship of the proletariat is always a dictatorship, and if it does not exist then it is not socialism .."
    You are pulling the phrase out of its temporary context ...

    What is the “temporary” one? As long as the restoration of capitalism is possible, there must be a dictatorship of the proletariat, otherwise the capitalists will again sit on their necks - which is exactly what we see ...
  7. Aag
    Aag 14 September 2020 07: 52 New
    0
    "From which" temporary "?"
    Lenin, it seems, was talking about dictatorship during the seizure of power, the means of production ...
    "... As long as the restoration of capitalism is possible, there must be a dictatorship of the proletariat, otherwise the capitalists will sit on their necks again - which we just see ..."
    I absolutely agree with this! hi
  8. mat-vey
    mat-vey 14 September 2020 09: 28 New
    0
    Quote: AAG
    Lenin, it seems, was talking about dictatorship during the seizure of power, the means of production ...

    Lenin spoke of a dictatorship for a transitional period from capitalism to communism - socialism, this is a transitional period ... Both according to Lenin and according to Marx ..
  9. Aag
    Aag 14 September 2020 10: 59 New
    0
    Quote: mat-vey
    Quote: AAG
    Lenin, it seems, was talking about dictatorship during the seizure of power, the means of production ...

    Lenin spoke of a dictatorship for a transitional period from capitalism to communism - socialism, this is a transitional period ... Both according to Lenin and according to Marx ..

    Then yes..
  • businessv
    businessv 9 September 2020 16: 22 New
    0
    Quote: CSKA
    Explain to you what socialism is? For whom? Socialism according to your Marx or your Lenin?

    Explain what socialism is in our China! hi
    1. CSKA
      CSKA 10 September 2020 12: 04 New
      -2
      Quote: businessv
      Explain what socialism is in our China!

      Where did you find him there? Read what state socialism is.
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 10 September 2020 15: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: CSKA
        Where did you find him there? Read what state socialism is.

        Yes, yes, and in addition to "state socialism" in Germany, there was National Socialism .... naturally a hard worker and a banker, friends-brothers ...
      2. CSKA
        CSKA 11 September 2020 09: 20 New
        0
        Quote: mat-vey
        Yes, yes, and in addition to "state socialism" in Germany, there was National Socialism .... naturally a hard worker and a banker, friends-brothers ...

        What are you talking about? We have a conversation there with a man about socialism in the PRC, and you drag in National Socialism.
      3. mat-vey
        mat-vey 11 September 2020 09: 26 New
        0
        Quote: CSKA
        Quote: mat-vey
        Yes, yes, and in addition to "state socialism" in Germany, there was National Socialism .... naturally a hard worker and a banker, friends-brothers ...

        What are you talking about? We have a conversation there with a man about socialism in the PRC, and you drag in National Socialism.

        Well, what have you dragged state socialism into? The brainchild of Otto Bismarck?
  • Outsider
    Outsider 11 September 2020 00: 01 New
    -4
    - Socialism in your China is the same NEP that flourished in the USSR from 1922 to 1929, which Stalin turned his head off in 1929 because money was needed (urgently and a lot) to pay for hyperindustrialization, which was needed for hypermilitarization, which was necessary during the organization and preparation of the Second World War ...
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 11 September 2020 04: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Outsider
      which was necessary during the organization and preparation of the Second World War ...

      And what? Was it right?
    2. Outsider
      Outsider 11 September 2020 08: 52 New
      -4
      - Of course, he turned out to be right, starting the war as an ally of Hitler, tearing apart Poland together with Hitler, opening a "green street" for him to seize Europe, with a subsequent stab in the back to liberate this Europe and make Soviet and socialist, but he "revealed his cards" too early - and Hitler realized that the ally was ready to "throw" him - and he himself rushed to the USSR, knowing full well that never for Germany in its history a war on two fronts did not end well for her. Stalin simply did not leave Hitler with a choice - after Molotov's historic visit to Berlin in November 1940 (as a result of this visit, Hitler gave the final command to put into effect the Barbarossa plan). Here is a very intimate letter from Hitler to his ally and friend Mussolini the day before the attack on the USSR:
      http://hrono.ru/dokum/194_dok/19410621gitl.php
    3. mat-vey
      mat-vey 11 September 2020 08: 53 New
      -1
      Quote: Outsider
      starting the war as an ally of Hitler

      Do you have newer fairy tales?
    4. Outsider
      Outsider 11 September 2020 08: 56 New
      -3
      - These are not fairy tales, this is true:

    5. mat-vey
      mat-vey 11 September 2020 09: 03 New
      +1
      You yourself don't get tired of posting such vulgarities?
    6. Outsider
      Outsider 11 September 2020 11: 02 New
      -3
      - The Molotov-Ribbentrop (Stalin-Hitler) Pact with all its secret attachments (zones of influence, map of the partition of Poland) is "vulgarity"?
      And the possibility of the USSR of direct accession to the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo alliance, which Stalin was ready to accept, if in November 1940 Hitler would accept all the conditions brought by Molotov?
    7. mat-vey
      mat-vey 13 September 2020 14: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: Outsider
      Poland partition map

      This is about the Curzon line, which was carried out by the British back in 1920, and the "hell" scored on it?
      Quote: Outsider
      And the possibility of the USSR of direct accession to the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo alliance, which Stalin was ready to accept, if in November 1940 Hitler would accept all the conditions brought by Molotov?

      Did Stalin tell you or Molotov? The plan of the German military campaign for the capture of Poland has long been ready and put into effect ... or you naively think that such "measures" can be done in a couple of days?
  • CSKA
    CSKA 11 September 2020 11: 00 New
    +2
    Quote: Outsider
    Of course he was right to start the war as an ally of Hitler

    What are you? And when was this alliance made? When were the documents signed? The fact that the two states have shared spheres of influence does not mean that they become allies.
    Quote: Outsider
    opening a "green street" for him to capture Europe

    Is your head all right? That is, the USSR is to blame for the fact that Hitler further attacked France, Belgium and Holland? Kind and fluffy Great Britain and France did not abandon their ally Poland, with whom an allied agreement was concluded? Have you heard about the Strange War? But Stalin did not offer even before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to conclude an alliance between Great Britain and France? Poland didn’t do Green Street when it took part in the derbanization of Czechoslovakia and when it threatened to shoot down Soviet planes?
    Quote: Outsider
    with a subsequent stab in the back to liberate this Europe and make Soviet and socialist

    Poor unfortunate Nazi Germany. It turns out that the USSR was going to stab her in the back. Do you have any proof that the USSR was going to attack Germany later?
    Quote: Outsider
    and Hitler realized that the ally was ready to "throw" him

    What nonsense? What are you talking about? What ally? The USSR and Germany did not sign any allied agreements.
    Quote: Outsider
    Stalin simply did not leave Hitler a choice

    The gag started. And nothing that in Mein Kampf Hitler openly wrote about the struggle against Bolshevism? Just delirium on delirium, and you also pass off your guesses as Hitler's thoughts. It's interesting how it turns out? The USSR did not want to enter into an alliance with Germany, and following the results of the visit, he forced Germany to enter the war with him. And of course you are not interested in the opinion of many historians that the proposals to the Soviet Union and the discussion of the terms of the Pact were only a cover operation for the Barbarossa plan.
    Another nonsense, another liberal.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 11 September 2020 11: 12 New
    -5
    Mark Solonin is an outstanding WWII explorer:

  • Outsider
    Outsider 11 September 2020 11: 54 New
    -4
    Mark Solonin as Evgeny Kiselyov:
  • aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 15 September 2020 19: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Outsider
    which was necessary during the organization and preparation of the Second World War ...

    +++ bravo! fellow good you just forgot to mention one thing, just a little - for the Victory in it
  • Outsider
    Outsider 17 September 2020 22: 53 New
    -1
    ?? "The knight understands" that for a victory. Not for defeat ?!
  • Outsider
    Outsider 10 September 2020 23: 57 New
    -3
    - or according to your Stalin ...
  • businessv
    businessv 9 September 2020 16: 25 New
    +2
    Quote: CSKA
    Where did you find socialism in the PRC? In the title?

    Modern, adapted socialism is precisely in China, and the article is quite clear about this! As for the name of the country, where did you see the letter C in the abbreviation of the PRC?
    1. Mikhail Ya2
      Mikhail Ya2 15 September 2020 07: 09 New
      +1
      There are practically no pensions in China, no free medicine and education. It already shows that there is no socialism there either
  • tezey
    tezey 11 September 2020 01: 41 New
    +1
    "Our country is and will remain for a long time at the initial stage of socialism. This inevitable historical stage in the implementation of socialist modernization in China, which at one time experienced economic and cultural backwardness, will take at least a hundred years." From the CCP's charter.
  • zenion
    zenion 9 September 2020 17: 38 New
    +8
    Correct socialism was under Stalin. There were many cooperatives. There were many working from home and paying taxes to the Ministry of Finance. Many of the collective farmers had farms at their homes. Khrushchev ate everything. I remember his speech - teachers and doctors and others working at state enterprises do not need household plots, cows, sheep and goats. Why do they need chickens and so on? They should think about their places of work, and not about the household. Everything died.
  • businessv
    businessv 9 September 2020 16: 21 New
    +4
    Quote: Finches
    or clowns like Grudinin or Platoshkin. We have to start from scratch ... We need a new theory!

    Now, if it were not for this stone in the garden of literate and patriotic people who are ready to sacrifice personal interests for the sake of the country (Platoshkin is still under arrest, which speaks of many useful things for the country in his Program), I would put a plus on your post, and so excuse me , colleague! hi
  • hhhhhhh
    hhhhhhh 10 September 2020 08: 17 New
    -1
    Quote: Finches
    Even in the poorest countries of Asia and Africa, there is no demand for Socialism

    Not in the poor, but in the United States. Sanders for Socialism. Clinton for Trotskyism, also a kind of socialism.)))
    One must grow up to socialism.
  • CBR600
    CBR600 10 September 2020 10: 45 New
    +1
    A long-term and systematic approach is needed here, need a strong leftist party, charismatic leaders, not the Communist Party tent or clowns like Grudinin or Platoshkin

    Such STRONG LEFT parties are either discredited (artificially) or destroyed. I agree with the rest. A healthy opposition is needed, not a venal one. Current from where to get it? The very definition is NAC, just as foul ...
    Nazism, nationalism, naziks - these words are cognate with the word nation. And they are equated with fascism.
    This means that there can be no NATIONAL idea in our country, because it will be called fascism.
    Here is the key to tolerance. What they did with Oscar. And how long did it take.
  • aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 15 September 2020 07: 25 New
    0
    Quote: Finches
    Even in the poorest countries of Asia and Africa, there is no demand for Socialism

    Libya, with free housing under Muammar Gaddafi. Free housing is an element of socialism, now Gaddafi is now remembered with warmth. Although he did not declare socialism, he actually built it. Didn't work with Ideology. Ideology in socialism is the weak link, the Beast in man wins
  • Rubi0
    Rubi0 9 September 2020 08: 50 New
    -8
    Why do you dislike office plankton so much? They are working for the global market with a corresponding salary. And in general, if office plankton cannot spend $ 100-200 in suburban complexes by the pool, arriving there in brand new cars, then salaries will sharply decrease from mechanics by a hundred at dealers and factories, albeit screwdriver assembly, to cooks, masseurs and security guards ... Well, and whom everyone chooses to be at school, as before, no one will pull by the ears and leave after lessons for electives, especially for free.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 9 September 2020 09: 10 New
      11
      But in our village there is no office plankton (and thank God, there were still not enough of them here), but the services are constantly in operation. And they are capricious, they say, the working day is over.
  • stalki
    stalki 9 September 2020 09: 27 New
    10
    Controversial statement. Brains are quickly ventilated by poverty, a sudden need to sell their iPhone in order to survive. And such an outcome is quite likely in the foreseeable future. There are too many office plankton, lawyers and economists in the country (I'm not talking about the hands of drivers at all), and there are fewer and fewer hard workers. We will not feed this crowd.
    Has it bred? Spawned. Soviet education was ruined, ideology was flushed down the toilet, education was canceled. Professional cadres have been ineptly scattered, and new ones are not expected. Young people either lack motivation or focus on purely personal needs. The impression is that the orientation is made to deliberately reduce the level of knowledge of society as a whole. Such a society is easier to manipulate. I do not know where the government is looking (maybe this is intentional), but not at new generations.
    It seems to me that now it is especially important to do good calmly and stubbornly, not only without asking the government, but deliberately avoiding its participation. The strength of the government rests on the ignorance of the people, and it knows this and therefore will always fight against enlightenment. It's time for us to understand this. To give the government the opportunity, by spreading darkness, to pretend that it is engaged in educating the people, as is done by all kinds of imaginary educational institutions controlled by it - schools,
    gymnasiums, universities, academies, all kinds of committees and congresses — it can be extremely harmful.
    Leo Tolstoy
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 9 September 2020 12: 07 New
    +7
    Quote: 210ox
    Brains are quickly ventilated by poverty, a sudden need to sell their iPhone in order to survive.

    Well no. The brains take their place among the people when the leadership of the Tredevyat kingdom has POLITICAL WILL.
    Such political will was in the days of Stalin, when out of poverty and devastation for 16 years, the second economy in the world and Gagarin.
  • Aag
    Aag 13 September 2020 19: 45 New
    0
    Quote: 210ox
    Controversial statement. Brains are quickly ventilated by poverty, a sudden need to sell their iPhone in order to survive. And such an outcome is quite likely in the foreseeable future. There are too many office plankton, lawyers and economists in the country (I'm not talking about the hands of drivers at all), and there are fewer and fewer hard workers. We will not feed this crowd.

    A plus.
    But there are objections, clarifications ...
    Young people (outside the age range, by convictions) perceive socialism (often, according to the stories of the older generation) as a kind of thing, which in any case will give the opportunity to "skim", "philonite" ... Consumer's view. Without an ideological component.
    I agree that socialism will not be the same, if at all ...
    But, I would very much like to - taking into account and correcting everything passed ... hi
  • Svarog
    Svarog 9 September 2020 08: 39 New
    14
    Quote: Finches
    Unfortunately, there is no chance today! The brains of young people are washed out by the cult of consumerism so that their interests do not extend beyond the iPhone ... If you go down to form!

    Nothing of the kind, there was an article where it was said that young people were interviewed in the USA, the purpose of the survey was to find out how satisfied Americans are with capitalism and how they feel about socialism .. The answer was devastating, something like 78% for socialism. So young people are not as stupid as they seem .. In Russia, the situation is just as close, of course there are no polls, but surrounded by my daughter, who is 26 years old, there are a lot of supporters of a return to socialism.
    1. Finches
      Finches 9 September 2020 08: 46 New
      +4
      At the age of 26, they cannot want to return, they can only vaguely imagine and, against the background of youth's characteristic protest moods, want changes, as Tsoi once sang, only then the youth wanted changes in the other direction!
      And to want, does not mean to be able!
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 9 September 2020 08: 56 New
        +6
        Quote: Finches
        And to want, does not mean to be able!

        Everything begins with desire.
        At the age of 26, they cannot want to return, they can only vaguely imagine and, against the background of the protest moods characteristic of youth, want to change,

        Perhaps they do not want to return, but simply socialism .. because under socialism they did not have a chance to live. But the meaning of what I wrote was that young people understand everything perfectly and the current state of affairs does not suit them.
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 09: 00 New
        +9
        Quote: Finches
        against the background of protest sentiments characteristic of youth, to want change,


        It's not even about change, but about social equality ..
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 20 New
          -5
          "And about social equality .." It will never happen that everyone is different and everyone will live differently.
    2. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 9 September 2020 18: 01 New
      10
      Americans are divided into two camps: "I have not read Marx and Lenin, but I approve" and "I have not read Marx and Lenin, but I condemn". I have already lost my mind to explain to the locals that socialism, this does not mean that everyone is free and does not need to work and everyone will be paid a good welfare, does not mean that if you work, the surgeon and the janitor will have the same salary. What kind of arson, looting and crime are punished about socialism mercilessly, that socialism is NOT a triumph of "alternative sexuality" and other types of madness. That under socialism no one will forbid you to buy a car or a summer house. That socialism gives you VERY much, but also demands a lot from you. Nobody read anything here. I quote Lenin to them, and they shout that I am quoting Hitler. They read little, young people, then, "the organizers and agitators explain to them, from the series" Rabinovich sang me on the phone. " , no less militant LGBT schizos, anarchists, and lately - even pedophiles demanding recognition under the screams of "love is love", you can also safely add the militant black Islam of Luis Farrakhan, and with this caudle, at one time the KGB and the GRU work The name socialism is simply remembered. And as the opposition of this Caudle of outcasts and psychos, a completely different force rises, which shouts "Heil Trump." , and all the looting and arson stopped. And they are glad. My neighbors are already saying that it is high time, and a sufficient number of people in the United States are more than ready but only to throw up their hand with a cry of Heil, but in a circle of their they are told that all this liberal scum must be sent to where the work is done free, and everyone gets their own. In the United States, the communists have mutated too much and are remembered, disillusionment with capitalism, democracy and liberalism in the United States leads not to communism, but to national socialism. Especially considering the fact that "oppressed" nats and sexual minorities, bandits and parasites, welfarers are already here very much zadolbali in particular, together with a group that "fights for their rights" but does not tolerate among its own. Either if the capitalist corporate banking system will fall, then it will not be socialism, but national socialism.
      1. businessv
        businessv 10 September 2020 14: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        Now if the capitalist corporate banking system will fall, then not socialism, but national socialism will go to the hay.

        Thank you, colleague, sensibly and objectively explained the situation from a local resident! This is sorely lacking here. There was your neighbor, but disappeared somewhere, does not appear. smile
        1. Baron pardus
          Baron pardus 10 September 2020 17: 36 New
          +1
          Let me give you a small example. Not only cars with "Trump" and "MAGA" flags drive here. But many openly say that without Trump, America has a Khan. Note that not "if the Republicans lose" ", but that" Without Trump "- the khan. And a bunch of pictures and memes were made where Trump's fans portray Napolen, then the Roman emperor, or even God the Emperor. By the way, even a video was made praising Trump, to music Carolus Rex. There are even kartikki where Father God gives the crown to Trump.So many people already see Trump as the absolute ruler, and many voices say that they say to put Trump as ruler for life, and disperse these corrupt Senate and Congress scum. So give up Trump. the cry of many will rise. Bandits, welders, illegal immigrants, lgbt / pedophiles, Muslims, anarchists, immigrants who refuse to assimilate, transnational bankers and others like them, and at the same time the liberals defending them have got many to such an extent that there will be an excess of those who want to spend all this scum The most interesting thing is that this element is socially petty bourgeoisie, highly skilled workers and professionals: doctors, engineers, and others NOT gu manitarians. I mean a classic of style.
        2. Baron pardus
          Baron pardus 10 September 2020 17: 36 New
          0
          Let me give you a small example. Not only cars with "Trump" and "MAGA" flags drive here. But many openly say that without Trump, America has a Khan. Note that not "if the Republicans lose" ", but that" Without Trump "- the khan. And a bunch of pictures and memes were made where Trump's fans portray Napolen, then the Roman emperor, or even God the Emperor. By the way, even a video was made praising Trump, to music Carolus Rex. There are even kartikki where Father God gives the crown to Trump.So many people already see Trump as the absolute ruler, and many voices say that they say to put Trump as ruler for life, and disperse these corrupt Senate and Congress scum. So give up Trump. the cry of many will rise. Bandits, welders, illegal immigrants, lgbt / pedophiles, Muslims, anarchists, immigrants who refuse to assimilate, transnational bankers and others like them, and at the same time the liberals defending them have got many to such an extent that there will be an excess of those who want to spend all this scum The most interesting thing is that this element is socially petty bourgeoisie, highly skilled workers and professionals: doctors, engineers, and others NOT gu manitarians. I mean a classic of style.
    3. Mikhail Ya2
      Mikhail Ya2 15 September 2020 07: 27 New
      0
      As Churchill said, "Whoever was not a revolutionary in his youth has no heart, who in maturity did not become a conservative, he has no mind."
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 9 September 2020 08: 41 New
    -1
    Quote: Finches
    Unfortunately, there is no chance today!


    Unfortunately, they will pile on and crush the crowd. They still gnaw at themselves for 1917-1922 and 1941-1945.
  • Arlen
    Arlen 9 September 2020 09: 49 New
    28
    A return to socialism is inevitable. More and more people are becoming supporters of the Soviet way of the country's development. People are not blind, they see all the "delights" of today's "flea market".
    Capitalism in Russia is a temporary phenomenon, since:
    1) the restoration of capitalism has clearly shown that capitalism is not able to resolve existing and emerging contradictions both within states and between states.
    2) Unjust distribution of the country's natural resources, when the subsoil of Russia belongs to a handful of oligarchs, and not to the people of the country.
    3) The impossibility of the capitalist system, in comparison with the Soviet model of the state, to provide the country with industrial growth.
    4) The impossibility of the capitalist system of Russia to eliminate unemployment and provide the people with high-quality free education.

    P.S. Comparing capitalism with socialism, Italian communist leader Marco Rizzo notes: “Under capitalism you can take Erasmus courses, but you don't have kindergartens and maternity hospitals. Under capitalism, you can go to London with Ryanair for 10 euros, but when you return to Italy , you have no home or work. Socialism gives you what you need: home, work, health, education and transportation. Capitalism brings nothing but loss of value. "
    1. parma
      parma 9 September 2020 14: 10 New
      +4
      Quote: Arlen
      A return to socialism is inevitable. More and more people are becoming supporters of the Soviet way of the country's development. People are not blind, they see all the "delights" of today's "flea market".
      Capitalism in Russia is a temporary phenomenon, since:
      1) the restoration of capitalism has clearly shown that capitalism is not able to resolve existing and emerging contradictions both within states and between states.
      2) Unjust distribution of the country's natural resources, when the subsoil of Russia belongs to a handful of oligarchs, and not to the people of the country.
      3) The impossibility of the capitalist system, in comparison with the Soviet model of the state, to provide the country with industrial growth.
      4) The impossibility of the capitalist system of Russia to eliminate unemployment and provide the people with high-quality free education.

      P.S. Comparing capitalism with socialism, Italian communist leader Marco Rizzo notes: “Under capitalism you can take Erasmus courses, but you don't have kindergartens and maternity hospitals. Under capitalism, you can go to London with Ryanair for 10 euros, but when you return to Italy , you have no home or work. Socialism gives you what you need: home, work, health, education and transportation. Capitalism brings nothing but loss of value. "

      All 4 points listed by you are not capitalism ... capitalism can provide free education, medicine, kindergartens and everything else ... because whatever you say - people are also a resource ... even in our country, many large companies provide all this to its employees ... another question is that in Russia (and all the cis in principle) capitalism is different, abnormal ... our goal of any businessman is to earn a lot and immediately ... what will happen tomorrow with the country or the company does not think nobody, just like in some kind of Africa ... in developed countries this is much less ...
      PS: it seems to me that in N years the role of the state will practically come to naught in people's lives, corporations will compete and determine the fate of peoples (they still do it) ...
      1. depressant
        depressant 9 September 2020 18: 00 New
        +7
        Colleague Arlen, you forgot to mention that the most important element of the socialist economy is its planning. Leaving aside the question of how and by whom the planned socialist economy of the Union was ruined, I will point out three of its important features:

        1. All profits in a planned economy are invested in it itself, and not mostly in someone's personal pocket.
        2. First of all, profits are invested in important sectors that ensure the viability of the country, and those that give large and quick profits, but are not so important for the life of the country itself, receive money in the second. We do not have a planned economy, so oil and gas giants and pipes are being built, and there is little or no heavy and medium-sized machine building. Machine-tool building is alien, it exploits our territory, workers and a tax system that is soft in relation to foreigners. Microelectronic production is on its way, lagged behind.
        3. The planned economy assumes a low cost of the final product, since it relies on complete logistics chains in which each producer link has no right to sell its products to the next production link in the chain through an intermediary firm, but supplies it directly to that link. Currently, we have almost no complete logistics chains - from raw materials to finished products, only scraps, between which intermediaries "buy and sell" with their markups. It is extremely beneficial for the state, which does not rely on the plan, but for the buyer of the final product, it is not.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 29 New
          -4
          Alas, since the 60s, the USSR has invested half of its funds and resources to support 120 countries of parasites in return for almost nothing that is equivalent to the investment. Now we have a market economy, private and state production, a private trader in order to develop his business needs profit without it, there will be no development just like the state, since it receives taxes on its development from them.
        2. Mikhail Ya2
          Mikhail Ya2 15 September 2020 07: 22 New
          +1
          And how in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and other capitalist countries, without five-year plans, they built a heavy machine-tool industry? Since 1911, in the USA, on the contrary, the monopolists were not allowed to grow, they were split into small companies, to create competition, and so from small private factories, industrial giants grew up. But over time, the opposite process took place, and these giants began to absorb small successful companies. Probably today, we need to find a way, not to let too large giants grow, but create conditions for competition for many small and medium-sized
          1. depressant
            depressant 15 September 2020 08: 44 New
            0
            There are different approaches to planning, but the meaning is the same: plan, colleague, plan! In the USSR, there were no enterprises of many types, therefore it was planned: to build this in 5 years, it is the most important, priority, and then in the next five years, because we will not pull everything right away due to lack of sufficient funds. And if they succeeded in building, they said: succeeded! And we proceeded to the implementation of the following tasks on the agenda.
            They plan differently, the way you wrote. They have built everything they need long ago, because they did not interfere with it. There is a bias - monopolies. We will plan how to avoid it by antitrust laws. Are there advanced technologies in the world that are not in the country? Let's introduce the most favored nation laws ...
            We do not have much of what they have, because even what was was destroyed. We are zero-based, we are absolutely non-self-sufficient from nails to microelectronics, neither in the price range nor in the range of goods. Taking into account the special attractiveness for foreigners of our vast and rich territory, this, colleague, is fraught with deprivation of the subjectivity of the state, turning it into a colony. What, in fact, is happening and threatens to erase us from the face of history.
            We don't want that, do we?
            That is why we need a plan of the Soviet type: in this three-year period we will restore this as the most important, without scattering funds, and in the next - this is also important, but it will wait. To do this, we will adopt the appropriate laws and - nosebleed! - let's do it! You will say that we have capitalism, which does not need a plan. The capitalist sees a production niche and occupies it.

            He sees. Doesn't take. Because this is our capitalist. He would better deal with the import of someone else's already produced.
            He sees. Takes up. Law enforcement officers, bandits, the administration come and take away the business. An illustrative example chills many, few undertake to do anything.
            He sees that he borrows money from the bank. Law enforcers, others enter into a tolerant share. It does not have time to untwist, the bank takes away the business, ruins it. Having burst into tears, the bank now gives money only on the security of production. Everyone refuses, there are no fools, no production ...

            You can continue for a long time.
            Therefore, in order to preserve the country, the state is forced to participate in the creation of the most important industries. This is inevitable now, no matter what the libertarians scream. And since the state has few funds, a plan of priority expenses is needed.
            In my opinion, the first thing to plan is military-type microelectronics. Nosebleed but done! And so that at 2-3 nm. And then the Chinese are already going to mass-produce 5nm.
            This is how our business stands, colleague.
            1. Mikhail Ya2
              Mikhail Ya2 16 September 2020 06: 51 New
              0
              Isn't it easier to just create a fertile ground for doing business? You say microelectronics? So reduce taxes on manufacturers in this sector, abolish VAT on the import of this equipment. Fund the retraining courses for the necessary professions, and you won't have to build the government yourself.
              1. depressant
                depressant 16 September 2020 08: 08 New
                0
                Microelectronics is not the sector where private traders will rush - it is expensive, difficult, the equipment is only foreign (they are far behind), the risk is huge. This is not the manufacture of chips for cards. State will, means, plan, responsibility are needed here.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 24 New
        -3
        "Our goal for any businessman is to earn a lot and immediately .... what will happen tomorrow with a country or a company, no one thinks, just like in some kind of Africa .." There is no need to speak for all businessmen.
        1. parma
          parma 9 September 2020 18: 46 New
          +3
          Quote: Vadim237
          "Our goal for any businessman is to earn a lot and immediately .... what will happen tomorrow with a country or a company, no one thinks, just like in some kind of Africa .." There is no need to speak for all businessmen.

          If you do not take an individual entrepreneur with a turnover of 1 million rubles a year, almost everyone has ... I saw many companies (in the construction sector, with a turnover of 10 and 200 million) rushing to the "big" ruble, without asking questions and then lighting up ...
          1. Andrey VOV
            Andrey VOV 9 September 2020 21: 40 New
            +1
            I work in a company with a turnover of several billion a year .. not to be confused with profit ... and the owner, thank God, does not live by the principle of tomorrow the grass does not grow ... regarding socialism ... as usual we like to extremes .. in the first ranks of all its plus. or minuses ... the worst thing is that the so-called builders of a bright future, not just a worker, but this top, the nomenclature so compromised the idea ... proclaiming the course for the construction of communism in the most magnificent color went stratification and the creation of a higher caste, with its own communism
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 9 September 2020 22: 14 New
            -3
            That is why I am not like that and 48 business friends - the maximum profit here and now is not a business, this is idiocy, such businessmen quickly fail and go bankrupt.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. depressant
          depressant 9 September 2020 19: 24 New
          0
          Vadim, I don't speak for everyone. I am convinced that you are a responsible entrepreneur.
  • iouris
    iouris 9 September 2020 11: 52 New
    +1
    Quote: Finches
    Unfortunately, there is no chance today!

    The socialist revolution will take place in the United States in November. Numbers 7th. It is still early in September, but in December it will be too late. And we have not rebuilt yet. We must accelerate! To work, comrades. It is a shame to remain an imperialist country in a socialist environment. We will be crushed.
    1. Oleg83
      Oleg83 9 September 2020 12: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Svarog
      Nothing of the kind, there was an article where it was said that young people were interviewed in the USA, the purpose of the survey was to find out how satisfied Americans are with capitalism and how they feel about socialism .. The answer was devastating, something like 78% for socialism. So young people are not as stupid as they seem .. In Russia, the situation is just as close, of course there are no polls, but surrounded by my daughter, who is 26 years old, there are a lot of supporters of a return to socialism.

      Quote: iouris
      Quote: Finches
      Unfortunately, there is no chance today!

      The socialist revolution will take place in the United States in November. Numbers 7th. It is still early in September, but in December it will be too late. And we have not rebuilt yet. We must accelerate! To work, comrades. It is a shame to remain an imperialist country in a socialist environment. We will be crushed.

      Do you even know what American socialism is? Socialism in the American way - if you don't want to work, then the state should give you free housing, a car and pay benefits that would be enough for clothes, food, gadgets and entertainment (drugs and whores). American socialism is a marginal path that will lead to the destruction of the country. The negroes sat down on welfare and did nothing, and now they want 14-19 trillion in reparations. If a person does not work and give him a lot, then he will not go to work, but will want more and more for free. The United States has given a lot to the world in technology since the middle of the 20th century, but if Trump does not win, then the United States is over (well, the hell with them, they themselves chose this path. And those who write that empires are crumbling from within are right.)
      1. iouris
        iouris 9 September 2020 14: 45 New
        0
        Quote: oleg83
        Do you even know what socialism is in the American way?

        Nope. But I can imagine what communism is according to Marx and Lenin: three stages and two phases. US President Roosevelt honored Marx and said: "We will not give Marx over to the Communists!" Why are you so worried? It does not depend on us. We can only participate or not try to participate.
        Quote: oleg83
        The answer was devastating, something like 78% for socialism. So the youth are not as stupid as they seem ..

        Communism is the youth of the world and it is created by the young.
        Quote: oleg83
        USA has given a lot to the world in technology

        All these technologies are created on the basis of science and culture, previously created by human civilization. In the United States, world capital has pulled all the juice out of the rest of the world. The US is not in order to "give the world", but in order to make the rate of profit prohibitive. Today the question is this: if the United States remains unchanged, then the rest of humanity on this planet will no longer have a place.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 31 New
          -1
          "All these technologies are created on the basis of science and culture, previously created by human civilization. In the United States, world capital pulled out all the juice from the rest of the world. The United States not in order to" give the world ", but in order to make the rate of profit prohibitive. Today the question is stands like this: if the United States remains unchanged, then there will be no place for the rest of humanity on this planet. " Why is that?
          1. iouris
            iouris 9 September 2020 20: 26 New
            +1
            The Earth's resources are no longer enough. The capitalization of the planet Earth has long been over. Already Cecil Rhodes (after whom the state of Rhodesia was named) dreamed of expansion to other planets. Otherwise, death to capitalism and the United States.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 9 September 2020 22: 17 New
              -3
              The Earth's resources are no longer enough for now, and a lot has not yet been explored, and at the expense of expansion to other planets, the United States has a savior, Elon Musk and his guys.
      2. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 9 September 2020 18: 48 New
        +7
        I live in Kenosha, I absolutely agree with you. By the way, for fun, my neighbor is a Negro, but a hard worker, an auto mechanic and a snow removal business, about Trump. We sit with him, eat a watermelon, and at his request I talk about life in the USSR. He listens and says, "it means that you will pass the exams and get a free education, they send you to work not where you want, but where you need it, free medicine, but you are assigned to the policlinic, then you are given housing where you need it, there is little crime, the police patrol the city on foot, you are specifically responsible for the jambs, there are cheap cinemas and shops in the city, although the choice is limited, everyone knows everything about everyone and gossip so you need to think first and then do it .. Yeah, that means I lived in the USSR for 8 years. "I go nuts a little and he winks laughs and says," I served in the Army for 8 years, lived in Fort Riley for 8 years. You describe life there exactly. "I remembered how I served - exactly, it seems. By the way, we both liked life in the army more. The people there are MUCH better.
  • Vladimir Mashkov
    Vladimir Mashkov 9 September 2020 15: 25 New
    +2
    Quote: Finches
    Unfortunately, there is no chance today! The brains of young people are washed out by the cult of consumerism so that their interests do not extend beyond the iPhone ... If you go down to form!

    I agree with you! But not because YOUTH is bad.
    The article is correct and true. Incidentally, I am also a supporter of the USSR and socialism. But today, unfortunately, neither socialism, nor some semblance of the USSR in Russia is IMPOSSIBLE. As long as the current capitalist system and authorities "with a human face" existing in Russia have certain successes and are popular with the MOST of the population, the restoration of socialism in Russia is IMPOSSIBLE. You can "not see" these successes, you can deny this popularity, you can inflate the existing Russian shortcomings to enormous proportions, you can disagree with me - but this is so! Moreover, there is nothing to oppose, except for loud words and promises, to the current left opposition to the Russian government. There are no worthy figures or deeds.
  • novel66
    novel66 9 September 2020 08: 16 New
    -17
    so, socialism is the highest form of capitalism!
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 9 September 2020 08: 25 New
      +8
      Quote: novel xnumx
      so, socialism is the highest form of capitalism!


      Read the classics, and don't be gagged:

      Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism - a work of V.I. Lenin, written in 1916 and published in 1917
      1. novel66
        novel66 9 September 2020 08: 25 New
        -13
        Lenin, despite all his genius, did not live in our time
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 9 September 2020 08: 30 New
          +5
          Quote: novel xnumx
          Lenin, despite all his genius, did not live in our time

          But we are living during a phenomenon to which Lenin gave an exhaustive definition in this work ...
          Or can you reasonably and weighty refute the accuracy of Lenin's theses regarding the development of capitalism?
          1. novel66
            novel66 9 September 2020 08: 37 New
            -7
            mind you, there are no empires left, but in the developed capitalist countries socialism is being developed to the full, in Sweden there is already socialism, and immediately, without imperialism, Lenin could not grasp the immensity, his works lost their relevance after the Second World War
            1. Insurgent
              Insurgent 9 September 2020 08: 41 New
              +4
              Quote: novel xnumx
              notice empires already, read it and there are no more

              Oh sure yes If we only ignore the obvious analogies between the actions of the United States and the Roman Empire ...

              And the definition of "imperialism" is somewhat broader in order to squeeze it into some kind of territorial-state framework.
            2. mat-vey
              mat-vey 9 September 2020 08: 53 New
              +6
              Quote: novel xnumx
              read it and did not remain, but in the developed capital countries they are developing socialism in full, in Sweden already socialism, and immediately, without imperialism, Lenin could not grasp the immensity, his works lost their relevance after the Second World War

              So Bernstein died long ago, and you are broadcasting directly through him ...
              1. novel66
                novel66 9 September 2020 10: 57 New
                -2
                I am not familiar with the works of Lev Davidovich
                1. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 9 September 2020 11: 02 New
                  +3
                  Quote: novel xnumx
                  I am not familiar with the works of Lev Davidovich

                  Well, if you Bronstein and Bernstein are not able to distinguish, then I no longer know what to do here and how to be ...
                  1. novel66
                    novel66 9 September 2020 11: 06 New
                    -4
                    here I will still understand the Jews here! let them do it themselves, they have a whole state with institutions for this
                    1. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 9 September 2020 11: 11 New
                      +3
                      Quote: novel xnumx
                      here I will still understand the Jews here! let them do it themselves, they have a whole state with institutions for this

                      Do you generally strive to understand anything?
                      1. novel66
                        novel66 9 September 2020 11: 17 New
                        0
                        and for what purpose are you interested in?
                      2. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 9 September 2020 11: 20 New
                        -1
                        Quote: novel xnumx
                        and for what purpose are you interested in?

                        With a universal ... and humanitarian ...
                      3. novel66
                        novel66 9 September 2020 12: 07 New
                        +1
                        I think these were the last words before the strike on Iraq.
                      4. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 9 September 2020 12: 08 New
                        -2
                        Quote: novel xnumx
                        I think these were the last words before the strike on Iraq.

                        Well, there was something to "hit" ...
      2. nemez
        nemez 9 September 2020 09: 16 New
        +8
        You, like in the Soviet Union, have not read it, but I condemn Lenin. Read Lenin and don’t bear it, sorry, x% yni
        1. novel66
          novel66 9 September 2020 10: 56 New
          +1
          I am a dear swearing man, like a simple Soviet schoolboy, and after that, a simple Soviet student, I read not only what, but even took notes. expressed his opinion above DIXI
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 9 September 2020 12: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: nemez
          Read Lenin and don’t bear it, sorry, x% yni

          what Have you read it yourself?
      3. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 9 September 2020 09: 22 New
        +4
        if you bring Sweden, then at least get to know their system. any specialist will tell you that this is not socialism. this is a system that tried to take the best from everything and nothing good came of it. for one simple reason, an attempt to give complete equality and other joys led to the fact that there is equality in everything. there are no boys and girls in kindergartens to you as an example. no husband and wife. fathers go on maternity leave. and a lot of other idiocy from which a normal person is just sick.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 9 September 2020 09: 26 New
          11
          Quote: carstorm 11
          if you bring Sweden, then at least get to know their system

          It's just that many people confuse socialism with socialism ...
        2. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 9 September 2020 11: 59 New
          0
          Quote: carstorm 11
          if you bring Sweden, then at least get to know their system. any specialist will tell you that this is not socialism. this is a system that tried to take the best from everything and nothing good came of it. for one simple reason, an attempt to give complete equality and other joys led to the fact that there is equality in everything. there are no boys and girls in kindergartens to you as an example. no husband and wife. fathers go on maternity leave. and a lot of other idiocy from which a normal person is just sick.

          Greetings! hi
          All of the above is the cost of the mentality, not the state system. The trick of Swedish society is different - starting from the average (statistically) salary, the tax is 50%. With such receipts, a beautiful social network is made.
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 9 September 2020 12: 30 New
            0
            Greetings. that's what I'm talking about. do not try to cite national experiments as an example, all this will bury itself in a bunch of things like mentality.
          2. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 9 September 2020 12: 39 New
            0
            Quote: Krasnodar
            tax is 50%

            We have more in aggregate. Or are you saying that there is a progressive scale?
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 9 September 2020 13: 47 New
              +3
              Collectively, they have even more.
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 9 September 2020 14: 08 New
                +2
                Quote: Krasnodar
                Collectively, they have even more.

                Do you have data? The tax system of Pendostan has already been considered here, the comparison is not in favor of the taxpayers of the Russian Federation.
                1. Krasnodar
                  Krasnodar 9 September 2020 15: 25 New
                  +1
                  I think even in the public domain))))
          3. sheet
            sheet 9 September 2020 14: 40 New
            +1
            The trick of Swedish society is different - starting from the average (statistically) salary, the tax is 50%. [/ quote]
            Not only with salary, but also with pensions!
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 9 September 2020 12: 26 New
          -2
          Quote: carstorm 11
          any specialist will tell you that this is not socialism

          Call me these specialists!
          Quote: carstorm 11
          this is a system that tried to take the best from everything and nothing good came of it. for one simple reason, an attempt to give complete equality and other joys led to the fact that there is equality in everything. there is no

          Initially, the Swedish left socialists (these are those whom we call Mensheviks) nevertheless built socialism in a single country, but socialism, like capitalism, tends to reincarnate ... and if capitalism has turned into globalism, then socialism has reincarnated into this ugliness ...
          Quote: carstorm 11
          there are no boys and girls in kindergartens to you as an example. no husband and wife. fathers go on maternity leave. and a lot of other idiocy from which a normal person is just sick.
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 9 September 2020 12: 37 New
            -4
            everything always starts with good intentions. eventually a monster grows up. As for specialists, well, there are many savvy socialists. there is a clear definition of what socialism is, compare yourself. it's extremely simple. start as it says above with taxes on average 50 percent from all citizens.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 9 September 2020 12: 51 New
              -5
              Quote: carstorm 11
              everything always starts with good intentions. as a result, a monster grows

              And the monster always turns out, no matter how hard someone tries!
      4. Arlen
        Arlen 9 September 2020 10: 07 New
        26
        Quote: novel xnumx
        Lenin could not grasp the immensity, his works lost their relevance after the Second World War

        You are not right. The works of Lenin, Stalin, like other classics of Marxism-Leninism, have not lost their relevance. Read any work of Lenin or Stalin and you will have the feeling that they are talking about the current state of affairs in the country and in the world.
        As for empires ... In his works, Lenin spoke about imperialism. What is imperialism (briefly in general terms): Imperialism is monopoly capitalism, the direct merging of finance capital with the latifundal system.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 9 September 2020 12: 27 New
          -6
          Quote: Arlen
          Read any work of Lenin or Stalin and you will have the feeling that they are talking about the current state of affairs in the country and in the world.

          Let's read together and then discuss the topic of what we have read ... get started!
          1. Arlen
            Arlen 9 September 2020 17: 38 New
            20
            Quote: Serg65
            Let's read together and then discuss the topic of what we have read ... get started!

            Let's go without. Getting started? You are ready? Lenin's work "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism" has already been mentioned in the comments to the article. Let's discuss?

            I believe that this work of Lenin plays an important role in the concept of the development of capitalism, including the capitalism of today. In this work, Lenin revealed the whole essence of the capitalist system. Its basic principles are known to all economists and political scientists. This work is being studied to this day in higher educational institutions in many countries, including those in the West.
            This fact confirms the relevance of this work in the modern world.

            I started your move, Sergei Panasenko.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 11 September 2020 10: 14 New
              -3
              I apologize for the long silence .. case (s) ..
              Quote: Arlen
              I believe that this work of Lenin plays an important role in the concept of the development of capitalism, including the capitalism of today

              Quite a controversial issue. Let's start by defining imperialism, what is it?
              Imperialism is a state policy based on the use of military force for various forms of foreign policy expansion, including the seizure of territories, the formation of colonies and the establishment of political or economic control over other countries

              But since the end of the 20th century, we have seen a completely different policy of the world hegemon! That example of imperialism-capitalism, about which Lenin wrote, ended at the end of the 50s of the last century! Although, as for me, back in the distant 20th year, capitalism was transformed into a new form ... the so-called. state capitalism!
              Well, what about
              Quote: Arlen
              capitalism of today

              The capitalism of today has been transformed into world globalism. Lenin, in the article you quoted, foresaw something like this in particular in the 2nd and 3rd chapters, but still linked this phenomenon with the state policy of the leading countries. That is, 104 years ago, when giving his forecast of the development of capitalism, Lenin overlooked the fact that the world will be ruled by banks, and large banks do not need states. Territorial and national divisions only interfere with cash flows, and as a result, we see a parade of color revolutions turning states into dust, and banks and transnational corporations controlled by them, with the help of the newly-minted robespierres, are taking more and more territories under their control!
              I replied wink , it's your turn, Mr. X!
              1. Arlen
                Arlen 12 September 2020 03: 09 New
                +5
                Quote: serg65
                I apologize for the long silence .. case (s) ..

                It's okay. I myself am not a very frequent visitor to the site.
                Quote: serg65
                Mr. X!

                I'm sorry, I didn't introduce myself. My name is Sergey Korochenkov hi
                I have split my answer into two comments. Too much has been written for one. I don't like long and big comments. They are difficult to read, especially from a smartphone.
                Quote: serg65
                Let's start by defining imperialism

                So, first let's find out what stages capitalism has.
                Capitalism has two stages:
                Stage 1. Expansion and Consolidation. At this stage of capitalism, jobs and financial and industrial capital are created.
                Stage 2. Monopoly and protection of accumulated capital. Lenin called this stage the highest stage of capitalism - imperialism.
                Based on the definitions of the stages of capitalism, we are interested in point 2.
                Now let's define the term Imperialism.
                The term imperialism appeared before Lenin. It meant exactly what you gave in your comment as its definition. However, this definition of imperialism, only as a policy of capture, suffered from a major flaw. It did not link the policy of imperialism with the economic system of which it is a product. In fact, before Lenin, the term imperialism was the same as colonialism. And Lenin, in his work, gave a new definition to Imperialism.
                "Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development when the dominance of monopolies and finance capital took shape, the export of capital acquired outstanding importance, the division of the world by international trusts began and the division of the entire territory of the earth by the largest capitalist countries ended."
                Lenin, as the main features of imperialism, called:
                1. The concentration of production and capital, which has reached such a high stage of development that it has created monopolies that play a decisive role in economic life;
                2. the merger of banking and industrial capital and the creation, on the basis of this "financial capital," of a financial oligarchy; (And you say in your comment that
                3. The export of capital, in contrast to the export of goods, is of particular importance;
                4. international monopoly capitalist unions are formed, dividing the world;
                5. The territorial division of the land by the largest capitalist powers has been completed.

                Definition of the term from modern times
                Oxford Languages ​​Dictionary agrees with Lenin
                Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, characterized by the rule of large monopolies, the struggle between large capitalist countries for sources of raw materials and sales markets, for foreign territories and the exploitation of other peoples, which leads to aggressive wars for a new redivision of the world.
                The journalist Compton Nick in his work "Tvitonomics. Everything you need to know about economics, short and to the point" in the chapter "What is imperialism?" gives a description of imperialism similar to Lenin.
                Formally, empires no longer exist in the modern world, but economic relations in the world capitalist system have created a kind of informal empire.
                Multinational corporations and the global financial system have spawned a new form of power, taking control of foreign capital without any military action.
                For this type of imperialism, the main thing is not military, but market power, but the use of force is also not rejected.
                As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said: "When imperialism feels it is weakening, it turns to brute force."


                So, proceeding from the five main features of imperialism indicated by Lenin, even with a cursory glance, one can see a similarity with modern reality. Thus, it did not end in the 50s of the last century, but continues to successfully exist.

                Quote: serg65
                so called state capitalism!

                Now it is even asserted that in Russia "State capitalism", tk. the main role in Russia is played by large corporations (monopolies), with state participation in capital. And this circumstance fits perfectly into the main features of Lenin's imperialism.
                Quote: serg65
                Today's capitalism has transformed into world globalism

                Globalism is a phase of imperialism, in which the struggle for spheres of influence in the world is taking place in conditions close to a unipolar world.
                1. Arlen
                  Arlen 12 September 2020 03: 21 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Arlen
                  Globalism is a phase of imperialism, in which the struggle for spheres of influence in the world is taking place in conditions close to a unipolar world.

                  I forgot to add a link https://academic2.ru/Imperialism_20930820
              2. Arlen
                Arlen 12 September 2020 03: 16 New
                +4
                Let's get back to the discussion.
                Lenin writes in his work:
                Monopoly capitalist unions, cartels, syndicates, trusts, divide among themselves primarily the internal market, seizing the production of a given country into their more or less complete possession. But the internal market, under capitalism, is inevitably linked to the external one. Capitalism created the world market long ago. And as the export of capital grew and foreign and colonial ties and "spheres of influence" of the largest monopoly unions expanded in every possible way, the case "naturally" approached a world agreement between them, to the formation of international cartels.
                Very much like our time, don't you think?
                If we trace the dynamics of events, and compare the current situation with the events of a century ago, described by Lenin in his work, then we will find many parallels.
                For example.
                The redivision of the world between the largest imperialisms is being completed again, namely:
                - Eastern Europe almost completely fell into the sphere of influence of the EU and NATO imperialisms;
                - Our oligarchs, not caring much about the development of domestic production, are buying up enterprises in many parts of the world;
                - China has turned from a socialist country not just into capitalism with "red specifics", but into the very same imperialism, which is increasingly successfully carrying out what the Russian oligarchs are doing;
                Practically all territories free from capitalism have been incorporated into different capitalist blocs, which are increasingly developing confrontation among themselves.
                The world capitalist system today, like 100 years ago, resorts to the militarization of the economies of its countries, redistribution between the metropolises of "disputed" and foreign territories, resources, sales markets, and militarizes its economies.
                Further. If there are any obstacles to access to someone's sales market or to the bowels of any state, then stronger imperialism resorts to "orange revolutions" and civil wars. This can be seen especially clearly in the examples of the former Soviet republics.
                An important condition for the successful functioning of any imperialism is the possibility of unlimited expansion, which leads to new redistribution of property, territories and wars.
                To quote Lenin: "... in recent years, all free places on earth, with the exception of China, have been occupied by the powers of Europe and North America. On this basis, there have already been several conflicts and shifts of influence, which are harbingers of more terrible explosions in the near future. For we have to hurry: the nations, not those who have provided for themselves run the risk of never getting their share and not taking part in that gigantic exploitation of the land, which will be one of the most essential facts of the next (ie XX) century.That is why all of Europe and America have been engulfed in recent years by the fever of colonial expansion, "imperialism" ... "
                Lenin one to one described everything that is happening now in the world.

                Output. Everything that Lenin described in his work happened then and is happening now. Therefore, the work of VI Lenin "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism" does not lose its relevance in our time.
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 15 September 2020 12: 50 New
                  0
                  hi Sergei, thank you for the discussion ... somewhere I disagree with you, somewhere I confess your superiority, but that is not the point ... thanks to our conversation with you, I decided to find out what Kautsky wrote so that Lenin answered issued the material we are discussing? Now I'm trying to understand the Ultra Imperialism of a renegade comrade!
                  Without understanding the history of the birth of the litter between Lenin and Kautsky, for me personally it is not acceptable to conduct further discussion, excuse me, but this is the character I got from my father ...
                  hi
                2. Arlen
                  Arlen 17 September 2020 11: 37 New
                  +4
                  Sergeihi Thank you very much for the constructive conversation. It is always pleasant to conduct a dialogue with an opponent who is well-read and strong in argumentation, in such dialogues you get new additional information that allows you to look at the topic in a new way. Thanks to our dialogue, I remembered certain things that I have already pretty much forgotten. Thanks again for the discussion. hi
    2. sheet
      sheet 9 September 2020 14: 37 New
      0
      [/ quote] Sweden is already socialism [/ quote]
      for Arabs and blacks, and so to speak, with a stretch.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 9 September 2020 12: 19 New
    -5
    Quote: Insurgent
    we are living during a phenomenon that Lenin gave an exhaustive definition in this work.

    what Is it true?
    The current system can hardly be called capitalism; rather, it is a corporate system! Did Lenin write about the power of global corporations?
    Quote: Insurgent
    can you reasonably and weighty refute the accuracy of Lenin's theses regarding the development of capitalism?

    Well, firstly, these theses became an ossified dogma immediately after the end of the Second World War, it was the end of the forties that became the degeneration of capitalism into globalism! Moreover, globalism began to bring left socialists to power in the localities!
    Secondly, time itself has refuted the accuracy of Lenin's theses .... how many wars of conquest with a colonial bias have taken place over the past 70 years ... just two and a half! Capitalism, having transformed into Globalism, began to develop according to completely different criteria than the great Lenin bequeathed to us!
  • paul3390
    paul3390 9 September 2020 08: 37 New
    17
    Newton too - on this occasion, shall we abolish his laws? Socialism is not someone's wish, it is an inevitable stage in the development of society. The world revolution has been going on for 100 years now, we just were not lucky - we live in a temporary rebound to capitalism. But he, too, changed feudalism in more than one year, it took 300 years for everything. And in the Russian Federation, they managed to roll back even further, to neo-feudalism. But either we will return socialism, or the bourgeois in their irrepressible greed will ruin our country, and with it the whole planet ..

    But the main thing is that we already have the amazingly successful experience of the USSR, which proved that socialism is not only possible, but also extremely effective. It will be easier for our children, they will be able to take into account all the mistakes of their grandfathers and build it anew. Better and more correct. Well, we are just like a lost generation ..
    1. novel66
      novel66 9 September 2020 08: 40 New
      -1
      you know, with all due respect, it is not worth confusing physical constants (which are also not quite constants, as it turned out) and the laws of the development of society, because these are not laws, but rather tendencies that have a certain fluctuation, up to a reversal
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 9 September 2020 08: 43 New
        +8
        These are exactly the same laws. And the U-turns - quite fit into them, because the history goes in a spiral, periodically returning to the old forms in a renewed form. This is a natural process. What we are seeing.
    2. nemez
      nemez 9 September 2020 09: 18 New
      +1
      I would like to believe
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 9 September 2020 10: 13 New
        +6
        "The collapse of socialism in some countries does not mean the death of socialism as a science, but the defeat of opportunism, which led to the degeneration of socialism.
        Due to the fault of the opportunists, socialism is temporarily experiencing difficult ups and downs, but due to its scientific nature and truthfulness, it will certainly be revived.
        and will achieve the final victory
        ". - Kim Jong Il
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 9 September 2020 12: 48 New
      -3
      Quote: paul3390
      Socialism is not someone's wish, it is an inevitable stage in the development of society

      laughing good Socialism, like the revolution, is exactly someone's Wishlist! As an example ... the emergence of the bourgeoisie was very irritating to the rich aristocracy and, strangely enough, the big bankers. Both of them, having entered into an agreement, make the ideal decision ... the oppressed masses must fight the bourgeois, i.e. it is the bourgeois who prevent the oppressed worker and peasant from swimming in the rivers of milk and sunbathing on the jelly banks! And who will help the proletariat in the struggle ... of course the aristocracy and bankers ... by the hands of Marx! And then, like the devil out of a snuff-box, a ward, bearded and rich heir to the marital state, Comrade Marx with his Capital, jumps up! This is how it has been since long ago ... below Vanka and Pierre mutuz each other in blood, and above peace and prosperity ... the guys from NM Rothschild & Sons and Chase Bank, peacefully savoring whiskey, place bets on who will win ... Vanyushka or Pierre !!!
      Here's Pavel and Wishlist!
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 9 September 2020 13: 20 New
        +5
        Quote: Serg65
        This is how it has been since long ago ... below Vanka and Pierre mutuz each other in blood, and above peace and prosperity ... the guys from NM Rothschild & Sons and Chase Bank, peacefully savoring whiskey,

        Sergei, I read you and am amazed .. Don't you know what hardships the communist elite suffered? What kind of whiskey .. are you confusing with modern nouveau riches .. During the revolution, everyone got it, and to a greater extent, the aristocratic aristocrats and bankers. And those who accepted the idea of ​​communism endured camps and hardships, but ultimately built a society of equal opportunities.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 9 September 2020 13: 32 New
          -5
          Quote: Svarog
          Don't you know what hardships the communist elite suffered?

          belay And she suffered hardships, Vladimir?
          Quote: Svarog
          What kind of whiskey .. are you confusing the modern nouveau riche.

          Vladimir, I’m not talking about comrades from the Council of People's Commissars and not about the nouveau riche ... these comrades and citizens are only conductors of ideas for more elemental gentlemen ..
          Quote: Serg65
          guys from NM Rothschild & Sons and Chase Bank

          It was these guys who engaged the most famous Hegelian idealist, enticing him from the radical bourgeoisie in Cologne to their side!
          Quote: Svarog
          During the revolution, everyone got it, and to a greater extent, stuck aristocrats and bankers

          A common situation during all revolutions .... some start and completely different ends!
          Quote: Svarog
          who accepted the idea of ​​communism, suffered camps and deprivations

          what interesting ... can you expand your thesis more?
          Quote: Svarog
          ultimately built a society of equal opportunities

          somehow I did not notice .. precisely the fact that all were exceptionally equal in relation to each other!
    4. Polymer
      Polymer 10 September 2020 15: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: paul3390
      Well, we seem to be just a lost generation ..

      It looks like this. But how difficult it is to come to terms with this thought!
    5. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 10 September 2020 18: 03 New
      -1
      Lenin, no matter how genius he was, studied and lived in a different era than Stalin. Society and technology jumped at an exponential rate. Lenin did not even know about the vretto Woods system and the decoupling of the dolar from the gold standard. Transnational banks and corporations have become much stronger after the artificially induced crisis of the 30s. Marx is nothing more than a theoretician who also has enough nonsense, for example, the denial of the institution of the family. Lenin BEGAN to move from theory to implementation. And only Stalin and Mao, and later Castro, created a viable and effective system. Our teacher is CWP, still at school in a narrow circle of adepts. (For their own, not for everyone) he said "Socialism is an exact science, like nuclear physics, and does not tolerate voluntarism and initiative. Our country has reached the heyday of greatness under Stalin, therefore, any deviation from Stalin's teachings is a path to disaster." My grandfather said the same thing "Stalin in his works gave answers to all the questions of society, and the perestroika will plunder everything, sell it, ditch it and drink it on drink."
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 9 September 2020 08: 37 New
    +2
    But that time differs from ours only "technically", it differs in speed. And people both went to work and walk, as they thought they would eat for breakfast and think so. The population was smaller, yes, they walked more, that is also yes, but otherwise everything is the same.
    Public relations have not changed significantly
  • Serg65
    Serg65 9 September 2020 12: 06 New
    -5
    Quote: Insurgent
    Read the classics

    Read ..
    from the preface to the French and German editions
    The construction of railroads seems to be a simple, natural, democratic, cultural, civilizing undertaking: such is it in the eyes of bourgeois professors who are paid to paint up capitalist slavery, and in the eyes of petty bourgeois philistines. In fact, the capitalist threads, connecting these enterprises with thousands of networks with private ownership of the means of production in general, have turned this building into an instrument of oppression for a billion people (colonies plus semi-colonies), that is, more than half of the world's population in dependent countries and wage slaves of capital in “civilized »Countries.

    Those. when we write an article based on the Zimmerwald gathering, the railroads are an instrument of oppression for a billion people! And if we have already seized power, then we write an article "Everyone to work on food and transport!", Where we no longer remember Zimmerwald's emotional impulses, but give the railroads a new color ..
    Millions of poods of bread poured already in the eastern region... They are delayed by poor transport conditions. We can now not only save ourselves from hunger, but also feed the hungry population of non-agricultural Russia to their fill

    Those. the same oppression of billions of people, but now this oppression is correct, revolutionary!
    what Well, how can you not drive a gag, Citizen Insurgent? And so Lenin everywhere ... writes with his right hand, crosses out with his left!
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 9 September 2020 08: 42 New
    10
    Quote: novel xnumx
    so, socialism is the highest form of capitalism!



    So. Don't pour it anymore.
    1. novel66
      novel66 9 September 2020 08: 56 New
      +2
      but now it was a shame!
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 9 September 2020 09: 25 New
        +9
        Quote: novel xnumx
        but now it was a shame!


        Then, smoothly, from heavy drinks, we turn to beer.
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 9 September 2020 09: 07 New
      -6


      Quote: novel xnumx
      so, socialism is the highest form of capitalism!

      So. Do not pour this anymore. [

      However, he is right.

      According to Marx, a socialist state is a big corporation.
      1. novel66
        novel66 9 September 2020 10: 59 New
        -4
        and in fact - how do today's capitalists (not ours) differ from the Soviet "elite"? the same care for people and increased well-being
      2. basmach
        basmach 9 September 2020 11: 17 New
        +6
        Marx did not write about socialism AT ALL. His work "Capital" is dedicated to the study of CAPITALISM! All he says about socialism is that capitalism will be replaced by a new social system. First read the classics, then write.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 9 September 2020 11: 28 New
          +1
          Marx did not write about socialism AT ALL. His work "Capital" is dedicated to the study of CAPITALISM! All he says about socialism is that capitalism will be replaced by a new social system. First read the classics, then write.

          In general, yes. But he lived in the era of the formation and development of large corporations.
          Then it seemed natural that in the end there would be one huge corporation in the state, which would be the state itself.

          Rockefeller came close to this in the United States, but capitalism flexibly rebuilt itself and gave birth to an antitrust service.

          Marx continued the trend of mergers and acquisitions into the future and replaced the family clan at the helm of this supercorporation with an elected group.

          It works in some states and autonomous republics.
          True, while family clans are bankrupt. wink
          1. mat-vey
            mat-vey 9 September 2020 11: 57 New
            +1
            K. Marx also spoke about the transitional period - let us pay attention to how he characterizes it: “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the former into the latter. The political period corresponds to this period, and the state of this period cannot be anything other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat "
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 9 September 2020 14: 05 New
              -1
              K. Marx also spoke about the transitional period -

              These are tactical details.
              The main result.

              The economic model is one
              government (corporate governance), one bank, one basket of money.

              Political - One people, one country, one leader.
              1. mat-vey
                mat-vey 9 September 2020 14: 09 New
                0
                Quote: Arzt
                These are tactical details.

                What details - Marx does not have such a system as "socialism", he has Communism. And socialism is a transitional period during which matbaza is being built and a new person is being brought up who will think in a communist way .. What money is under communism? What is the system of coercion and why?
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 41 New
                  -4
                  "And socialism is a transitional period during which matbaza is being built and a new person is being brought up who will think in a communist way." So the communists created and educated new people spent 69 years on this - in the end the experiment turned out to be a failure. The USSR did not.
                  1. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 9 September 2020 18: 42 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    "And socialism is a transitional period during which matbaza is being built and a new person is being brought up who will think in a communist way." So the communists created and educated new people spent 69 years on this - in the end the experiment turned out to be a failure. The USSR did not.

                    Do you have a time machine and how far into the future did you manage to penetrate?
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 9 September 2020 22: 22 New
                      -4
                      Here, even without a time machine, everything is obvious and understandable - no communist socialism will be human nature and the laws of everything around will not change greed, envy and selfishness will not disappear anywhere, just as there will be no equal people - everyone will always be different, respectively, and everyone will live differently.
                    2. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 10 September 2020 12: 22 New
                      0
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      Here, even without a time machine, everything is obvious and understandable

                      - you are an ordinary Internet chatterbox ... but people are really different and will live in different ways ..
                    3. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 10 September 2020 21: 01 New
                      0
                      "You are an ordinary Internet chatterbox ..." In the case, the arguments are over, as there is nothing to oppose.
                    4. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 11 September 2020 04: 51 New
                      0
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      "You are an ordinary Internet chatterbox ..." In the case, the arguments are over, as there is nothing to oppose.

                      Well, if sometimes you need to repeat it twice, then now it's not difficult ..
                      Quote: mat-vey
                      ..... either not knowing the facts of reality, not seeing what is, not being able to face the truth, or limiting ourselves to the abstract opposition of “capitalism” to “socialism” and not delving into the concrete forms and stages of this transition now with us. Let it be said in parentheses, this is the same theoretical error that confused the best of the people of the Novaya Zhizn and Vperyod camp: the worst and the average of them in stupidity and spinelessness lag behind the bourgeoisie, intimidated by it; the best ones did not understand that the teachers of socialism were not talking about the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism in vain and did not emphasize in vain the "long agony of childbirth" of the new society, and this new society is again an abstraction that cannot be embodied otherwise than through a series of various, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state.
                2. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 10 September 2020 16: 42 New
                  +1
                  ..... either not knowing the facts of reality, not seeing what is, not being able to face the truth, or limiting ourselves to the abstract opposition of “capitalism” to “socialism” and not delving into the concrete forms and stages of this transition now with us. Let it be said in parentheses, this is the same theoretical error that confused the best of the people of the Novaya Zhizn and Vperyod camp: the worst and the average of them in stupidity and spinelessness lag behind the bourgeoisie, intimidated by it; the best ones did not understand that the teachers of socialism were not talking about the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism in vain and did not emphasize in vain the "long agony of childbirth" of the new society, and this new society is again an abstraction that cannot be embodied otherwise than through a series of various, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 9 September 2020 12: 44 New
    +4
    Quote: Arzt
    According to Marx, a socialist state is a big corporation.

    Working for the good of the bulk of the population, and not for the good of a handful of privatizers.
  • iouris
    iouris 9 September 2020 12: 12 New
    -3
    Are you a theoretician of Marxism-Leninism? Give links to your works.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 33 New
    -5
    According to Marx, socialism is pure utopia - which will never be realized in practice even when humanity begins to populate other planets.
  • atos_kin
    atos_kin 9 September 2020 08: 16 New
    +8
    There is no alternative to socialism. Humanity will still destroy the exploitation of man by man.
    1. novel66
      novel66 9 September 2020 08: 26 New
      +2
      Humanity will still destroy the exploitation of man by man.

      oh oh ...
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 9 September 2020 08: 53 New
        12
        Well - has humanity weaned from the habit of eating each other? Although it was not easy either ... It took thousands of years ..
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 9 September 2020 08: 17 New
    12
    But does socialism have a future?

    Who would doubt that? The social principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is much more attractive than the principle: "Man is a wolf to man" ...
    The economy should be centrally managed, but production should be managed by specialists, not appointed party officials.
    This is a possible future under socialism. Under capitalism, all prospects depend on the whim of the employer.
    It is under socialism that constant economic growth, employment of the population, free education and health care are possible.
    This is an economic structure with great development potential.
    1. Kart
      Kart 9 September 2020 09: 01 New
      -4
      Quote: ROSS 42
      "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is much more attractive than the principle: "Man is a wolf to man" ...

      It remains to find out who will be the distributors according to needs and determining abilities.
      Will they suddenly turn out to be wolves?
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 46 New
      -5
      "The economy should be centrally managed, but the production should be managed by specialists", They have already been and managed - except for trash and buckets with bolts, almost nothing worthy in the civil sector was produced why such a production, fuck such managers with them the state will become complete bankruptcies they did with the USSR in the 80s.
  • Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 9 September 2020 08: 17 New
    11
    Yes, there are especially active, especially talented, strong and smart ones who manage to break through from rags to riches, but these are exceptions to the general rule.
    Rather arrogant and unprincipled
    1. novel66
      novel66 9 September 2020 08: 27 New
      +1
      only arrogant and unprincipled, if they still
      especially talented, strong and smart
      , then already happiness ...
  • Grandfather
    Grandfather 9 September 2020 08: 18 New
    +3
    real improvement in the lives of millions of people, giving a new impetus to the development of the country's economy is possible only within the framework of a radical transformation of the socio-economic system. No matter how much you fight corruption, no matter how much you count the dachas of officials and top managers or the cost of their yachts and decorations, but without the transformation of the social system itself, the very structure of society, management and distribution of justice cannot be achieved.
    what can you add here ... unless something that is bloodless is unlikely ... the bourgeoisie, it is not in vain that they teach their children in Yale and Princeton, these are the future "rulers" of the country.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 9 September 2020 09: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: Dead Day
      what can you add here ... unless something that is bloodless is unlikely ... the bourgeoisie, it is not in vain that they teach their children in Yale and Princeton, these are the future "rulers" of the country.

      Well, so far, in no country, has capital given away its accumulations and power bloodlessly, starting with the French Revolution.
    2. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 9 September 2020 09: 08 New
      +3
      When this thorn is removed, then we'll talk about socialism!
      1. novel66
        novel66 9 September 2020 11: 01 New
        +4
        there is still a thorn on the world map that prevents everyone from living
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 9 September 2020 11: 08 New
          +2
          Quote: novel xnumx
          prevents everyone from living

          So there is the center of all the vileness spreading across the Earth!
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 9 September 2020 12: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: novel xnumx
          there is still a thorn on the world map that prevents everyone from living

          For the Pendos, this is Russia. request The wolf looks at its prey only as a source of food.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 49 New
        -6
        Money, like the needs for a good life, will never disappear from human society, so you can safely dig a hole and make a coffin for socialism.
  • Clear
    Clear 9 September 2020 08: 18 New
    +7
    Let's start with the fact that the health and education of citizens, poverty reduction are the main conditions for the country's development.
    1. Leha667
      Leha667 9 September 2020 08: 23 New
      11
      Judging by the situation in medicine and education, the government is not interested in the development of the country
      1. Livonetc
        Livonetc 9 September 2020 08: 34 New
        +1
        You study?
        If so, where?
        My daughter graduated from medical university, now she is studying in residency.
        She combines her studies with work, since she previously graduated from a medical school.
        She works in an ambulance, got sick with covid during a pandemic.
        Received compensation 68 thousand rubles. and 200 points for admission to residency.
        She studied at the university and studies in residency for free, in the targeted direction.
        There are definitely problems, but progress is obvious.
        You should not blaspheme everything right and left.
        Business must be dealt with.
        1. Leha667
          Leha667 9 September 2020 08: 52 New
          11
          I graduated a long time ago, served and will squeeze on the neck of our state.
          Try to see a therapist. Queue for 3-4 hours. And why? But because of them one and a half crippled in the area.
          Then try to make an appointment with a surgeon, Laura, a neuropathologist. Queue for 2-3 months.
          And try to sign up for an MRI. It's the turn again.
          But paid clinics are growing like mushrooms. And they are expanding, building new buildings.
          Targeted conditions have been created for the transition of medicine to toll rails.
          Only the blind do not understand this. Or a healthy one who doesn't go to the doctor.
          And, well, what kind of business to do?
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 9 September 2020 12: 57 New
            +7
            Quote: Leha667
            But paid clinics are growing like mushrooms

            Okay, paid clinics, the same doctors in the same office take a paid out of turn. You wait for an ultrasound, an MRI for months, but they do it for a fee on the same day, and on the same equipment.
            And all this comes from the top, this is a systemic reform of "free" medicine.
    2. novel66
      novel66 9 September 2020 08: 34 New
      +5
      but it seems to me that it is also important that the population of the country should be a single people, and not a congregation of individual farmers
      1. Kart
        Kart 9 September 2020 09: 04 New
        -4
        This does not happen, and it never will.
        Humanity, in principle, is arranged differently - it fights within itself to improve the species as a whole, since neither the habitat nor external enemies can already influence this process.
    3. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 9 September 2020 08: 37 New
      -5
      Nonsense.

      Not being poor is the task of the citizen himself. Teaching, feeding and treating idlers at the expense of taxpayers is an equalization, not a struggle against the reasons.
      1. Leha667
        Leha667 9 September 2020 08: 47 New
        +9
        If everyone fulfills the task of not being poor, then who will be the teacher, doctor, janitor, policeman? The task of the state is to ensure a decent standard of living for all people, regardless of their profession.
        And if a person does not want to work in such a state, then an article for parasitism is provided for.
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 9 September 2020 13: 36 New
          -4
          Everything is very simple. Teachers, doctors, janitors, and even, forgive G-di, police officers will not be poor. Although, the latter and so live well.
      2. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 9 September 2020 08: 51 New
        -12
        I agree with you, you need to be active and not a drone, if the population stops drinking and smoking, the Russian economy will grow.
        1. Sotskiy
          Sotskiy 9 September 2020 10: 34 New
          12
          Quote: Pessimist22
          I agree with you, you need to be active and not a drone, if the population stops drinking and smoking, the Russian economy will grow.

          And new paid hospitals, new paid lyceums, new toll roads, etc. will be built for you. etc. After all, the main goal of capitalism is not to improve the lives of others, it is to improve life at the expense of others. And when you are like a "material" for the employer (although you can be yourself), you get worn out and will not be able to "mow the loot" so actively, while the next inflation and rise in prices will devour your savings and you will not be able to enjoy the fruits of a paid "civilization" You will be thrown into the trash heap. Then you all the same will drink and smoke. lol So maybe it is worth thinking why millions of our fellow citizens are doing this already now?
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 9 September 2020 18: 54 New
            -4
            "So maybe it's worth thinking why millions of our fellow citizens are doing this already now?" - They just do not have the willpower, to refrain from this, and so yes "We are all beggars are malnourished, but we always have money for booze and smoke"
      3. paul3390
        paul3390 9 September 2020 10: 18 New
        +8
        Mr. Medvedev, are you? What are the fates? We remember, we remember your covenants - all types of business. The rest are not needed for figs .. Well, well .. A janitor-businessman is a force ..
      4. paul3390
        paul3390 9 September 2020 11: 41 New
        +7
        Not being poor is the task of the citizen himself. Teaching, feeding and treating idlers at the expense of taxpayers is an equalization, not a struggle against the reasons.

        Then a reasonable question arises - why do I need the state in general and from which one should I pay taxes to it? If it doesn't do shit for me?
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 9 September 2020 13: 36 New
          -4
          And this is a very correct question. In a healthy society, the role of the state is minimal.
          1. paul3390
            paul3390 9 September 2020 13: 50 New
            +4
            It is in the West and can be seen .. There taxes are torn into three skins. But capitalism, sir ...
            1. Sancho_SP
              Sancho_SP 9 September 2020 14: 11 New
              -4
              So read above where I started: don't confuse socialism with a command-and-control economy. Almost all developed countries of the "west" with their taxes, laws and benefits, namely that "socialist". Taken from the middle class and distributed to the beggars.
    4. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 9 September 2020 08: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Clear
      Let's start with the fact that the health and education of citizens, poverty reduction are the main conditions for the country's development.

      Good morning. For all this to be, you must first create a powerful state economy, with the restriction of big capital, and the elimination of the oligarchy, which limits the share of state capital.
      1. Clear
        Clear 9 September 2020 09: 01 New
        +3
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Good morning.

        Good morning, Vlad. hi

        While we will create
        Quote: tihonmarine
        a powerful state economy, with the restriction of big capital, and the elimination of the oligarchy ...
        queue to the clinic, nafig will go to the doctor crying
        1. BAI
          BAI 9 September 2020 09: 18 New
          +6
          queue to the clinic, nafig will go to the doctor

          There, the queue at the cemetery will become more relevant.
          1. novel66
            novel66 9 September 2020 11: 02 New
            0
            Is there enough money? death is not cheap now ...
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 9 September 2020 11: 50 New
              0
              Quote: novel xnumx
              Is there enough money? death is not cheap now ...

              I buried my mother-in-law, it cost 2000 euros.
              1. novel66
                novel66 9 September 2020 12: 06 New
                0
                correlation is captured, also mother-in-law
              2. The comment was deleted.
  • Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 08: 18 New
    +4
    No matter how much you fight corruption, no matter how much you count the dachas of officials and top managers or the cost of their yachts and decorations, but without the transformation of the social system itself, the very structure of society, management and distribution of justice cannot be achieved.
    ....It's right...
  • Woodman
    Woodman 9 September 2020 08: 22 New
    -4
    and in other post-Soviet republics, the Soviet legacy continues to "eat up" - from airplanes and ships to "Khrushchevs" and public utilities infrastructure.
    It would be foolish to give up this legacy. And it is not possible, then it would be necessary to return to the Stone Age and start everything from scratch. In the Union, they did not bother with such things - the same three-line model entered service a quarter of a century before the death of the empire, and was removed from service after the death of Stalin ... Well, to blame the Khrushchev and the communal apartment ... Was it really necessary to destroy everything and live in huts , and if you need to go to the bushes?
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 9 September 2020 08: 46 New
      +8
      A strange example. The Mauser rifle or Sprigfield there, too, forgive me, were not the latest developments .. And they lived at least three lines. What does the Union have to do with it?
      1. Woodman
        Woodman 9 September 2020 09: 21 New
        -8
        Quote: paul3390
        What does the Union have to do with it?

        Despite the fact that the very phrase "to eat up" the Soviet legacy "is nonsense. Just as Russia "eats up the Soviet legacy," so the USSR "eats up the legacy" of the Empire.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 9 September 2020 09: 26 New
          11
          Only the RI legacy turned out to be somehow not very good .. In contrast to the legacy of the Union. Comrade Stalin - practically the entire industry had to be created. Avon - they didn't even produce their bearings. Not to mention more .. Putin, on the other hand, inherited a powerful legacy, and even a roof in the form of the Strategic Missile Forces! And - how did he dispose of them? Ugh..
          1. Woodman
            Woodman 9 September 2020 10: 04 New
            -6
            Quote: paul3390
            Only the RI legacy turned out to be somehow not very good ..

            Legacy as legacy. Few countries were able to leave more legacy than the Empire left.
            Quote: paul3390
            To Comrade Stalin
            Quote: paul3390
            To Putin

            Stalin still got almost the entire territory of the Empire with the entire population. It remained only to put things in order and get to work. Moreover (this is my personal opinion and I do not insist on its infallibility) to build new enterprises from scratch in an open field, knowing what exactly and for what needs and in what quantities these enterprises will produce, it is still easier than rebuilding large and small industrial complexes (which were operated for decades under the Soviet Union, and under EBEN were collapsed literally and figuratively). Putin got
            Quote: paul3390
            the most powerful legacy

            and, in addition, the broken technological and economic ties, thanks to which this "powerful legacy" should (and could) function like clockwork. Plus, half of the population and vast territories with resources and an industrial base suddenly turned out to be the population and territories of other, independent and not particularly friendly states.
            So, of the most powerful legacy, in fact, only that remained that the last president of the Union and the first president of the Federation did not manage to squander. Let's face it - not a lot.
            And Stalin acted much tougher than Putin. Therefore, the development went faster ...
            An umbrella in the shape of the Strategic Missile Forces is only the price of losses in the struggle for world domination. Such a person as a demoniac Fuhrer in the deplorable state of Russia in the late nineties - early zero, such a price would hardly have stopped. And by this time the West was living too well to take risks ...
            1. paul3390
              paul3390 9 September 2020 10: 07 New
              +9
              Of course, it is easier to build it from scratch - if there is something for it .. And Putin - there was still what, unlike Stalin, the Soviet oil industry and so on, from which the nonesh bourgeoisie feed - this is not a mosquito sneezed. And - where did he put all this colossal loot?
              1. Woodman
                Woodman 9 September 2020 10: 19 New
                -5
                Quote: paul3390
                But Putin was still on what, unlike Stalin

                Yes. Therefore, Putin began by feeding the people first and creating more or less acceptable living conditions. He ensured the timely payment of salaries and their growth, provided the opportunity to use medical services throughout the country, and not only at the place of residence, provided funding for education and the operation of factories. Utilities, finally, albeit with a creak, but earned. Rearmed the army and provided normal allowance for the military and law enforcement officers.
                And economic crises and confrontation with the West came later.
                In this regard, it was harder for Stalin, but they did not really stand on ceremony with those who were dissatisfied with him. It is correct. Everyone should work for the common good.
                1. paul3390
                  paul3390 9 September 2020 11: 38 New
                  +5
                  Putin began by building a system in which tens of billions are washed out of the economy every month and into the bottomless pockets of his nukers. And these pockets are in the West, which is like our enemy .. And also - colossal inequality, comparable only to the ancient slave-owning formations .. And then - everything only gets worse, because every year the people have less and less chances of how- then get out of this shit. Russia is impoverishing something .. and rapidly. And the boyars are getting fat as if they are not in themselves. On the people's good ..
                  1. Woodman
                    Woodman 9 September 2020 11: 46 New
                    -6
                    Quote: paul3390
                    Putin began by building a system in which tens of billions are washed out of the economy every month and into the bottomless pockets of his nukers.

                    I am not aware of such a "system", but all of the above mentioned by me had a positive effect on each of us.
                    Quote: paul3390
                    Russia is impoverished ..

                    Apparently under EBeN she got so rich that there is still room for poverty ...
        2. Daniil Konovalenko
          Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 09: 44 New
          +7
          exactly the same way the USSR was "eating up the legacy" of the Empire.
          Those. under the Soviet Union sold and destroyed all those plants and factories that existed in tsarist times? They broke, for example, the Putilovsky plant, and then in its place the Kirovsky plant was built, with the money received from the sale of the equipment of the Putilovsky plant. So what?
          1. Woodman
            Woodman 9 September 2020 10: 10 New
            -7
            Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
            Those. under the Soviet Union sold and destroyed all those plants and factories that existed in tsarist times?

            Comparing the number of factories in the Empire and the number of factories in the Union is the same as comparing the number of mobile phones and computers in the Russian Federation and the USSR. It's just different technologies and needs, a different economy, a different time. We do not compare the quantity and quality of factories of the Russian Empire and the Moscow Kingdom or Kievan Rus?
            1. Daniil Konovalenko
              Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 10: 16 New
              10
              And I am not comparing, I clarify that when the Bolsheviks took power, not a single enterprise of the former Russian Empire suffered. The Bolsheviks did not eat up the enterprises of Ingushetia, on the contrary: they modernized them. And they built new ones.
              1. Woodman
                Woodman 9 September 2020 10: 20 New
                +1
                Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
                The Bolsheviks did not eat up the enterprises of Ingushetia, on the contrary: they modernized them. And they built new ones.

                And they did it right.
                1. Daniil Konovalenko
                  Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 10: 28 New
                  +5
                  quickly you changed your shoes .. laughing they ate it up, the royal heritage, in the form of factories ... Now they did the right thing, what they created ... laughing
                  1. Woodman
                    Woodman 9 September 2020 10: 53 New
                    -5
                    Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
                    quickly you changed your shoes

                    In the sense? Did I say somewhere that selling and destroying factories is right? Reread the dialogue. You came up with this for yourself.
                    1. Daniil Konovalenko
                      Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 11: 22 New
                      +5
                      Let's clarify: You spoke about the eating of the tsarist legacy by the Soviet Union, I clarified that there was neither eating nor eating. You unexpectedly agreed. smile
                      1. Woodman
                        Woodman 9 September 2020 11: 29 New
                        -5
                        Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
                        Let's clarify you talked about eating up the royal heritage,

                        Clear. Initially, it was about:
                        and in other post-Soviet republics, the Soviet legacy continues to "eat up" - from airplanes and ships to "Khrushchevs" and public utilities infrastructure.
                        Likewise, the Union used the legacy of the Empire.
                        About the factory heritage of the USSR, I already answered a little higher to another commentator - you can see, I will be interested in your opinion.
                      2. Daniil Konovalenko
                        Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 11: 33 New
                        +5
                        Likewise, the Union used the legacy of the Empire.
                        .... Mosin's rifle? laughing
                      3. Woodman
                        Woodman 9 September 2020 11: 35 New
                        -4
                        Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
                        .Mosin's rifle

                        ))) This is the example that most have heard about.
                      4. Daniil Konovalenko
                        Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 11: 44 New
                        +5
                        This is not an example, you have already been written about this ... smile
                      5. Woodman
                        Woodman 9 September 2020 11: 48 New
                        -5
                        As well as the use of planes, ships and housing and communal services is not "eating away", but the normal course of things.
                      6. Daniil Konovalenko
                        Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 11: 50 New
                        +4
                        For God's sake .. laughing Absolutely not going to persuade you. laughing
                      7. Woodman
                        Woodman 9 September 2020 11: 54 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
                        Absolutely not going to convince you

                        And thanks for that hi
  • paul3390
    paul3390 9 September 2020 11: 33 New
    +1
    Uh-uh, no .. In the Republic of Ingushetia - there were no whole areas of industry as a class that were available to other capitalist countries. Bearings, engine building, deep chemistry, and much, much more vital that, with such hard work, then had to hastily build Comrade Stalin ..
  • tatra
    tatra 9 September 2020 09: 49 New
    +6
    At the expense of what was created under socialism, the enemies of socialism, after their seizure of the USSR, have been parasitizing and enriching themselves for 30 years. And what did the bourgeoisie create there under capitalism, due to which the Bolsheviks-communists and their supporters parasitized for decades?
    1. Woodman
      Woodman 9 September 2020 10: 05 New
      -6
      Quote: tatra
      And what did the bourgeoisie create there under capitalism

      Russia. Not?
      1. tatra
        tatra 9 September 2020 10: 14 New
        +4
        Silly answer. Think further.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Woodman
          Woodman 9 September 2020 10: 25 New
          -4
          Quote: tatra
          Stupid answer

          If there is a smart question, there will be a smart answer.
          1. tatra
            tatra 9 September 2020 10: 28 New
            +3
            Which is what was required to be proved. You are NOT able to prove your own words
            USSR "finished off the legacy" of the Empire
            1. Woodman
              Woodman 9 September 2020 10: 54 New
              -5
              Quote: tatra
              You are NOT able to prove your own words

              Read above.
              1. tatra
                tatra 9 September 2020 11: 00 New
                +4
                You could not answer MY question. And the USSR is a large-scale development of ALL branches of the country, without exception, in comparison with the Russian Empire, and capitalism created by you, critics of socialism in the USSR, is a large-scale degradation of ALL branches of the country without exception, parasitism due to the legacy of socialism, imports, and the work of foreign firms.
                1. Woodman
                  Woodman 9 September 2020 11: 07 New
                  -4
                  Quote: tatra
                  , and created by you, critics of socialism in the USSR

                  Could you point out my "criticism"?
                  Quote: tatra
                  large-scale degradation of ALL branches of the country without exception

                  This is not degradation - this is a rollback after the collapse of the country. The same is true at the moment of the birth of the USSR. Yes, the Union overcame this period faster. Due to more stringent measures and clear planning.
                  Quote: tatra
                  parasitism due to the legacy of socialism

                  What do you mean by the term "parasitism"? If you inherited a house and a car from your parents, for example, and you live in the house, but drive a car - is this parasitism?
                2. tihonmarine
                  tihonmarine 9 September 2020 13: 50 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Lesovik
                  What do you mean by the term "parasitism"? If you inherited a house and a car from your parents,

                  At least in British and Swiss banks billions were not lying.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 9 September 2020 19: 00 New
                -4
                "And capitalism created by you, critics of socialism in the USSR, is a large-scale degradation of ALL branches of the country without exception." At least rubbish in the civil sector Russia no longer makes a significant plus and for free does not distribute anything on the right and on the left as the USSR did.
    2. paul3390
      paul3390 9 September 2020 10: 19 New
      +9
      Russia was actually created under feudalism ...
      1. Daniil Konovalenko
        Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 10: 32 New
        +5
        The country moved from one social formation to another ... Naturally, it developed, lost territory, returned, acquired new ones ..
      2. novel66
        novel66 9 September 2020 11: 03 New
        0
        and not in the tribal community?
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 9 September 2020 13: 46 New
    0
    Quote: Lesovik
    And it is not possible, then it would be necessary to return to the Stone Age and start everything from scratch.

    Remember the words from the hymn, "We will destroy the whole world to the ground, and then, we will build our own, we will build a new world."
    So they haven't come up with anything new yet, but they are waiting "... But for now."
  • Livonetc
    Livonetc 9 September 2020 08: 29 New
    0
    China is showing a variant of symbiosis.
    A kind of socialist capitalism.
    Maybe it's not worth opposing everything.
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 9 September 2020 08: 47 New
      +5
      Not. In China, it is socialism. The NEP period. Read their party documents - Comrade Xi clearly chewed it up at the last congress.
      1. Livonetc
        Livonetc 9 September 2020 08: 53 New
        0
        I've been to China ..
        I talked a lot with people in different industries.
        They did not think that socialism was there.
        However, that was over 15 years ago.
        But I'm not sure that Comrade Xi has built a welfare society during this time.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 9 September 2020 09: 03 New
          +7
          Eh .. You do not read documents after all .. Okay - I will tell you briefly. When the CCP took over, it had two fundamental problems. The complete absence of industry and, as a consequence, of the working class. How do you order socialism to be built in a peasant country without exception? And then - the bourgeoisie turned up very well with their greed. Accordingly, the NEP was announced. To date, Comrade Xi stated, basis socialism in China is built. Now they have both industry and a proletariat. A significant mass of the population moved to the cities. And only now - they are finally starting to build socialism as such .. For earlier - it was simply impossible to build it. Mao tried - it didn't work out very well. This is what Xiaoping realized when he began his reforms ..

          In fact, exactly the same thing happened as in the early USSR. And the problems are the same. It's just that Comrade Stalin did not have 40 years of quiet development, he had to run this distance in 10 years. If he had time - and he would have acted much softer. But the war was obviously on the verge, and there was simply no other option. And China had it. They were more fortunate ..
          1. Livonetc
            Livonetc 9 September 2020 09: 52 New
            -3
            China lost in the war with Japan, more people than the USSR.
            And in the aftermath of quiet times they did not have.
            They worked hard and honored their traditions.
            This is not luck, it is the oldest and longest-lived empire in world history.
            By the way, they lost their economic leadership only for the last 200 years.
            The Angloskaks skilfully overtook them, just like the USSR.
            However, China held out and the USSR collapsed.
            That is why I affirm that first of all one should honor the traditions of one's homeland and honestly work and live.
            About the documents.
            At one time he studied Marxist Leninist theory at the institute.
            However, I prefer direct communication with people.
            For example, I had a chance to talk with a Kremlin guard who communicated directly with Stalin and Voroshilov.
            I spoke with the employees of the Kremlin hospital, who told a lot about communication with the families of representatives of the supreme power of those times.
            And my relatives told me a lot.
            I talked a lot with guys from the 9th, 7th and other departments.
            With prokurorskie workers and employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of those times and times of the crossroads of the 90s.
            I know my family history.
            This is a common history of the valor, honor and tragedies of our Motherland.
            You need to live with dignity, with honor and work for the good of your family and homeland.

            And the documents.
            The paper will not stand it yet.
            Read Machiavelli, who taught power while being a failure in the field.
            1. paul3390
              paul3390 9 September 2020 09: 58 New
              +3
              Duc in China and the population was a little more so, no? And - how unlucky? For the last 40 years they have not had an immediate threat of war, on the contrary - the bourgeois themselves cheerfully dragged money to them! Comrade Stalin would have such conditions ..
              As for the documents - well, if you think that the CCP and Comrade Xi are brazenly and publicly lying to their people, talking about their future plans - that's your business .. Only then - why not just declare capitalism and take everything into your pockets, as some have done former members of the CPSU?
              1. Livonetc
                Livonetc 9 September 2020 10: 06 New
                0
                What's all about Comrade Stalin.
                At the time, China did not have a quiet period.
                And please don't juggle.
                He did not accuse anyone of lying.
                No gentlemen, no comrades.
                Compared with China, we are rather hindered by the same thing as a bad dancer.
                I repeat.
                Honor the history and traditions of your country.
                To live and work honestly for their families and homeland.
                And think less about isms.
                "Do what you must and come what may."
                1. paul3390
                  paul3390 9 September 2020 10: 09 New
                  +1
                  If you don't understand what you have to do, then everything will be as usual. So - alas, you can't do without -isms ..
                  1. Andrey VOV
                    Andrey VOV 9 September 2020 22: 03 New
                    +1
                    In the so-called socialist China there are more billionaires than in the so-called capitalist Russia .... there are private enterprises, PRIVATE ones have such a share! well, without bothering, almost all electronics manufacturers and take the same phones and communication ... yes, the same JiLi ... cars saw them ... however, they bought a Volvo ... and this is private capital ... multibillion-dollar ... and where is there pure socialism?
          2. dauria
            dauria 9 September 2020 10: 02 New
            -2
            In fact, exactly the same thing happened as in the early USSR.


            This means that there will be what happened in the late USSR. They will move from mobilization capitalism with one oligarch - the state to normal. With a bunch of Clintons, Abramovichs, Bushes and Potanins.
            And there were no "socialisms" either in the USSR or in the PRC.
            By the way, according to the same Marx, socialism is smoothly growing simultaneously in all countries, and starting with the most developed ones. But Lenin is no longer even a Marxist. Like, we ourselves will do "socialism" in one country - the weakest link. Lenin said the phrase "Marxism is not a dogma." wink
            By the way, both have not explained how "property" can become "common"
            Ownership is when it is sold, bought, inherited, or thrown away. Gazprom share, cat, or three rubles in your pocket. Otherwise, rubbish.
          3. Vadim237
            Vadim237 9 September 2020 19: 06 New
            -2
            What kind of war was on the threshold of the USSR in 1928? - Stalin and his associates had their own idea of ​​world communism, the seizure of territories in Europe and the advancement of communism there, and for this he needed a large army, he created it, but Hitler was ahead of him, the 41st attacked us.
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 11 September 2020 05: 07 New
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              Stalin and his associates had their own idea of ​​world communism, the seizure of territories in Europe and the advancement of communism there, and for this he needed a large army, he created it, but Hitler was ahead of him in the 41st attacked us.

              And about millions of shot and billions in gulags? You just once again confirm about the "Internet chatterbox" - by the way, where are the arguments for your myths (typical and have long been disassembled for a long time - the time machine takes a lot of time (:-)) once Trotsky Stalin to distinguish?)
          4. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 10 September 2020 22: 50 New
            0
            Not Xiaoping, but Deng. You are not talking about Zedong. In the PRC they talk about the ideas of Mao, Deng and Xi.
      2. Daniil Konovalenko
        Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 09: 46 New
        +5
        Not. In China, it is socialism.
        ... To clarify, China does not yet have socialism, they are in a transitional period, they are building a material and technical base. This is what they say at party congresses.
    2. vvnab
      vvnab 9 September 2020 11: 58 New
      +3
      China is showing a variant of symbiosis.

      This is not symbiosis. This is another version of the initial phase of the transition to communism. The paths can be different, the goal is one. And it is quite clearly declared in the program of the ruling party of China.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 9 September 2020 13: 52 New
      0
      Quote: Livonetc
      China is showing a variant of symbiosis.

      Well, as Sukhov said, "The East is a delicate matter."
  • Ronald Reagan
    Ronald Reagan 9 September 2020 08: 33 New
    -2
    Today, both in Russia and in other countries, new generations of people have grown up, but socialism remains attractive among young people as well. And this is not accidental: young people see how the last possibilities of vertical social mobility are overlapping, how the lack of money dooms a person to being at the bottom of the social ladder without any chances to rise up. Yes, there are especially active, especially talented, strong and smart ones who manage to break through from rags to riches, but these are exceptions to the general rule.

    If I understand you correctly, then a smart, intelligent and purposeful person is an exception to the rule, and a passive lazy person with deuces in his certificate is a general rule? And the whole system must work to provide the last "personnel" with social elevators and well-being? no
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 09: 12 New
      +6
      Quote: Ronald Reagan
      And the whole system must work to provide the last "personnel" with social elevators and well-being?


      Don't juggle. The system should give an equal chance of success. When entering a university, for example. So that everything depended on the qualities of a person .. And not on dad's wallet, for example.
      1. Ronald Reagan
        Ronald Reagan 9 September 2020 11: 47 New
        -4
        Today everything depends on the qualities of a person. The system does not restrict anyone in obtaining the necessary education and the method of obtaining money, as well as their use for any purpose. If you want - work as a janitor, if you want - build rockets.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 12: 03 New
          +4
          Quote: Ronald Reagan
          Today everything depends on the qualities of a person. The system does not restrict anyone in obtaining the necessary education and the method of obtaining money, as well as their use for any purpose. If you want - work as a janitor, if you want - build rockets.


          This is all completely different. You do not live in Russia along the way. And somewhere in the Looking Glass.
          1. Ronald Reagan
            Ronald Reagan 9 September 2020 14: 54 New
            -2
            A man is worth his labor. Irresponsible people reap the benefits of poverty and uselessness. yes
    2. Kart
      Kart 9 September 2020 11: 48 New
      -2
      They are not talking about that at all. They are about power, and, accordingly, the resources that need to be selected and handed over to the right hands, that is, to them.
      Everything will be exactly the same, only they will refer to the correct ideology.
      Today, both in Russia and in other countries, new generations of people have grown up, but socialism remains attractive among young people as well.

      It is precisely on this that they want to call in, hammering the brain of the youth with fairy tales about wonderful socialism, referring to the newspaper Pravda.
      Young people do not know anything about real socialism.
      They do it in a primitive, aggressive, but non-systematic way. Around these "comrades", as it should be, of course, extremely aggressive groups of admirers of the Teaching are formed, naturally with their Gurus at the head, as it should be. But they are few in number, and as soon as it comes to a real business, it suddenly turns out that, apart from the round dances around the USSR on the Internet, nothing is done by the amicable watering of doubters with mud and standing on the corner with a red flag.
      And it won't. Because no real society can be built on a theory invented from the head.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 9 September 2020 19: 12 New
        -2
        Everything is so, in fact, all these communist socialist tales, an empty space - were, are and will be.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 9 September 2020 13: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: Ronald Reagan
      And the whole system must work to provide the last "personnel" with social elevators and well-being?

      "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." Of the USSR Constitution of 1936
  • Rubi0
    Rubi0 9 September 2020 08: 34 New
    0
    When you can record 3 videos in tiktok a day clapping your hands, getting a million for this, then the answer is no. And in general, enterprising people will always find an opportunity to snatch their own by right, and it will not be difficult for them to destroy some sort of USSR 2.0 again.
  • Avior
    Avior 9 September 2020 08: 34 New
    +2
    yeah. to figure out where socialism is greater, in some sort of Sweden or in China. welfare in Sweden will be even better. just don't fly red flags for decoration ...
    1. Daniil Konovalenko
      Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 09: 52 New
      10
      There is no socialism in Sweden. Socialism, in any case, presupposes the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Sweden, this is not and never was. The power, big capital. But there the capitalists are smarter, they prefer to lose some part than to lose everything altogether. They to some extent share the superprofits received.
      1. Avior
        Avior 9 September 2020 10: 16 New
        +1
        Do you think China is a dictatorship of the proletariat?
        1. Daniil Konovalenko
          Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 10: 26 New
          +4
          According to party documents, the dictatorship of the proletariat in China and they do not deny it. That is why they say one country, two systems, meaning Hong Kong ... the PRC is building socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which nevertheless expresses the interests of the working class, and its interests are represented The CPC and bourgeois democracy in Hong Kong ..
          1. Avior
            Avior 9 September 2020 10: 35 New
            -2
            And how is the dictatorship of the proletariat expressed?
            How the interests of the working class are represented with cars and a pick, but without a pension, of which there are a huge number of
            1. Daniil Konovalenko
              Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 10: 41 New
              +6
              There are pensions there ... but how the interests are represented, look at the documents of the CCP, they are in Russian on the internet ... It is written in some detail ..
              1. Avior
                Avior 9 September 2020 11: 42 New
                -2
                Sweden has the same pensions AND social benefits - a much more developed system
                1. Daniil Konovalenko
                  Daniil Konovalenko 9 September 2020 11: 46 New
                  +5
                  You do not compare China with Sweden at different levels in many respects.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 9 September 2020 08: 34 New
    -4
    The command-administrative economy should not be confused with socialism.

    Socialism is an equalization with high taxes.

    In some Norway it is quite socialism, but the economy is market.

    The DPRK is a planned economy, but it doesn't smell like socialism.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 9 September 2020 08: 55 New
      -3
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      The DPRK is a planned economy, but it doesn't smell like socialism.

      There is a plan both under socialism and under capitalism. A plan is a way to achieve an intended goal (a plan is a map by Little Red Riding Hood with a drawn route to the grandmother's house). Methods for achieving the goals of the plan may be different (you can walk, you can ride a bicycle, or you can ride a gray wolf). Under socialism, the ultimate goal of the plan was achieved by the command-administrative method. Under capitalism - market. As a rule, neither one nor the other exists in its pure form. Under socialism there were elements of capitalism and under capitalism there were elements of socialism.

      1. Boris55
        Boris55 9 September 2020 10: 05 New
        -2
        In addition.

        In all countries of the World, with different economies (including capital and social), there is such a procedure as approval of the country's budget (by the Congress of the CPSU, Parliament), what taxes will be and what will be paid for the next year (s) - this is the plan. The essence of the action does not change from what it is called differently. When approving the country's budget, it is planned which industry to support and which not. How much to spend on defense and how much on medicine. By inflating the Russian threat, the West is trying to knock out more money in their plan for military spending, etc.

        I would like to hear the arguments of the miners - with which they disagree.
        Do you seriously think that their market has arranged everything by itself?
      2. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 9 September 2020 13: 40 New
        -2
        Using this level of visual agitation demonstrates your attitude towards the interlocutor. This is disrespectful.
    2. Free wind
      Free wind 9 September 2020 09: 25 New
      +7
      There was no leveling. Whoever wanted to work and earn. Before my graduation practice, I worked at a factory, earned about 250 rubles a month, worked on milling and cutting machines, and centering. No tolerances, no crusts. They showed the machines, showed the work plan, saw what works,
      showed how much and what needs to be done, both before and with the song. Those who did not want to work were not kept. There were truths and problems .. For the first three days, the adjusters did not leave us, the machines were pouring in, and we were still those specialists. And once the boy did about 10 norms in a day, the shop manager grabbed his head. The guy cooked us dinners for a week. He was given the days and products that he made.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 9 September 2020 13: 41 New
        -1
        What's the problem? Whoever works always earns.

        I am not satisfied with the situation when idlers are supported at the expense of the working people.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 9 September 2020 08: 42 New
    12
    Late 1980s - early 1990s became a time of global disillusionment with socialism ...

    I don't know who was disappointed in what ..
    Three-quarters of the population of the huge country were against its collapse and the transition to a capitalist rake ..
    Otherwise .. request
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 9 September 2020 09: 35 New
      +6
      A revolution can and will probably consist of long-term battles, of several periods of onslaught with intervals of counter-revolutionary convulsions of the bourgeois system.
      IN AND. Lenin
    2. tatra
      tatra 9 September 2020 09: 55 New
      +9
      The enemies of socialism in their Perestroika were even afraid to mention the word capitalism, so as not to frighten the people. They crucified about the "market", in which there will be a lot of everything, prices will be low, because there will be competition, everything will be of high quality, because "effective owners" will only think about business reputation.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 September 2020 19: 16 New
      -2
      "Three quarters of the population of a huge country were against its collapse and the transition to a capitalist rake .." - And where were they all - why did they not do anything, what were they waiting for? There is one answer, the most down-to-earth and honest - all of them really didn't give a damn.
  • arhitroll
    arhitroll 9 September 2020 08: 43 New
    -3
    When a way is scientifically invented to have healthy competition (both at the level of Man-Man and at the level of enterprises) in a socialist system - this is how socialism can be built. In the meantime, an existing person has not matured to communism / socialism - he wants too much to have his "weak" ...
  • Boris55
    Boris55 9 September 2020 08: 44 New
    -4
    Quote: I. Polonsky
    But does socialism have a future?

    Looking at what.
    The socialism of Lenin-Trotsky is very different from the socialism of Stalin, and the socialism of Stalin is different from the socialism of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev. So dear author and members of the forum, when you talk about socialism, so that there is no misunderstanding, please clarify what kind of socialism you are writing about.
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 9 September 2020 09: 34 New
      +8
      Swiss capitalism is also quite different from Bangladesh capitalism ...
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 10 September 2020 22: 59 New
      0
      Stalin respected Lenin and considered himself his student. All the memoirists noted this. And Stalin constantly talked about Lenin and Leninism.
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 11 September 2020 07: 41 New
        0
        Quote: Sergej1972
        Stalin respected Lenin and considered himself his student. All the memoirists noted this. And Stalin constantly talked about Lenin and Leninism.

        But Khrushchev did not respect Stalin, and what came of it?
  • Kart
    Kart 9 September 2020 08: 46 New
    -6
    There are two types of socialism and capitalism - theoretical and real.
    The theoretical ones are understandable, those about which all kinds of theorists write, the founders of theories, fighters against the regimes and others.
    Such book socialism not only has a chance to defeat the same book capitalism, but moreover, this victory is inevitable.
    In reality, everything is clear exactly the opposite.
    1. tatra
      tatra 9 September 2020 10: 01 New
      +4
      To put it simply, socialism is when the country and the people live the way the officials want and can, and capitalism is when the country and the people live depending on what the capitalists want and can. And if for officials under socialism, the development of the country and making money for the country and the people is their duty. , then the capitalists owe nothing to the country and the people except taxes, which they really do not like to pay, and do only what brings them profit.
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 9 September 2020 08: 48 New
    -1
    There is no doubt that in a country where there is a developed small business with many private shops and cafes, bakeries and hairdressers, dental surgeries and entertainment centers, life is more comfortable and pleasant.

    Well, I agree with the author on the points of private shops and cafes, I don’t visit such shops, but others like them, but small cafes, but to be homely cozy, I’m for that. The bakeries are also good, and it's even nice to have a snack with a Kurosan with coffee, like in France, and private barbers cut their hair perfectly, it works in my building, hairstyles are lovely to see. Well, here we got to the dentist's offices, here some other legacy of the NEP gravitates, at all times of the USSR only dentists and "cold shoemakers" enjoyed the approval and patronage of the authorities, although everything is clear with shoemakers, but with
    dentists do not understand how everyone graduates from college, but why does the state allow private practice, and can't it build more dental clinics? If any clinics have been built and are being built, why are they not building dental clinics, although earlier in St. Petersburg and in Moscow there were probably offices for 20-30 dentists. Or is there a catch? Entertainment centers should be forbidden to private owners, only the state should deal with this, how many fires, collapses of premises there were, a complete violation of fire regulations and God knows what they do there, and ... I will not write about the bad, you know.
    1. KERMET
      KERMET 9 September 2020 09: 18 New
      +3
      developed small business with many ... shops and cafes, bakeries and hairdressers, dental surgeries and entertainment centers
      with the right approach, it gets along well with the socialist system
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 9 September 2020 09: 33 New
        +7
        We answer: because in any capitalist society, either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat can play a decisive role, and the small proprietors inevitably remain vacillating, powerless, stupid dreamers of "pure", that is, non-class or supra-class democracy. Because from a society in which one class oppresses another, one cannot get out otherwise than by the dictatorship of the oppressed class.
        (c) Lenin
        1. KERMET
          KERMET 10 September 2020 11: 27 New
          0
          And what does the above quote have to do with my comment? I deliberately removed the definition of "private" from it. All of the above functions of the so-called small business were perfectly performed by Stalin's artels, which were:
          a production cooperative as a form of socialist collective economy, created on a voluntary basis with mandatory labor participation of members and collective responsibility
  • Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 9 September 2020 08: 53 New
    +1
    While "consumer existence" is more attractive for the masses, there can be no talk of socialism - I'm talking about modern Russia. Socialism always has a national connotation, which is why today there are socialist-oriented countries such as China, Sweden ... To our greatest regret, even the stage of rethinking what a socialist ideology should be, taking into account today's realities, has not yet begun in Russia. We still have news socialists who offer to TAKE good things from the USSR and at the same time not to offend big business ... Socialism begins with the study of social needs, and not with old slogans. We are waiting for their own "karlmarks" to appear in the Russian Federation ...
  • Chief Engineer
    Chief Engineer 9 September 2020 08: 53 New
    +6
    The socialist mode of production proved its effectiveness after passing the test of the Second World War, but about the post-Stalinist years of the union, this is not a question of the efficiency of the economy, but the competence of the country's political and economic leaders and for some the question of betraying the motherland! Capitalism ends sooner or later, now it is in its last stage and to be replaced by socialism, sooner or later.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 September 2020 19: 22 New
      -4
      What is the final stage? This garbage has been carried by all sorts of different things for more than a decade, and capitalism, a market economy and money with the needs of people, as they were and remain as a single whole, and all this is not planning to disappear anywhere and will not be as long as humanity exists.
      1. Chief Engineer
        Chief Engineer 9 September 2020 20: 53 New
        0
        A very bold statement, but only there are well-grounded scientific works (Capital and not only) where the phenomenon of capitalism is investigated by certain methods (induction, deduction, dialectics) and, on the basis of these studies, certain conclusions and patterns are derived, I recommend for acquaintance. And especially for you: humanity not all the time of its existence lives under capitalism, but only about 250 years (far from all of humanity), and then only because there was room for this phenomenon to grow (new markets and territories for the export of capital).
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 9 September 2020 22: 25 New
          -4
          This is not a statement - but real life, get used to it.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 9 September 2020 08: 58 New
    +3
    You are all right. Both in the article and in the comments.
    So learn, learn and learn: propaganda, development of modern theory and implementation in practice.

    Unfortunately, no one will give up power. Not 2 thousand dollars a minute from the "pure" oligarch Abramovich, nor 5 million a day from the state official-oligarch Sechen. No inviolability, like a friend of the Sobchak and Chubais Family.

    Even not for 300% of the profit (according to the classics) - for 30% - everything will be used:

    ankle boots on the ribs, a sniper on the roofs, provocateurs at rallies, pipes on the head at the door, "newcomers" and airplane crashes, Chechens with golden pistols and PMCs with cellars ...

    And on the way, China with its technologies and the mass of the population, it is worth limiting hydrocarbons and the pipe ...
  • Old partisan
    Old partisan 9 September 2020 08: 59 New
    +5
    Sometimes thinking comes a thought. The situation with the country's development of society could only be solved by war. It is she who opens your eyes to the people around you.
    But it is impossible to win this war with an internal or external enemy. A generation of traitors has already been brought up. With conviction - the homeland is where the pay is.
    With this attitude, it remains to wait for Russia as a country to simply disappear. What are we going to. By leaps and bounds.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 9 September 2020 09: 06 New
    +1
    Anything is possible if you approach this matter with intelligence and diligence.
  • BAI
    BAI 9 September 2020 09: 15 New
    +5
    The system will win where the ordinary citizen is the highest value, and not the state (or a handful of the elite). Where the interests of the state and the ordinary citizen coincide, a confident dynamic development of the state is ensured, where the interests of the state and the ordinary citizen contradict each other - the revolution and the collapse of the state.
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon 9 September 2020 09: 21 New
    -2
    Capitalism is what people do if they are left alone, I don’t remember who said.
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 9 September 2020 11: 25 New
      +6
      That is - rob and rip off others?
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 10 September 2020 10: 07 New
        0
        They produce a product and sell it to whoever they want, and not perform a five-year period in four years
      2. Aag
        Aag 16 September 2020 07: 00 New
        0
        Quote: paul3390
        That is - rob and rip off others?

        Apparently, Cartalon is talking about people (about the people, population), and not about states and oligarchs ...
  • paul3390
    paul3390 9 September 2020 09: 30 New
    +2
    Quote: Boris55
    Under socialism there were elements of capitalism and under capitalism there were elements of socialism.

    That is why the late USSR collapsed ...

    “Everything stems from the erroneous concept: the desire to build socialism from the elements of capitalism without changing them in essence. This leads to the creation of a hybrid system that leads to a dead end; moreover, to a dead end, hardly noticed, which forces the state to make new concessions to economic methods , i.e., forcing a retreat. " Che Guevara
  • pytar
    pytar 9 September 2020 09: 47 New
    0
    Cureosis happened! Western societies have adopted a lot of things from socialism! From that part of him that was good! And the former socialist countries (not all) have embraced the worst of capitalism! For some reason, neither socialism nor capitalism are normal in our country! bully
  • tatra
    tatra 9 September 2020 10: 12 New
    +3
    In general, there are many comments, but there is no essence in them, which is better, socialism or capitalism. And to this question, supporters of socialism answer, naturally, that socialism, and opponents of socialism, oddly enough, also answer that socialism is better, because with EVERY comparison of capitalism in the Republic of Ingushetia and their "independence" in the territory of the former USSR, they are the same rush to malice against socialism, than prove that they are NOT capable of proving that capitalism is better than socialism. And for capitalism in the world in general, they put forward only the parasitic countries of the "golden billion", in which there has long been no real capitalism, and they are all, de facto, bankrupt.
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 9 September 2020 10: 15 New
    +2
    The change of economic formations, as history shows, is hardly possible in an evolutionary way. Only through human blood - the blood of the civil war.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 9 September 2020 10: 31 New
    -6
    Was there socialism in the USSR? If you read the Capital which was written by Carlos which is Marx. then in the USSR there was a cross between wild serfdom and feudalism, covered with a beautiful wrapper of the communist idea. And no more!
    Who wants to look at socialism, welcome to the north. Like Sweden, Finland, Norway. and the Danes were not far from them.
    so no need to invent a bicycle. Socialism has existed for a long time, it's just that Polonsky doesn't know about it;)
  • Nestorych
    Nestorych 9 September 2020 10: 42 New
    -4
    There is no chance, history has already given the answer!)) But today's China and socialism are two different things.
  • U-58
    U-58 9 September 2020 10: 47 New
    -1
    As history has shown, socialism has many faces, because the ideal model has not been worked out. There was simply not enough time (historical).
    The best Soviet socialism has degraded to an inadequate form. In any case, he was easily abandoned. Maybe it was a mistake ...
    Now the best is the Swedish model or the Chinese one.
    The development of capitalism in Russia (the capitalism of the new Russians) leads society to the understanding that socialism is not so bad.
  • fif21
    fif21 9 September 2020 10: 56 New
    -3
    Officials from the CPSU are not much different from the officials of the United Russia. An ordinary person has little choice or to be a slave to the state or a slave to the bourgeois, there is another way - to send both on a distant erotic voyage, and become a slave of foreign bourgeois. recourse
  • rica1952
    rica1952 9 September 2020 10: 57 New
    +5
    Strange formulation of the question You pretend that China does not exist as an advanced country in the world, Vietnam is following the same path. India seems to be going. It is not clear where we are going.
    т
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 9 September 2020 11: 39 New
    +2
    As long as there is a well-fed domination of being over consciousness, nothing will work. But for now. The fact is that capitalism from the beginning makes the population stupid, and then becomes stupid itself. In this case, it can go to suicide along with all of humanity. sleeping. The capitalist does not know satiety. I am skeptical about the new socialism. But if the people accept it, then it will be so.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 9 September 2020 11: 50 New
      0
      Quote: nikvic46
      I am skeptical about the new socialism.

      And what do you mean by "new socialism"?
      1. nikvic46
        nikvic46 9 September 2020 17: 01 New
        0
        Matvey: It was not me who remembered the new socialism. This topic is smartly featured on the internet.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 9 September 2020 17: 07 New
          0
          Just socialism, as freshness cannot be second, so socialism cannot be either new or old - this is a transitional period. And how it will proceed depends on many factors - the starting technical level, educational level, surrounding neighbors, competence of those who find themselves in steering wheel, etc ...
          1. nikvic46
            nikvic46 10 September 2020 06: 52 New
            0
            Matvey: You are right. And the very name "new socialism" is present in Platoshkin's works.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 September 2020 12: 11 New
    0
    In the wake of the crisis, there may once again be a party that will raise the flag of socialism. But it is problematic to create a mechanism for keeping it.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 9 September 2020 12: 52 New
    +1
    Unfortunately, the functionaries of socialism are the same people as the functionaries of capitalism. And the system based on the increased role of the state and the expansion of its regulatory and planning functions implies a quantitative increase in functionaries. The system vitally depends on them - because it, in contrast to capitalism, to a greater extent regulates the adequacy of decision-making, rather than the state of temporary consensus between market participants.
    And this leads to the human factor - there are a LOT of functionaries, the responsibility is BIG, and the motivation to steal or improve their life is the same as their caps. colleagues.
    Okay, we have carefully selected them. Okay, we brainwashed them, great and high quality. Okay, we have invested in the capital apparatus of repressive reaction and tracking (again, due to the peculiarities of the system, it will also rely on bureaucracy and control, and by state it will be larger than foreign counterparts).
    Two problems arise - shiftability and connectivity. Children of soldiers go to soldiers, trade workers go to trade, children of bureaucrats in warm places go to bureaucracy, to warm places.
    If we forbid our son to go to work at the folder, the son will go to the folder's good friend, and the good friend's son will go to the folder as a return service. Here you will not dig in, but this is clannishness, as a result.
    It is possible to fight this method of building up the repressive apparatus, however, this implies a healthy inflating of its staff, bureaucracy, the percentage of corrupt officials in it - and also gives us an outlet for 2 effect - connectivity.
    As they say, a hand washes a hand, and often departments come into contact in their activities, and it is FAVORABLE for their functionaries to coordinate their personal responsibilities, at least in the interests of a career (or personal welfare). Today Semyon Semenovich, a serviceman, helped Vasily Vasilyevich, a trade worker, to hide the waste - tomorrow he received something deficient from "his little man."
    It is beneficial for people to interact with each other - and they interact, bypassing unnecessarily complex or foolish laws that such a system will sculpt like cakes, in vain attempts to protect their slender structure from rye and corrosion.

    You will say, rather, what are you, there will be no deficit, we will produce at all! Indeed, it is possible. But where there is no shortage of commodity, there will be a def. services, and finally, the deficit of the money supply - for all these goods and services. Foreign products. Special purpose products. And so on, so on ... There will always be a deficit.

    Capitalism fights against such phenomena through certain levers - this struggle without a final, as they say, but it does not take away a serious% cap. resources and does not require constant costly transformation for this, and socialism can flood everything in the end with ketchup and prohibitions - and people will corny say "aha!" "yeah!" and "Give a five-year plan in three years!" and they themselves will steal and form reagional ties, elites, clans, etc. As a result, the structure will ooze and everything will either fall or turn into "de facto" capitalism.

    So I will summarize - in a modern society or not in a modern one, an attempt to follow this path again is all the same lessons, the same ketchup, the same deficit, the same propaganda, the same host of bureaucrats who do not understand what they are doing. We need to look for another design, gentlemen.
    1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
      Andrey Krasnoyarsky 10 September 2020 12: 32 New
      0
      Alas, dear. the supporters of the socialist fairy tale are not able to understand your quite common thoughts.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 10 September 2020 12: 54 New
        -1
        The type of capitalism we see in Sweden - Finland and partly in Germany would suit us.
        It would be much easier for us to come to this than to break into a bright and hazy future.
        We have quite successful neighbors both in Europe and in the East - we can thoroughly study their experience on key issues - take the best, not take the worst, trying to find a replacement.
        Unfortunately, this option (apparently) does not suit us - we have a very powerful and at the same time heterogeneously localized elite lobby, which is organically afraid of pressure on them about effective capitalist taxation mechanisms (similar to the Scandinavian countries), anti-corruption mechanisms, the formation of transparent pricing mechanisms. The local lobby sees this as a direct threat to its expanded power; the central lobby sees this as a problem associated with the fact that it is more difficult to hide the incompetence of decisions and the ineffectiveness of inflated state mechanisms within such systems.

        The more I think about how to combine our country and modernization for the glory of a brighter future, the more it seems to me that we do not have this future. We can be at point A - and see point B, but we will be unable to reach it, due to the rigid sharpenedness of our current configuration to be at point A and the steady decline of our potency (with the growth of disintegration processes) as we move to point B. Simply put - now we are afloat due to the primitiveness and viciousness of our design, which is capable of extracting significant resources, immediately spent on self-maintenance. In the event of a transition, part of the resources will be spent on reformatting (or duplication) - and the system will begin to crack and lose efficiency. We are at a dead end or in a pit in terms of modernization.
  • oleg Pesotsky
    oleg Pesotsky 9 September 2020 12: 57 New
    +2
    All these highbrow reflections can be countered with one example - imagine that there is a car, a good car that has taken you out of the mud and off-road more than once. Maybe not sparkling with brilliant but proven reliability. And the driver is clumsy to get behind the wheel. Not knowing traffic rules, not representing the internal structure and having no idea about brakes and speeds. What will happen to the car? That's right, he will quickly smash it to smithereens. But will the car or the driver be to blame?
  • Seaflame
    Seaflame 9 September 2020 13: 52 New
    -2
    I still remember being a schoolboy (in the 80s) and a seaman of the merchant marine told us that socialism had already been built in Singapore. And decent unemployment benefits and interest-free mortgages for young families and a bunch of all sorts of goodies for the poor and young, which I no longer remember. Private property, incl. and large enterprises does not necessarily leave ordinary people behind with a decent life, if there is normal legislation, fair courts, etc. In our country, the problem is corruption, nepotism, a rotten judicial system, the orientation of many power structures to serve big business, and not to the interests of citizens, hence all these problems, which in many caps. countries have long been allowed.
  • depressant
    depressant 9 September 2020 14: 15 New
    +3
    What is the difference between the socialist economy of I.V. Stalin from our current economy?
    It lies in the fact that all branches of the national economy developed in the country - everything! All the needs of the average person were met by the entire spectrum of industrial production and agriculture. Everything was produced - from food products, clothing, shoes, household appliances, household items and ending with industrial equipment. To meet these needs, therefore, to meet the needs of industry and agriculture, Stalin himself printed money. And for the needs of man, agriculture and industry to be satisfied more fully, more money was printed than is needed at the moment. This led to the presence in the hands of the population of a certain surplus of money, and immediately there was an increased demand on its part for the products produced by the economy. And in order to satisfy it, the economy immediately responded by building new enterprises, expanding the volume and range of products, increasing agricultural yields, and, if necessary, plowing new lands. That is, it grew.
    Thus, due to the continuous growth of the economy and stimulating this growth in consumer demand, the injection of extra money into the country did not lead to inflation. Surplus products were sold abroad. The received currency was used to buy industrial equipment and consumer goods, which have not yet been produced in our country. This led to an additional increase in production, the provision of scientific institutions with the research equipment they needed, therefore, to a fuller satisfaction of the needs of the population.
    So, due to the independent printing of money and their skillful stimulation of the population, agriculture, industry and science, our economy during Stalin's time had the meaning of a self-sustaining mechanism with a continuously growing coefficient of efficiency, which gave a post-war growth of 11% annually and caused sacred horror and deep misunderstanding abroad, how this can be in a country ravaged by war.
    It's simple! We had the wise J.V. Stalin and our own ruble ...
    Our modern ruble is not our own. It is printed exactly as much as the state received from the sale of resources and some products abroad. We are slaves to inflationary horror. The needs of the population are met mainly through imports. Give the population more money, and import suppliers, not constrained by our domestic policies, will immediately inflate prices. Huge imports suppress the development of their own industry - it becomes unnecessary. Agriculture is tied to the consumption of someone else's seed material, its own is not in demand. Our economy, for the sake of a foreign supplier of everything we are wearing, in what we are wearing, etc., is not developing. We live by selling takeaway products of an extremely narrow range. Our territory is a fairground for the sale of mainly other people's goods and services. We even have foreign trade networks. This is called "but we are open to the world."
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 9 September 2020 14: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: depressant
      What is the difference between the socialist economy of I.V. Stalin from our current economy?

      In the absence of the concept of "profit" ...
    2. Liam
      Liam 9 September 2020 14: 21 New
      -1
      Quote: depressant
      What is the difference between the socialist economy of I.V. Stalin from our current economy?

      Are you haunted by the dubious laurels of the unforgettable user Tatyana and decided to throw these sheets over the entire forum? Sorry .... gave the impression of an adequate person
      1. depressant
        depressant 9 September 2020 17: 12 New
        +3
        Dear colleague, you have no idea how many people I regularly disappoint!)) Communists because I am for small and medium-sized businesses, liberals - that I am ironic about Navalny, Putinists because I criticize Putin, etc. etc. )))
        I am on my own, colleague, I am an individual. I suppose you too)))
    3. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
      Andrey Krasnoyarsky 10 September 2020 12: 46 New
      0
      Well, this is not even a fairy tale, but a set of absurd absurdities. Let's start with the fact that Stalin himself did not print any money. This is not his function at all. Another fantasy of yours - under Stalin, all spheres developed. Even Soviet textbooks on the history of the CPSU did not say this. In fact, only the heavy and mining industries, as well as transport, developed at a rapid pace. Light industry lagged behind and almost never satisfied the needs of the population. What "surpluses" were sold abroad? These are mainly grain and minerals. Grain was withdrawn from collective farms for a pittance, which gave the state good profits, but the bulk of the collective farmers barely survived, paralyzing for penny or generally not provided workdays. As now, but in our time at least some high-tech products are sold (for example, laser and optical devices), albeit in small quantities, and under Stalin, all technological lines were purchased abroad, including in Germany. True, during the first five-year plans, it was possible to establish the production of machine tools and equipment, but only for internal use. Well, except that after the war it was possible to sell our goods to the countries of the "socialist community". There is still a lot to write, but enough. This does not mean that now in Russia there is an earthly paradise, both the economy and the standard of living are at a very mediocre level, but a return to the Stalinist model would mean a complete collapse of both.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 9 September 2020 14: 31 New
    +2
    As always, the truth is in the middle. Natural resources and minerals should belong to the people, the largest industries and defense industry naturally belong to the state, and the rest can be given to private hands, but under strict control, so that instead of milk they do not sell return, but instead of vodka, Palenque. And so on throughout the range of manufactured goods. The state should exercise total control, the more so that with the development of digitalization this can be done much easier than, say, 30-40 years ago. The production technology approved by the state comes first. Got caught for falsification - a lifelong ban on doing business, only as a hired labor force.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 9 September 2020 14: 44 New
    +3
    Quote: CSKA
    Quote: prior
    And socialism has a future, an example of which is China

    Where did you find socialism in the PRC? In the title? Do you even understand what socialism is?

    Well, well, well - teach us, ready to listen carefully! hi
  • Andrey Krasnoyarsky
    Andrey Krasnoyarsky 9 September 2020 16: 31 New
    -2
    Whatever fairy tales one may write about splendid socialism, it has collapsed and will never be reborn (at least in the Soviet version). For the reason that he collapsed under the weight of growing internal problems, and not from the bad Gorbachev or the bad Yeltsin. Most of the leaders of Western countries are outright squalor, ordinary ordinary people who have reached high positions. There is not a single great leader like Churchill, de Gaulle or Erhard in the leading countries of the West, nevertheless capitalism lives there and is healthy, it is not going to fall apart. Therefore, the future of Russia is not in a return to the utopian and discredited formation of a collective barracks, but in a movement from the wild and corrupt capitalism of the 18th century model, but to modern and civilized capitalism.
    1. U-58
      U-58 10 September 2020 10: 42 New
      +1
      Socialism as an idea is quite attractive.
      The disintegration of Soviet socialism did not occur because of the illusory or far-fetched idea.
      Its decay is the essence of the stagnation of the "pacified" bureaucracy.
      And, if you like, the absence of real external threats that consolidate society and prevent stagnation from developing.
      The same phenomena quite take place under capitalism.
      These are both Azat models and South American ones.
      And socialism, which has existed and is taking place in history over the past 100 years, was almost the main driving force behind the development of our civilization.
      1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
        Andrey Krasnoyarsky 10 September 2020 12: 30 New
        +2
        You, like most of the supporters of socialism, present the effect as the cause. The proliferating and pacified bureaucracy is precisely the result of the administrative-command economic system itself, in which the entire socio-economic sphere is controlled and built from above. The bureaucratization of Soviet power began almost from the first days of its existence, which, incidentally, was noted by V.I. Lenin. This does not mean that there is no bureaucracy under capitalism - there is and it is quite flourishing. But there she does not climb to manage the economy and dictate to whom what pants to wear, when to sow and harvest grain and how much meat the Soviet people need per kilogram of bones. In fact, Soviet socialism was essentially a cross between three formations - feudalism, capitalism (commodity-money relations were not abolished at all, only limited), and a little socialism.
        1. U-58
          U-58 10 September 2020 14: 49 New
          +2
          In some ways you are right ...
          But the kilograms of verbosity lying in stores, piles of jackets and car dealerships inviting customers in our particular case have already led to the complete self-satisfaction of the bureaucracy of the district, city, regional levels and, as a consequence, the federal level.
          Moreover, officials in this "abundance" of starch, palm oil, soybeans and Chinese iron did not even make efforts from the beginning.
          And what are we observing?
          Liberal capitalism named after Yeltsin - Putin is rapidly heading towards collapse, not at all concerned about the fate of the country and the people.
          Where will the future reversal be?
          The best option is towards socialism. But other scenarios are also possible.
          And if a military dictatorship is also not a problem. Dictators pulled their countries out of the hole (Hitler, Park Jong Hee, Pinochet ..)
          But if the clan redistribution of power, a new round of robbery of the people ... However, this will subsequently lead to stabilization and stagnation.
          Therefore, the collapse of the FIRST socialism in the world is only the first experience, but not the system.
  • datura23
    datura23 9 September 2020 18: 13 New
    -5
    not with this ghoul on the banners - that's for sure
  • Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 9 September 2020 22: 05 New
    +4
    Quote: Vadim237
    What kind of war was on the threshold of the USSR in 1928? - Stalin and his associates had their own idea of ​​world communism, the seizure of territories in Europe and the advancement of communism there, and for this he needed a large army, he created it, but Hitler was ahead of him, the 41st attacked us.

    brother .... study the material part, how Stalin felt about the Communist International and this crazy idea of ​​building world socialism of communism .... do not confuse and stop pouring shit in your ears that the ussr was going to attack someone in 41, this is already a dune tone
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 September 2020 22: 27 New
      -5
      And I did not write that the USSR wanted to attack someone, I wrote that Hitler attacked the USSR in the 41st - and the fact that Stalin had imperial ambitions is unconditional.
      1. Andrey VOV
        Andrey VOV 9 September 2020 22: 40 New
        +2
        Thank God, Comrade Stalin cleaned up the dreamers of building world communism, if he had really imperial ambitions ... then we would obviously not have limited ourselves to a piece of East Prussia .... the so-called "brothers in arms", the same Poles, got a much larger territory .. ...
  • Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 9 September 2020 22: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: depressant
    Agriculture is tied to the consumption of someone else's seed material, its own is not in demand.

    I disagree .... thank God, we began to abandon this practice .. cereals (wheat, rye, barley) .. 90% of our seed material, kukruza yes, there is less, but the bulk of what we grow is exported, industrial crops, rapeseed, flax, seeds are mostly ours, but mainly after processing the product is exported (rapeseed meal, flaxseed cake, rapeseed oil) .... pig breeding is not bad here ... cattle .... yes ... .our breeds are not the fleshy ones, say there .. poultry farming .. half imported incubation egg, but even here it has already gone to our side ... regarding light industry .. then the devil will break a leg .... in china it is often more expensive to sew than inside s)))) survived ... well, that's it, remarks in the margins
    1. depressant
      depressant 10 September 2020 07: 27 New
      +3
      Yes, that's all clear, colleague. But now, I bought a couple of heads of corn, boiled it, and it is disgusting: yellow, with a sweetish taste and with a tangible aftertaste of pesticides. God bless them, pesticides! Where is our wonderful white corn, the one that was in childhood? Delight! And this ... no words! How can you eat it? It's just as nasty as the canned one. Gone, gone are the days. New generations will never know what real corn is, when it is sprinkled with salt, hot, with steam, rolling in the palms ... It was sold at all stations throughout the Union. And life is now like corn - everything is fake.
      Only if the corn can be thrown into the trash can, the fake life cannot be thrown away.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 10 September 2020 07: 34 New
        +1
        Sorry, I don't know what your name is. You have beautiful comments, very nice to read!
        hi
        1. depressant
          depressant 10 September 2020 07: 58 New
          +2
          Thank you, colleague, for your kind words!
          Let's get to know each other, they call me Lyudmila Yakovlevna)))
          In fact, if you click on my nickname, I will find myself there: unknowingly, I entered my full name in my profile))) I decided that it was supposed to be necessary for the Site Administration. And only then, realizing how everything works here, I found out that almost no one put their names in the profile, even you, Rudolph)))) hi
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 10 September 2020 08: 21 New
            +1
            So I was not cunning either, I made the name by a nickname. My name is really Rudolph. Pleased to meet you!
      2. Andrey VOV
        Andrey VOV 10 September 2020 10: 10 New
        +1
        What region do you live in? The fact is that the bulk of corn, what is in the fields and what grandmothers trade, is fodder, with all the consequences or for further processing into corn starch, food, soft, tasty is quite small and not in all regions
        1. depressant
          depressant 10 September 2020 11: 26 New
          +1
          If you contact me, colleague, then I live in a remote corner of the Moscow region. And, imagine, even 10 years ago, at the height of the season, young white corn was sold here in stores in the form of unpeeled cobs. And now - the end, only genetically modified yellow, from foreign seeds. It is difficult to switch to new types of products when preferences are old.
          I remember that in the Kuban there were factories for the production of canned canned corn, as it is now customary to say - the same one. The canned food is delicious, the delicacy is top class! But some are gone, and those are far away. It is unlikely that those factories have survived to the present day.
          1. Andrey VOV
            Andrey VOV 10 September 2020 14: 40 New
            +1
            Yes, to you ... well, the Moscow region is not the best place in the agrarian plan ... there is no GMO corn, there are hybrids ... they are being launched ... in the Kuban factories remained ... but not huge, but many small, medium , so to speak, in the field, practically next to the fields
      3. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 10 September 2020 23: 14 New
        +1
        Yellow corn is the best and tastier. And it should be sweetish. Every man to his own taste.
        1. depressant
          depressant 11 September 2020 00: 06 New
          +1
          Yes, I'm also a sweet tooth, but corn ... in my opinion, sweet corn is like fresh cucumbers sprinkled with sugar)))
  • Iskazi
    Iskazi 10 September 2020 02: 51 New
    +4
    There is a craving for socialism ..., moreover, it is necessary, oddly enough. Of course, the nomenclature degeneration of socialism in the USSR hit the reputation of the idea very hard, the form turned out to be very convenient for various dictatorships and kleptocracies. Great Pu at one time inadvertently mentioned a multipolar world ... but quickly came to his senses, so a multipolar world is impossible without an alternative to the modern liberal model. It is not for nothing that the guarantor kicks the USSR, silently about the fact that the modern liberal world has become so socially oriented thanks to Soviet socialism, even a very problematic one. But this only speaks of the promise of the idea itself ..., of course, one should not confuse the dogmatism of orthodox Marxists and possible development options of a non-Marxist sense. It is necessary to analyze the reasons for the failure of socialism in the USSR, but the current regime will not deal with this ..., a total anathema has been declared against alternatives.
  • Vyacheslav-Konstantinovich Starodubov
    Vyacheslav-Konstantinovich Starodubov 10 September 2020 06: 06 New
    0
    https://maxpark.com/community/7668/content/7199749
    1. depressant
      depressant 10 September 2020 13: 32 New
      +1
      Vyacheslav Konstantinovich, my dear, rarely anyone follows the links. You would just put the idea in a nutshell, and that's it)))
  • U-58
    U-58 10 September 2020 07: 31 New
    +1
    There is also a good chance.
    If it is socialism, where each is according to his work, but not war communism, where everything is taken away and divided.
    At the same time, social equality is at the forefront [for the victims of the exam, not to be confused with complete equality].
    With regard to the priority of public interests over personal interests (which, in principle, is not bad in a developed society), this is the paradigm of communism, but not socialism.
    The ideal would be to have parity between the personal and the public.