Military Review

How did the Russian worker live before the revolution?

133
How did the Russian worker live before the revolution?

Compared to today, not bad. But the revolution was still ...

Regarding the question posed in the title, there are two opposing points of view: supporters of the first believe that the Russian worker dragged a miserable existence, while supporters of the second argue that the Russian worker lived much better than the Russian. Which of these versions is correct, this material will help you understand. From where the first version came from, it is not difficult to guess - the whole Marxist historiography persisted tirelessly about the fate of the Russian worker. However, even among pre-revolutionary literature there is quite a bit of one that supported this point of view.

In this connection, the work of Evstafi Dementieva “The Factory, What It Provides to the Population, and What It Takes from It” received the greatest fame. His second edition is walking on the Internet, and it is often referred to both by bloggers and commentators arguing with them. However, few people pay attention to the fact that this very second edition was published in March 1897 of the year, that is, firstly, several months before the adoption of the factory law establishing the 11,5 hourly day.

Secondly, the book was delivered several months earlier in the set, that is, before Sergei Witte’s monetary reform, during which the ruble was devalued by one and a half times, and, therefore, all salaries are indicated in this book in old rubles.

Thirdly, and in the main ones, according to the author himself, “The study was carried out in 1884-1885's years”, and, therefore, all its data are applicable only for the middle of the 80-s of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, this study is of great importance for us, allowing us to compare the well-being of the workers of that time with the standard of living of the pre-revolutionary proletariat, for which we used data from annual statistical compilations, reports of factory inspectors, and the works of Stanislav Gustavovich Strumilin and Sergei Nikolaevich Prokopovich .

The first of them, who became famous as an economist and statistician before the revolution, became a Soviet academician in 1931 and died in the 1974 year, before he was three years before his 100th birthday. The second, who began as a populist and social democrat, later became a prominent Freemason, married Yekaterina Kuskova, and after the February Revolution, was appointed Minister of Food of the Provisional Government. Prokopovich took Soviet power in hostility and in 1921 was expelled from the RSFSR. He died in Geneva in 1955 year.


Pre-revolutionary workers


However, neither of them loved the tsarist regime, and therefore they cannot be suspected of embellishing the contemporary Russian reality. We will measure welfare according to the following criteria: 1. Earnings. 2. Working hours. 3. Nutrition. 4. Housing.

Let's start with the earnings.

The first systematic data refer to the end of the 1870-s. So, in 1879, a special commission, which was held at the Moscow Governor-General, collected information about 648 establishments of 11 production groups that employed 53,4 thousand workers. According to Bogdanov’s publication in the Proceedings of the Moscow City Statistical Division, the annual earnings of the workers of the First Throne in 1879 amounted to 189 rubles. In a month, therefore, an average of 15,75 p. In subsequent years, due to the influx of former peasants into the cities and, accordingly, an increase in labor supply, earnings began to decline, and only with 1897 did their steady growth begin. In Petersburg province in 1900, the average annual salary of a worker was 252 rubles. (21 p. Per month), and in European Russia - 204 rub. 74 cop (17,061 rub. Per month). On average, in Empire, the monthly salary of a worker in 1900 was 16 rubles. 17,5 cop At the same time, the upper earnings limit rose to 606 rubles (50,5 rubles per month), and the lower one went down to 88 rubles. 54 cop (7,38 rub. Per month).

However, after the 1905 revolution of the year and some stagnation that followed it, since 1909, the earnings began to grow sharply. For weavers, for example, wages increased by 74%, and for dyers - by 133%, but what was behind these percentages? The salary of a weaver in 1880 per year was only 15 rubles. 91 cop., And in 1913 year - 27 rub. 70 cop For dyers, it grew from 11 rubles. 95 cop - up to 27 rub. 90 cop Much better things were working with workers in scarce professions and metalworkers. Machinists and electricians began to earn a month for 97 rubles. 40 cop., Higher craftsmen - 63 rub. 50 cop., Blacksmiths - 61 rub. 60 cop., Mechanics - 56 rub. 80 cop., Turners - 49 rub. 40 cop If you want to compare these data with modern wages of workers, you can simply multiply these figures by 1046 - this is the ratio of the pre-revolutionary ruble to the Russian ruble as of the end of December 2010 of the year. It was only in the middle of 1915 that inflation began to take place in connection with the war, but since November 1915, the growth of earnings blocked inflation, and only since June 1917 did wages lag behind inflation.


Salaries of workers by year


Working hours.

We now turn to the duration of the working day. In July, 1897 of the year issued a decree limiting the working day of the industrial proletariat throughout the country to the law in 11,5 hours per day. By 1900, the average working day in the manufacturing industry averaged 11,2 hours, and by 1904, it did not exceed 63 hours per week (without overtime), or 10,5 hours per day. Thus, over the 7 years, starting with the 1897 year, the 11,5 hourly decree rate actually turned into the 10,5 hourly, and from 1900 to 1904 year, this rate dropped by about 1,5% annually.

And what happened at this time in other countries? Yes, about the same. In the same 1900, the working day in Australia was 8 for watches, Great Britain - 9, USA and Denmark - 9,75, Norway - 10, Sweden, France, Switzerland - 10,5, Germany - 10,75, Belgium, Italy and Austria - 11 watches.

In January, the 1917-th average working day in the Petrograd province was 10,1 hours, and in March it had already decreased to 8,4, that is, in just two months, by as much as 17%.

However, the use of working time is determined not only by the length of the working day, but also by the number of working days per year. In pre-revolutionary times, there were significantly more holidays — the number of holidays per year was 91, and in 2011, the number of non-working holidays, including New Year holidays, would be only 13 days. Even the presence of 52 Saturdays, which have become inoperative since March 7 of 1967, does not compensate for this difference.


Working hours


Food.

The average Russian laborer ate one and a half pounds of black bread, half a pound of white, one and a half pounds of potatoes, a quarter of a pound of cereals, half a pound of beef, a half lard of fat, and a ton of sugar a day. The energy value of this ration was 3580 calories. The average resident of the empire ate 3370 calories per day. Since then, Russians have almost never received such a number of calories. This indicator was exceeded only in 1982. The maximum was in the 1987 year, when the daily amount of food consumed was 3397 calories. In the Russian Federation, the peak in calorie intake fell on 2007 the year when consumption amounted to 2564 calories.

In 1914, a worker spent on food for himself and his family 11 rubles 75 kopecks per month (12 290 in current money). This was 44% of earnings. However, in Europe at that time, the percentage of wages spent on food was much higher - 60-70%. Moreover, during World War II, this indicator in Russia improved even more, and the cost of food in the 1916 year, despite rising prices, amounted to 25% of earnings.


So fed


Housing.

Now let's see how it was with housing. As the Krasnaya Gazeta published in Petrograd once in its 18 issue of May 1919 of the year, according to data from the 1908 year (taken, most likely, from the same Prokopovich), workers spent on housing up to 20% of their earnings. If we compare these 20% with the current situation, then the cost of renting an apartment in modern St. Petersburg would have to be not 54 thousands, but about 6 thousand rubles, or the current St. Petersburg worker should receive not 29 624 rubles, but 270 thousands. How much money was it then?

The cost of an apartment without heating and lighting, according to the same Prokopovich, was for one person earning: in Petrograd - 3 p. 51 k., In Baku - 2 p. 24 k., And in the provincial town of Sereda, Kostroma province - 1 p. 80 k., So that on average for all of Russia the cost of paid apartments was estimated at 2 rubles per month. Translated into modern Russian money, this amounts to 2092 rubles. Here it must be said that these are, of course, not the master's apartments, the rent of which cost in St. Petersburg on average 27,75 p., In Moscow - 22,5 p., And on average in Russia in 18,9 p. In these manor's apartments, there lived mainly officials of a rank up to a collegiate assessor and officers. If the master's apartments per tenant accounted for 111 square arshin, that is, 56,44 square. m, then working on 16 square. arshin - 8,093 sq. m. However, the cost of renting a square arshina was the same as in the master's apartments - 20-25 cop. per square arshin per month.


Children's room in the barracks for family workers at the Ramenskoye factory of industrial and trading partnership “P.Malyutina sons”



Working barracks in Lobnya for workers of the cotton spinning mill of merchants Krestovnikovs


However, since the end of the 19th century, the general trend has been the construction by owners of enterprises of working dwellings of improved planning. Thus, in Borovichi, the owners of the ceramic factory of acid-resistant products, engineers, brothers Kolyankovsky, built wooden one-story wooden houses with separate outlets and garden plots for their workers in the village of Velgiya. The worker could buy this housing on credit. The initial amount of the contribution was only 10 rubles ...

... Thus, by 1913, only 30,4% of our workers lived in rented apartments. The remaining 69,6% had free living space. By the way, when in the post-revolutionary Petrograd 400 of thousands of master's apartments were freed — who was shot, who fled, and who died of hunger — the working people did not hurry to move into these apartments even for free. Firstly, they were located far from the plant, and secondly, it was worth more to heat such an apartment than the entire salary of the year 1918 ...
Originator:
http://www.opoccuu.com/rab1913.htm
133 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kapitanyuk
    Kapitanyuk 16 August 2012 08: 22
    +14
    Good, good article. To the author - offset.
    1. revnagan
      revnagan 16 August 2012 15: 51
      +12
      This article is already about half a year. I read it on the site "Russian portal". Everything is clear, the workers lived well, the peasants lived even better, the Lena execution was a fiction, the Bolsheviks came up with everything. The article is "minus".
      By the way, has anyone tried to stand at the machine for 11 hours? And a day a day? And even in those conditions. Here they write that 69,6% of the workers had free housing ... "There is only one restroom for 38 rooms ... “So the author would have lived in such conditions, and then praised the advantages of such a life.
      1. ward
        ward 16 August 2012 20: 33
        +3
        Well, at that time it was very good .... But what is interesting ... with the growth of well-being, dissatisfaction grows so to speak ... that by the way, and now we have ... a pre-revolutionary situation .... sssss ...
        1. Kapitanyuk
          Kapitanyuk 16 August 2012 23: 29
          0
          Yeah, everything was exactly the same in Libya: at first they became fat from fabulous wealth by the standards of Africa, then they, you see, began to dislike the king. I’m afraid, as if nothing like this had happened sad
        2. Larus
          Larus 17 August 2012 13: 45
          +2
          And where is there about the growth of prosperity ??? People lived in hostels, from which they could turn in case of dismissal, worked 11 hours a day and received such "huge" money that they could not afford anything more than they could.
          And about today's "growth" of welfare, they made fun of it, given that everyone is sitting in loans for the most .... that would somehow survive.
      2. Protey
        Protey 16 August 2012 21: 39
        +8
        My grandfather told my father how they lived before the revolution. He worked at a steam locomotive repair plant (Rostov-on-Don). Families were large, not like now, but nevertheless - the wife ran the household, raised the children, the husband worked and had enough for a comfortable life. And on rallies and demonstrations there were lazy people and drunks, who were punished quite rightly (as they explained to us at school, "strangled with fines"). They even fined for mate !!! My grandmother, I remember saying - "There was a fool king, but bread - a piglet!" This is information from people who lived at that time, and not from communist propaganda.
        1. Zynaps
          Zynaps 17 August 2012 02: 39
          +2
          the storyteller was your grandfather, his kingdom to heaven. if only grandfather told, and not you sucked your finger. grandfather's tales are very easy to check for the lies. how much he received - how much and what he spent on. details will say a lot. so I propose not to trash the memory of grandfather and stop talking about what you have no idea.
          1. Protey
            Protey 17 August 2012 06: 35
            +6
            Zynaps
            I don’t know what you suck there, but I don’t get carried away with this and I’m not going to invent anything. Leave my grandfather alone, he was a worker, not a jerk, and didn’t hang around meetings.
          2. woodman
            woodman 17 August 2012 16: 57
            +5
            I lived all Soviet time near the factory where his grandfather worked. I am a carpenter, a builder - I was repairing the houses of the village of workers of this plant. Such furniture that stood in the apartments of those workers now costs ... a lot of money. The houses of that time are all capital, clean, strong, bright. Then they went to build all sorts of barracks and barracks ...
            The village of Temernik is famous for its strikes in 1902. The records of the Board of the village of Gnilovskaya, which borders Temernik, reflect the atrocities of the strikers. They led the Cossacks to retaliate when cordons were put up at the border (there is Mezhevaya St.) in order to prevent robbers from entering the village.
            So Protey is telling the truth.
        2. mind1954
          mind1954 17 August 2012 02: 51
          +8
          And if you listened to a highly skilled turner or
          driver, and even a fist from the village! But alas, it was only
          a small part of the population!
          Led to talk with highly skilled workers,
          and with participants in collectivization!
          I remember in the 60th conversation on TV with the worker of the Prokhorov manufactory,
          party to revolutionary events! He told how they cared
          factory owners about working conditions, life, workers' health!
          The presenter asked: "Why did you take part in the revolution, since
          did you live so well? "
          To which he replied: "So it was the good will of OUR master, and we
          they wanted all the workers to live like that, and not by the good will of the owner,
          AND BY THE LAW !!! "
          And these fist and thieves' stories about loafers and drunks bothered me
          all my life to nausea !!! This is cheap bastards!
          There is such an actor Basilashvili. He has a grandfather when he saw a portrait
          JV Stalin said: Bandit! Who else could he be for the layman?
          He was taken in the 30s, but they didn’t even shoot this old fool,
          explained something and released, brains set!
        3. Larus
          Larus 17 August 2012 13: 59
          +2
          They probably lived in their own house and went on vacation every year on vacation, and the children went to school to go to college after that ???? Or simply they lived as they have now, with a minimum to survive ....
      3. illarion
        illarion 17 August 2012 13: 45
        +4
        Near St. Petersburg there is a village named after Morozov (Morozovka). In the 1890s, a private powder factory was built there that produced smoke powder for the army. So the owners built two-story dormitory houses for workers. There were two schools, a music school, an art school. 2 churches, one of which Nicholas Roerich painted. Now it’s complete f * ck, but before the revolution it was beautiful. I saw foty.
        1. Larus
          Larus 18 August 2012 02: 51
          +1
          I lived in a village in which it was very beautiful. Schools, factories, factories, the streets are clean and calm, BUT after the coup of 1991, everything was drained and stolen. Now there ... pa. So there is no need for mythical care on the part of the masters, because otherwise they would not have attracted anyone even then.
      4. woodman
        woodman 17 August 2012 16: 46
        +2
        I started working after serving in SA in 1976. He worked as a carpenter in a good organization, where after two or three years they rented out housing. Four children were born in a dorm apartment total. pl. 16 meters. Here: a room, a kitchen with a coal stove, a washbasin and "night vases". Consider the room dark: after 1,4 m - the wall of a 2-storey building (I'm on the first). I paid for it to the organization 12 rubles / month, which was 6-10% of the salary (coal, firewood, electricity, a cesspool in the yard - at my own expense).
        Fifth - was born in a small-family dormitory. Apartment - 19 sq.m. room + kitchen-6 sq.m. + amenities. Paid about the same. I got a full-fledged apartment after 15 years of work in one place.
        He worked 8 hours a day, 5 days a week at his main job. Although the main income was taught after school hours. To a lesser extent, these were "Saturday breakthroughs", In a larger work we shaba on neighboring construction sites (with kickbacks to foremen and foremen, as those that were paid, as those that were released from the main job).
        If it weren't for the constant extra work "on the side" ... I don't know. There was no help from the state. One talking shop and talking. Although, of course, he paid half the price for the kindergartens.
        What in Soviet times, what is now working on a man preying without a twinge of conscience. Although you can live now. The main thing is not to skip, work and a normal (for us) level of well-being, in principle, can be achieved. Well, do not pay taxes, do not light up in the tax =)))
      5. r4space
        r4space 21 September 2017 08: 19
        +1
        I forgot to add 8 more square meters to the working family am
      6. Pavel Yusov
        Pavel Yusov April 8 2021 04: 42
        0
        But in the West the workers lived the same way, but there were no revolutions there)))) You look at the pre-revolutionary photos of American workers, they are exhausted and exhausted, and in our photos, the workers are rather thoughtful. You probably forgot about communal apartments under Stalin, where there is 12 toilet and one kitchen for 1 families. Even the communists' collective farms borrowed from tsarist Russia. In tsarist Russia (before the Stolypin land reform), there were communal farms (almost like collective farms). So you are outraged not in the business. Apparently you want to wishful thinking. The revolution in Russia was made by the Freemasons and stirred up the Russian people. Even the Budenovka were stolen from the tsarist army (the Budenovka were supposed to go to the front in 17 before the start of the general offensive). The devil (and the Bolsheviks are his servants in the image and likeness, because he is the first revolutionary in the universe), he cannot create anything, only copy and pervert. And now in power in Russia, the great-great-grandchildren of those who made the revolution in 17. Not all of them were destroyed by Stalin. By the way, Stalin understood and recognized the idea of ​​a monarchy. In fact, he himself was a monarch. Monarchy power from God, and everything else was invented by the crafty * perverted so to speak). And history has been perverted by several generations. My great-grandfather lived well under the tsar, although he was a peasant. But under the Soviet regime, they went on hunger strike. Nicholas II did a lot for the Russian people, but the war and revolution prevented all his undertakings. He was truly one of the best sovereigns in Russia. If not for the revolution, Russia would now be the strongest country in the world. This is an indisputable fact. I read a huge amount of literature on this topic, I myself compared and analyzed a lot.
    2. Zynaps
      Zynaps 17 August 2012 02: 34
      +4
      lowlands. for some reason the author did not mention that in the general peasant country the working class made up only 3% (three percent) of the total population. skilled workers (who lived quite prosperously - with a bowler hat and a watch on a chain) were about 5% of those 3%.

      a typical Russian worker could not take pictures of the corner - he rented a bed. many were half-pilgrims. those. while one plowed in the first shift, the one going to work in the second or third shift fell off in his bunk. typical housing of a worker is a hut, crowding. you can’t put up a stick for your wife. and tuberculosis and other delights. average life expectancy is 30.3 years before PMV.

      You don't have to go far - there are the tsar's annual statistical collections "Russia in numbers" and everything is there - from consumption rates to seasonal prices for beef.
      1. woodman
        woodman 17 August 2012 17: 02
        0
        In my opinion, those "polukoechniki" still exist. As it is now, these are young guys and girls whose goal now is to find something to catch on to in life (they don't listen to their parents - they think they are smarter). This period can be prolonged. But I think at that time it was extended for no more than 10 years. And I, again, worked for 15 years to get a relatively normal housing. And before that, count, too, with a bunch of children wandering around the hostel.
        And how many are there now ???
      2. Passing
        Passing 17 August 2012 20: 53
        +1
        Quote: Zynaps
        average life expectancy is 30.3 years before PMV.

        Just about, I am also touched by "historians" with figures at the ready proving how well the people lived under the Tsar-Father.

        Probably too rich people lived, measures from gluttony and other excesses.
        That is the case France, probably lived very hungry and cold, but for some reason for a long time:
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 18 August 2012 01: 09
          +1
          Quote: Passing by
          Just about, I am also touched by "historians" with figures at the ready proving how well the people lived under the tsar-father. Probably the people lived too richly, measures from gluttony and other excesses.

          Your numbers are not correct. I don’t know where the author you are referring to came from, probably from the same place where today they calculate the amount of alcohol per capita in Russia, adding all the technical alcohol produced there.
          Why do I have every right to assert that the table you gave is false - from simple logic, because even elementary draft in Tsarist Russia was elementary since the 21 of the year, and according to this table, just the lucky ones survived to the draft age in the 1890 year)))
          1. Passing
            Passing 18 August 2012 03: 22
            0
            Trapper, it is a pity that to destroy your castles in the air about "Russia we have lost", but this is an indisputable fact. And you don't need to take my word for it, just type in Yandex "average life expectancy in Russia"

            Quote: Trapper7
            Your table is false ... according to this table, just the lucky ones survived to military age in 1890)))

            And so it was, planed for ten to twenty children, a few grew up, and those years in forty-fifty died from harsh conditions and illnesses. There were, of course, those who were attached to this warm place in this life, which affluence allows us to live happily ever after, all kinds of bureaucrats, merchants and noblemen lived no less than we are modern. For all this, the whole Russian people hated them, for this they slaughtered them without pity as bloodsucking parasites.
            1. Pavel Yusov
              Pavel Yusov April 8 2021 05: 00
              0
              There was a high mortality rate all over the world then. But again, statistics are NON-DEFINITABLE thing! Under Tsar Nicholas II, the population of Russia increased by 25 million people! This is demography, and the standard of living is determined by it too. So there is no need to weave tales and other inventions in the confidence that no one can refute it.
      3. Pavel Yusov
        Pavel Yusov April 8 2021 04: 56
        0
        Anything has happened, but on the whole the author is completely right. Explain to me the wretched one: why in the West, under exactly the same working conditions, there was no revolution (for example, the USA, Great Britain, etc.) ??? My great-grandfather was a peasant, but under the tsar he lived better than under the communists. Also read Khrushchev's memoirs about tsarist times, I think this will be a good example for you. Of course there was injustice, but who promised Heaven on earth?
        Statistics are irrefutable things, and they say that even under Stalin, Russia could not overcome the ceiling of the standard of living of tsarist Russia. And the fact that we lived in two barracks for one bed was something like that, but in Europe it was the same)))) But there were no revolutions there. In the USA, for example, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the work of children from the age of 7 was considered commonplace. Children worked in mines and died from consumption and other lung diseases. You speak but do not lie. DO NOT try to pass off your wishes as reality. And try to play on little things and other incidents, this level is low, believe me.
    3. Maks111
      Maks111 17 August 2012 15: 02
      +5
      One thing I know for sure, gentlemen are red.
      1) Under Nicholas 2, the population of the Russian Empire increased by 60 mln. person!!!
      2) At the time of January 1, 1905, the Russian Empire occupied 5th place in the WORLD in terms of living standards. We never climbed higher!

      Yes, and still, what do you want to do to me, but all the same, whether it’s good, bad, lived under the Tsar is better than to die of starvation during the Soviet era in the first 30 years of her reign. Well, or die not from hunger, but somewhere in the Gulag.
      1. Larus
        Larus 17 August 2012 16: 24
        +2
        Then I should know that we are losing the population now, i.e. after the coup of 1991.
        1. Maks111
          Maks111 17 August 2012 17: 41
          +3
          C'mon ... before the start of the Second World War, how many people did our communists destroy? It’s not 10-20 people, it’s tens of millions, entire classes and social classes were physically exterminated. And add to this another 27 million people lost in the Second World War. And we get the number of millions that way in 60.
          1. Passing
            Passing 17 August 2012 20: 24
            +3
            Quote: Max111
            C'mon ... before the start of the Second World War, how many people did our communists destroy? It’s not 10-20 people, it’s tens of millions, entire classes and social classes were physically exterminated

            "Whole classes and estates" made up a tiny fraction of the population of Russia.

            Those. 2 percent (roughly 2 million people) of "class enemies" represented by the nobility and other industrial merchants. Nobody purposefully exterminated the rest, everything was within the framework of an ordinary civil war. In addition, about 2 million people emigrated from Russia, and it is somehow doubtful that these were peasants, i.e. as if not the lion's share of the elite of tsarist Russia just survived, but mostly peasants, bourgeois and workers died, so the screams about the physical extermination of entire classes and estates, this is more reminiscent of the fantasies of overeating French rolls.
            Quote: Max111
            And add to this another 27 million people lost in the Second World War. And we get the number of millions that way in 60.

            There are unfounded fantasies, but there are facts.

            Show with your finger where exactly the failure of 30 million to 41 years?
            See three dips at 17-21, 39-51, and 91-02? Compare them with each other, draw a line continuing the failure, and get losses from the difference. For civil, roughly, 5-10 million, for WWII 20-30 million, but in our time, as it were, and no more than for WWII !!! So who really staged the genocide, "commies" or effective managers ?!
            1. r4space
              r4space 21 September 2017 08: 29
              0
              Of course effective marginals sad he himself saw in the dashing 90s how in the steppes of the Chita region in the village they ate feed to survive am
      2. Pavel Yusov
        Pavel Yusov April 8 2021 05: 07
        0
        I disagree with you. In Soviet times, the high standard of living and fertility was just under Stalin's rule. Only during the reign of Stalin did Russia come a little closer to the standard of living of tsarist Russia under Nicholas II. Do you think why Stalin reconciled with the church, and even introduced shoulder straps and orders as under the autocracy. Stalin understood the idea of ​​a monarchy and revised many of his views. I am not a fan of Stalin, but I know one thing that the Russian Orthodox Church sang to him Eternal memory when he was gone. The common people sincerely loved Stalin and were not afraid, as the Satanists have been trying to prove to us for several decades. According to statistics from the archives, the entire camp in the era of Stalin was a little more than 5 million people. During the same time in the United States, there were the same number of prisoners in prisons.
  2. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 16 August 2012 08: 44
    +12
    In general, as I understood it, everything was fine before the revolution. But then, why did the workers and peasants support the revolution?
    1. olifus
      olifus 16 August 2012 08: 56
      +17
      Pashhenko Nikolay, and who told you that there was full support? the civil war was just due to the fact that a large number of the population did not like the new government. look at the revolutions of our time - in Georgia, the Ukrainian Maidan, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. - they are committed by a crowd of tens of thousands, led by a handful of corrupt "freedom fighters".
      1. revnagan
        revnagan 16 August 2012 15: 57
        +1
        Quote: olifus
        the civil war was precisely due to the fact that a large number of people did not like the new government.

        So why did the Reds win? After all, "a large number of the population" did not like the new government. Plus colossal support from abroad. Yes, because the people were for the Reds. Their ideals were clear and fair.
        1. olifus
          olifus 16 August 2012 16: 36
          +2
          Quote: revnagan
          So why did the Reds win? After all, "a large number of the population" did not like the new government.

          большоmu does not mean большеmu - delve into?
          1. revnagan
            revnagan 17 August 2012 22: 53
            +1
            Quote: olifus
            doesn’t mean more to the big - do you delve into?

            So, nevertheless, the majority of the population of Russia were closer to the ideals of the Reds, and the minority was against. But, excuse me, it’s not democratic when the minority is against, and at the same time it hinders the majority. That's why the civil war started. love Just kidding
        2. shkolo
          shkolo 16 August 2012 16: 56
          +5
          Because the Reds promised the largest group of the population, the peasants, of reforms favorable to them (bribing voters), while the majority of the Whites walked around Siberia
          1. revnagan
            revnagan 17 August 2012 22: 58
            +2
            Quote: shkolo
            Because the Reds have promised the largest group of the population, the peasants, reforms favorable to them (bribing voters)

            Well, do not justify your nickname so directly. Both Baron Vpangel and Denikin promised wonderful reform projects ... Only the Reds immediately issued a "decree on land" and "decree on peace" and .... made peace and distributed land, and here are the rest of the "reformers" promised all this somehow later ... And the land distributed to the peasants, immediately return to the owners of the property. And to those who encroached on the master's good-batogs, and even the gallows.
            1. 11Goor11
              11Goor11 21 August 2012 19: 31
              +2
              revnagan
              the reds immediately issued "decree on land" and "decree on peace" and .... made peace and distributed land

              Do not get me wrong, I am generally for the Soviet government, but you need to distinguish reality from populism
              Hand out the land, and after a short time drive them into collective farms, make them travel abroad (deprived of identity documents without which immediate arrest try to just leave the village).
              The hunger due to the mute protest of the peasants, when they refused to sow bread and slaughtered cattle, didn’t arise out of nowhere?
              Alas, it is true, no matter what it is, I had to go through food detachments for those who did not die of hunger.
              But after all this, when Stalin passed over the fans of the "red terror", he managed to organize the construction of a country of equal opportunities, when a person reached any heights in society only by his ability.
        3. alex20081308
          alex20081308 16 August 2012 16: 57
          +2
          In a civil war, the one who shows more cruelty wins. The Reds spun her heartily. Although the whites did not shun her, but still they are far from red
        4. woodman
          woodman 17 August 2012 17: 04
          -2
          The Reds won because world Semitism set them the goal - to defeat Russia at any cost.
          1. Passing
            Passing 17 August 2012 20: 46
            +2
            Quote: woodman
            The Reds won because world Semitism set them the goal - to defeat Russia at any cost.

            Lenin was an agent of the Zhidomassons ?! belay Duc like he was branded as a German spy !? Or was he a double agent? Then what trifles, let it be triple - still moonlighting for nippons!
            The Reds won because they promised to establish justice in Russia. How they fulfilled their promises is another matter.
            1. Radarik606
              Radarik606 17 August 2012 21: 55
              +1
              Trotskyists were agents of world Semitism
          2. bachast
            bachast 17 August 2012 20: 58
            +3
            any, ANY, at the cost of defeating Russia

            It’s not badly defeated that, following these principles, Russia has become the strongest power
        5. Bars90
          Bars90 3 September 2012 22: 32
          0
          They promised the people that he would live better ... And the people that ... they fucked him for 9 hours ... surrendered. Although half of the entire nation were lumpen, who later went to power. The only plus is the emergence of trade unions ...
    2. apro
      apro 16 August 2012 11: 25
      +11
      If everything was okay, but what percentage of workers in the country is 10-15 and the majority of the population are peasants and farm laborers who are rich in burdens, my grandfather told his mother that he had been working all summer long and wasn’t enough to get boots. Workers weren’t the main character of the revolution, but the rich and the tiligents they have both money and language suspended and access to the media, and the army with the Cossacks. Working as politicians as they could, they defended their monetary interests with strikes and strikes and tried to get into politics
      1. roninas
        roninas 16 August 2012 23: 23
        +1
        That's for sure .. In the 18-19 centuries, Russia, basically, was an agrarian country, so it was not the workers who "kept the bump"
    3. alebor
      alebor 16 August 2012 12: 11
      +12
      There would be no war and revolution most likely would not be.
      1. admiral
        admiral 16 August 2012 12: 25
        +11
        Quote: alebor
        There would be no war and revolution most likely there would be

        The war cut off the Russian Empire on take-off.
        1. Zynaps
          Zynaps 17 August 2012 02: 41
          +1
          Quote: Admiral
          The war cut off the Russian Empire on take-off.


          on what takeoff, obmiralushka? for French and English loans? and what would you give then? have you gained new credits? with 3% of the working class for the whole country. dreamers "made by us" 100 years old.
          1. revnagan
            revnagan 17 August 2012 23: 01
            +2
            Quote: Zynaps
            for French and English loans? and what would they give then?

            Yes, they would give it with land. Well, wise guys, look for the web, how much Russian land for debts was already pledged by French banks?
      2. apro
        apro 16 August 2012 14: 35
        -3
        Not a fact. There wouldn’t be blood at the birth of a person, it wouldn’t be life itself, the new always struggles its way.
      3. Protey
        Protey 16 August 2012 21: 50
        +1
        alebor,
        Any war is difficulties and tribulations, discontent in society. Taking advantage of this, the Bolsheviks launched a mass propaganda of their ideas, decomposing everything and everyone. As a result, a coup and seizure of power.
        1. Zynaps
          Zynaps 17 August 2012 02: 51
          +2
          Quote: Protey
          Using this, the Bolsheviks launched mass propaganda


          son, learn a story. even in the winter of 1917, the Bolsheviks were no one to call. even in St. Petersburg. it was only later, when the “temporary” ones had brought the country to complete decline in half a year (having miscalculated even what they did not have time to miscalculate under Nikolashka) and were horrified, everything began to burst at the seams and creep apart.

          in short: you find on the Web a book by the Russian general Golovin (an enemy of the Bolsheviks, he helped Vlasov during the war) "Russia's Military Efforts". mind you, this is a two-volume book, and even with the old spelling - but even the Americans at West Point learned from it. and you read. in the book you will find a list of surnames (quite a list of firing squads), which lists many names and surnames related to the august family, Russian finance, industry and the army-navy. and all of them are accused by General Golovin of undermining the economy and fighting efficiency of Russia in WWI. which is typical - not a single Bolshevik. if it does, take the book "Russian Army" by the former military minister Kuropatkin as the second book - it is also a very sensible work. and think a lot, without fantasizing about grandfather's capital.

          study, boy, and do not eat slop from the media misinformation.
          1. Protey
            Protey 17 August 2012 06: 50
            +2
            Zynaps
            You got me with your rudeness! "Boy" 59 ​​years old, And from you communist rot and rushing, you can see by the style!
          2. Radarik606
            Radarik606 17 August 2012 22: 05
            0
            and in the revolutionary events of 1905-1907, did the Bolsheviks nervously smoke aside?)) already then Bolshevik cells were created throughout the country.
        2. revnagan
          revnagan 17 August 2012 23: 05
          0
          Quote: Protey
          the Bolsheviks launched a massive propaganda of their ideas, decomposing everything and everyone.

          There was no need to decompose anything. The state apparatus was self-defeating by 1917. And, following the chronology of events, there was the February Revolution. It was the liberals-shitcrats who staged a coup, issued the famous order No. 1, which completely disintegrated the army, and led by the "chief persuading" Kerensky almost asked ... and Russia.
    4. Maks111
      Maks111 17 August 2012 17: 43
      0
      And why do people now support color revolutions? After all, the mechanism of the orange revolutions has long been invented.
    5. Pavel Yusov
      Pavel Yusov April 8 2021 05: 15
      0
      Because the people have departed from God. Because for the revolution in Russia, the masons have thrown enormous funds. It is only a completely stupid person who can believe that revolutions take place in heaven at the will of people. Any organized revolt is IMPOSSIBLE without financial support. And note that most of the Russian people did not accept the revolution, as evidenced by the fact that the number of the white movement was much higher than the red. The Red Army went over to the side of the Whites in whole units. More than 40 percent of the white army was replenished with captured Red Army soldiers and defectors. I am against the Whites and the Reds, because both forces were essentially anti-Russian (the Reds hated the Tsar, the White didn't care about him). But nevertheless, the fact is on the face.
  3. xorgi
    xorgi 16 August 2012 09: 00
    +10
    The author does not take into account many parameters: working conditions, vacation, career opportunities, retirement, trade unions. And a purely psychological attitude to the worker, as to a second-class person. Moreover, to compare the heyday of the Russian Empire with periods of intensive industrialization and development is not correct, compare with the heyday of the Soviet era in the 70s, it will be much more interesting.
    1. admiral
      admiral 16 August 2012 12: 27
      +7
      xorgi,
      Correctly - not correctly ... Everything was just beginning, the growth trend was on the face.
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 16 August 2012 13: 16
      +4
      The heyday of the Empire by the 13 year was just beginning. And to compare with the USSR since the time of 60's 70's, it is to talk about how many workers really had to wait for the promised improvements.
      1. CARBON
        CARBON 16 August 2012 22: 17
        +4
        And if you figure it out, the questions and answers apply both to the 70s of the 20th century and to the 010th century 21.
        1. Is the worker now a first-class, or second-class man?
        I can definitely answer the second!
        2. What are the opportunities for career growth, a simple worker?
        Foreman or mid-level ITR.
        3. What is a trade union, how does it protect a simple worker, how does it help it?
        The union was not then, and there is none now!
        4. Working conditions and how much have they changed?
        All the same occupational morbidity and fatal injuries in any industry, at the "highest" world level!
        I'm not talking about nano technology, but give an example of my native coal industry.
        All miners with the upcoming holiday!
        Idea fist, thought in check
        Descended into the face and don’t shit
        Fulfilled the plan, send everyone to ..... do!
        Not done, he went to ......!
      2. Radarik606
        Radarik606 18 August 2012 01: 09
        +2
        And you take 40, industrial production is in second place in the world, labor productivity is in the top three, the backlog was not 9 times behind the United States as in 1913. And the improvements are working 8 hours, free education, healthcare, career growth, and most importantly, the assurance that his children will live much better!
        1. Pavel Yusov
          Pavel Yusov April 8 2021 05: 28
          -1
          Under Nicholas II, the salary of a Russian worker was almost the same as in the United States.
          There is no need to invent stories and fairy tales here. I really do not like liars, especially profane ones who are trying to prove their importance, but they themselves have no knowledge. There were no lagging behind the United States. In the United States, children from the age of 7 plowed in the mines and died of consumption. Ask what world discoveries were made in Russia during the reign of Nicholas II. At least sometimes you get out of your euphoria, read, analyze and compare. You can't sit in a cage and listen to one parrot, and you can go crazy inadvertently.
    3. Protey
      Protey 16 August 2012 21: 57
      +3
      xorgi,
      What is the attitude of a working person now? As Zadornov said, "The first desire of a Russian who climbed to the top is to spit down." You look at the behavior and snobby faces of the new masters and you are amazed! Yesterday, sorry, they wiped their ass with a burdock, and today - "wow .."
    4. woodman
      woodman 17 August 2012 17: 31
      0
      This is now professionals are not respected. Because the specialist is independent. can say and do (!!!). Responsible for his words. and the Communists didn’t need such ones, and these oligarchs also like a bone in their throats.
      Career? This is to the official. The worker grows with skill. The salary, family well-being depends on the same factor.
      And also remember - who drank during imperial time? Prayer! The worker lived measuredly, soberly, deliberately. Just like a fist in the village. Say that Russia was agricultural - workers 5%? and who raised the bread? Horse Cows? Do you imagine the number of horses, read transport units ??? These were not nags! Specialists followed them too. and he is 5% !!!
    5. Pavel Yusov
      Pavel Yusov April 8 2021 05: 20
      0
      You generally wrote it in your mind))) ??? Then there was nothing like this anywhere in the world! In the USA, children from 7 years old plowed in coal mines and died from consumption and other lung diseases. Go down to the ground. I understand perfectly well that in your imagination, only the Soviet Union is the standard of material perfection, but I dare to upset you that even the Soviet Union could not leapfrog tsarist Russia economically. Just compare the demographic growth under Nicholas II and Stalin (the highest heyday of the USSR). Under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the decline of the USSR had already begun.
  4. tarez
    tarez 16 August 2012 09: 21
    +5
    Quote: xorgi
    Moreover, to compare the heyday of the Russian Empire with periods of intensive industrialization and development is not correct, compare with the heyday of the Soviet era in the 70s, it will be much more interesting.


    Bull's-eye!
  5. Isk1984
    Isk1984 16 August 2012 09: 22
    +3
    Come on here, create an idyll from tsarist times, cattle were considered workers who plowed and plowed, no prospects whatsoever, Revolution of 1917 is a logical result of the attitude towards people ...
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 17 August 2012 08: 23
      +2
      Nobody creates an idyll, but shouting that "they lived in shit, ate shit and walked in shit" is also impossible (forgive the harshness). They lived as they lived, those who wanted to live normally, strived and developed - they lived normally, and those who thumped hopelessly - no USSR will help them.
      1. Radarik606
        Radarik606 18 August 2012 01: 26
        +1
        I don’t understand, was there a total struggle against illiteracy in 1913 ??? "Cook's children" could study at universities ???? Electrification of every house ??? Treasury kindergartens and free health care ???
  6. s545321
    s545321 16 August 2012 09: 58
    +8
    Some kind of popular print turns out. I doubt the objectivity of the article.
    And given the second photo, which relates more to the 40s (compare the workers' caps in 1 and 2 photographs and the worker’s knee-length skirt on the right), it’s just a dumb propaganda about the capitalist happiness of the workers.
    1. kotdavin4i
      kotdavin4i 16 August 2012 10: 17
      +9
      I support, in the middle, a woman in a beret - pre-revolutionary women, wives of ordinary workers and peasants wore only scarves. Beret, as such, began to dress already far after the 1917 revolution.
      1. admiral
        admiral 16 August 2012 12: 34
        +8
        The picture shows the workers of the plant "Memory of 1905" in 1943. Caption under the picture - Everything for the front, everything for victory! "
        Wow, big-eyed! We all made out! feel
      2. mind1954
        mind1954 17 August 2012 02: 56
        0
        And this, like the pictures of the Holodomor in Ukraine !!! ???
    2. Zynaps
      Zynaps 17 August 2012 02: 53
      +2
      right. smart people will better read the work "History of Labor and Life of the Working Class in Russia" by E.E. Kruse, and not idyllic popular pictures from the magazine "Niva".
  7. vostok-47
    vostok-47 16 August 2012 10: 10
    +3
    I knew that in those days I earned much more, but I did not think about such a big difference .....
  8. borisst64
    borisst64 16 August 2012 10: 24
    +8
    I think at that time it was the same as now. Much depended on the host about competition in the labor market. If there was one factory in the city and the worker had nowhere to go, then they fought three skins from him and paid pennies. And if there are a dozen factories and a good specialist nearby, then the capitalist is forced to pay the appropriate salary.
  9. Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 16 August 2012 10: 30
    +4
    Not popular print this picture. Why did the Britons sponsor the revolution? In order to bring down the country and take raw materials almost for free. Of course, these are not all the reasons, but they did occur. However, not everywhere there was such a rosy life with artisans.
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps 17 August 2012 02: 55
      -1
      Quote: AKuzenka
      Why did the Britons sponsor the revolution?


      oh, and the conspiracy theories pulled themselves together. Englishwoman crap !!! (c)
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 17 August 2012 08: 40
        +2
        Zynaps,
        Of course not. Everything is natural. It's just that the workers, who were paid pennies and kept in a black-and-black body, hesitated to live like this, bought a couple of steamers of Swiss rifles, and let's shoot at the police. And from their own workers' hostels and neighborhoods, where they have wives, children, parents, so that the military artillery would fire at them later, yeah. Montenegrins there, Caucasian squads - all of the workers. And what kind of a worker was the humble worker Bronstein (Trotsky) - well, just tears, downtrodden, tortured, with a fate distorted by the "tsarist regime", and most importantly - no banking relatives in America. These same unfortunate workers, apparently from their meager wages, tearing them away from their poor and starving families, supported their "guardians", throwing off to live in Switzerland ...
        The main thing - everything is simple and no conspiracy theories.
  10. Sergeev
    Sergeev 16 August 2012 10: 58
    0
    The mind cannot understand Russia.
  11. 8 company
    8 company 16 August 2012 11: 09
    +2
    Normally earned, developed normally. Before 1 MV, Russia was one of the five most developed countries in the world. If it were not for the treacherous activity of revolutionaries of all stripes, who skillfully used the difficulties of war for their own purposes, they would have lived humanly and farther, without the Civil War, mass sweeps, dispossession and collective farm slavery. It was necessary to crush revolutionary scum mercilessly, and the king clanked with them, liberalized.
    1. Kapitanyuk
      Kapitanyuk 16 August 2012 23: 34
      0
      Hmm, such a king was. And even now, the situation in the country is utterly similar to the pre-revolutionary Libya (overzealous population, "dissatisfaction" with the authorities, rallies via the Internet, provocations, etc.). I hope VeVePe does not disappoint.
  12. laurbalaur
    laurbalaur 16 August 2012 11: 20
    +4
    The article was copied even without comments and edits from the Russian portal. Who cares, here is a link to the full version http://www.opoccuu.com/rab1913.htm.
    As for objectivity, many facts are far-fetched, without a deep analysis of the economic and social situation within the country at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
  13. I627z
    I627z 16 August 2012 11: 55
    +3
    Everything is relative. The workers were led to the red agitation, and here is such a perdimonocle - it turns out they did not live so badly. It just turned out late. And the red gentlemen have at least a count on their heads, at least bring the numbers: "bad with the Empire" and that's it.
    And without an article, I was always aware that it was normal (if not good) to live in these years. Work, do not drink, do not be lazy - that’s all. You do not need to get anything (deficit), have a blat, belong to a caste (KPSS). And this does not apply to any excesses, I'm talking about basic things (food, soap, apartments, .... the list is endless).
    The main thing is to know history not only from textbooks and articles, but also from your family. My great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers called the time before the revolution: "Peacetime". Is this not a diagnosis of what happened to the country?
    By the way, the peasants were thrown in the same way. Land for the peasants? I think the peasants did not mean collective farms when they believed in this slogan. By the way, after the war, Stalin promised all the participants in the Second World War 1 hectare of land, that I did not see that land. My grandfather then said: "I did not expect anything else from them, it was not clear why they had to promise?"
    1. Raven1972
      Raven1972 16 August 2012 13: 01
      +3
      I will answer - Stalin simply did not have time to fulfill his promise ... Firstly, it was necessary to restore the country destroyed by the war .... And everything else comes from this point .... By the way, in each board of the collective farm there was a large list where it was indicated - where, to whom and how much land belongs to (collective farmers) ... And these lists disappeared in 1954, after Khrushchev finally came to power .... Then everything became state and not national .... How do I know? Grandfather was the chairman of the collective farm from 46 to 54 years.
      1. bachast
        bachast 16 August 2012 14: 19
        0
        Could you explain about the land? How much, to whom was it supposed and what did the collective farmers do with it?
        1. Raven1972
          Raven1972 16 August 2012 14: 28
          +3
          No problem - these were land shares of people working on a collective farm .... Those. personal land can be said ... You could take your share and process it yourself, without problems, only people finally realized that it was easier together .... + the equipment stood out on the collective farm ... The very essence of the collective farm is collective cultivation of the land and not separately .... I won’t talk about excesses during collectivization, I will say for example that S.P. Kovpak had no problems with her, because he did everything in his mind ...
          And by the way-under Stalin, the collective farm chairman-an elected position ....
          1. bachast
            bachast 16 August 2012 14: 38
            0
            No, well, "personal" and under Khrushchev was and with him people understood that
            easier together
            and equipment was allocated if necessary. You worked on a collective farm and knew that you would have hay and fodder in the fall. And how do you imagine working on your land at that time? What under Stalin, what under Khrushchev? Under Khrushchev, hard workers didn’t get any worse.
            1. Raven1972
              Raven1972 16 August 2012 14: 47
              +1
              Believe me, I know what I’m writing about .... I clearly wrote - get out of the collective farm and cultivate the land myself ... I don’t mean a personal plot .... At the same time, the state purchased the goods produced at solid prices ... Agricultural cooperatives Do you know how much it was? Unfortunately, I won’t say the exact number, but a lot ... And as for the allocated equipment, Khrushch abolished MTS, having given the equipment directly to the collective farms, it ruined it (equipment) Because in the season it’s easy to say that servicing equipment on the collective farm is not possible ... And the approach was completely different .... And how under Khrushchev liquidated personal plots of collective farmers? Generally nonsense ....
              1. bachast
                bachast 16 August 2012 15: 00
                0
                I don’t argue. Samodur was still there, but the collective farmers did not live worse (even at moments of in-kind dolphin ... snake). How at that time a person could leave the collective farm and cultivate his own land, I don’t understand
                Khrushchev abolished MTS, giving equipment directly to collective farms
                Well, this is the basis for all subsequent development of the CX and you know the result. Is agriculture declining in decline?
                1. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 16 August 2012 15: 11
                  +2
                  Is not it so ? Didn’t you have to buy food in the 70-80s? This is just a consequence of Khrushchev’s bibisma ....
                  My grandfather said - at 39 they harvested such that they handed over to the state as much as needed, took their own for workdays, left the cultivation for cultivation, and there was still ANYTHING that still did not know where to put it .... That is our C / X fully provided for itself and the country ....
              2. 8 company
                8 company 16 August 2012 16: 01
                +1
                Quote: Raven1972
                I clearly wrote - to leave the collective farm and cultivate the land myself


                What kind of nonsense? Sole proprietors under Stalin were so taxed that even the most stubborn dropped everything and went to the cities. No need to fantasize.
                1. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 16 August 2012 18: 15
                  +4
                  Greetings Andrew! Now I will give you an example from my own life - in the village where my grandfather lived ALL his life and my dad grew up, even in the 1980s. was an INDIVIDUAL .... I didn’t enter the collective farm, but leased my land to the collective farm ... I co-owned myself and the collective farm and myself .... And no one drove him for mozhay .... And he didn’t put pressure on him .. . request winked
                  1. bachast
                    bachast 16 August 2012 18: 28
                    0
                    He did not enter the collective farm, but leased his land to the collective farm

                    You would more specifically describe the situation, dear! Because many of us lived then, but this is some kind of direct exception
                    1. Raven1972
                      Raven1972 16 August 2012 18: 34
                      +1
                      That’s how I specifically described it - the man didn’t want to cultivate the land himself - he leased it to the collective farm and was engaged in handicrafts - he did barrels, and so he did it all his life, he apparently had enough .... request And his son did not enter the collective farm either ... I saw him myself, in my childhood then I didn’t realize what the sole person ....
                      1. bachast
                        bachast 16 August 2012 18: 38
                        0
                        We had a similar character "Pan Yeska" huckster, he traded in moonshine even then, bought everything, provided himself even then not badly, but about handing over the land to the state farm, I hear for the first time
                      2. Raven1972
                        Raven1972 16 August 2012 18: 44
                        +2
                        You just did not ask about him in details probably .... request And the state farm and the collective farm are different things, state farms are already the Khrushchev brainchild .... Then it was precisely the land that became the state, and not the people .... recourse
                      3. bachast
                        bachast 16 August 2012 18: 53
                        0
                        So be it wink
                      4. Raven1972
                        Raven1972 16 August 2012 19: 03
                        +1
                        good Yeah ... You look - and you think how much in different places everything was different ....
              3. mind1954
                mind1954 17 August 2012 03: 16
                +3
                Khrushchev destroyed collective farms, destroyed Soviet power and socialism,
                preserved on collective farms, for the time being, destroyed
                agriculture of the USSR !!!

                All the time of the existence of the USSR, with the petty-bourgeois totalitarian
                regime, as a transition period from feudalism to socialism,
                State-Monopolized Capitalism that existed
                in industry, parasitized on collective farm socialism!

                Collective farm socialism gave the country EVERYTHING, right up to victory in the war!
                Labor, food, raw materials for industry and during
                the first five-year plans, both during the war and for restoration after the war,
                and for further construction!

                Destroying the collective farms, at the request of the administrative apparatus,
                Khrushchev signed the death sentence to the construction of socialism
                in the USSR and the USSR itself !!!
                1. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 17 August 2012 12: 38
                  +1
                  mind1954,
                  5 +++ good And not only on collective farms ... Equalization at industrial enterprises is also his business, by this he discouraged people from further development .... am
    2. Russian1972
      Russian1972 9 July 2017 21: 13
      0
      As for history, not according to textbooks. I once asked my mother-mother, and you found your grandmother? -Yes-did she work under the king? - Yes, and how? -Well, she said that they plowed in the field from morning to night and only drank VODKA AND WALKED at the bar.
  14. bachast
    bachast 16 August 2012 12: 45
    +2
    Composition about Lenin
    1. tan0472
      tan0472 16 August 2012 14: 56
      +2
      Education reform in action.
      1. Raven1972
        Raven1972 16 August 2012 20: 51
        +1
        The most worthless, in the video laugh those who, in theory, should cry - teachers .... The question is - what kind of laugh? After all, it was you who taught them that way .... am
        1. bachast
          bachast 17 August 2012 20: 02
          0
          And by the way, Lilich G.A., Doctor of Philology, professor at the Department of Slavic Philology at the Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University, Honored Worker of Higher School of the Russian Federation, reads.
          "This is not our city, we cannot have this, because we have Leningrad "
    2. Suvorov000
      Suvorov000 16 August 2012 15: 31
      +2
      I don’t know how I watched it))), lying under the table, from laughter for half an hour my stomach hurt then. That's what our current school is leading to. Students do not even know who Lenin V.I. and what is he so famous for)))). The author of this story has a hundred pluses)
    3. 8 company
      8 company 16 August 2012 16: 18
      0
      Quote: bachast
      Composition about Lenin


      Thanks, laughed to tears. laughing
    4. prispek
      prispek 16 August 2012 17: 55
      +2
      Thanks, Isaac. Laughter and tears.
  15. tan0472
    tan0472 16 August 2012 12: 45
    0
    It would be nice if the author compared Russian workers and workers in England and, for example, Italy. (at the end of the 19th century). To prove that the revolution is not from a bad life, but from the agitation of the liberals of those times.
  16. Isk1984
    Isk1984 16 August 2012 12: 52
    0
    It must be understood that if there had not been a revolution (which is logical), the revanchist sentiments to lose to Germany in 1918 would not have gone nowhere, and Fascism would also be revived and set against Russia, only would tsarist Russia withstand the blows of the Wehrmacht or not? When you clue an alternative story on the clave, do not forget that without the USSR you would hide everything would be fertilizer on the fields of the Fritz ..
    1. I627z
      I627z 16 August 2012 15: 36
      +8
      In 1812, we ground Napoleon’s army, are you sure that his army at that time was worse than the Wehrmacht under Hitler? So it’s not a matter of tsarism and redness, but of Russia as such. We need to UNITE an external stimulus, and not a specific system.
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 17 August 2012 09: 13
      +1
      Without a revolution, there would be no Civil War and much more, the country's population would be much larger. The monarchy in Germany would most likely have been preserved. In general, the Nazis would come to power with this approach - it is not known.
  17. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 16 August 2012 13: 00
    +8
    - Grandfather, how did you live before the revolution?
    - Yes, it’s bad, granddaughters, they lived, there wasn’t enough money for a car ...
    - Grandfather, because there were no cars at that time ...
    - Ah, yes, you see how poorly they lived, even there were no cars ...
  18. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 16 August 2012 13: 02
    +8
    So, in Borovichi, the owners of a ceramic factory of acid-resistant products, engineers, the Kolyankovsky brothers, built for their workers in the village of Velgiya wooden one-story houses with separate exits and personal plots. A worker could purchase this housing on credit. The initial contribution amount was only 10 rubles ...

    It's nice to read about your hometown on the pages of your favorite site. smile
    Another upsets. In pre-revolutionary times, workers at brick factories lived almost better than workers at the Refractories Plant do now. In the unofficial local rating of enterprises where to go to work, the plant takes almost the last place. But the management of the BKO set up cottages for themselves almost on the banks of the Msta River behind a high fence and guards at the gates. This place is popularly called: "Valley of the Beggars"
  19. Rossmk
    Rossmk 16 August 2012 14: 26
    0
    Good article. Fiercely plus.
  20. 12061973
    12061973 16 August 2012 15: 29
    0
    Bunin has a good story on this subject.

    this is a writer; he emigrated in 1917.

    this is a writer; he emigrated in 1917.
  21. yacht
    yacht 16 August 2012 17: 05
    +7
    Cranberries are different including spreading. As we know how to manipulate numbers, I think it’s not necessary to tell. Take, for example, official inflation or the cost of living of modern Russia, does anyone believe these figures? In my opinion, even those who publish them do not believe them.
    As for tsarist Russia, even if we take the period from 1900 to 1917, these were years of continuous strikes, strikes and uprisings (1905), and executions (workers of the Lensky, for example) of workers. Tell me, the workers walked under the bullets and into the gallows from a good life, how are some trying to suck us in here? No, well, think it yourself, why should a well-fed, well-equipped worker climb under bullets and on barricades? Well, it’s not a clear docking. So I see how well-fed workers, who have become fierce from paradise life, after the Bolshoi Theater go to the barricades to beat the faces of the gendarmes ...
    So if one of the modern "experts" put on rose-colored glasses on you, take them off and think about it ... and will help refute your possible misconceptions about the heavenly life of workers in tsarist times, works of contemporaries of that period and elementary logic.
    1. Protey
      Protey 16 August 2012 22: 21
      +1
      I don’t know who climbed the barricades there in 1905 - I wasn’t, but like in Novocherkassk under Khrushchev, Soviet workers living in the most just society rebelled because there was nothing to eat - I remember. And I know how they were shot.
      1. yacht
        yacht 17 August 2012 14: 47
        0
        So the point is that no one will buzz from a good life. But Khrushchev, too, I remember, I remember how in childhood, from the morning for several hours I stood in line for bread and I also remember what joy people had when this idiot was taken off.
        1. Protey
          Protey 17 August 2012 16: 32
          0
          That's right, it was a deal!
  22. rexby63
    rexby63 16 August 2012 18: 45
    +4
    To all lovers of antiquity a la the Russian Empire sample of 1913, I suggest reading the monograph by Yuri Ilyich Kiryanov "The standard of living of the workers of Russia (late XNUMXth - early XNUMXth centuries)"

    And yet - all of you, ardent admirers of Russia of those years, just think once: Why did the revolution take place in 1917, which then turned into the bloodiest massacre in the history of the Russian people.

    Yes, but the article is minus and huge. One-sided, slobbering nonsense
    1. Kapitanyuk
      Kapitanyuk 16 August 2012 23: 40
      +2
      "Why, in 1917, there was a revolution, which then turned into the bloodiest massacre in the history of the Russian people." - firstly, they forgot to put the question mark. Secondly, because of the activities of "revaluationegs" of all stripes, sponsored by all Western countries at once.
      1. rexby63
        rexby63 17 August 2012 16: 49
        0
        "Ravalutionegs" also don't just appear
      2. Radarik606
        Radarik606 18 August 2012 01: 51
        +1
        The "revaluationegs" gathered an army of 3-5 million people, consisting of ordinary workers and peasants, that is, the PEOPLE'S army in the fight against the monarchist counter-armed forces and sometimes with military units of the interventionists ... sponsored only by Germany, and then until 1918
  23. Just
    Just 16 August 2012 19: 47
    +4
    Another fantastic essay of another internet elf who does not know history.
  24. matolyan
    matolyan 16 August 2012 22: 13
    0
    And how much did they swell interestingly? Why is there no such statistics? Where do all these numbers come from ???
  25. Vladimir SU
    Vladimir SU 16 August 2012 22: 15
    -2
    why workers? Russia at that time was an agrarian country and the majority of the population in it were peasants ... There were many KAZAKOV - valiant warriors, plowmen, hard workers .... The revolution (putsch) to no one - not to workers, nor peasants, nor Cossacks, nor intelligentsia was needed ... Seas of blood, millions in exile, enmity, dishonor, human grief, cannibalism, hunger, cold - these are the companions of the Jewish revolution! And dare not reproach me with anti-Semitism! Do you think Hitler was wrong, stupid paranoid - destroying Jews? Do you know the list of those who arrived in belligerent Russia in two sealed wagons in 1917? 95% are Jews? Will you say that this is just an accident? Oh well...
    1. woodman
      woodman 17 August 2012 17: 52
      +2
      And besides KAZAKAV, in Russia there lived: Russians, Germans (koi being Lithuania) Poles, Tatars, Bashkirs, etc. and others.
      This agricultural country supplied half the world with bread, iron, kerosene, meat, fish (!!!) - caviar (!!!). And everywhere who could work, he lived happily (i.e., working with a light, with a song). In the city, these were professional workers (metalworkers, weavers) in a village of the highest category, agricultural specialists (not the current one).
      and so on everywhere. Russia was a country of professionals. And loafers came who were too lazy to work. and they began to say that not working better lives. and (since the bad is easier to accept in human nature) the children began to disobey professional parents, began to say that they did not understand anything in life .... as a result, we still do not respect professionals, and the country is on the verge of collapse ...
      1. Radarik606
        Radarik606 18 August 2012 02: 19
        -1
        I am surprised how much people don’t understand that things like fighting epidemics, illiteracy, unemployment came about thanks to the revolution, they started thinking about ordinary workers, about kindergartens at factories, at the universities compulsory sets of young peasants and workers appeared, and the bike I am surprised about lazy people, a man began to work 8 hours a day instead of 11 and at once lazy, they forbade children to plow at the plants, meaning lazy people, easier working conditions for women and lazy people again !!!

        That's when the bureaucrats introduce absolutely paid medicine and education, plus they increase the official working day to 10, then you will begin to appreciate these benefits of socialism, which were obtained thanks to the revolution in 1917!
    2. revnagan
      revnagan 17 August 2012 23: 18
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir SU
      Do you know the list of those who arrived in belligerent Russia in two sealed wagons in 1917? 95% are Jews?

      Yes, but did you seem to be a guide in this car? Otherwise, where does such awareness come from.
      Quote: Vladimir SU
      Will you say that this is just an accident? Oh well...

      Was there a boy?
  26. REPA1963
    REPA1963 17 August 2012 19: 48
    0
    No, well, the illiterate wrote it all right, but the teacher set five for it, this one !!!!
  27. darkman70
    darkman70 17 August 2012 22: 36
    +4
    These were articles as peasants lived well in the empire, then workers ..
    You read the comments and wonder.
    Yes, of course, the workers lived well. Just skated like cheese in oil. It is not clear how it turned out that the Red Guard was created precisely from the workers, and the workers not only supported the Soviet regime, but were the most staunch and combat-ready part of the Red Army. Paradox.)) If, as some users of the site from above assure, the Soviet government of the workers was supported exclusively by drunks and lazy people, then how could they be able to fight stubbornly? Oh yes ... The Judaic Bolsheviks have been dusting their brains ... Of course, the workers adored factory owners and capitalists. And why not love them? For the 11 hour working day, the workers ate well, lived in mansions, had something to pay for the treatment and education of children (who needed it). Isn't that life? With the Soviet government and can not even compare.))
    The peasants also lived well. Not even good, but rich. Moreover, in 1904, corporal punishment for arrears was abolished. It was a great progress. Not life, but raspberries.))) Apparently already furious with fat, the peasants had nothing to do with this:
    According to various estimates for 1905 - 1907 years. in European Russia from 3 to 4 thousands of noble estates were destroyed - from 7 to 10% of their total. By the number of defeated landlord estates, Saratov, Samara, Tambov, Kursk, Kiev and Chernigov provinces stood out.
    Again, some kind of inconsistency ... It is clear that the peasants were encouraged by the foreign Bolshevik mercenaries for German money.)) The mercenaries apparently stirred up the water in every village, and this was not easy for them, TV and mob. there were no telephones, and the indicated provinces were not included in the line of settledness.))
    Also, soldiers in the army adored officers. After all, the main educational argument was scuffle. What could be better?))) By accidental misunderstanding, the same soldiers did not support the white movement at all. but they supported the Bolsheviks. How so?) Some kind of strange people in Russia ... Well, he doesn’t want to support his benefactors. From the comments of knowledgeable comrades, one thing is clear - in Russia, among workers, peasants and soldiers, drunks and loafers were in high esteem, and all of them obediently obeyed and respected ... The truth is not clear why ..))
    I remembered the lines from Chekhov's story "Vanka". A boy who was given to a shoemaker at the age of 10 writes to grandfather's village: "... the owner beats me with something. And there is no food." This is life! Soviet children could only dream of this.))
    In general, comments on the site are interesting to read. For example, on this thread I learned that in Russia, apart from Russians, there were Germans who, in fact, were Lithuania. No more no less.)))
  28. revnagan
    revnagan 17 August 2012 23: 11
    0
    Dear moderators, if you can’t vote for one author’s posts in an article several times a day, then let’s limit the number of notes — one note from one author for each article per day. So will it be normal?
  29. Vladimir SU
    Vladimir SU 18 August 2012 01: 00
    0
    He was not a guide, but your position or ignorance is amazing!
    Read: http://www.pseudology.org/Bank/PlombVagon85.htm
    There are other sources ... and many!
    1. Radarik606
      Radarik606 18 August 2012 02: 06
      0
      WELL? Then when Hitler was asked permission to create a ROA in 1941 in the fall, he refused, that we once helped Lenin to take power and got the USSR. and help was until 1918 before the Brest-Lithuanian negotiations. And nobody helped to create the 1920 millionth army in 5!
  30. Vladimir SU
    Vladimir SU 18 August 2012 02: 02
    0
    http://www.sotnia.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=287318
    1. Radarik606
      Radarik606 18 August 2012 02: 31
      0
      AND?????? Nothing new, Lenin’s connection with Germany is also obvious as Gaidar’s Chubais’s State Department, only in the first case it breaks after the Brest-Lithuanian world at the very beginning of the revolution and the second continues ....
  31. Swift
    Swift April 13 2017 11: 06
    +1
    However, the use of working time is determined not only by the length of the working day, but also by the number of working days per year. In pre-revolutionary times, there were significantly more holidays — the number of holidays per year was 91, and in 2011, the number of non-working holidays, including New Year holidays, would be only 13 days. Even the presence of 52 Saturdays, which have become inoperative since March 7 of 1967, does not compensate for this difference.


    The law of June 2, 1897, “On the duration and distribution of working time in industrial and mining establishments,” established “non-public” holidays compulsory for all employers (according to the Julian calendar), all of which were Orthodox, with the exception of Tsarist days and the New years, which were considered “declared by the Highest Commandment” (although the Orthodox Church celebrates the feast of the great ones, the Circumcision of the Lord and the memory of St. Basil the Great) on New Year’s Day:

    January 1 - Circumcision of the Lord (also New Year)
    January 6 - Baptism of the Lord
    March 25 - Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
    August 6 - Transfiguration of the Lord
    August 15 - Assumption of the Virgin
    September 8 - Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
    December 25-26 - Christmas days (Christmas)
    Friday and Saturday of Holy Week
    Monday and Tuesday Easter week
    Ascension Day
    second day of the Feast of the Descent of the Holy Spirit

    For workers of the "heterodox faiths" it was allowed not to schedule holidays that were not revered by their religion, but it was possible to schedule other holidays "according to the law of their faith."
    a total of 14 days, and even if from enduring holidays falls on Sunday, there will be no compensation.
    Where does this figure come from 91 days?
  32. Ivan Denezhkin
    Ivan Denezhkin 8 July 2017 08: 58
    0
    I remember in 1988 on television there was an interesting conversation with a former St. Petersburg worker — the host asked him a question — could a revolution have happened in 1913? Worker's answer, never. Even Lenin then wrote that revolution was then not possible. Everything changed the war. If the coup of 17 years had not happened, Russia would have been a completely different country. If, after the death of Stalin, instead of Khrushchev, an educated person would be at the head of the country, he would return the country to a market economy, the country would be different.
  33. Russian1972
    Russian1972 9 July 2017 21: 02
    +1
    I read nonsense and wonder !! I have been working all my life, I am very interested in history and I am amazed by the categorical statements that THERE WAS UNDER THE Czar-Batyushka not so good now. Well, firstly, what is the average salary? This is when they now tell us that the average salary in Russia is 25-30000. We at the enterprise, too, when they are treating about the PERFECT average salary of 18-19000, we also say -A give a breakdown by workers, employees and engineers, in response, silence. Secondly, if we bring the salary of workers in Europe and America to the ruble, it turns out that they received two to four times more (History textbook grade 9). And even now, the share of salary in their profit is up to 60 percent. Thirdly, work time. That generally infuriates this reptile who painted how remarkably reduced working time. What system was ?? Capitalism. And who will believe that all these industrial inspections were not bought in the bud. Only. Or tell you how Siberians are brought in packs of Chinese, not even in Russian, who are injected for a penny and who are hidden in sheds during the arrival of HIGH TESTERS. And like neither the FSB, FSO, FSK, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, National Guard, Prosecutor's Office, not to mention labor inspections, this is not a dream. And this is in the age of the Internet and cell phones, and then that everyone was honest and noble ?? And let someone work for 10 hours, I'm not talking about 12, but not one day, but a YEAR, and at one day off, at best, let's see how he will be in health. The task of the capitalist is maximum profit with a minimum of investments, incl. due to an increase in the working day and a decrease in wages. YES, I believe that there were industrialists invested in the development of PRODUCTION RELATIONS and PRODUCTION FORCES. BUT... they were few in the total mass of production. Fourth, housing. Tips coming to power began what ??? Consolidation of living space. The reason to be indignant ?? Yes, an excuse, but most workers lived in corners, basements, barracks, etc. Remember- WORKING CROPS, a symbol of poverty. In Odessa at the beginning of the 20th century there were even streets on which, by order of the governor, workers were forbidden to walk (they didn’t get rid of faces). And in conclusion. Stop blaming the West for all troubles, etc. Who is to blame for the Pugachev uprising - Jews, Masons, Americans ??? Who is to blame (remember the story) for the uprising in the village of Bezdna, and the riots in Lenzoloto (Lena’s shooting) ???. And who remembers that after the Lena shooting, the Dumtsy came to sort out what had happened, and one of them, struck by that nightmarish content workers, said, “I can only advise you to run away from here wherever your eyes look.” Read the story-the Russian Empire was almost constantly shaken by strikes and unrest in the countryside. Who is to blame? Snickering industrialists or the West ?? Let not the topic, but ... PURCHASING PAYMENTS for land for peasants, after the abolition of serfdom, were written off only in 1905 !!!! What kind power !!! 50 years of payments !! It seems that the article rejoices ONLY THE LIQUID INTELLIGENCE, WHICH CONSIDERS THE RUSSIAN WORKING TAPE which, having fiercely fought into the revolution. REMEMBER - you can’t get a well-fed hard worker by any horseradish to strike, strike or Maidan, if only because he WORKS for his time and rush to throw stones at the police, he will ONLY WHEN HE IS FINALLY CLOSED --- WHEN he will there is nothing to lose but your own chains. And yet, howls will begin now-And what in Soviet times ??? . I'm not talking about the Soviet era, I'm talking about a specific THIS article. NEVER AND ANYTHING happens just JUST. Tomorrow starts today. And if in the case of lawlessness in the host-employee relationship, a social explosion occurs, then ENOUGH to blame the West, the fifth column, etc. they are, yes, they are, but they are just USING the situation. No need to create social tension, there will be no explosion. And finally, -Someone will say- "Here I am the coolest of all, I work and get, and all the other aching losers." So, the State, in addition to everything else, needs to regulate both the economy and working relations. If it does not do this, then there is an imbalance in the direction of a stronger one. And if you feel good and cool now, and you do not care about what is happening around the corner, do not be surprised that tomorrow the new Sharikovs will knock at your house and demand to share everything or even clean it up like some kind of hydra.
  34. Russian1972
    Russian1972 9 July 2017 21: 17
    0
    Statistics is a very tricky thing, with numbers they play like a juggler in a circus with balls. But there are statistics, but there are facts. And when the statistics say that everything is fine, but in fact social tension, then whom to believe ??
  35. Lionov
    Lionov 13 July 2017 00: 23
    0
    It’s interesting why the author didn’t mention the system of fines that existed at every enterprise at that time. They fined literally everything, not for uncleaned boots, so the real salary was lower. My great-grandfather worked at the engine plant, he said that there were enough salaries after all deductions just so that you couldn’t glue the flippers from hunger, cabbage soup with meat was considered a luxury, even in the best years they ate mostly empty porridge and bread with potatoes and cabbage in different ways, butter was too expensive, it was cooked at the crackers, at best, and with the beginning of the First World War we didn’t see this either, but the owner brought pineapples 9 rubles a piece every day, so that the author shouldn’t whistle about the calories from where they came from when the women queued for bread at three nights.
  36. Head Physician
    Head Physician 4 November 2017 22: 58
    +15
    Worker lived well