Military Review

Is dictatorship always bad?

93
Is dictatorship always bad?


Today in the Western world, and not only in it, it is considered that the highest values ​​are personal freedoms of a person, a person. Individualism is thus proclaimed, almost a religion. Is it really the best that mankind has today?

I do not want to stoop to the level of all products of liberalism, namely: same-sex marriage, sex change, gay parades and other things that challenged ethics and morality, we will return to them. I would like a fundamental discussion and reflection in higher categories, for example, are there differences in the pace of development of civilization, technocracy, as well as advances in science and culture from the political regime and form of government? For example, it is well known that the majority of breakthrough technologies in the twentieth century were implemented far from in "democratic" countries. The United States stands apart, but if you calmly approach the assessment of democracy and freedoms in the United States, they didn’t have a standard before the 60s, in the 30s this is the “Eugenica” project, and in 60s the segregation policy. In addition, they did not hesitate to cooperate with Germany, both before and after the war. Ask any liberal today, and he will tell you that he is against the dictatorship regime, but he can stand up for the dictatorship of the Law.

The dictatorship of the Law ... How often we hear this, as an example of a successful government! Today, many Democrats will say this: The dictatorship of the Law is characteristic of both authoritarian states and democratic ones. But the most acceptable and successful in a democratic form, as a variant of the United States with strict laws, but with a crazy tolerance that allows you to burn the Quran and pour out your inflamed fantasy in the form of a video on YouTube. The next question I want to ask you colleagues, is dictatorship always an ideology? So that you can better understand what I mean, I definitely recommend reading this video, namely the excerpt from the movie “Experiment-2” to the end:



As we can see, this video equals the dictatorship and ideology, in this case with fascism. This is a very favorite video of the liberals, which is intended to serve in educational purposes, where for 5 minutes show the suppression of the person and the right to choose a person, etc. But the authors and screenwriters of the film are silent that during the dictatorship, depending on the ideological coloration, in varying degrees, but there were: family values ​​(family, social unit), culture and morality, patriotism, natural tolerance (not about fascism), the cult of science and education , high community of people. The film “Experiment-2” is very convenient for the liberals in the discussion and very difficult for people of pro-Soviet orientation and supporters of the formation of the national idea on the basis of understanding the historical past of Russia. What else is characteristic, under this video, there are almost no ratings and comments, are there really no questions?

Here is another excerpt from the film, more familiar, from the film “Hipsters”, but the same interesting 5 minutes as relevant to the topic:



Here, for 5 minutes, the first young liberals in our country are shown (oh, it was the same time when they were counted on the fingers ..), the gray of Soviet life, and, of course, the same dictatorship and suppression of personality and freedom of choice. What distinguishes this video from the first is not only a funny storyline, but a massive reaction of people. Many “likes”, and support to the Soviet system, some comments are full of posts: “it’s better to be that gray mouse in the audience than the main character of the film”. It is difficult to say what goal the writers of this domestic musical pursued? If we reject the entertainment genre, could it really show all that wretchedness and dullness of Soviet life, and how hard was the “golden” youth, the fathers of the founders of the current movement of online hamsters? But the effect was the opposite; the film is also watched by those who speak with nobility about the USSR.

Returning to the notion of dictatorship in the state and the dictatorship of the Law, are you sure that the latter will preserve identity, identity and culture? Maybe I'm subjective, but the dictatorship of the Law protects the ever-changing trend. For example, yesterday it is the right to an alternative political point of view, today to same-sex marriage and to prohibit the wearing of body crosses (England), then to resist distortions. among them are heterosexual marriages, where mom and dad are still called, not the parent No. 1 and the parent No. 2, and religious people. Incorrect comparison? You know, this Netherlands meeting doesn’t cause any other thoughts:



For me, as a young man who is keen on history, an amazing discovery was that until 80-ies, the Soviet police in its activities exclusively acted up to the point and comma of the then Code of Criminal Procedure and legislation. What's so surprising, you say, because the police, even weapon not always wore!? And the fact that the body and flesh of the skeleton of the dictatorship of the Law was communist ideology, which, in principle, a priori, was supposed to put pressure on the shoulders of Soviet policemen in the process of “political” cases. For example, I was shocked that for the Soviet militia fake witnesses were alien, throwing possessions and unreasonable searches of dissidents in favor of the order from above! Perhaps the whole thing is in the personality of the Minister of the Interior Shelokova, who did not allow the internal methods of work of the KGB. True, it was this idyll before 1981. And so it turns out that the dictatorship of the Law in a given period of time was stronger than the dictatorship of ideology? But at the same time, the dictatorship of the Law in the state is subject to change and transformation by social processes and institutions, and the dictatorship of ideology cements basic human relations, but at the same time sets new benchmarks in the interests not of the individual, but of society and the country as a whole.

Whatever it was, it is safe to say that people together and together reached new heights and horizons, rather than the interests in each of their "cave".
Author:
93 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. Vanek
    Vanek 20 September 2012 07: 06
    0
    Everything is clear, but neither a fig nor clear.

    Explain briefly in Russian, in a nutshell.

    Hello to everyone.



    In the cold land
    Populated from outside
    They land
    Aliens ...

    "Dancing minus"
    1. Trance
      Trance 20 September 2012 08: 06
      +9
      Vanek,Everything is clear, but neither a fig nor clear.

      Explain briefly in Russian, in a nutshell.


      Good morning everyone wink

      Vanya, everything is clear to me personally wink . Each person now has a choice how to live on and raise children. Either we will be erased one by one (a variant of the liberalization of society), or we will rely on our history and restore a great power! We have experience that no one on the planet has — this is the monarchy, until 1917, and socialism until ... (here the question is really debatable, some experts believe that the collapse of the USSR began immediately after the death of I. Stalin, others with 1970s). In general, whoever is able to expound all this experience in his works (historical, political, philosophical) competently and from the point of view of public interest, I think that person will receive the Nobel Prize and the name will remain in history forever.
      Best regards hi
      1. Andrei.B
        Andrei.B 20 September 2012 10: 46
        +2
        First of all, this uncle should put the ordinary citizen of the country in the first place, provide him, free of charge, all the benefits (education, housing, work) and all this should be public. those. level them all, and then - who is much more likely to do so, within the legal field, respectively. secondly, nationalization with elements of a market economy under the transparent control of state control. Unfortunately, we have already gone through all this ... and are unlikely to return, because such an uncle is a utopia in the conditions of the present corrupt reality, so that the smallest official sleeps and sees how to sleep something with the state, thereby the people ...
        1. Konrad
          Konrad 20 September 2012 20: 15
          -1
          Quote: Andrei.B
          All this should be state-owned. those. all level

          "The head swells. Take everything, and divide ..." - Sharikov.
          1. crazyrom
            crazyrom 20 September 2012 23: 50
            0
            Dictatorship is neither good nor bad, it is simply very effective. That is, if the dictator is bad, he will effectively ruin the country (as it is now in North Korea), and if the dictator is good, like Stalin was, or let's say in China now (not just one person, but the dictatorship), or most likely I like Hugo Chavez too , so these people very efficiently put their country in order and rapid prosperity. I personally with two hands for Putin's dictatorship.
            1. s1н7т
              s1н7т 21 September 2012 00: 08
              -5
              Out of your mind ?! The dictatorship of Putin is already 12 years old. It only gets worse. And for 12 years of Stalin, go, already and industry and agriculture would have earned!)))) Read the story. I am categorically against the dictatorship of the Ozerki cooperative over the country! They are poor, the whole country is imprisoned for "kickbacks" and bribes - thanks Putin for this! (((
          2. s1н7т
            s1н7т 21 September 2012 00: 03
            -1
            "Sharikov" ... From your autobiography? laughing
            1. Konrad
              Konrad 21 September 2012 07: 04
              0
              Quote: c1n7
              Sharikov "... From an autobiography?

              Bulgakov. "Heart of a Dog" Probably you don't read books? Too hard?
      2. USNik
        USNik 20 September 2012 20: 48
        0
        In general, whoever is able to expound all this experience in his works (historical, political, philosophical) competently and from the point of view of public interest, I think that person will receive the Nobel Prize and the name will remain in history forever.

        already have:
        book (there is audio) "Project Russia" - a book without an author
        it’s a good thing to sort things out on the shelves, the only thing that annoys is the constant appeal to the Bible and the protrusion of the interests of Orthodoxy (smart and sensible people I think can tolerate this, because the book is really Good!)
    2. Kaa
      Kaa 20 September 2012 08: 51
      +3
      Quote: Vanek
      Explain briefly in Russian, in a nutshell.

      "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from everyone else."
      Winston Churchill.
      Now, when this "best" form has already reached almost everyone, the younger generation begins to search for a new path, and the author is going to try dictatorship. It might not hurt, but it all depends on the personality of the dictator, who it will be, Macedonian or Hitler, Stalin or Trotsky, nuances, however ...
      1. volcano
        volcano 20 September 2012 09: 40
        0
        Quote: Kaa
        "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from everyone else."


        A very tricky phrase .... Democracy is crap, but the rest is generally ...

        That is, people are told that democracy is still good ... wink
        1. Kaa
          Kaa 20 September 2012 14: 51
          0
          Quote: volkan
          That is, people are told that democracy is still good ..

          Baby son came to his father
          And she asked the crumb:
          Democrats - okay?
          Papa (viciously) - BAD!
          At least over the past 20 years of "democracy", such families have only grown in number.
      2. Rink
        Rink 20 September 2012 15: 12
        +1
        Dictatorship - when there is no way to choose what you want, and you get what they give.
        Democracy - when you choose what you want, but you get what they give.


        And if it's no joke, in a difficult time, democracy is death for the country. At critical moments for the destinies of peoples, a dictatorship always comes to power, which mobilizes the interests of free (and too free) individuals "under arms" in the name of saving the entire society. Only a dictatorship can provide the necessary level of control and speed of response of the whole society at this moment. A la ger, com a la ger, like gritsa ...

        Who can imagine democracy in the army ?! what will be the level of combat readiness if the regiment before the attack holds a referendum, and the soldiers - all as one free person - may not fulfill his decisions, but who shy away into the forest, who by the wood? one company will decide on neutrality, the other will go over to the enemy’s side, the third will require the fulfillment of a list of requirements of one hundred points, and until all points are met, it refuses to shoot ...

        Democracy with a controlled level of individual freedom is permissible only in a calm environment, when everything is safe and there are no threats to society.
        A society without control over the level of freedom of individuals is anarchy, Makhnovism. God forbid we all live in such times! This is a cave level of relations: who has more biceps and / or a club - he and the elite, they are both smart and fair. And the rest of the personality is free while they are out of its field of vision.

        therefore the best form of government depends on the situation.

        PS By and large, the form of government is absolutely unprincipled. The main thing is the observance of the rule of law in society. There must be a law, and it must be the same for all and be strictly implemented. And from the point of view of the average person, it does not matter at all who determines the course of the state’s movement and establishes these laws: the queen, parliament or Pinochet. The average person (people) will evaluate at the household level: bread, milk and meat fell in price - well. No health problems - great. Is there enough salary to go on vacation and to learn children? Fine! If you went on vacation to Turkey or to Fiji, and you meet respect there, when you call your country - finally super! So the ruler is well done.
        And who is he - a Politburo of 70 people, Tsar Ivan the Terrible or dictator Stalin, tell me - doesn’t he care? !!!
        1. Genry
          Genry 20 September 2012 18: 41
          +1
          RINK I support !!

          But let's look at the example of America. Each organizational layer has its own principle. In ideology - a dictatorship. In sexual relations - democracy. In business, anarchy. AT....
          Total: they believe that they have democracy, and we consider them ...
          In short: we people are part of nature, and nature loves balance (I don’t remember who said it first, maybe I? winked ) Only with a balance (democracy-anarchy-dictatorship) will human society feel comfortable.

          And this balance depends on the situation (war-peace-booze).

          I am for the balance !!!
      3. REPA1963
        REPA1963 20 September 2012 23: 46
        -2
        Trotsky was not a dictator ...
        1. REPA1963
          REPA1963 22 September 2012 22: 10
          0
          But he really was not a dictator, why minus that, you don’t know history ....
    3. ughhh
      ughhh 20 September 2012 12: 35
      0
      Hello.
      In a nutshell: the basis for uniting people into a state should be ideas, and then laws.
      1. Liberti
        Liberti 20 September 2012 15: 05
        -1
        Quote: ughhh
        In a nutshell: the basis for uniting people in the state should be ideas,

        but not a dictatorship ... so it is worth continuing. And there can be no dictatorship of the law, as the author writes, the supremacy of law, but not a dictatorship, so a priori there can be no dictatorship under the law.
        ps
        Freedom and democracy are inevitable ...
    4. Fox
      Fox 20 September 2012 13: 33
      +2
      don’t worry! live in good conscience! and don’t clog the brain with trash and various terms.
      1. Vanek
        Vanek 21 September 2012 05: 42
        0
        Well, it seems clear. Thanks to everyone.

        Regards, Ivan. hi
  2. bask
    bask 20 September 2012 07: 10
    +2
    I didn’t understand what was the photograph of Yuri Gagarin here. He definitely didn’t want to be a dictator, but in general a dictatorship is Where is the guarantee that the dictator doesn’t, the roof goes, Real people's power is the way to the country's success.
    1. Homo
      Homo 20 September 2012 07: 27
      +1
      The roof can go with any ruler.
    2. Nevsky
      20 September 2012 07: 40
      +1
      Read between the lines a question to the reader: "dictatorship - progress in science and technology?"
    3. Pula
      Pula 20 September 2012 08: 35
      0
      Quote: bask
      did not understand and where does the photograph of Yuri Gagarin

      Ah, what kind of guy he was, no, he wasn’t, and he defeated death ... Apparently, the photo is an epigraph to the article. For stupid - fashion 60s. For the wise, a dictatorial representative in orbit.
      The article is not about anything.
    4. lelyk72
      lelyk72 20 September 2012 09: 39
      +1
      Gagarin is one of the symbols of the achievements of the Soviet Government. Therefore he is here.
    5. volcano
      volcano 20 September 2012 09: 42
      +1
      Quote: bask
      Real people's power is the way to the success of the country.


      But could you expand this pearl ......... People’s power is how ???
      What is it based on ??? how is carried out ??? and how exactly the PEOPLE MANAGES THE COUNTRY ..... and if you can some sort of example ..... even from the past ...... well, at least one, that I would be stupid to understand and see clearly ...
    6. Rink
      Rink 20 September 2012 15: 56
      +1
      Quote: bask
      .... Real people's power is the way to the success of the country.

      This is when cooks run the state?
      Or is it something like a Novgorod veche: we go out to the square and yell until hoarse, until we shout out the rest?

      Power is specific decisions and actions, and they always infringe on the interests of a certain group of the population (that is, someone will always be against: either pensioners, or oligarchs). Someone must make these decisions, and someone must force the laws of those who do not want to fulfill them to be implemented (and there will always be such ones). And if you have to to force disagreeing comply with the law, then what's the difference how to call it - "the dictatorship of the law" or "the rule of law"?

      Another question: dictator Stalin, who brought the USSR after the devastation of the civil war to the level of a world-class power with space technologies - "people's power"? (I still found a time when a lot of cars drove in Ukraine with one or even two portraits of Stalin - that is, the common people for some reason loved and remembered the "bloody monster" ...)
      Or is the current Ukrainian parliamentary-presidential republic (formally - everything is absolutely consistent with the idea of ​​democracy), which all the people hate - this is "people's power"?


      Explain what is "people's power" in your understanding and how it works?
      1. REPA1963
        REPA1963 20 September 2012 23: 48
        0
        You do not like how the cook manages the state? Do you think the guards manage better ... And you have never had democracy in Ukraine like in Russia either ....
    7. Konrad
      Konrad 20 September 2012 20: 18
      0
      Quote: bask
      Real people's power is the way to the success of the country.

      Democracy (dr. Greek. Δημοκρατία - “power of the people”
  3. valokordin
    valokordin 20 September 2012 07: 11
    0
    The article is controversial, but interesting. Remember the law (the dictatorship of the law), this is the will of the ruling class elevated to the law. Therefore, it is fair to say that law in Russia is the will of United Russia, elevated to the law. Naturally, the ideological dictatorship unites the state, makes it stronger. The liberal model erodes society, crushes the state, and deprives it of its will to resist. In the USA there is no democracy, there is a dictatorship of the dollar.
  4. Karish
    Karish 20 September 2012 07: 14
    +2
    It is not clear the author what I wanted to say. There is no general completeness, that is to say, a fundamental conclusion.
    Is dictatorship so good or bad? I think for short breakthroughs in certain areas and during difficult periods of state’s life, but not in the distant future. It’s like running, for short distances - dictatorship, for long - still democracy. History has proven this. Not a single state with a dictatorship has lived long. Of course, you can interpret the democracies of the same USA - that is the same kind of dictatorship, but we are talking about a pure definition without being distracted by the nuances. If * democracy * - then as in Belarus and it is desirable to be the father of the father, if * dictatorship *, then as in Sweden laughing
    1. Nevsky
      20 September 2012 07: 35
      +1

      It is not clear the author what I wanted to say. There is no general completeness, that is to say, a fundamental conclusion.

      Would you like any conclusions? The purpose of my article is to wonder! fellow
    2. valokordin
      valokordin 20 September 2012 08: 39
      +5
      The dictatorship of Old Man Lukashenko is a necessary measure in the face of an onslaught from the west and from the east. Go to Belarus, ask the people, not the orange intellectuals, and everything will become clear. It is interesting from a historical point of view, like Karish, how long in what country was democracy, excluding England
    3. tan0472
      tan0472 20 September 2012 09: 12
      +3
      Quote: Karish
      Not a single state with a dictatorship lived long

      Please provide the facts. For example, Romanov’s Russia is 300 years old. And what kind of democracy has existed continuously for 300 years?
      1. Rink
        Rink 20 September 2012 16: 11
        +2
        Quote: tan0472
        ... And what kind of democracy has existed continuously for 300 years?

        Not even that.
        Where was at least one democracy ?! At least one year ...
        Democracy is "MYTH"!
  5. Isk1984
    Isk1984 20 September 2012 07: 14
    +8
    Yes, the USSR is not a dictatorship of the Law, it is a dictatorship of Justice, nowhere else is there anything like it in the world and it is very difficult to repeat, even the words of the songs "and today, what did you do for tomorrow" say a lot, but I'm ashamed that I wasted 91 years, that everyone they kept silent then, or rather, not all some ugly guys ran with tricolors under the tanks, even three idiots climbed, and there was more personal freedom in the USSR than in our times, to realize a dream the young man was given all the benefits of a powerful state, where in the end he could become anyone from an astronaut to an outstanding scientist ...
    1. Homo
      Homo 20 September 2012 07: 29
      +1
      With two hands FOR !!!
    2. Konrad
      Konrad 20 September 2012 20: 25
      0
      Quote: Isk1984
      he could become anything from an astronaut to an outstanding scientist ....

      "And if you were born a baobab, you will be a baobab for a thousand years until you die." - V. Vysotsky.
  6. Normal
    Normal 20 September 2012 07: 23
    +3
    I also did not understand something. Does the author call us to the dictatorship of the law or simply to the dictatorship? Touches the opinion of the author about the Soviet police. Have you seen enough Soviet films?
    In my opinion, the dictatorship of the law is necessary, and for all, and especially for the elite and leadership. The author, in my opinion, is trying to convince us that enough political dictatorship (understandably under whose leadership) will fail. Dictatorship is necessary during the war, and in peacetime it is a direct path to stagnation and stagnation.
    1. Nevsky
      20 September 2012 07: 36
      +1
      There is truth in your words, thanks for the rating.
    2. Rink
      Rink 20 September 2012 16: 09
      +1
      Quote: Normal
      I also did not understand something. The author calls us to the dictatorship of the law or simply to the dictatorship? ...

      No, the author, tired of the realities of democracy, begins to turn on his brains and filter the bazaar "about democratic values" and the boundaries of "personal freedom". There seems to be no call for a dictatorship yet, there is a thought out loud: - "Is democracy absolutely good, how have they been bothering us for so many years ?!"

      And about "freedom of the individual" - the main value of democracy - I have always liked the thought of Nietzsche from his "Zarathustra". I don’t remember literally, but the point is that it’s important, not that from which you are free. Important for what you are free.
      1. Normal
        Normal 20 September 2012 19: 13
        0
        Quote: Skating rink
        It is important why you are free.

        Good evening, Igor.
        Discussions about democracy remind me of the well-known statements: "I have not read the books of Solzhenitsyn. But I condemn ...." That is, we all judge what we did not see, did not know and what in fact does not exist. After all, democracy is the rule of the people. No where, no country has this. Well, unless Switzerland, with its constant referendums on any occasion, has elements of this very democracy.
        But what is there? The power of capital, the power of bureaucracy, the power of the military and special services, and so on.
        So why are we so violently and avidly scolding this very democracy? Because people who called themselves democrats and liberals set themselves the task of redistributing state and, in fact, public property in their favor. They succeeded, but what has democracy to do with it? What does the power of the people have to do with it? Savvy businessmen, taking advantage of the naivety and ignorance of the majority of the population and hiding behind beautiful slogans about democracy, made a big hapok. Then they put on guard their interests, as it seemed to them an obedient president, and he announced that liberalism and democracy are a great evil. Now they will blow in both ears that a war is about to happen, we are in a hostile environment and a dictatorship is needed. All. We have arrived ... And we have never had any "realities of democracy".
    3. Konrad
      Konrad 20 September 2012 20: 28
      +1
      Quote: Normal
      Does the author call us to the dictatorship of the law or simply to the dictatorship?

      Law - YES! But not some kind of bloodsucker, although for some, if there is a guaranteed bowl of pottage and a glass of vodka, this is happiness.
  7. Samuraisinto
    Samuraisinto 20 September 2012 07: 27
    -2
    the idol of Christianity — Jesus — went against the dictatorship — he did not put on a Jewish hat .... we know the result ... the path of the gods is not sweet but bewitching
    1. Pula
      Pula 20 September 2012 08: 37
      -1
      Yes, already at that time a Jew was not reconciling with the Jews for the sake of victory over the Romans.
      1. Samuraisinto
        Samuraisinto 20 September 2012 08: 40
        -3
        forgive me but was not a Jew, because Judas was a disciple of Isa and Judas sold Isa for 33 pieces of silver
  8. bask
    bask 20 September 2012 07: 36
    +2
    The word democracy is not convenient to pronounce somehow. In Russia, this is already an obscene word Blagodorya, a young reformer-libesral, I agree the dictatorship should only be, DICTATURE OF THE LAW. And not an individual, or a party.
    1. baskoy
      baskoy 20 September 2012 09: 09
      +2
      And who "writes" the laws? Democracy, in the true sense of the word, is not possible in principle. For the current "democracy" the key word is individualism and the reduction of this very individual by correctly selected "freedoms" to the level of a well-fed, stupid working cattle. Assange to the gallows, and pussy-ashek to the Sakharov Prize. If a dictatorship contributes to the all-round education of the entire population, then glory to it. If, after 20 years of "democracy", school graduates do not know elementary things and their dear is either to guards or to thieves of various stripes, then where are we going?
  9. bairat
    bairat 20 September 2012 08: 10
    -6
    For me, "communist propaganda" is more of a dirty word than liberal or democracy. I remember those piles of newspapers in which only the last pages were read. And on TV, the Secretary General's speech for half a day, then a ballet, a cartoon for children for adults a film and that's it, lights out. Who wants to go back to this slag can live a couple of months in North Korea, Soviet carbon copy.
    1. Homo
      Homo 20 September 2012 08: 23
      +2
      One-sided look at those years.
    2. valokordin
      valokordin 20 September 2012 08: 47
      +2
      Bairat, you probably didn’t read Soviet newspapers and books, and the secretary general’s speech didn’t last half a day, if you vaguely remember something, then compare who you see on 50 TV channels every hour, half an hour of news broadcasts. And you were not in North Korea and do not know that despite objective and subjective difficulties, all citizens of the DPRK are provided with comfortable housing at the rate of 36 square meters per person. Despite all sorts of threats, they do not lick ass democrats. Apparently you are well democratically propagandized.
      1. bairat
        bairat 20 September 2012 10: 08
        0
        As he didn’t read, his mother was a communist, the position obligated, every communist had to subscribe to the truth, party life and other crap. I tried to read them, half a page is the maximum that was enough for me, that is still a billiard.
        all citizens of the DPRK are provided with comfortable housing at the rate of 36sq.m per person.
        Well, go ahead for nostalgia, live there for half a year, refresh your memories.
      2. Konrad
        Konrad 20 September 2012 20: 32
        +1
        Quote: valokordin
        all DPRK citizens are provided with comfortable housing

        When to eat?
      3. Bigriver
        Bigriver 21 September 2012 16: 23
        0
        ... you probably did not read Soviet newspapers and books, and the speech of the Secretary General did not last half a day ...
        Sorry, I’ll get in.
        But, in the 80s, I not only read the first ones, but also took a direct part in their creation.
        If you write on the front page, a reference to the latest decisions of the party and government is mandatory.
        Do you know how to draw up a monthly plan for each publication department?
        It will be interesting, I’ll tell you.
    3. lelyk72
      lelyk72 20 September 2012 09: 46
      0
      At that time, society had an IDEA. Now it is not and is not expected, each for himself.
      By the way, many films of the Soviet era are still viewed with a bang. The overwhelming majority of today only look at the premiere. Minus to you.
      1. bairat
        bairat 20 September 2012 10: 13
        +1
        Yes, please minus, it does not bother me.
        I do not want to offend, but it seems to me that IDEA is needed for people who lack their ideas. I have already passed all these collective crazies under the slogan “Peace to the whole world,” enough for me.
    4. Uncle
      Uncle 20 September 2012 10: 01
      +1
      Quote: bairat
      For me, "communist propaganda" is more of a curse than liberal or democracy.
      For me, as for any Christian, too.
      1. Isk1984
        Isk1984 20 September 2012 17: 34
        -1
        You Christians have ruined so many people since the Inquisition that in your place would have kept silent humane ....
  10. Pula
    Pula 20 September 2012 08: 50
    +1
    Time turns the present into History. History gives an assessment of personality. Dictatorship and progress are always together. Man is selfish and lazy, and he must be forced to accept the new.
    Genghis Khan and discipline. Peter 1 and potatoes. Washington and the USA.
    And the higher the stakes, the more human blood flows.
    1. Samuraisinto
      Samuraisinto 20 September 2012 08: 53
      0
      Genghis Khan and Munich where he lost the battle of Peter 1 and just above Munich. Washington before the African came again Anglo-Saxons in power
  11. Uncle
    Uncle 20 September 2012 08: 59
    -3
    In Russia there can be only one dictatorship - autocracy. In other countries, let it be at least, On this territory God has established Orthodoxy and the Tsar of the Orthodox. And communism has its origins in Satanism, no matter what guise it is dressed in, its father does business.
    1. not good
      not good 20 September 2012 09: 45
      +2
      The autocracy has one drawback - no one knows which regular monarch will hammer a bolt in the country
      1. Uncle
        Uncle 20 September 2012 10: 02
        -1
        Quote: Negoro
        no one knows which regular monarch will hammer a bolt on the country

        Unfortunately, you are right, but Russia has no other way.
    2. Svobodny
      Svobodny 20 September 2012 10: 06
      0
      Quote: Uncle
      In Russia there can be only one dictatorship - autocracy

      And only one democracy is the same autocracy. Uncle, I support you! It is a pity that unity on this issue never comes. We are led away. All talk about the benefits of dictatorship or democracy is a transfusion from empty to empty. This is only a topic for professional political science or philosophical debate. And we have only one path - Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality. Dictatorship, democracy, communism and so on - these are other concepts that confuse our consciousness and are historically harmful to us.
    3. Isk1984
      Isk1984 20 September 2012 17: 37
      0
      You’re probably joking so peculiarly, I don’t perceive your post differently, or you’re taking Communication with God ....
  12. tan0472
    tan0472 20 September 2012 09: 26
    +3
    The captain on the ship is a dictator. On another it is impossible. There is no debate in the sea of ​​debate. Disastrously ends. Maritime laws are written in blood.
    Restoring order to democratic methods in Russia is noticeable decades. Decades continuous and systematic work. No external interference. With external interference - perhaps hundreds of years. Russia may not have this time.
    Dictatorship allows you to solve big problems in a short time. (without any debate, courts, approvals, struggle against non-enforcement and reprimands to ministers).
    1. Konrad
      Konrad 20 September 2012 20: 36
      0
      Quote: tan0472
      Dictatorship allows you to solve big problems in a short time.

      Big tasks - big blood. There is no man, there are masses.
  13. sergo0000
    sergo0000 20 September 2012 09: 29
    +1
    Plus, at least for the fact that the author internally set out to find this ideal way of governing a state that has been searched for by all reasonable and honest people with god in their hearts for more than a thousand years! I think that the more such thinking young people will be not only our country, and on the whole planet, - faster together, humanity will find a way not to turn our mother Earth into one continuous cemetery of living creatures flying in the Solar System and life in general!
  14. Bigriver
    Bigriver 20 September 2012 09: 45
    0
    The article sets up a philosophical mood. And it is right! Why live? For the momentary, growth of consumption, individual "want", or for their land, children of their near and distant, a sense of their truth, their belonging to the people and family.
    IMHO, there are two visible extremes. Western, where everything is for a living individual NOW, and Confucian (Chinese), where people think for centuries and think in a harmonious, right society.
    Dilemma: am I myself a projection who will die with me, or am I part of a large project?
    IMHO, the 20th century showed that long motivation is more viable.
  15. aksakal
    aksakal 20 September 2012 09: 47
    +1
    An article of a philosophical plan, questions of a philosophical nature have been raised, I will accordingly and philosophically comment on it -))).
    All these reflections - dictatorship are we or not dictatorships, and the dictatorship has sat down - is it bad or good? For me, eggs are not worth it. I come here from the most abstract positions, in general from the level of relations "system - its constituent elements." I think this approach is correct. And from this level, I reason that any state is a system of elements, in this case, people who have united in a system to achieve their goals, the achievement of which is difficult to achieve in a fragmented form. The most abstract and generalized goal is to save the energy of the elements during operation. When the system appeared, for its successful functioning and to achieve the goals elements set by the total desire, it is endowed with some powers, including the right to destroy those elements within the system itself that interfere or may interfere with the achievement of the system of its goals, which ultimately are the total goal all elements. And in this sense, it turns out that the System is for elements, not elements for the System.
    But it so happens that the System forgets that the System is for elements, and not vice versa, and begins to pursue its goals, which do not coincide with the total goal of the elements, i.e. the goals of the System begin to prevail over the goals of the elements. And a dictatorship arises when such a prevalence of the interests of the system passes a critical level, plus when the system actively begins with its powers, and especially the right to destroy those elements within the system that interfere or may interfere with the achievement of the system of its goals. That’s what dictatorship is for me, and what “izm” it is called is not important, or rather, not important at all. With such a rebirth of the System, its days are numbered.

    Continuing the post
    Now we illustrate with an example. The USSR was created as a system to achieve the goal called “communism”. In those years, this was really the desire of most of the elements, at least the stronger (and therefore victorious) parts of it. Then the elements in the total desire, in any case the key and significant elements, changed their minds about achieving “communism” - this was expressed in the popularity of jokes about communism, they had a different total desire, but the system continued to operate contrary to and continued to try the goals for which it was born. In this sense, the System was a dictatorship for me. And the result was not long in coming. And although the humpback has nothing to do with it, it is necessary to somehow personify such an unfortunate event as the death of the USSR, and therefore let the humpback be to blame - I only favor it, I will only note that I am not bloodthirsty, it’s just because of our human nature.
    But is Russia really a dictatorship? Let us denote the total desire of its constituent elements. It sounds so short - Great Russia. Those. Russia with all the attributes of a great power - a great political weight and the same global influence, a powerful economy, a powerful army, and more. Does the system act according to this total desire of its constituent elements? Of course. This is the defense of Syria, and attempts to create a Eurasian Union, and the allocation of powerful funds for the military-industrial complex. How well the System works is a question from another opera, let's not interfere with flies with cutlets. It is possible that it is not very successful, but something else is important for us here - that in the definition of dictatorship I have given, Russia is not a dictatorship at the moment. It is not a dictatorship, and that’s it.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 20 September 2012 09: 48
      -1
      Is Amer a dictatorship? It's hard for me to say. I do not know the total desire of all amers. If it sounds like this: “we want to live as good as our fathers did in the recent past, and how our System will achieve this, we don’t care”, then the Amer system is not a dictatorship. Then there is simply banal competition between two large systems of elements for a place under the Sun on a small clay ball called Earth. Which of the systems I support is understandable. And all these reflections "are we a dictatorship or not a dictatorship?" into the furnace. These are purely human chips, invented for what it was for what to get to the point of a competing system and on this basis to solve it. In short, all these "isms" from the evil one -))).
    2. tan0472
      tan0472 20 September 2012 10: 25
      0
      Quote: aksakal
      And although the humpback has nothing to do with it, it is necessary to somehow personify such an unfortunate event as the death of the USSR, and therefore let the humpback be to blame

      If it were not for rags in power, then there would be no Great French or October Revolution. And even more so the collapse of the USSR. Personalities make history.
      You write that "Then the elements in the total desire, in any case, the key and weighty elements changed their minds to achieve" communism " and the USSR allegedly collapsed from this.
      But what about the "Yes, yes, no, yes" referendum? The majority of the population may not want to build communism, but they were not going to ruin the USSR.
      The USSR was destroyed by a "group of comrades" standing "on top". Who by their actions, and who and inaction.
      Collapsed to gain more personal power for yourself.
      And time proves that the "ruined", in the end, won, but the majority of the people did not.
      And how many victims from interethnic conflicts, wars and low-quality products (in particular vodka) did not survive the "dawn of democracy" in the post-Soviet space "?
      If the USSR were reformed like China (wisely), then now China would remain a regional power, and the USSR would flood the whole world with its goods (if not rags, then certainly TVs and refrigerators). And without "building communism in one, separately taken country." hi
      1. bairat
        bairat 20 September 2012 10: 41
        +2
        The fact of the matter is that the communists did not have the courage (or intelligence) to reform the country, they rested on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, a step aside - "shooting". And they held on to it until the stop, until the country fell, and there, on the rubble, whoever just jumped out, the process went uncontrollable.
        1. tan0472
          tan0472 20 September 2012 10: 51
          +1
          Quote: bairat
          The fact of the matter is that the Communists did not have the courage (or the mind) to reform the country

          Not the Communists didn’t have enough, but the people brought up in submission didn’t have the will.
        2. Uncle
          Uncle 20 September 2012 11: 16
          0
          They still reformed it. This we all see. Someone pushed away from the feeder, in opposition.
        3. aksakal
          aksakal 20 September 2012 12: 42
          0
          Quote: bairat
          The fact of the matter is that the communists did not have the courage (or intelligence) to reform the country, they rested on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, a step aside - "shooting". And they held on to it until the stop, until the country fell, and there, on the rubble, whoever just jumped out, the process went uncontrollable.

          - I do not agree. Read my answer to Tanu0472, just the Chinese rested, and therefore are still on horseback.
          1. bairat
            bairat 20 September 2012 12: 57
            0
            I do not agree either. The Chinese did not just rest but adjusted to the realities. Communist businessmen, owners of factories and steamboats, a market economy - Karl Marx in his grave turned over from such a symbiosis.
            1. aksakal
              aksakal 20 September 2012 13: 18
              0
              Quote: bairat
              I do not agree either. The Chinese did not just rest but adjusted to the realities. Communist businessmen, owners of factories and steamboats, market economy - Karl Marx in his grave turned over from such a symbiosis

              - Bayrat, still read carefully.
              Symbiosis is possible, and deviation from ideology is impossible, because they are fraught with catastrophe. Amer is also cool and stubborn rest against democracy, even despite the obvious facts of their democratization. The Chinese have adapted to the realities of fact, ideologically - not a single gram has been adjusted and are not going to do this. Try to get the gist of my message. I understand a lot of words and buccaff, as a result, I didn’t make it clear, but try
              1. bairat
                bairat 20 September 2012 13: 44
                +1
                I’m trying, delving into it, but still I don’t understand: to call black white is ideological impregnability. Then the Russian Federation can be renamed the USSR and calmly rest assuring that we have developed socialism and communism is on the way. These are all words, you need to look at the facts. And they are such that China made a smooth drift into capitalism, took useful things both here and there and pulled ahead. But in the USSR it was impossible to stutter even about private property and market relations, they were burnt out on their obstinacy.
                1. aksakal
                  aksakal 20 September 2012 15: 46
                  0
                  Quote: bairat
                  I’m trying, delving into it, but still I don’t understand: to call black white is ideological impregnability. Then the Russian Federation can be renamed the USSR and calmly rest assuring that we have developed socialism and communism is on the way. These are all words, you need to look at the facts. And they are such that China made a smooth drift into capitalism, took useful things both here and there and pulled ahead. But in the USSR it was impossible to stutter even about private property and market relations, they were burnt out on their obstinacy.

                  - Sorry, stop. ". And they are such that China made a smooth drift into capitalism ”- we were the first to drift! In 1985, the law "on state enterprises" was issued; a little later, the law "on cooperatives." Those who, too, already have aksakal by age, please confirm. These laws have already given such rights that you can start talking about a drift into capitalism with them. He himself used this law “On Cooperatives”, bought ordinary white cotton T-shirts, inscribed on them in English or any thread of karateka jumping, looked at the ceiling, greyhound and mark up 10 times, or slightly and mark up only five, made a decision and went to the bazaar. And it all diverged like hot cakes! There were good times. Not like now - you almost kiss the customer on the heels to get an order. This is for yours. "And in the USSR it was impossible even to stutter about private property and market relations, they were burnt up on their obstinacy." We didn’t rest against anything! And the cooperative was essentially a private enterprise.

                  China began to drift after us. Only we drifted far and called white white, this is your terminology. That is, they recognized our official ideology as untenable and recognized a departure from it. And just on this burned! And if, after all these laws, the leadership would firmly declare to the population - “guys, this is so weak for you that you could realize yourself more fully, but don’t forget, we were and remain a communist power, and the USA is still our most fierce enemy, in general we remain faithful to Lenin’s cause, but whoever is making progress or wants something different is a step forward, we’ll go to that wall and we’ll shoot! ”, so we would still be the USSR and we wouldn’t have anything. And there would be no current lawlessness of the States. So what if the USSR would not have been socialist in fact for a long time, it means absolutely nothing! In China, this is exactly the case.
                  Ideology - even though only words, have magical powers. Therefore, he called ideology a needle of Kashchei.
                  1. Rink
                    Rink 20 September 2012 16: 31
                    0
                    Quote: aksakal
                    .... - we were the first to drift! In 1985, the law "on state enterprises" was issued; a little later, the law "on cooperatives." ....

                    No, at first there was Lenin’s NEP. Without any departure from ideology, everything is purely pragmatic. NEP solved the problem - NEP turned off.

                    China did not depart from ideology.
                    He just develops it. Lenin modified Marx, Stalin specified Lenin. China does not perceive communism / socialism as an ossified dogma, and better debugs the economic machine of socialism in accordance with the requirements of the current moment and its capabilities, invents new mechanisms ....
                    He lives and moves shorter, and is not going to die.

                    .... and well done!
                  2. bairat
                    bairat 20 September 2012 17: 24
                    0
                    This law on cooperation would be adopted in the 70s, and the Politburo had such proposals, to give the collective farmers the land, to do everything smoothly, without shock therapy, a fairy tale would be not a country. And they took him on the last gasp of the USSR, you can’t help the dead with poultices.
                    1. aksakal
                      aksakal 20 September 2012 18: 12
                      +1
                      Quote: bairat
                      This law on cooperation would be adopted in the 70s, and the Politburo had such proposals, to give the collective farmers the land, to do everything smoothly, without shock therapy, a fairy tale would be not a country. And they took him on the last gasp of the USSR, you can’t help the dead with poultices.
                      - and here I agree with you.
                      It was necessary to do this on time and without ideological digressions. Do you think the Chinese did not press on Deng Xiaoping, like, said "A", say "B"? I mean, since you allowed private property, so admit the failure of the communist ideology! They pressed so hoo! We even went to the square, I forgot what it’s called. So it was in this square that Dan said "NO!" so firmly that those who wanted to hear the letter "B" calmed down for a long time, still shaking in the kitchens under the table. It's simple: economically, and indeed in fact, you can do whatever you want, but preferably in full adequate with the situation, but in ideology - not a step back! And silly questions like "you are doing this, it goes against what you are declaring!" not answering or chattering. It's simple. We now see this both in America and the Chinese - won, and Katok confirms that China has not abandoned its ideology. As long as you stand your ground, you have not lost.
                      And as for the NEP - I can agree, but with the caveat - the NEP - it would be good for the population, but then there would be no such scientific and technical breakthrough, we would not be the first in space. But the population is well-fed and happy. Stalinist politics redirected investments from the development of the consumer economy to military-innovative ones, this is my opinion.
      2. aksakal
        aksakal 20 September 2012 12: 40
        0
        Quote: tan0472
        Personalities make history.

        Quote: tan0472
        The USSR was destroyed by a "group of comrades" standing "on top". Some by their actions, and who by their inaction. Took apart for more personal power for yourself

        - Something you have set, sorry, emotional statements, moreover, contradicting each other. On the one hand, personality is everything. Those. as if one humpback had decided everything and, on this basis, the conclusion “the personality decides everything” - and this is a long-standing and still unresolved scientific debate - about the role of the personality in history. On the other hand, a large group of comrades decided everything. So who? - Still, humpback alone or a group of comrades? This is far from the same thing. I will explain. When in the above post I say, “in any case, the winning part of the elements”, I mean that any system consists of subsystems already competing among themselves within the system. The world is fractal. And these subsystems consist of subsystems competing among themselves within the subsystem. Etc.
        So, this “group of comrades” is the subsystem, in this case, the winning subsystem, and the humpback is just her performer, concentrator and voicer of her will. And as a person of humpback - no one and his name - no one. It was not the person of the hunchback who decided, but one of the most powerful subsystems who decided, simply in the face of the humpback and through him.
        By referendum. To move away from communist ideology and at the same time preserve the USSR is a utopia. Below, both DMB and the author of the article indicate the importance of ideology. In this case, what is ideology? Needle Kashchei. Yes, that same fabulous character. When I write "System", I mean a non-linear system, and human systems are not different. Such systems have a peculiarity - on the one hand, it can withstand an arbitrarily large impact, and on the other, it can die from an arbitrarily small impact. The USSR withstood the monstrous influence of Germany, but could not withstand the impact on an ideological point like "we are moving away from the concept of the class struggle and recognize the priority of universal values." And could not stand it. The needle was broken. But the Germans did not know about the needle, poor things.
        And here is another example - China. You will laugh, but China in fact, especially if we compare the contribution of private and state companies to the national GDP, is a capitalist power. But ideologically, he recognizes this? Just something to ascertain a fait accompli is necessary. But do not wait! “We remain committed to the invincible course of the great MAO!” Something like that. They don’t let their needle in. And until they let them in, China will live and be considered a communist power, although in fact it is already capitalist. -)))). For me, China in the light of the above post is a dictatorship. But this is IMHO. What are the total mood of the Chinese - I do not know.
        1. tan0472
          tan0472 20 September 2012 18: 33
          0
          Quote: aksakal
          So who? - Still, humpback alone or a group of comrades?

          And a group of comrades - what can not be individuals?
          Quote: aksakal
          The world is fractal.

          Fractally. Subsystem. Nonlinear system. Why such cleverness. Are you a mathematician? Trying to explain everything with a slide rule? You will begin to use something like the dispersion of society, the transcendence of consciousness, the distructiveness of liberal values, etc. A bush is a bush. Although it can be said that a bush is a collection of branches and leaves. Yes, even to say it in Latin.
          I am probably not worthy to have a discussion with such an educated person. Therefore, round off. hi
          1. aksakal
            aksakal 20 September 2012 20: 16
            0
            Quote: tan0472
            And a group of comrades - what can not be individuals?
            - personality. But a group of personalities is already a system, because between them there are some kind of interpersonal relations, some kind of mutual obligations, some kind of desire to create impressions ... All this distorts the behavior of individuals almost beyond recognition. Hence the surprise of the ancient Greek or ancient Roman sages who noticed this feature. "! Each senator individually is a virtue itself, but the entire Senate is itself a product of hell." It cannot be that you would not notice this. Even at school, here's a kid - you meet one-on-one with him - one behavior, at school, when he is among his classmates - another. Personalities have nothing to do with it - when you are dealing with a group, you are dealing with a group, not with a set of personalities. and this means that a group desire will be voiced to you, which may not coincide with the desire of any individual from the same group. They ask that two bandits have met. From what moment are these two bandits, and from what moment - already an organized criminal group, i.e. already a criminal system? And from the moment when they took obligations to each other with the division of functions. Two elements have established a connection between themselves - this is from graph theory. Excuse me, it's easier for me to explain. Tan, you need to know this in order to just see more clearly what is happening, just to be more objective.
            You will not argue with those who have all the answers, for example, let’s say that all Jews are to blame! Or Chubais - well, here are the options. Here is an explanation for all of this — it’s not interesting for you — to argue with that. Well, because he ... in short, because ....

            Then the people started a philosophical topic - such as a dictatorship, if so - we philosophize, why not? Although, by and large, I voiced my position - the dictatorship is not a dictatorship, there are ours and there are not ours, urines are not ours, and there is nothing to philosophize. So nature arranged, laid such a herd instinct, let it be so
  16. volcano
    volcano 20 September 2012 09: 51
    0
    Of course, the public should prevail over the personal, but not forget the PERSONALITY ....
    It’s funny that humanity, promoting democracy, subconsciously strives all the same for dictatorship and its manifestations ..... As an example, we can cite the Army (where unity of command is essentially dictatorship) Ships, airliners ... where the captain the king and God must all fulfill his orders. (you can’t list everything) .... that is, it turns out that humanity is sympathetic to the fact that, in conditions of increased risk for human life, a dictatorship is quite acceptable to itself and moreover ... necessary because there is no way without it.

    Here is such a paradox in my opinion ....
    Hence the conclusion that democracy with its predominance of personal freedoms over the interests of society is feasible only in some ideal "laboratory conditions" and even then the main message of democracy "PERSONALITY ABOVE ALL" in my opinion is extremely erroneous ..... hence we have, what we have.
  17. dmb
    dmb 20 September 2012 09: 52
    +2
    Auto RU. You are really a young man (which is rather your dignity. Than a disadvantage), but for that. to discuss a topic, you need to know it. Both fake attesting witnesses and falsification of evidence were. Another question is that this was revealed more often. and the demand was much more severe. I don’t know who told you about the great humanist Shchelokov, but I can firmly say that most of the falsifications are his personal merit. He was a typical careerist and for the sake of his own career, he drove indicators a lot without hesitation. how they are achieved. However, those were available in all law enforcement agencies. But they were in the minority. Not quite clear. how ideology put pressure on the fragile militia's shoulders, for they were engaged in banal criminality, and somehow I did not have to meet with thieves who commit thefts for ideological reasons. Ideology is precisely along the line of the KGB. True, for me the meaning of the phrase about "intra-republican methods of their work" remained a mystery. What I absolutely agree with is that "the dictatorship of ideology cements basic human relations, but at the same time sets new guidelines in the interests not of an individual, but of society and the country as a whole."
  18. DYMITRY
    DYMITRY 20 September 2012 09: 53
    +1
    Dictatorship is the best way to rule, provided that the dictator is an outstanding person. With other options, it all ends sadly.
    Examples: I.V. Stalin and Nicholas II.
    1. Uncle
      Uncle 20 September 2012 10: 10
      -2
      Quote: Smoke [b
      ] Dictatorship is the best way to rule, provided that the dictator is an outstanding person. With other options, it all ends sadly.
      Examples: I.V. Stalin and Nicholas II.

      Will it end sadly? Would you like to joke about the execution of the royal family? And how did your beloved Stalin die? Abandoned by servants who were afraid to disturb the leader, or strangled? What end is sweeter to you? By the way, the minus is not from me.
      1. DYMITRY
        DYMITRY 20 September 2012 10: 24
        +1
        Quote: Uncle
        Will it end sadly? Would you like to joke about the execution of the royal family? And how did your beloved Stalin die? Abandoned by servants who were afraid to disturb the leader, or strangled? What end is sweeter to you? By the way, the minus is not from me.

        It will end sadly for the country. The fate of the dictator is a separate conversation. Stalin left behind a powerful superpower, one of two equipped with nuclear weapons. Nicholas left behind a famine, devastation, a civil war. Questions?
        A joke on death, as it is not in my rules. Despite the fact that I believe that Nicholas personally (not the family), the execution quite deserved. With the death of Stalin, nothing is still clear, I am inclined to the version that he was poisoned. So I consider your ernichnost inappropriate. By the way, on the minuses, somehow fucked up.
        1. volcano
          volcano 20 September 2012 10: 40
          +3
          Quote: DYMITRY
          Ikolai left behind a famine, devastation, a civil war.


          A colleague ... with all due respect, you, in my opinion, ... jerked ..... he was overthrown and shot (why this is a separate conversation), so it’s incorrect to say that you left behind yourself ... famine devastation and civil the war came AFTER him ... and just the fault of those who shot him ......

          Let's be fair hi
          1. DYMITRY
            DYMITRY 20 September 2012 10: 57
            -1
            Quote: volkan
            what he left behind ... the famine of devastation and civil war came AFTER him ... and it was precisely the fault of those who shot him ......

            Good afternoon, Andrey.
            Spears have been breaking on this topic for more than a dozen years. And each of us has our own opinion on this matter. And I consider Nikolai personally guilty of what happened. Read his diaries. He CAM writes that for years he was hammering at work, doing everything he could to evade "boring duties (c)" The Autocrat is responsible for the country entrusted to him before God and people. And if Nikolai, with his idleness and self-abandonment from government, brought the country to an absolutely unnecessary war and a revolutionary situation, then he is undoubtedly guilty of the consequences. Hunger, devastation and civil war, the consequences of his idleness and weakness.
            But you will not blame the beavers for gnawing the bridge piers for the collapse of the bridge? The one who is set to follow the bridge will be to blame.
            I understand that it’s unlikely that you will be able to convince. You are an adult with a mature opinion. And I am the same. So the debate here will probably be pointless, at least on the Internet. Such disputes are very interesting face to face, sitting at the bottle.
            Sincerely. hi
            1. Uncle
              Uncle 20 September 2012 11: 24
              -3
              Quote: DYMITRY
              Nicholas, with his idleness and self-abandonment from management, brought the country to an absolutely unnecessary war and a revolutionary situation, then he is indisputably guilty of the consequences. Famine, devastation and civil war, the consequences of its lack of activity and lack of will.
              How do you feel about Lenin's article "On the role of the individual in history"? Read, a person with a formed opinion, without a bottle. The leitmotif is that it is not a person who makes history, but on the contrary, at a certain historical moment a corresponding person appears. And you shouldn't blame Nicholas for everything.
              1. DYMITRY
                DYMITRY 20 September 2012 12: 01
                -1
                Quote: Uncle
                on the contrary, at a certain historical moment, a corresponding personality arises. And do not put everything on Nikolai.

                That is, in your opinion, the story is to blame for the collapse of the empire, and whoever the autocrat the all-Russian ending would be the same?
                Quote: Uncle
                The keynote is that it is not the person who makes the story, but rather,

                Not worth everything said V.I. Lenin as a dogma. I personally have not read this article myself, although I respect many of his works. Which again does not make each of his statements an axiom. With this article, at least with the content of the article in your presentation, I do not agree. I think that a lot depends on the personality.
                Quote: Uncle
                Read, a person with a formed opinion, without a bottle.

                Where does this disregard for the opponent come from? If you do not agree with my opinion, you are kind enough to argue reasonably, without ernism.
            2. volcano
              volcano 20 September 2012 11: 31
              +1
              Quote: DYMITRY
              Such disputes are very interesting face to face, sitting at the bottle.


              Well that's not a question wink

              As for this topic, it is complicated by the still existence of a fairly large number of people adhering to communist views ... where emotions often prevail over facts ... And given that any power that came on a wave of blood and suffering begins to justify itself and expose its predecessors in the most negative light, it is rather difficult to believe in honesty and sincerity, and most importantly, in the veracity of the stated "facts" ... Agree, it would be strange if the Bolsheviks wrote that Nikolai was a statesman ... a guardian of the fatherland ... a defender faith, etc ...

              this has already happened in our history ... remember the coming to power of the Romanovs ...... how did they spoil the name of the last Rurikovich Ivan the Terrible .... after all, in the official history it is not enough that he didn’t eat babies for breakfast .... but in fact .... everything was far from the case ..... and he shed no more blood (and to be honest even less) than his crowned Western brothers ....

              In brief, I can only say about Nicholas that there is information about him by foreigners (diplomats) and also the Kaiser of Germany .... and in them you know why he appears in a different color than on the pages of Soviet-Russian literature ... so not everything is so simple .....

              Oh well ..... the branch is not about that
              1. DYMITRY
                DYMITRY 20 September 2012 12: 06
                0
                Quote: volkan
                And given that any power that came on a wave of blood and suffering begins to justify itself and present its predecessors in the most negative light, it is rather difficult to believe in honesty and sincerity, and most importantly, in the veracity of the stated "facts"

                Quote: volkan
                In brief, I can only say about Nicholas that there is information about him by foreigners (diplomats) and also the Kaiser of Germany .... and in them you know why he appears in a different color than on the pages of Soviet-Russian literature ... so not everything is so simple .....

                No, no dispute with this. You cannot indiscriminately accuse a person based on the testimony of his enemies. But Nikolai's diaries were not written by the Bolsheviks, nor by the Kaiser's diplomats. And a diary is a reflection of a person, what is written there, written by him with his own hand. I doubt that any corrections have been made to the print edition. Moreover, I read them in the edition of the 90s, when they made Nicholas a "saint". That is, if there was a correction, then in the direction of whitewashing. And from the diaries, the picture is unsightly.
                1. volcano
                  volcano 20 September 2012 12: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: DYMITRY
                  Especially since I read them in a 90s edition,


                  Well, frankly, this is not an indicator .... who can guarantee that the diary itself has not been edited for 70 years of communism ???
                  Personally, I'm probably ready to show Nikolai excessive "piousness" ... when I had to put a couple of hundred troublemakers not in a punishment cell, but to put them against the wall ...

                  But the history of the subjunctive mood does not tolerate ... what was it was .......
                  The main thing is that everyone (including the Leaders) would learn a lesson from those events ...
                  1. DYMITRY
                    DYMITRY 20 September 2012 12: 43
                    0
                    Quote: volkan
                    Well, frankly, this is not an indicator .... who can guarantee that the diary itself has not been edited for 70 years of communism ???

                    Let's apply Occam's principle - we will not multiply entities. Honestly, I didn’t even hear that Nikolai’s diaries were published in the USSR. Although I can’t speak with confidence.
                    Quote: volkan
                    But the history of the subjunctive mood does not tolerate ... what was it was .......
                    The main thing is that everyone (including the Leaders) would learn a lesson from those events ...

                    But I agree with this by 100%
    2. Samuraisinto
      Samuraisinto 20 September 2012 10: 20
      -1
      Nicholas II went with his wife a German to Germany with gold, see the faces of the current bureaucrats, will they really be shot if that mess starts!? Hmm !!!! and the Germans are simply rich in gold
      1. Svobodny
        Svobodny 20 September 2012 10: 24
        0
        SamuraisintoAre you stupid man ...
        1. Samuraisinto
          Samuraisinto 20 September 2012 10: 27
          0
          arguments facts-why go to the person and insults-most importantly you are the lamp of wisdom the embodiment of the Buddha amida in a person
          the Dalai Lama was expelled from Tibet by the Chinese and because
          that this Buddhism does not support hieroglyphs, it is allowed by the Germans here (
          just south of the Heihe River, in Chinese, the black river is Cupid but right now there is Maoism Communism
          and until 1949 there was a pro-Japanese religion in Manchuria-amidabuddism-this religion is so much
          forbidden in Russia that you are only now
          learned from me!
  19. Bigriver
    Bigriver 20 September 2012 09: 58
    +2
    "..the main message of democracy" PERSONALITY ABOVE ALL "in my opinion is extremely erroneous ..."
    SimhuYu, with your permission wink
    Such a promise was invented by capital, for its own survival. If people want more and more, the well-being of capital will be ensured.
    That is, the ideology of Western society is a direct consequence of the ideology of capital. Type: you will eat and consume more and more, and that’s enough for you. But we will eat an order of magnitude more.
    All this is wonderful from the point of view of today. But, then .., begins a slow and loyal caries of society and the state.
    The difference between the West, the East and Us is in the views on the nature of man. The West believes that man is one who lives for grubbing and reproduction of his own kind. And not the Person he is interested in! There is a substitution of concepts. Capital is interested in the ideology of consumption and the most equipped conditions for the realization of this consumption.
    Put it on the Personality.
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver 20 September 2012 10: 31
      0
      Dropped, sorry:
      "... this is a creature that lives for food ..."
    2. Samuraisinto
      Samuraisinto 20 September 2012 10: 38
      0
      clever clever! such a verb warms the soul I would add the west-west is different from the east-Slavic glorifying yang and nin have a panic death attitude towards death west west see horror movies -a WILL BE in the east to systematically cleanse karma so as not to revive ... break swastika chariot of rebirth ...
    3. Uncle
      Uncle 20 September 2012 11: 27
      -2
      Quote: BigRiver
      The West believes that man is one who lives for grubbing and reproduction of his own kind.
      I agree, consumer society. And the East believes that a person lives in anticipation of a future life, it is more important than the present.
  20. Butterfly net
    Butterfly net 20 September 2012 10: 08
    +1
    DICTATURE IS ALWAYS BAD. VERY BAD
    1. Liberti
      Liberti 20 September 2012 15: 08
      -1
      Quote: Net
      DICTATURE IS ALWAYS BAD. VERY BAD

      I completely agree with you that it is impossible to justify the dictatorship, it destroys society and sooner or later it will destroy itself ... there are many examples from history of the same USSR with its dictatorship of the proletariat.
      ps
      Democracy is inevitable. And sooner or later we will come to her with little blood or not, this is everyone’s choice.
      1. Rink
        Rink 20 September 2012 18: 35
        +1
        Quote: Liberti
        ... Democracy is inevitable. And sooner or later we will come to her with little blood or not, this is everyone’s choice. ...

        Yes, to the dictatorship of democracy!
        Because those who do not want democracy will have to be democratized by force: - "You have no democracy yet ?! Then we are coming to you! ..."
        Somewhere I already heard ...

        PS Hike each of the participants in the discussion under "democracy" understands something different.
        1. Konrad
          Konrad 20 September 2012 20: 57
          -1
          Quote: Skating rink
          Hike, each of the participants in the discussion under "democracy" understands something different.

          "Ah, of course, of course, what kind of comrades we are for you! Where are we? We understand, sir! We did not study at universities." - Sharikov.
  21. bachast
    bachast 20 September 2012 10: 42
    0
    It is difficult to say, what was the purpose of the scriptwriters of this domestic musical? If we discard the entertainment genre, is it possible to show all that wretchedness and dullness of Soviet life, and how hard was the “golden” youth to the fathers of the founders of today's movement of network hamsters?

    You need to re-watch the movie ...
  22. Bigriver
    Bigriver 20 September 2012 11: 20
    0
    Samuraisinto,
    ... such a verb warms the soul ...
    Thank you brother! drinks
  23. Samuraisinto
    Samuraisinto 20 September 2012 12: 13
    -1
    trailer from an experiment, they wanted to kill the dissent ... two models of dictatorship and pluralism are outlined, that is, democracy, let's look at both models on the example of Japan .... there he disagrees with the lecturer as a teacher and rips his own stomach ... ..a if there was pluralism, Japan would have long been captured from outside
  24. 8 company
    8 company 20 September 2012 12: 22
    +3
    Any political system - both totalitarianism and democracy - can be applied successfully or negatively. Examples are the sea. Today's China is a successful dictatorship, the same China under the Mao dictatorship is a state with barbaric orders, a poor population and a backward economy. Russia under Yeltsin is an example of how democracy cannot be applied. The thing is who and how reasonably uses the system. The devastation, as usual, is not in the toilets, but in the heads.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 20 September 2012 13: 23
      0
      Reasonable. I did it long and pseudoscientific -))). But in short, the essence is approximately the same as yours.
  25. taseka
    taseka 20 September 2012 13: 28
    +1
    Dictatorship, democracy - where people live well, where they are treated and paid worthy of work, where the footage of a young family is a house on 380 sq.m. and retired, pensioners traveled around the world with tourists - it seems that very same system !!!
    1. Konrad
      Konrad 20 September 2012 21: 04
      -1
      Quote: taseka

      Dictatorship, democracy - where people live well, where they are treated and paid worthy of work, where the footage of a young family is a house on 380 sq.m. and retired, pensioners traveled around the world with tourists - it seems that very same system !!!

      "As they say, I wish everyone!" - Sharikov
  26. bairat
    bairat 20 September 2012 13: 51
    +2
    My father served for three years, and then they sent me to raise the virgin soil, without asking if you want or do not want. For two years he plowed there for free, Spartan conditions, clothing - a demobilization form, arrived home in a flaw and half a grain of grain behind. It would be necessary to place his photo next to Gagarin at the beginning of the article.
  27. snek
    snek 20 September 2012 14: 37
    0
    Awesome little article. Collect all the worst that is associated with democratic countries and all the best that with socialist (communist). Only here you can’t paint the dictatorship in white. I can do that too - let's remember the Khmer Rouge, or maybe the great quirk of the great Mao?
  28. baltika-18
    baltika-18 20 September 2012 14: 55
    +1
    I wondered what we now have democracy or dictatorship. And you know, I haven’t come to an unambiguous answer. Democracy is the power of the people, the observance of all kinds of freedoms, like something there. Dictatorship is the power of one or a group of people, the same thing is As a result: and hell knows. The question of the monarchy was raised here in the comments. Maybe it’s not bad, but where is it normal to get it. Not Vladimir Kirilovich, or Prince Harry to invite. So citizens need their "monarch" I don't know how to educate. request
    1. snek
      snek 20 September 2012 15: 13
      +1
      Quote: baltika-18
      I wondered, what about democracy and dictatorship now?

      We have an oligarchy now
      Oligarchy (Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarchia) - “power of the few”, from other Greek. Ὀλίγος (oligos) - “few” and other Greek ἀρχή (arche) - “power”) - a political regime in which power it is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of citizens (for example, representatives of large monopolized capital [1]) and, at times, serves their personal and / or group interests, rather than the interests of all citizens.
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 20 September 2012 15: 34
        +1
        Quote: snek

        Quote: baltika-18
        I wondered, what about democracy and dictatorship now?
        We have an oligarchy now

        I agree, and then I remembered the cunning face of Abramovich. Most likely it is.
      2. Nevsky
        20 September 2012 18: 12
        +1
        The oligarchy is now in Ukraine!
        In Russia, it is hidden ...
  29. andrey-tse
    andrey-tse 20 September 2012 15: 00
    0
    You have to clone Thomas Sankara, a good dictator.
  30. bask
    bask 20 September 2012 17: 26
    0
    Pule in your brain is a bullet. Coy on .. Gagarin is a dictator in orbit. You are a piece of de ... Don’t dare touch the Russian National Heroes. Uble ... hh ...
  31. Stasi.
    Stasi. 20 September 2012 22: 26
    0
    Dictatorship is different. Peter the Great was a real dictator: when he was forced to work in the Ural factories for the needs of the army, he removed bells from churches to cast guns. Petersburg, after all, stands on human bones. And no one Peter curses, all his affairs served for the good of Russia, making it a great power. Stalin did the same with the country: there was forced labor, collective farms, dispossession, the Gulag. But after himself, Stalin left a great power, he saved the country, because death awaited her after all the upheavals of the revolution and the Civil War. As for Nicholas II, he was ruined by softness and indecision. As well as political myopia. He plunged Russia into two wars, and the first war with the Japanese occurred because of the greed of our ruling elite: Nicholas the Second, Prince Bezobrazov managed to instill the idea that it is not worth sharing the spheres of influence with the Japanese in Korea, they say that Korea should be quietly captured and we will be able to leave the Japanese with a nose. And Nicholas fell for it. The reason for the participation of Russia in World War II was officially called the provision of assistance to the Entente allies - the French. In fact, the royal family kept their financial assets and their entire fortune with the Paris banker Gosquieu. And certainly the threat of losing this state was the reason for Russia's entry into the war, which ended in a revolution and the death of the royal family.
  32. bask
    bask 20 September 2012 23: 42
    +2
    The activity of Peter the Great is not so simple. He drove Russia into slavery. And not some technological breakthrough, only the dominance of MEMCHURI. He split the Russians into slaves and Russian slave owners. Here and 1, bloody ,, I was dispossessed of dispossessed. , with drunken faces and everything was taken away. And then they drank it. And I’m related to Siberia. Only freedom and democracy, the path to the progress of Russia. At the moment we have an oligarchic wild capitalism.
  33. bask
    bask 21 September 2012 00: 14
    +1
    From your satanic face. WITH 1H7T CAUTION A SATANIST ON THE SITE.