Putin and Stalin. Comparative analysis
EntryHistory Russia in its sense is quite unique. There are no people in the world whose representatives would rise to the heights of such self-denial and self-sacrifice in the name of their Fatherland, and there is no people from whose ranks so many traitors would have left, ready to do any meanness in order to cause the greatest harm to the land that raised them, who gave the name and education. A succession of an infinite number of Kurbs, Mazep, Vlasov, Vovalev, Kasparov and Novodvorski is able to go around the globe more than a dozen times and probably stretch from the Moscow Kremlin to the Moon itself.
The most unpleasant is that such traitors exist in Russian society to this day. In the world of the Internet, they got the apt nickname of the “defeatists”. First of all, because they constantly wish Russia defeat in all undertakings. They sincerely (or for material reward) believe that Russia will perish, fall apart, die, that all its leaders are traitors, that the people are stupid lazy people and drunkards, that everything is lost and that it’s time for the Russians to go to the cemetery and die quietly, so as not to interfere with the development of all other civilizations. "Defeatists" are always "against!". They are against any undertakings, initiatives and plans of the Russian state, they are always absolutely sure that the ruling "regime" in Russia must be thrown into a whirlwind of revolutionary violence. They were against the tsarist "tyranny", then they were against the "communist prison", now they are against the evil "occupation regime." Meaning, the essence of government action never interests them. They are only interested in how successfully this government can be overthrown. In the well known to each and every “Internazionale” they know only one and a half lines:
"We will destroy the whole world of violence,
to the base of a ... "
Further text for the defeatists does not make sense, because they do not actively understand anything except destruction.
Why did I devote so much attention to these miserable creatures?
First of all, because during the twentieth century, the "defeatists" twice managed to come to power in Russia and realize their dreams in practice. This happened in 1917 and 1990. Both times the result of their short rule was absolutely the same: Russia's loss of significant territories, bloody internal conflicts, the collapse of the army and the economy. And both times, Russia had to lift out of the ruins to Individuals with a capital letter, the abilities of which, successes and failures I would like to compare in this article.
To do this analysis led me to work, the first paragraphs of which I want to bring in full, so as not to mess up something. So:
“The crisis of the Russian economy in the period 1914-1921's.
Valery Ivanovich Zorkaltsev - Head of the Department of Applied Mathematics of the Institute of Energy Systems, doctor of technical sciences, professor.
Solonina Zoya Valerievna - a student of Irkutsk State University. She prepared a thesis project on the development of the Russian economy in 20-s.
In this and subsequent articles on the economic history of Russia of the 20th century, in addition to the indicated literary sources, Boris Pavlovich Orlov’s lectures on the history of the economy of the USSR, which he read for students of the economic faculty of Novosibirsk University for many years, will be used. The research is carried out with the assistance of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, project No. 00-02-00069 ”.
Personally, I was most interested in a small plate with dry figures that compared the results of the two most terrible crises of the twentieth century, which resulted in the fall of the Russian economy:
It is easy to see that the results of the Yeltsin / Gorbachev reforms in their results turned out to be almost equal to the results of the economic decline as a result of the First World War and the bloody civil war on the territory of the USSR combined.
How did the rulers who displaced the "defeatists" junta solve problems with a similar legacy? We will try to look at their actions during their stay on the powerful Olympus.
Putin and Stalin. The beginning of the rule of these politicians is very similar. These are the figures of the "second plan", little-known to the general public, not having in their hands real power levers, connections, popularity. Such figures are brought up to then use them as marionettes, controlling the situation from the shadows. However, both of our research heroes unexpectedly showed their character for their puppeteers and were able to turn from performers into real figures. It is unlikely that Zinoviev and Kamenev, appointing Stalin as General Secretary, expected that their protege would soon sentence both to death. It is unlikely that Berezovsky, leading the election campaign of Putin, guessed that soon, and he would have to hide from the new president in the global gangster settler.
In the 1926 year, in the fourth year of his reign, Stalin withdrew Kamenev, Trotsky, Zinoviev from the Central Committee, getting rid of the main enemies. In 2004, for the fourth year, Putin fired Kasyanov, getting rid of the main representative of the "family". As can be seen, in terms of taking over the levers of power, both rulers were also surprisingly similar. Let's see how successful they were in other areas of their activities.
Economy
Stalin was elected to the newly established post of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) in 1922 on the initiative of Lenin and Kamenev. A cautious pragmatist, a talented power technologist, he seemed to be an excellent performer. Stalin had to put things in order in the placement of party cadres. In 1923 he introduced a system of "nomenklatura", organized the party apparatus, whose officials were obliged to Stalin for their promotion. Growth, the influence of the apparatus in the 1920s. provided Stalin with success in the internal party struggle. (K&M)
It should be said that initially the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee was rather technical in nature, but by the end of the twenties, Stalin concentrated in his hands so much personal power that the post became associated with the highest post in the party leadership, although the Charter of the CPSU (b) did not provide for it of existence.
By the time Stalin assumed the post that had become life for him, the NEP (New Economic Policy) had already begun to develop in the USSR (from 1921).
In just 5 years, from 1921 to 1926, the industrial production index increased more than 3 times; agricultural production increased 2 times and exceeded 18% by 1913%. But even after the completion of the recovery period, economic growth continued at a rapid pace: in 1927 and 1928. The increase in industrial production was 13 and 19%, respectively. In general, over the period 1921 — 1928. The average annual growth rate of national income was 18%.
In industry and other industries, monetary wages were restored, tariffs, wages were introduced, excluding leveling, and restrictions were removed to increase earnings while output was rising. Labor armies were abolished, compulsory labor service and the main restrictions on job change were abolished. The organization of labor was based on the principles of material incentives, which replaced the non-economic coercion of “war communism”. The absolute number of unemployed registered with labor exchanges increased during the NEP period (from 1,2 million people at the beginning of 1924 to 1,7 million people at the beginning of 1929), but the expansion of the labor market was even more significant (the number of workers and employees in all branches of households increased from 5,8 million in 1924 to 12,4 million in 1929), so in fact the unemployment rate fell.
A private sector emerged in industry and commerce: some state-owned enterprises were denationalized, others leased; it was allowed to create their own industrial enterprises to individuals with no more than 20 employees (this “ceiling” was later raised). Among the factories that were leased by private traders were those that numbered 200 — 300 people, and in general, the private sector in the NEP period accounted for about one fifth of industrial output, 40 — 80% of retail trade and a small part of wholesale trade. (Quote from wikipedia)
Poorly educated people or people who wish to belittle other people's achievements like to say that Russia's successes arise by themselves, as a result of the natural development of progress, and it is impossible to praise the government for new plants, for the welfare and satiety of people. In fact, this, of course, is not the case and there are no examples. No “natural progress” makes it possible to equal the standard of living and the production index of North and South Korea, Argentina and France, Brazil and Russia, Switzerland and Georgia. Honesty and willingness to follow the interests of the state are always decisive. For the USSR, the NEP times the catalyst was the competent financial policy of the government.
Instead of depreciated and actually already rejected by the turnover of the Sovznak in 1922, the release of a new monetary unit began - chervonets with gold content and exchange rate in gold (1 chervonets = 10 with pre-revolutionary gold rubles = 7.74 of pure gold). In 1924, Sovznak, which was quickly driven out by chervonets, ceased to print at all and was withdrawn from circulation; in the same year, the budget was balanced and the use of the issue of money to cover state expenses was prohibited; New Treasury notes were issued - rubles (10 rubles = 1 gold coins). In the foreign exchange market both domestically and abroad, chervonets freely exchanged for gold and major foreign currencies at the pre-war rate of the tsarist ruble (1 US dollar = 1.94 ruble).
Revived credit system. In 1921, the State Bank of the USSR was recreated, which began lending to industry and commerce on a commercial basis. In 1922 — 1925 a number of specialized banks were created: joint-stock banks, in which the shareholders were the State Bank, syndicates, cooperatives, private and even foreign ones, for lending to individual sectors of the economy and regions of the country; cooperative - for crediting consumer cooperatives; organized on shares of the agricultural credit society, locked in on the republican and central agricultural banks; mutual credit societies - for lending to private industry and trade; savings banks - to mobilize cash savings of the population. On 1 in October, 1923 in the country operated 17 independent banks, and the share of the State Bank in the total credit investments of the entire banking system was 2 / 3. By October 1 1926, the number of banks increased to 61, while the share of the State Bank in lending to the national economy fell to 48%. (Wikipedia)
The reform was conducted under the leadership of the People's Commissar of Finance G. Ya. Sokolnikov. Yet it was also the victory of Stalin, who had already become one of the leaders of the country, who had chosen such a leader for the post of people's commissar and supported his actions. Stalin gradually takes power levers, eliminates opponents: in 1926, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin’s authoritative enemies, the old Bolsheviks, the revolutionaries who opposed the leader’s policies and authorities, were removed from the Politburo.
However, in economic policy, not everything was so smooth. The achieved standard of living of tsarist Russia was clearly insufficient to ensure social stability - the slightest decrease in it threatened with new social upheavals. In 1923 and 1925 strikes of workers directed against the “worker” state even swept across the country.
In order to restore industry to power, “scissors” prices were cruelly used when deliberately inflated prices for manufactured goods and food prices were too low. Thus, the Bolsheviks shifted the burden of economic reconstruction of the country on the shoulders of the peasants. The result was not slow to wait:
To 1927, after two fruitful years, the peasants had accumulated grain and money. The industrial goods he needed were almost impossible to buy. Money depreciated again by inflation; in such an uncertain situation, the grain turned out to be the most reliable currency. Peasants, who had large stocks of grain, there was no point in sending them to the market. Moreover, they themselves "regulated" the production, reducing its volume in accordance with more than modest opportunities to buy something from the city. In 1926-1927 bread production fell by 300 million poods. In 1927-1928 The state managed to prepare 630 million pounds of bread, which was two times less than it was harvested by the tsarist government. There was not enough bread not only for the construction of new enterprises, but also for the supply of cities. In the winter of 1927-1928. in the cities for the first time with 1921 appeared the queues for bread.
In January 1928, Stalin authorized the use of "extraordinary methods of grain procurement", that is, the administrative seizure of grain from the peasants, accompanied by the arbitrariness of the authorities and repression. The article of the Criminal Code on "speculation" in bread began to be actively used, under which attempts to sell bread in a market way were also brought. Extraordinary measures provided grain in 1928, but discouraged the peasants from producing their surplus. In August 1929, the rationing system was introduced in the USSR. (K&M)
The current situation prompted Stalin to curtail the NEP economy and try to give a strong impetus to the economy by a determined decision. This stage of development of the USSR received the name "industrialization".
In the countryside, Stalin's intensification resulted in compulsory integration of farms. After all, as is known, in most cases - the larger the farm, the higher the labor productivity, the more opportunities for its mechanization, the lower the cost. The enlargement was carried out at the expense of the information of the property of small owners in collective farms.
Collectivization was carried out in the classical traditions of the medieval “enclosures” and had almost the same consequences for the villagers: the lack of land, the exodus from native villages, the repression against the disgruntled. In the course of the forced collectivization of agriculture, which was carried out in the USSR in 1928-1932, one of the directions of state policy was the suppression of the anti-Soviet actions of the peasants and the related “liquidation of the kulaks as a class” - using wage labor, all means of production, land and civil rights, and eviction to remote areas of the country. As part of the fight against the “fists” of 1930-1931 years, as indicated in the certificate of the Department of Special Guarantors of the Gulag of the OGPU, 381 026 families with a total number of 1 people were sent to the special settlement.
The main results of collectivization turned out to be four.
1. The collective farms did indeed show a significantly higher labor productivity.
2. At the disposal of Stalin turned out to be a significant number of workers: the very peasants who came to be in town turned out to be superfluous in the countryside.
3. Collectivization led to massive famine in the USSR in 1932-1933, the victims of which were, according to various estimates, from 2 to 8 million people. (Wikipedia, Hunger in the USSR (1932 — 1933)).
The reasons for the famine lay on the surface: the well-to-do peasants did not want to be simple, about giving their livestock and property to the authorities, they preferred to eat a dairy cow or a bull, but not to give to the collective farm. Then it turned out that there was nothing on the collective farm and there was nothing to plow on, there was no milk, there was no seed grain, that without a repressed "fist" the poor could not organize the sowing, etc.
4. There was a sharp drop in the standard of living of the peasants.
The average standard of living of the population in rural areas for the entire subsequent history of the USSR never returned to the 1929 indicators.
Collectivization was a catastrophe for agriculture: according to official data, the gross grain harvest decreased from 733,3 million c in 1928 to 696,7 million c in 1931-32. The grain yield in 1932 was 5,7 c / ha against 8,2 c / ha in 1913. Gross agricultural output in 1928 was 124% compared to 1913 in the year, in 1929 - 121%, in 1930 - 117%, in 1931 - 114%, in 1932 - 107%, in 1933 - 101% Animal production in 1933 - 65%, in 1913 - XNUMX% Animal production in XNUMX - XNUMX%; XNUMX% XNUMX level of the year. (Wikipedia, Stalin)
The financial resources received from the ruin of peasant farms, the sale of raw materials abroad and even works of art, the workers freed in the countryside were sent by Stalin to the development of heavy industry in the USSR.
Accelerated industrialization was carried out during the first five-year plans. The first five-year plan (1928-1932) was developed from the mid-1920s. in the structures of the State Planning Committee and the Supreme Economic Council. The V Congress of Soviets of the USSR (May 20-28, 1929) adopted this plan as a law. If over the previous decade capital investments amounted to 26,5 billion rubles, now 64,6 billion were planned, while investments in industry increased much faster - from 4,4 billion to 16,4 billion rubles. 78% of investments in industry were directed to the production of means of production, not consumer products. This meant the withdrawal of huge funds from the economy, which could give a return in a few years. Industrial production was to grow by 180% over the five-year period, and the production of means of production by 230%. 16-18% of the peasantry had to be collectivized. Labor productivity was to rise by 110%, wages by 71%, and peasant incomes by 67%. (K&M)
In 1930, construction was launched around 1500 objects, of which 50 absorbed almost half of all investments. A number of giant industrial buildings were erected: DneproGES, metallurgical plants in Magnitogorsk, Lipetsk and Chelyabinsk, Novokuznetsk, Norilsk, as well as Uralmash, tractor plants in Volgograd, Chelyabinsk, Kharkov, Uralvagonzavod, GAZ, ZIS. However, about 40% of investment in 1930 had to be frozen in construction in progress due to inefficiency of planning and put into operation throughout all 1930-s. The main focus (financing, supplies, etc.) turned 50-60 to shock construction projects. For them, massive import of cars from abroad was carried out. Engineers were invited from abroad, many well-known companies, such as Siemens-Schuckertwerke AG and General Electric, were involved in the work and supplied modern equipment.
Industrialization required enormous expenditures on both the import of machinery and the maintenance of a minimum standard of living for workers employed both on the construction sites themselves and on the extraction of raw materials for them. Problems of financial deficit were partially solved with the help of home loans, increased sales of vodka, emissions (in 1929-1932 money supply increased by 4 times (which led to an increase in prices and shortages of consumer goods.)), Taxes, timber exports, oil, furs as well as bread, huge volumes of which were required in the country.
The rapid construction of industry giants led to the ruin of the rest of the economy. In the conditions of new devastation, Stalin decided to announce the end of a breakthrough to a bright future. Speaking at the plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission 7 on January 1933, he declared that the five-year plan was fulfilled ahead of schedule in four years and four months.
The actual results of the five-year plan were much more modest than Stalin's plans. The optimal plan of 1929 was fulfilled for the production of oil and gas, peat, steam locomotives, and agricultural machinery. Even the initial plan of 1929 was not fulfilled for the production of electricity, pig iron, steel, rolled products, coal mining, and iron ore. The production of tractors had just reached it. It was not even possible to come close to the plans of 1930. Oil production even according to published data reached 22,2 million tons against the planned in 1930 40-42 million tons, steel - 5,9 million tons against the planned 12 million tons, tractors - 50 thousand units. with 1929 thousand units planned in November 201, electricity generation is 13,1 billion kW. h. with the planned in 1930 33-35 billion (K & M. Industrialization)
The achievements of Stalin in the first five-year plan were, by the basic parameters, as follows:
Rolled ferrous metals - growth, 129%
Electricity production - growth, 270%
Oil production - growth, 184%
Cement production - growth, 194%
Sugar production - drop to 65% of the year’s 1928 level
Footwear leather - growth, 150%
Due to the development of domestic tractor construction, in 1932, the USSR refused to import tractors from abroad.
In 1930, universal primary education was introduced in the USSR, and in the cities - a compulsory seven-year education.
However, not everything in the life of the Soviet people was so rosy.
On the contrary, according to critics of industrialization, it was poorly thought out, which manifested itself in a series of announced “fractures” (April – May 1929, January – February 1930, June 1931). A grandiose and thoroughly politicized system emerged, the characteristic features of which were economic “gigantomania”, chronic commodity hunger, organizational problems, wastefulness, and loss-making enterprises. The goal (ie, the plan) began to determine the means for its implementation. The neglect of material support and the development of infrastructure over time began to cause significant economic damage.
Industrialization demanded increasing labor costs, attracting millions of villagers to the cities and was accompanied by a sharp drop in real earnings. The desire to fulfill the plan led to a situation of overstretching forces and a permanent search for reasons to justify the non-fulfillment of excessive tasks. Because of this, industrialization could not feed solely on enthusiasm and demanded a series of compulsory measures. Starting with 1930, the free movement of labor was prohibited, criminal penalties were imposed for violations of labor discipline and negligence. Since 1931, workers have become responsible for damage to equipment. In 1932, the forced transfer of labor between enterprises was possible, the death penalty was introduced for the theft of state property. 27 December 1932 was restored an internal passport, which Lenin at one time condemned as "czarist backwardness and despotism." Despite efforts to increase labor productivity, in practice, average labor productivity in 1932 was down by 1928% compared to 8.
Soviet propaganda also claimed that economic growth was unprecedented. Studies show that growth rates and GDP in the USSR (the 4,6% mentioned above) were comparable with those in Germany in the 1930-38 years. (4,4%) and yielded growth in Japan (6,3%). (Wikipedia. Industrialization of the USSR)
In addition, accelerated industrialization was accompanied by repression, when “pests and saboteurs” were accused of economic failures, cases like “Shakhtynskiy”, “Industrial Party”, “Labor Peasant Party”, and “Union Bureau” were organized.
One of the most important indicators of the outcome of the Stalinist breakthrough was the growth in the level of per capita consumption. It has increased ... by 22% over 10 years from 1928 to 1938. That is, the welfare of the people grew by 2,2% per year. Western historians in this place like to add that the improvement in welfare has affected mainly the party nomenklatura and the chosen “drummers” from among the workers, and has gone unnoticed by the rest of the population.
Perhaps it is time to stop the study of Stalin's achievements at this place. 1932 year, the end of the first five years - this is not the eight-year, but the ten-year frontier of Stalin's rule. Summarize. Joining the post of Secretary General in 1922, Joseph Vissarionovich got into his own hands the country in which, thanks to the NEP, a year, as the growth began, industry and agriculture. Thanks to the correct policy of the government, already in 1927, the Russian economy overtook the pre-crisis level, the consumption level reached the level of consumption in the pre-war tsarist times. The subsequent spurt provided industrial growth, at the level of 4,6% per year, however, led to a decline in agricultural production and was accompanied by repression against citizens who were dissatisfied with government policies. In general, for the initial industrialization of the USSR, the Russian people had to pay thousands of human lives and freeze the standard of living at the pre-revolutionary level for very long years.
In addition, the first stage of the country's development “according to Stalin” was accompanied by a number of economic crises, which ultimately led the country - despite the peacetime! - to the rationing system and almost medieval invasion of the working class and peasantry.
However, pure figures are cunning and do not reflect the whole picture of what was happening in the country.
First of all, 4,6% per year is not just an increase in industrial production. It was the heavy industry that developed by non-economic methods: metallurgy, mechanical engineering, tractor construction. That is, the USSR received a basis that allowed in the future to create both a powerful defense industry and to gain independence in the further development of its own production. Even among pro-Western historians there is no certainty that such an industry could have arisen on the basis of the NEP. Stalin’s actions, for all their cruelty, were aimed at preserving the country in the future, at its future security.
The population of the USSR, although it did not see an improvement in its financial situation, nevertheless received from the state the right to free medical care and free education. Stunning for the time benefits, the envy of the people in all surrounding countries. While tens of thousands of people cursed Stalin and wished him and all the Bolsheviks killed, many millions could learn to read, become engineers, officers, pilots, tank crews, skilled workers. Most of them understood that under the previous government such a career was impossible for village teenagers. People saw the prospect before them, they believed in the possibility of a bright future that was just beginning to be built in front of their eyes, they were full of enthusiasm, they felt happy. Such confidence in the future can also be attributed to the merits of Joseph Vissarionovich.
Putin de facto became the ruler of the new Russia 1 January 2000 of the year.
Inheritance he got much more severe than Stalin. If the disruption in the national economy after the civil war and Yeltsin's reforms was about the same in scale, then Joseph Vissarionovich received a peaceful country that had already begun to revive after a riot of defeatists. President No. 2 was in the very center of the collapse organized by the defeatists. A crisis of defaults raged across the country; rolling blackouts of electricity and heat were the norm; in some regions, arrears of pensions and wages reached 2 years, and delays in the army in a period of many months. In addition, there was a real regional war in the Caucasus, at the end of which the majority of the population had strong doubts. Russia was forbidden to win the first war, and people were confident that they would not be allowed to win again - and the defeatists shouted about such a future openly and enthusiastically.
However, the GDP said: “to water” - and this was done. During the Second Chechen war, the military did not have a noose around their neck, with the help of which they were forced to invade the last time. I have not yet forgotten - vindictive after all - as M. Leontyev from the television screen begged that the troops would reach Terek at least and protect the native Russian lands. Nobody even believed that! From all sides they actively demanded that Russia not cross the borders of Chechnya, that it should not cross the Terek, that it should not climb into the mountains - that at least it should enter into negotiations !!! I don’t know what it took to sustain GDP — but it allowed the military to go to the end.
The war ended - however, a very long hard work was required to restore the economy. Non-payments, delays of pensions and wages, unemployment, blackouts ... The Hoppers, Avvs and other MMAs were scourged around the country: Berezovsky, Gusinsky and others like them. They were fattening, sucking up everything from everywhere, to the last penny and the last drop of blood, grinding the economy, trying to replace the Russian industry with foreign concessions - and in some places they even succeeded! According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in 2000-2002, in Russia, 4% of the population suffered from hunger (5,2 million).
It was necessary to stop the degradation of the country, to reverse the development for the better.
To assess the economic situation, I used the work of the professor, Doctor of Technical Sciences A. I. Orlov. Worthy specialist: born 1949, professor (1995 - in the department of mathematical economics), doctor of technical sciences (1992 - in the application of mathematical methods), candidate of physical and mathematical sciences (1976 - in probability theory and mathematical statistics), 18 books and textbooks.
So, a quote from an article from the 1999 year:
This article aims to forecast the socio-economic development of Russia and the dynamics of the main macroeconomic indicator - gross domestic product (GDP) by 7 years (2000-2007). During this time various political events will occur, in particular, at least one more cycle of parliamentary and presidential elections (provided the current political structure is preserved), the results of which cannot be unambiguously predicted. Therefore, the forecast can be made only separately for each scenario from a certain range, covering possible ways of the socio-economic dynamics of Russia.
Consider the following scenarios:
the “Continuing Reforms” scenario (as directed by the likely adversary);
the “Stagnation” scenario (the dynamic balance of the forces of reformers and patriots, as a result, the inhibition of “reforms”);
the scenario “A change of course in the direction of Russia's national interests” (implies the transfer of state power into the hands of patriots);
Smoot’s scenario (the outcome of the struggle is the disintegration of Russia into separate state entities).
As shown above, the transformations (“reforms”) carried out with 1987 do not objectively lead to the development of a market economy, i.e. building capitalism, and the destruction of Russia as an independent state. The next steps of this destruction - the beginning reforms of the army, education, science, housing and communal services, the privatization of the remaining state property, the transition to the free sale of land, etc. Since the real (executive) power in Russia belongs mainly to supporters of the “reforms”, the scenario of further development of the reform course is quite possible.
The scenario for the further development of the reform course is based on the hypothesis of unimpeded implementation of the plans of the likely adversary, since the transformations (“reforms”) carried out with 1987, objectively contribute to this.
Let us turn to the forecast of GDP dynamics. Let us assume that the average rate of decline in GDP over 1992-1996. (1997 G., from this point of view, is atypical, it rather corresponds to the stagnation scenario) was chosen by the probable adversary optimally - from the point of view of its goals. We take the official data: over the 5 years (1992-1996) the decline in GDP was 38,6%, i.e. average 9,3% per year. If these rates of decline are maintained, 2007's GDP will be 34,2% of 1996's GDP, or 19,9% of 1990's. Taking into account the decrease in inflation rates by official bodies 2 times - 10% of 1990's (This is slightly more than decline in production in the USSR in 1923 - after the end of the civil war - compared to 1913). In terms of living standards, this will correspond to the post-war period (1948 or 1923), but with partly preserved housing, clothing and television sets ...
Perform an alternative calculation, taking 1992-1997's. for the six-year shock-stabilization cycle and using official data (1997's results are controversial - from 100,4% according to government data to 98,4% according to data of GV Kostin, chairman of the Duma Committee on Conversion). Over the 6 years (1992-1997), the fall in GDP was 38,4%, i.e. average 7,75% per year. While maintaining such rates of decline in GDP, 2007 will amount to 44,6% of GDP 1997, or 26,1% of the level of 1990. Considering the decrease in the inflation rate by official bodies 2 times - 13% of the level of 1990.
So, according to official data, the forecast is: GDP 2007 will be 19,9-26,1% of the level of 1990, or 34,1-44,6% of the level of 1997, which corresponds approximately to 37,5-50.6% of the level of 1999.
If we assume that the financing of the Armed Forces of Russia in 2007 will be the same percentage of GDP as in 1997, then it will be reduced in 2,24 - 2,93 times, and compared to 1990 - in 3,83 - 5,03 times. For the reasons described above, real funding will be about half that. The existing structure of the Armed Forces of Russia will be destroyed, their combat effectiveness and combat readiness will be significantly reduced. Obviously, this is the goal of the likely opponent.
The inclusion of 1998 and 1999 in the calculations. It is inexpedient, since the well-known “August crisis” of 1998 was an analogue of the “shock therapy” of 1992. It is curious that all segments of Russian society accepted a drop in the standard of living 2 times as a result of the August crisis of 1998. Although the magnitude of this fall was only slightly less than the fall in previous years. Over 1991-1997 the standard of living has fallen about 2,5 times. “Shock therapy” was actively discussed, there were numerous protests, humanitarian aid was coming from abroad. In 1998, everything was calm. Probably, the true scale of the disaster was not realized, in particular, because by the end of 1998 inflation was “only” 80% compared to 2600% in 1992. Perhaps, the population was accustomed to a constant drop in living standards. The result is beneficial to the likely opponent. It shows that it is possible “without noise” to continue to significantly reduce the living standards of Russians. The “ideal” is already close, when a plate of charitable soup of chowder per day is the highest good. Recall that the total for 1991-1999's. - drop in real incomes of the population at least 5 times.
Scenario "Change of course in the direction of the national interests of Russia." As explained in detail above, the continuation of the course of "reforms" leads to the death of Russia. The transition to the protection of independence and national interests of Russia, to the restoration of the economy and national cultural and moral values is long overdue. A complex of economic and political measures was repeatedly formulated, revealing the meaning of this much-needed transition in Russia. It can be compared with measures to restore the national economy after the civil and World War II.
We give an estimate of the growth, and the GDP in the case of the coming to power of patriots as a result of the victory in the presidential election of 2000 (i.e., consider the case when Vladimir Putin chose the patriotic path). Note that 2000, in accordance with the Chizhevsky cycles, is the year of the greatest solar activity and activity of popular movements. True, this theory, apparently, is not confirmed by the practice of the current year.
During the first cycle “shock stabilization”, i.e. over 7 years (1992-1997), the fall in GDP was 41,7%, i.e. on average, about 7% per year. Assume that it will be the same in 1998 and 1999. (official statistics are unreliable, which has been repeatedly demonstrated, for example, in the speeches of deputies of the State Duma). Then by the end of 1999, we’ll reach 54,2% of the 1991 level.
In 2000, a significant drop in GDP should be expected: in the first half, due to the concentration of all reserves in the electoral propaganda by the presidential team and the government, in the second half due to the external blockade and internal sabotage after the patriots won. Let us assume that the fall in GDP will be the same as in 1992, the year of “shock therapy” (price liberalization), i.e. 14,5%. Then we meet the XXI century at the level of 46,4% from 1991.
By the beginning of 2001, the recovery of the national economy would unfold. When assessing the pace of this recovery, it is necessary to take into account that, on the one hand, industrial technologies are now significantly more complex than after the Great Patriotic War, which makes it difficult to quickly build capacity; but, on the other hand, many enterprises simply “run”, since the frames and fixed assets (buildings, machines, ...) were preserved in the main. Assume that the average growth, GDP will be the same as the growth of the gross social product in 1951-1965. Then, over the 15 years, the gross social product grew by 253,66% (in 3,53 times), i.e. on average, growth was 8,79% per year. Therefore, it can be expected that over 7 years (2001-2007) GDP will increase by 1,8 times (by 80,3%) with the same average growth, e 8,79% per year.
So, by the end of 2007, GDP will reach 154,2% of 1999, or 71,5% of 1991, while maintaining the indicated growth rates, and GDP will reach the level of 1990, at the end of 2011. At the same time, only starting since the last months of 2002, the GDP will exceed the level of 1999g.
As an alternative calculation base, we take 1946-1950, when over the years 5 the gross social product grew by 1,94 times, i.e. on 93,98%, i.e. on average 14,17% per year. Then it can be expected that over 7 years (2001-2007) GDP will increase by 2,53 times (by 152,8%) with the same average growth, e 14,17% per year and 117,4% of 1991 g. to 1991 level at the end of 2006.
Since it is impossible to accurately predict the moment of the transfer of power into the hands of a patriotic leadership, the above numerical values are very conditional. So, if the patriots win not in 2000, but in 2004, and “reforms” continue until that time, then similar calculations give, by the end of 2003, GDP in the amount of 40,5% of the level of 1991, (assuming that over the course of 4 years (2000-2003), the decline in GDP will be 7% per year). As before, let us assume that in the year of rotation (2004) the fall in GDP will be the same as in 1992, the year of “shock therapy” (price liberalization), i.e. 14,5%. Then by the end of 2004, Russia's GDP will be 34,7% of the level of 1991 (i.e. one third). Even with growth, e in 14,17% per year for 2005-2007. GDP can be raised only by 48,8%, i.e. to 51,6% of the 1991 level.
However, all such calculations are merely indicative. They show, however, that in the coming 5 years there is no reason to expect a significant improvement in the economic situation of Russia, on the contrary, we are most likely waiting for a further decline in macroeconomic characteristics and living standards of the majority of the population. In the best case - stagnation, unstable stabilization.
However, the transfer of power into the hands of a patriotic leadership, defending the interests of Russia, despite the onslaught of the likely adversary, is our country's only hope.
(The full article is available at http://orlovs.pp.ru/diff/antorlov/scen.htm)
As it is easy to see, the distinguished professor expects economic growth under the leadership of a patriotic and professional government such that the level of 1990 will be achieved only by 2011. As an unattainable ideal (no opposition, patriotically-minded professionals in key positions), a very real example of development from the experience of the Stalinist economy was considered. Even under ideal conditions (under the leadership of Stalin) the level of the 1991 crisis year could only be achieved at the end of the 2006 year.
Now, knowing what the world turned out to be in reality, we can remind you that Russia, under Putin’s rule, managed to step over the economic level level of 1990 of the year at the beginning of 2007 of the year. That is, the president was able to significantly surpass the wildest forecasts of the most patriotic economists and overtook the “late” Stalin in the pace of economic development in direct comparison.
At the same time, Putin did not allow any recessions and crises both in the economy and in political life - not to mention bringing the country to the card system. He did not resort to direct violence to achieve economic goals. Putin did not build a new economy on the bones of the people. On the contrary - over the 8 years of his power, incomes of the population in dollar terms grew 4 times. Or, adjusted for inflation, in real terms - 2,5 times. The overall growth of retail sales is 15%, with the number of new cars bought annually growing (and growing) by 30%, computers and household appliances - by 50%. Thus, the real standard of living in the country has increased very, very noticeably, which ensures the mass support of the population for the president’s policy.
Using almost the same means for the development of the economy as Stalin: the sale of raw materials to the line and the active use of Western technologies, Putin was able to manage the resources obtained much more efficiently than the first. He did not directly vbuhivivat money into the industry, giving government funds to steal officials. He spent them on creating a favorable climate for industrial development in the country, skillfully directing the interests of producers in the direction necessary for the state. Restored plants, or built new ones instead of destroyed ones who wanted and knew how to do it. As a result: the recovery of the Russian economy occurred at a speed that I’ve not even dreamed of of the most courageous optimists. At the same time, the standard of living of the population grew at a faster pace, and development itself took place without disruption, repression, crises and disasters. There is nothing to tell historians about. Simple, about fast smooth growth, countries from poverty to prosperity.
Let's compare the Stalin “five-year plan” and Putin's:
As with Stalin, we are seeing a significant increase in production, with a noticeable decline in agriculture. Although Putin didn’t bring Russia to hunger, as everyone remembers. But the growth in the production of household appliances and mechanical engineering is impressive. For many positions - a half to two times. Almost every week, it is reported about the construction of new plants in Russia and the launch of new plants, the government is actively stimulating scientific research.
One involuntarily recalls the famous slogan of "doubling the GDP." In 1999, Russia's GDP was 300 billion dollars, and in order to catch up with Portugal, Putin called for it to be doubled. Today - Russia is in the top ten of the strongest economies in the world (10 ranks on GDP in dollars or 7 ranks on GDP based on purchasing power parity). And this change happened right before our eyes: in just 8 years.
People are narrow-minded and poorly educated, unable to understand the meaning of the activities of the country's leader, usually trying to find some other reasons that made Russia “lucky”. Say, these Russian 8 years did not depend on anything, everything happened by itself. And the luck will end - and the economy will collapse back into disaster. Especially for them I will give a few numbers:
Rating of countries in terms of hydrocarbon production in tons of oil equivalent per capita:
1. Qatar - 1 081
2. United Arab Emirates - 991
3. Norway - 872
4. Kuwait - 815
5. Saudi Arabia - 293
6. Oman - 246
7. Libya - 240
8. Bahrain 232
9. Netherlands - 119
10. Venezuela - 82
11. Canada - 79
12. Kazakhstan - 61
13. Algeria - 54
14. Iraq - 53
15. Russia - 47
16. Iran 37
17. UK - 28
18. Mexico - 17
It is easy to see that tying the level of the economy or the standard of living to oil prices should level the standard of living in countries with the same production. Russia would have to live noticeably worse than Algeria, Venezuela or Kazakhstan and one and a half times better than the British. And if we consider that the cut-off price, which limits the inflow of petrodollars into the Russian economy, is $ 27 per barrel - we have to live much worse than the Mexicans. Canada, on the other hand, is obliged to fight for a long time in a panic because of hopeless dependence on commodity exports. After all, it pumps energy more than Kazakhstan and almost as much as Venezuela!
However, for some reason we see nothing of the kind.
In fact, the Russian economy is no more dependent on energy exports than the UK economy. Hydrocarbon production gives growth, GDP is about $ 400 per capita per year. With a total GDP, according to various estimates, from $ 10 000 to $ 13 000 for every Russian soul. The value is noticeable - but by no means catastrophic.
Comparing the results of the reign of both politicians, we see that in absolute figures Stalin's decisions have a slight advantage: he managed to reach the pre-crisis level of the economy in the sixth year of power, and not in the eighth. However, Stalin began his rule in a more relaxed atmosphere, and this gave him some advantage. Thus, the success of economic recovery for both rulers can be considered approximately the same.
For all that, Putin was able to do without violence in the economy, could do without crises, without mass repressions, he managed not only to restore the economic power of the country, but also significantly increase the incomes of citizens. It should be recognized that in terms of the success of the general development of the country, taking into account not only the production sphere, but also the welfare of the people, Putin is very noticeably ahead of Stalin.
Foreign policy
The foreign policy of Stalin in the first 8 and even 10 years of his reign can be safely called "no." During the civil war, the Red Army managed to knock out the invaders from the Russian land, and the “democrats” once again crawled into their holes to lick their wounds. Reluctantly, they were forced to recognize the USSR’s right to exist — and nothing more. De facto, the USSR was the winner in the war and for some time could not fear external aggression. However, he has not yet had any influence on the events in the world and has not led an active policy.
The situation in which Putin found himself, becoming president, was the exact opposite. Russia was in the position of a defeated country, defeated, obliged to cringe before the winners and to fulfill all their whims.
The US demanded that Russia's classic tribute by “blood”, the transfer of its strategic arms to external control, the dismemberment of Gazprom, the transfer of control over mineral resources to American firms.
It’s hard to believe now, but only four years ago the whole world was sure that, by order of Bush, Putin would send Russian soldiers to Iraq to die for the interests of the American monopolies. In the same way as Poland, the Baltic States, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia and many other countries, lined with tribute in blood, do. Let's refresh a little memory:
Source: Pskov Information Agency.
Publication date: 25-08-2003
We strongly protest against sending our paratroopers to Iraq
Recently, many Pskovs are extremely worried about the reports about the possibility of sending Russian troops to Iraq regularly appearing in print media.
It is clear that the Americans, under far-fetched and, as it turned out, false pretexts, attacked Iraq and occupied it, received a nationwide guerrilla war, in which they constantly suffer tangible losses. And the prospect is such that this partisan war between Iraqis and aggressors and aggressors will expand, so the Americans have berries in front. Moreover, the Iraqis have about seven million Kalashnikov assault rifles and other weapons in their hands, and there is enough ammunition. Bush clearly shines a new and very decent Vietnam. So Bush sees the main way out of this “Vietnamese” situation in the internationalization of his military presence in Iraq, in attracting his “vassals” there, including Putin’s Russia, as “cannon fodder”. And the reason is appropriately invented: “the oil and other interests of Russia in Iraq will be taken into account if the Russian troops are sent there”. But it’s clear that this is not the interests of the Russian, and first of all the Russian people, but the oil oligarchs of Abramovich, Khodorkovsky, Friedman, Aven, etc.
A.G. KRASNIKOV, I.V. KOSYAK, N.M. SIDORENKO, G.M.SEMENKOV, V.G. TSOGLINA,
members of the public committee to perpetuate the memory of the 6 company of the Pskov paratroopers, military service veterans, labor veterans.
"SOVIET RUSSIA" N 93 (12436), Saturday, 23 August 2003
The United States is committed to taking control of our tactical nuclear weapons. weapon
American Senator Sam Nunn, who visited Russia, was concerned not only with human rights, specifically with one oil oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, but also with the state of Russian nuclear weapons, especially tactical ones. The peace-loving envoy of American democracy offered to establish control over it. In this area, Russia and the United States still have no mutual obligations, which, in the opinion of an overseas people's representative, is abnormal and dangerous.
At least three times Russia has rejected US proposals to control tactical nuclear weapons. The Americans have now changed their approaches, putting the terrorist threat in the first place. Therefore, Senator Nunn is so concerned about the safety of Russian arsenals. Sensational articles about the thefts of “nuclear suitcases”, “backpacks” and other “bags” from Russian secret warehouses appear periodically in the Western press. The purpose of these accusations is to force Russia to reveal its latest nuclear secrets. Not yet possible.
Let us hope that the country's leadership will have enough political will to continue not to succumb to intrusive proposals for control. We have almost eliminated Russia's strategic nuclear power, at least in the field of tactical nuclear weapons, the position should be maintained.
Victor Myasnikov
Nikolay Poroskov: Opposition to President Putin has repeatedly stated in our country that the United States has plans, under the pretext of ensuring security, to take control of Russia's nuclear facilities, including the launchers of the Strategic Missile Forces. Do such plans really exist?
United States Deputy Secretary of Energy, Chief of the Nuclear Security Administration, Ambassador Linton F. BROOKS: This is simply not true. For example, we do not carry out any work on board Russian nuclear submarines, in mines of launchers, from where intercontinental ballistic missiles are launched. We carry out work where nuclear materials or weapons are stored and where they can be stolen. That the Russian authorities could use the Russian equipment for the best protection of such arsenals.
24 May 2003
Here they are, events and opinions four years ago. Just four years ago, defeatists with stunning aplomb and full self-confidence declared that Putin’s “treacherous regime” would give Russian weapons to America, give up Russian soldiers for slaughter, give up deposits and remnants of independence. Could anyone believe then that already in 2007 the Russian distant aviation will begin to patrol the oceans and borders of NATO countries that Putin will casually break off the CFE Treaty, simply calling it unprofitable, that Russia will openly supply arms to Syria and Iran in case the US decides to attack them, that Russia will block the necessary US in the Security Council and Europe’s resolution that it will begin to maneuver its fleet in the North Atlantic, that it will force the West to ask its opinion on almost all international issues?
This is a victory for Putin and only him alone. It is difficult to even imagine what cruel diplomatic wars he had to endure, but it was easy to guess about something. Apparently, he had to face even the threat of the use of force against rebellious, suddenly disobedient Russia. In any case, it came to the point that Putin openly promised to use nuclear weapons against Western countries:
"Russia has a significant stock of these missiles, which have not been on combat duty for a single day and were stored in arsenals in a" dry "state." This was stated by Vladimir Putin on October 2003 of the year at a meeting with the leadership of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. These missiles were not on combat duty in the fueled state and therefore, according to the statement of the President of the Russian Federation and the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, can be operated as part of the Strategic Missile Forces. “Although these missiles were not made yesterday and not today, but in a sense, these are new products, the period of their possible use is very significant,” the President of Russia noted, “and the combat capabilities, including in overcoming any missile defense, are out of competition.”
As a result, the Western world had to give up, accept the independence of Russia and step by step to give up their positions in front of Russian pressure.
The difference between a country paying tribute to the suzerain and blood, and a country patrolling the borders of the former suzerain with its armed forces is so great, for such a transformation, the right to independence usually has to be long and cruel to fight, to pay thousands of lives. Putin won the right to independence for Russia, virtually alone, without a single shot and without losing a single soldier. Therefore, for outstanding achievements in foreign policy, he definitely: + 5
Military construction
There was practically nothing to say about the construction of the army by Stalin in his first 8-10 years of government. After the Civil War, the Red Army was fully operational, could defeat any external enemy. As for its modernization, there was not much progress towards the beginning of the 30s.
Much more can be said about Putin’s military construction.
By the time he came to power, the army practically did not exist. The exercises were not conducted, the planes did not fly, the ships were rusting against the wall, the new weapons were not received by the troops, and the materiel was not properly serviced. To destroy conventional gangs in Chechnya, they had to force and combat equipment from all over the country! Moreover, the supply of parts and the level of their equipment were very far from ideal.
Russia actually had no efficient army capable of protecting it from external invasion. Only a nuclear missile shield, which continued to rapidly lose its combat capability, remained a restraining factor for NATO countries.
Resuscitation of the armed forces was carried out quickly, competently and surprisingly thought out. In order not to spray small funds at first, the restoration began with the so-called “units of constant readiness”. They began to be allocated money for combat training, for the maintenance of the material part. The number of these units turned out to be noticeably smaller than the SA - but on the other hand, they were ready for combat operations. Over time, the number of constant-readiness units increased, the sky-ready compounds were either included in the number of PBGs, or disbanded.
As a result, by the beginning of the second term, the army finally woke up from hibernation, began conducting exercises and maneuvers, and was engaged in its direct tasks: combat training.
At this time, defeatists of all stripes heard a lot of reproaches to Putin for refusing to buy new weapons in return for entering the troops almost to Gorbachev. However, the president showed character here and did not give in to pressure. He needed not just a "shaft" for the report, not a meaningless "cut" of money, but an army armed with the latest technology, having the best weapons in the world. Therefore, the money did not go to the factories. They were heading for R & D. As a result, in 2007, the most advanced weapons began to be supplied to the Russian army. "Mi-28" and "SU-34", "Iskander" and "Barmitsa", "Pantsiri" and "С400", frigates of the project 22350. Submarine forces will receive three types of submarines - Xorem Borey SSBN, YNSS 955 Yasen Project, 885A Antey Submarine Project and Shchuka-B 949 Project, Lada XDUMX diesel submarines with an air-independent power plant. In the ground and airborne troops under the new armament program, no less than 971 units of the battalion unit will be re-equipped with new and modernized equipment. The work on new types of strategic missiles, combat aircraft and other weapons, which will soon also go into production, is being completed.
The order of the Ministry of Defense of Russia only for helicopters is 300 units, for new aircraft - 700 units. But in addition to this, new form, new rations, new bulletproof vests and helmets come into service. New, new, new ... In terms of retooling the army, Russia is now in first place in the world, and thanks to the leap in the coming years, it will become the second in the world in strike power.
At first glance, and here Putin’s rule wins in all respects - but a superficial glance is deceptive. The general secretary, not worse than the president, understood that the army needed modern weapons. For the production of this required heavy industry, engineering and scientific schools. And that, and another, and the third were laid in the country by Stalin. He was the first to develop mass higher education in Russia, widely prepare engineers, scientists, opened specialized research institutes, massively built power plants, open-hearth furnaces and rolling mills. Like Putin, he looked into the future, and Joseph Vissarionovich still retains much of the power of the modern Russian army. Therefore, in this area both rulers will have to be recognized as equally successful.
Information field
In order to direct the activities of society and each individual person to the benefit of the country and society, from time immemorial there exists such a thing as upbringing. Man's upbringing lasts from the cradle to gray hair and gives him inner support for actions and motivation in making decisions. The information field surrounding a person is extremely important, since it determines all his behavior, culture, readiness for self-sacrifice.
For example, we can give the Orthodox culture known to everyone in Russia. Grown in the "information field" of Orthodox culture, the man knew that he served not only his homeland, but also the highest power, which always watches him and assesses his actions, which will reward him for possible sacrifices or deprivation. He knew that he was the bearer of the true faith and was obliged to carry this truth to other nations, pushing the borders of Russia and bringing new nations to the bosom of the church, giving them protection and happiness. This culture cemented the country and directed its energy outside, developing and strengthening the state.
To achieve the unity of the country and the motivation of the actions of the Soviet citizens, Stalin used the communist ideology ideally within the framework of the state religion. The Soviet man was absolutely sure that he was building a paradise on earth: a bright communist future. And that the sacrifices made now will not be lost in vain, they will be rewarded with a happy cloudless fate if not to himself, then at least to his children. The Soviet man knew that by pushing the borders of the USSR, he would bring happiness to other nations, giving them freedom and saving them from the oppressors. Communist ideology gave people an inner core and made it easy to resist other religions. Such as Christianity, democracy, Islam and all kinds of sects. It was sent outward, was attractive to other nations and allowed the USSR to gain supporters all over the world.
But most importantly: despite the low standard of living, it gave the Soviet people a sense of being chosen and happy.
Putin's Russia completely ignored this area of life. The President No. XXUMX never bothered to give a sacred meaning to his activities, to designate "higher goals." He completely ignored the need to educate people and create a favorable information field for them.
This slip is not as harmless as it seems. The unattended sphere of human needs immediately began to occupy foreign cultures and religions, trying to establish its primacy on Russian soil. And it would be okay if Orthodoxy was familiar to the peoples, but in our country the religion of democracy is trying to establish itself as the “Highest Truth,” and worse - tolerance.
The cult of tolerance is the most destructive and aggressive of the totalitarian sects that now exist. Many researchers compare it with spiritual AIDS, but in fact it is the most natural medieval obscurantism. If scientists in the wild, antediluvian Europe burned at the stake because they asserted the postulates about the round earth and the movement of the planets around the sun, today with the same rage “tolerasti” fall on those people whose intellect allows us to distinguish man from woman or to distinguish people of different races This is not an exaggeration. Many scientists have already been obstructed or banned on occupations for pointing out the anatomical features of different peoples or genders. Tolerance as a religious movement, like the satanic or Buddhist cults, fosters in its followers the need for spiritual suicide by renouncing life, imposes a ban on an active life position. Tolerance teaches us not to resist sexual perversions, to humiliate loved ones and the whole people in general, not to care about the future of children and the whole country, to forget about self-esteem, not to protect the heritage of ancestors both in the material and in the spiritual sphere. Just relax and go with the flow, until the life path comes to an end ...
Spiritual death, physical death, the death of a nation is the sacred goal of the Torah sect. And the attractiveness of this religion makes the justification of inaction. No need to catch pedophiles - because they have the “right”. No need to treat homosexuals - this is their “personal life”. You do not need to defend your faith, because it offends believers of other concessions. No need to perform feats, fasting, spiritually evolve. No need to do anything! And it's very nice to do anything. Watching TV, drinking beer, smoking marijuana is much easier than “fighting and searching, finding and not giving up.”
There are ascetic religions, there are religions of the godless, there are racist religions. And tolerance is a religion of idlers, ready to devour anyone who requires them to strain their brains or take up arms. Religion degradation.
The fact that this obscurantism is now seeping into Russia is the direct fault of the President, who did not bother to create a cementing country and directing its development of the information field.
Therefore, for the cultural and spiritual component of our life, we put Putin a firm "unsuccessful", and Stalin, with whose name on those lips, even those whom he himself allowed to "meat", often put on solid + 5.
Social sphere
Changes in the social sphere of the country under both rulers were significant, if not revolutionary.
Under Stalin, citizens of the USSR received free access to education and medical care. Putin’s efforts to improve the quality of medical care, purchase new equipment for hospitals, build new knowledge, multiply the salary increase for doctors were merely maintaining the existing health care network, as well as the government’s efforts to computerize schools and increase teachers ’salaries education.
However, Putin could not do anything else. Building a new system of medical care or education, when there is already quite a decent network, is no less nonsense than building new DneproGESy or Magnitka, not paying attention to the fact that they already exist and continue to work.
However, under Stalin, the incomes of broad sections of the population practically did not grow after the “Nepman” upturn. Under Putin's growth, incomes turned out to be even and constant, with the growth in living standards becoming multiple and decisive for wide strata of their attitude toward power.
Under Stalin, powerful ideological propaganda inspired confidence in people in the future, the broad masses had a goal they were striving for, in people there was a sense of self-esteem, an inner moral core, a feeling of happiness. Putin's government has withdrawn from the spiritual side of life, causing in many people inner turmoil, a lack of understanding of the future of the country and of its own.
The repressions carried out by Stalin during the first period of his reign touched a little over one percent of the population — but still they were hundreds of thousands of people, guilty only of having worked well in the past and did not want to part with the fruits of their labor. It is unlikely that this can be recorded as a plus to the general secretary. But noisy political processes associated with repression against his opponents, Stalin conducted openly, with a large gathering of people, with the broadcast of these processes on the radio and reprint the minutes of meetings in national newspapers. Such a “public terrorism”, with an “open visor”, caused among the broad masses confidence in the correctness of the actions of the leader and the fairness of the sentences.
Repressions under Putin’s authority were minor. Here you can include sentences of Russian officers and soldiers who performed their military duty in Chechnya, sentences under the “Russian” article. The latter, however, rarely did not lead to real deadlines, but the first defenders of the Motherland were outrageous, first of all, because they were held secretly, were not covered in the media, their motives were incomprehensible to the population and caused a quiet, but resentment in the masses.
However, in any case, the repressions of Stalin and Putin turned out to be completely incomparable in scale even with only the first decade of Stalin’s rule.
To the repressive can be attributed to the labor legislation of Stalin. Imprisonment for being late for work, absenteeism, deprivation of millions of Soviet citizens of the right to free movement, return of the peasantry during times of serfdom by denying them passports does not find any reflections in the realities of today. This is a definite and major flaw in the Stalin regime.
Putin's regime is notable for the emergence of the national question. The main reason for this scourge was the rapid revival of the domestic industry and, as a result, the shortage of workers. But if Stalin made up for this shortage due to the exodus of the Russian population from the villages, then Putin - due to the absorption of many millions of foreigners from neighboring countries. In the cities and towns of Russia suddenly appeared a huge number of people brought up in the traditions of tribal, clan culture, unfamiliar with the traditions of Russian culture and do not accept those. This nuisance, given the elimination of the state from the spiritual and cultural life of the people, gave the fate of people on the ground to the power of small local leaders. As a result, in places where high corruption allowed criminal national groups to seize power from the people, where power was carried away by the obscurantism of tolerance, people's life turned into hell, led to riots against the dominance of crime and indulgence of visitors, against the oppression of Russians. Where the power has appeared fair and reasonable - the national question is absent as such. An example would be the situation in the famous Kondopoga and Olonets. Located very close to the city differ as heaven and earth. In Kondopoga, the local authorities brought the national question to a complete failure, which ended in the massacre of the Russian people and the response pogroms. In Olonets, the banal demands of the local police chief for the meticulous observance of the Russian legislation by the visitors allows us to keep national relations peaceful and friendly.
In any case, the blame for the growth of ethnic friction completely falls on the inept, passive actions of Putin’s government.
In general, the rejection of mass repressions (dozens of victims against thousands of Stalinist victims), measures to improve the living standards of broad sections of the population make it possible to evaluate Putin's decisions in the social sphere as somewhat more successful than the actions of Stalin.
Heritage
Recall that in the 1922 year, Lenin insisted not on the federation's entry into the Russian Federation, but on the “equal to the union” (detained by Stalin, Dzrezhinsky and Odzhonikidze, he was an evil thinker; attitudes "). Of course, the master of the provocations, Ilyich ruled not to respect the national feelings of the people. "Divide and conquer" - this policy ppimenyalas Bolsheviks in all areas: in Quaternary Gpazhdanskoy Latvians used petro English, kpestyan - petro Cossacks pabochih - petro kpestyan, bashkip - the petro-print and other, autonomists - and petro gosudapstvennikov naobopot. If the regions are overpowered in the struggle for power, it will be even easier to take them (so in the end it turned out: first, these areas were fenced off from the Bolsheviks by national borders, and then - one after the other - fell under their blows).
In addition, the allied system deprived the nationalists of their trump cards - in most of the republics, the anti-Soviet struggle was waged under national slogans.
In addition, the Bolsheviks in Russia was simple, about spit. After all, according to Lenin, the revolution was supposed to be a global one, and Russia was just an armful of brushwood, and to inflame it.
(“Once again about the great-power chauvinism” Timup Latypov)
The rejection of the administrative-territorial division of Russia and the planting of national districts of different levels, adopted under Stalin and preserved by him, became a time bomb that led to the disintegration of the country along national borders in 1990-1991.
The second legacy of Stalin was the development of a full-fledged heavy industry with all its components: energy, metallurgy, mechanical engineering.
The third legacy is a developed social sphere (medicine, education, housing).
The fourth is the memory of hundreds of thousands of repressed, more than six hundred thousand of whom were sentenced to death. And tens of thousands are innocent. The Stalinist repressions turned into a bugbear, which is constantly used by Russophobic propaganda in the fight against Russia, with its pride, its memory, its history and its current revival.
Putin’s legacy was the revived industry, the revived army, the revived sovereignty of Russia.
And at the same time - and the national question. Leaving the national-religious problem of Russia to take its course will inevitably lead to the imminent destruction of the state as a result of the destruction of the cultural community. We see the scenario of destroying a country every day by the example of Western countries, where crowds of newcomers from other countries by violence, pogroms and blackmail require exclusive rights for themselves, elevating them above the local, indigenous population, shame the foundations that ensured the prosperity of Western civilization, destroy the faith and customs of Europeans , impose the rules of world order customary for their former places of residence. The rules in which there is simply no place for Europeans.
If Russia wants to survive, the priority of Orthodox culture must be unequivocally confirmed at the state level. Orthodox culture, the culture of the Russian people provides a worthy place within its borders for Islam, Buddhism, and other beliefs, provides rights and dignity for all peoples, and has been the basis of Russian statehood for many centuries. Therefore, the authorities are obliged to clearly and clearly declare that the doors to Russia are open only for those guests who are ready to accept Russian culture and enter the Russian community. But those who intend to break the Russian people under themselves and their morals - the way to the borders of the country should be strictly closed once and for all.
It means:
1. The attributes of the Orthodox Church cannot be recognized as insulting anyone's feelings under any circumstances! Russia is a country of Orthodox culture, even if someone remains an atheist or a Muslim in this environment. At the same time, however, symbols of other confessions may seem offensive to Orthodox or other believers and their rights should be protected in court.
2. No customs and practices of religion can be an excuse for public actions that violate the generally accepted morality in Russian society. For example: sacrifices, self-mutilation, auto-da-fe, violence and so on.
3. Compliance with the laws of Russia and generally accepted Orthodox morality is obligatory for all, and the violation of their visitors should be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Bringing these principles as state policy to local executive bodies will quickly extinguish all national contradictions once and for all. Otherwise - the death of Russia after Western Europe is inevitable.
Putin is leaving, leaving the national question open. But this is practically the only serious problem inherited by the state after it. Hence, Russia after it remains in a state of no worse than after Stalin.
Summing up our research, we have to admit that, by and large, in terms of the sum of evaluations, Putin’s rule is much more successful than Stalin’s rule.
At first glance, this may seem strange. After all, Stalin is the one who, according to the apt remark of the English Trotskyist Isaac Deutscher: "He took Russia with a plow, and left it with an atomic bomb."
It's right. But let's not forget that the nuclear industry and space programs are the result not of eight, and not even ten years of Stalin’s rule, but full thirty years. In the first ten years, changes in the image of Russia have not yet become noticeable. Yes, the country was built, studied, transformed; in it, as under Putin, laid the foundation for future breakthroughs. But the main achievements still remained far ahead.
Putin has changed the face of Russia much stronger and faster.
It was:
The desire to double GDP and catch up on this indicator Portugal.
After:
Russia's economy is recognized as the seventh in the world in its volume.
It was:
The total wage arrears as of 1 February 1999 amounted to 76 billion rubles. and decreased in January by 1,3%, including a decrease in 98 mln rubles in manufacturing industries. (0,2%) and in the social sector - by 881 million rubles. (4,1%). According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in 2000-2002, in Russia, 4% of the population suffered from hunger (5,2 million).
After:
The consumption level in the country is 15% per year. Growth, sales of new cars is 30% per year and exceeded 2 million cars per year, growth, sales of household appliances exceeds 50%.
It was:
We strongly protest against sending our paratroopers to Iraq
Recently, many Pskovs are extremely worried about the reports about the possibility of sending Russian troops to Iraq regularly appearing in print media.
After:
Russia unilaterally refused to comply with the terms of the CFE Treaty as worsening its defense capability.
It was:
The United States is striving hard to take control of our tactical nuclear weapons.
At least three times Russia has rejected US proposals to control tactical nuclear weapons.
After:
The February flyover of the Russian strategic bomber 9 over the Nimitz aircraft carrier in the Pacific did not pursue provocative targets. The conviction was expressed by the Chief of Staff of the Navy, Admiral Gary Roughhead.
It was:
Opposition to President Putin has repeatedly stated in our country that the US has plans to take control of Russia's nuclear facilities under the pretext of ensuring security.
After:
The Bush administration does not consider, the White House representative stressed that Russia’s supply of nuclear fuel to Iran can be seen as a sign of a decrease in international support for UN sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s enrichment of fissile materials. Prime TASS 09: 12 18.12.2007
Such dramatic changes in the country, which took place in just eight years, make it possible to say with complete confidence that President V. V. Putin is the best, most productive, clever and lucky of the rulers of Russia for at least the last century and a half.
Information