The main mistake of Marxism

429
The main mistake of Marxism

Quite often, when discussing certain domestic and foreign policy issues of Russia, the problems it faces, from people holding “left” (primarily Marxist and neo-Marxist) views, one can hear the phrases: “but under communism...” or “ Now, if there was socialism in Russia, then…”, etc. Moreover, these phrases can be heard when discussing completely different issues, including those that have nothing to do with the economy.

There is actually nothing surprising in such statements, since the phenomenon of nostalgia for the USSR in Russia is quite widespread, as is the tendency to romanticize and idealize history Soviet period. And if sometimes this nostalgia for a strong state and the Soviet system of social policy is justified, in some cases it raises questions.



For some “leftists,” it is Marxism-Leninism, which became the basis for Soviet socialism (state socialism), that is almost a kind of panacea for all the ills of society. The fact that almost all communist regimes collapsed, including the USSR, including due to a whole range of problems - both external and internal - does not bother anyone: usually in this case they say that the theory is good, but the implementers failed. However, this is not what we will be talking about.

Russia, in addition to the confrontation with the West, of which the military conflict in Ukraine is part, currently has three serious problems that require an immediate solution.

The first problem is the demographic crisis; the second problem is the mass uncontrolled migration of people from Central Asia, who have a negative attitude towards Russians and Russian culture; the third problem is the Islamization that accompanies all this, because migrants from Central Asia, who are gradually replacing the Russian population, are mainly Muslims.

Frankly speaking, these problems have a “right-wing” slant, because if you look, for example, at the European experience, it is the “right-wing” parties that defend the role of the nation and national values, and oppose migration and multiculturalism. The “right” advocates either the complete assimilation of migrants or their deportation. In turn, the “left,” on the contrary, lobby for mass migration, providing them with various benefits, and also promote the policy of multiculturalism.

It looks strange when, regarding issues of migration, demography, loss of cultural and national identity, they begin to refer to economic theories - be it socialism or capitalism. With the help of economic instruments alone, it is impossible to solve either the issues of demography (and as practice shows, in poor countries the birth rate is much higher than in rich ones), much less issues related to the loss of national identity and the replacement of the population by migrants.

In addition, many people forget that the world has changed, which raises the question: how relevant is Marxist socialism of the XNUMXth century today?

This material will examine three questions: first, what the modern “left” is and whether a return to socialism is possible; secondly, how did things stand with interethnic conflicts in socialist states; and thirdly, what, in fact, is the main mistake of Marxism.

Is a return to socialism possible?


Quite often you can hear the thesis that Russia’s return to Soviet socialism would lead to an improvement in the situation within the country and to the solution of many problems. However, according to the author, a return to socialism in the form in which it existed in the XNUMXth century is no longer possible, since the world has changed greatly in the XNUMXst century.

This thesis should be argued, since many may find it unconvincing.

First of all, it should be noted that the industrial countries of Europe have reached a qualitatively new level of development of productive forces. In the sphere of social production, the production of services began to predominate, and the structure of employment changed accordingly. Among wage earners, the majority are now mental workers and office workers.

The working class has also changed a lot - and not just because it has become smaller. The proletarians who served as the support of Marxism have simply ceased to exist in the modern post-industrial world.

Who came to replace them?

To answer this question, we should turn to the classification of British sociologist Guy Standing. In his book “The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class” he wrote that the “working class”, the “proletariat” in the form in which it existed in the XNUMXth century does not exist, now it is nothing more than a label. Therefore, a new classification is needed that reflects class relations in the global market system.

Following Standing's classification, seven groups can be distinguished: at the very top are the elite, the richest citizens of the world; Next comes the salariat - employees of large corporations, state-owned enterprises, officials - they all have good social guarantees and salaries, and are generally securely employed in the “system”; Below is a group of profitians - “qualified personnel”, specialists who successfully sell their skills and knowledge on the market on their own.

They are followed by the “old working class” or those same proletarians, but who have protection from the arbitrariness of the employer, thanks to the labor code, social guarantees, etc.; at the very bottom are the precariat and the unemployed - people who have no or almost no social guarantees, qualifications and certainty for the future, employed in the service sector with work that does not require special qualifications, as well as migrants [1].

Those workers who were the support of Marxism have now joined the ranks of the middle class, and now, in essence, are no different from the bourgeoisie. All their “leftism” is limited by the desire to maintain their social guarantees and protect the workplace from competition. This is why American workers, for example, overwhelmingly voted for the “right-wing” Donald Trump rather than the “left-wing” Democrats in both 2016 and 2020.

All of the above led to a transformation of the social base of the left parties. The time has come for new socialists—“new leftists” or “neo-Marxists”—who have found new “oppressed” and “oppressors.”

The new generation of socialists shifted the focus of “oppression” from workers to women (feminism), sexual minorities (LGBT), the unemployed, racial minorities and migrants. You can read more about what the “new left” is in the material “The New Left and the 1968 Revolution: How the Fight Against Inequality Transformed into a Cult of Repentance, a Culture of Cancellation, and a Dictatorship of Minorities».

A significant part of neo-Marxists and socialists joined the left liberals for the reason that it was easy for them to find a common language, because their value systems generally coincide. It should be noted once again that the social base of the “new left” was migrants, including illegal ones, sexual minorities, the unemployed, feminists, etc.

The main enemies of the new socialists were patriarchy, white heterosexual men and the white race as such, traditional marriage, private property, etc. The “New Left” stopped relying on the workers, who answered them in the same way. As the American political philosopher and historian Paul Gottfried rightly noted:

“Workers began to vote more for the right, although this trend manifested itself to varying degrees in different countries. Growing dissatisfaction with Third World immigration, attributed to increased violent crime and curbs on wage growth, has pushed French and Italian workers to support nationalist right-wing parties that demand an end to immigration. And the left parties were powerless to stop this because of their attempts to establish an alliance with Third World immigrants and their crusade against racism.

Some modern neo-Marxists understand that a purely economic struggle for the “left” is becoming practically impossible. They note that the structure of employment, the nature of work and the objective needs of people have changed, and the old Marxism has largely lost its relevance. The problem of economic injustice, of course, did not disappear because of this, but it is no longer possible to solve it with the help of outdated theories.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that the idea of ​​class struggle in the form in which it existed in the XNUMXth century is irrelevant in the XNUMXst century. The proletariat, in the form in which it existed in the XNUMXth century, no longer exists, and the social changes that have occurred suggest an erosion of the foundations on which the theory of scientific communism was built.

Therefore, when someone calls for the return of socialism, the question immediately arises - what kind of socialism are we talking about?

About the socialism of the “new left”, which is the basis of the radical left-liberal agenda, what is currently relevant in the West? Or about the old Marxist socialism, which, as mentioned above, has largely lost its social base? Or about something else?

Next, let's move on to consider the second question - how Marxists treated the phenomenon of national culture, and how interethnic conflicts were resolved in socialist countries.

Issues of national identity and interethnic conflicts in Marxism


One of the mistakes of Marxism is a purely economic view of the world - in serious events taking place, be it a military conflict, an ethnic conflict or some kind of crisis, Marxists and neo-Marxists try to find some economic interests, “the benefit of the capitalists.” In fact, not all conflicts have an economic basis.

Marxism does not attach much importance to issues of national culture and national identity, explaining all problems by the level of economic development. If some kind of interethnic conflict arises in the region, then, according to a neo-Marxist, it is associated with the economic level of development of the region. If migrants begin to destroy stores and set fire to historical museums in a country, it is because they are poor and “oppressed.”

In matters of preserving national identity, Marxists are no different from left-wing liberals - which is why they eventually easily found a common language with them. Marxists are internationalists and advocate erasing boundaries between nations. In particular, Vladimir Lenin noted in “Critical Notes on the National Question”:

“The slogan of national culture is a bourgeois (and often Black Hundred-clerical) deception. Our slogan is the international culture of democracy and the world labor movement... Take a concrete example. Can a Great-Russian Marxist accept the slogan of a national, Great-Russian culture? No. Such a person should be placed among the nationalists, not the Marxists.
Our job is to fight the dominant, Black Hundred and bourgeois national culture of the Great Russians, developing exclusively in the international spirit and in the closest alliance with the workers of other countries those beginnings that are also present in our history of the labor movement” [3].

As some conservative thinkers, such as Oswald Spengler, rightly noted, both liberal political economy and the Communist Manifesto represent a nihilistic principle of the “international,” directed against the nation and national culture.

Some “leftists” criticize both Russia and the modern West for their migration policy, noting (not without reason) that international capital does not care who will be behind the machine - a white man or a black man, as long as it is economically profitable.

However, in Marxism, in this regard, there is also no difference who will stand at the machine - a black man or a white man, the main thing is that the system is socialist and not capitalist. For, as Lenin wrote above, national culture has no meaning.

However, it was nationalism that dealt a significant blow to Marxism at the beginning of the XNUMXth century - Marx believed that classes were a more important reality than nations, that economics determined the thoughts and beliefs of people, but in reality everything turned out to be the opposite. The German worker, for example, turned out to have more in common with the German manufacturer than with the French worker. National solidarity turned out to be stronger than class and economic thinking. That is why the idea of ​​a “world revolution” turned out to be utopian.

Interethnic conflicts in socialist states have also not disappeared. Let's take the Soviet Union for example. Soviet national policy knew only one way to solve the problems of ethnic minorities - turning them into a titular nation in a specially created administrative entity, i.e., a republic. The Bolsheviks took the path of autonomizing some parts of Russia within the existing borders.

This was quite consistent with their attitude towards nationalism - Marxism-Leninism argued that there are two nationalisms, “nationalism of the oppressor nation” and “nationalism of the oppressed nation.” Therefore, nationalism in France, Great Britain and Germany, for example, is “bad” nationalism, and the nationalism of colonial countries, for example, in African countries, is “good”. Majority nationalism is bad. Minority nationalism is good.

The 1960 textbook “Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism” directly stated that

“in every bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed nation there is a general democratic content against oppression, and we unconditionally support this content” [4].

Russian nationalism, of course, was banned as “nationalism of the oppressors,” and the Soviet government turned a blind eye to regional nationalisms (which, by the way, is still happening now).

However, such a policy did not save the USSR from Russophobia, which flourished in the republics. On the contrary, historian Alexander Vdovin rightly noted that

“Historically, Russophobia grew out of attitudes towards the victory of socialism on a global scale, towards the merging of nations in the course of socialist construction, and from a view of the Russian people only as a means to achieve this goal” [5].

Russophobia was infected primarily by the national ruling elites, or more precisely, by the titular clans, which were ready to use national consolidation in order to fight the Russian center.

In 1983, letters came from Alma-Ata to the Pravda newspaper saying that Russians there were living “in a stuffy, ugly atmosphere of local Kazakh nationalism, which flourished magnificently during the reign of D. A. Kunaev.” A group of military personnel from the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic argued that “nationalism in Ordzhonikidze is flourishing quite magnificently,” cases of attacks and even murders have become more frequent, the victims of which “usually are Russians” [6].

In letters from Uzbekistan there are references to the facts of an open call to the Russians: “Go to your Russia.” The culmination of Russophobic sentiments can be considered the explosions of three bombs in Moscow in 1977, carried out by members of the underground Armenian nationalist group - Stepanyan, Bagdasaryan, Zatikyan, who admitted during the investigation that they came to Moscow to fight the Russian people.

There were also frequent ethnopolitical conflicts related to the territorial claims of ethnic groups. In October 1972, 4 Ingush from the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (CH ASSR,) North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (SO ASSR), Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic sent a letter to the highest government bodies of the country demanding the return to them of the right bank part of the city of Ordzhonikidze, Prigorodny district with all settlements, Keskelensky farms, lands near the village of Voznesenskaya, village. Olginskoye, Gveleti village. The nature of the open confrontation between Ossetians and Ingush for the “land of their fathers” was confirmed by the facts of murders and arson of houses on ethnic grounds, evictions and the ban on Ingush registration and buying houses in the Prigorodny district [930].

The events of January 15–18, 1973 were a natural consequence of the explosive situation that had developed in the North Caucasus. The Ingush, who demanded the return of the Prigorodny district, kept the building of the regional committee of the CPSU in Grozny under siege for more than three days, and “the regions of Ingushetia abandoned work, and the entire population was in Grozny” [6].

Thus, despite the assurances of the Soviet leadership about the triumph of the friendship of peoples and the successful creation of the Soviet people, interethnic conflicts in the USSR were not resolved and did not go away.

The main mistake of Marxism is the fight against human nature


The national policy of the Soviet socialists failed, just like the attempt to create a new man. The experiment to create a “good communist”, revived through a radical transformation of his identity, freed from individuality in order to join the collective in body and soul, turned out to be a failure.

One of the main mistakes of the Marxists was that they believed that human nature could be changed. In practice, this turned out to be nothing more than a utopia.

Socialism is in one way or another associated with an overestimation of the importance of circumstances in people’s lives and, accordingly, with an underestimation of the influence of people on circumstances. The following statement by K. Marx is indicative:

“If a person’s character is created by circumstances, then it is necessary, therefore, to make the circumstances humane.”

In fact, a person has no less influence on circumstances. Moreover, he often acts contrary to certain circumstances [7].

The communists naively believed that the shortcomings and vices of people, their enmity and rivalry would disappear by themselves if one of the social relations was destroyed - private property.

However, vices and enmity are generated not only and not so much by the system of private property. The proof of this is the practice of real life under socialism, which destroyed this system. The absence of private property does not at all save humanity from interethnic conflicts, nor does it heal people from vices [7].

The reasons for human discord and enmity are much deeper - they are rooted in the biological nature of man. People are initially genetically very different and even opposite. The dissimilarity between them gives rise to the difference in their interests. And the dissimilarity of interests gives rise to clashes between people, their mutual struggle [7].

Society, as O. Spengler correctly noted in his time, is based on the inequality of people. This is a natural fact. There are strong and weak natures, called to manage and incapable of this, creative and mediocre, ambitious and lazy.

It’s hard to disagree with historian Oleg Plenkov:

“Marxist socialism believed in the creation of an earthly paradise, replacing religion, while evil is an ineradicable part of human existence, and it will persist as long as the human race exists [8].

Использованная литература:
[1]. Standing G. Precariat: a new dangerous class. – M.: Ad Marginem Press, 2014. P. 21.
[2]. Gottfried P. The strange death of Marxism. – M.: Irisen, 2009.
[3]. Lenin V.I. Critical notes on the national issue. – Full. collection cit., vol. 24, pp. 113–150.
[4]. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism: textbook. – Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1960.
[5]. Vdovin A.I. Russian federalism and the Russian question. – M., 2001. P. 62.
[6]. A. P. Myakshev. Power and interethnic conflicts in the USSR during the period of “developed socialism.” – News of Saratov University. New episode. Series History. Right. International Relations, Volume 5, Issue 1/2, 2005.
[7]. Balashov, L. E. What is philosophy? – 3rd ed., expanded. – Moscow: Publishing and trading corporation “Dashkov and Co.”, 2023.
[8]. O. Yu. Plenkov. Myths of the nation versus the myths of democracy: German political tradition and Nazism. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house RKhGI, 1997.
429 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +38
    19 November 2023 04: 39
    In addition, many people forget that the world has changed, which raises the question: how relevant is Marxist socialism of the XNUMXth century today?

    What has changed? The owners of the means of production, who own EVERYTHING, have ceased to be Capitalists, and the hired workers who work for wages have ceased to be the Proletariat?
    And if the underlying economic basis has not changed, then what has changed? Was the superstructure plastered and painted a different color? And what's the difference?
    If the author makes such vague statements at the very beginning, then you don’t have to read further - it will be propaganda of a national bourgeois state with a right-wing bias...
    1. +30
      19 November 2023 05: 44
      This is true. The author is such an elegant opportunist who, with clever phrases, “envelops” consciousness and takes him into the world of nirvana. A true theorist of capitalism.
      1. +25
        19 November 2023 10: 06
        Quote: U-58
        The author is such a graceful opportunist,

        And here’s what V.I. says. Lenin on opportunists
        “It is in vain that we often consider this word “just abuse”, without thinking about its meaning. An opportunist does not betray his party, does not betray it, does not leave it. He continues to serve her sincerely and diligently. But his typical and characteristic feature is pliability to the mood of the moment, inability to resist fashion, political myopia and spinelessness. Opportunism is the sacrifice of the long-term and essential interests of the party to its momentary, transitory, secondary interests.”

        So he can hardly be called an opportunist, rather an elegant demagogue and promoter of the interests of the ruling bourgeois elites. For such people, Marxism is always “outdated”; a hired worker, if he does not wave a shovel or stand at a machine, is no longer “the proletariat”, and there are always “a few” problems in the country (according to the author, there are only three of them: demography, migration and religion) , his American Democrats are “left” (apparently much to the left of our Communist Party of the Russian Federation), etc. etc., there is no point in listing further. None of this is new, the techniques are the same...
    2. -24
      19 November 2023 05: 50
      To make revolutions, we need teams of thousands of unskilled workers.
      They are no more and never will be.
      1. +14
        19 November 2023 06: 14
        What does the qualifications of the proletariat have to do with it? The root of the issue is not qualifications, but the standard of living of the individual and society as a whole.
        1. +10
          19 November 2023 07: 17
          If you read Marx yourself, and not in free translations, you would be horrified by his revelations: “socialism will first win in Germany, where there is a highly developed nation and technology, and then lowly organized Slavs will join it,” this “ordung” of national socialism?
          1. +20
            19 November 2023 08: 19
            At the time the work of Marx and Engels was carried out, their theory regarding Germany was correct. Let me remind you that the collection of materials was carried out by Engels, who traveled extensively throughout Europe and collected statistically reliable material to understand what was happening.
            And the postulate about the revolution in Germany was the most correct. The classics could not imagine that Russian social democrats would appear on the scene and be able to lead the world movement towards a just society. Every vegetable has its time.
            1. +7
              19 November 2023 13: 42
              Quote: U-58
              And the postulate about the revolution in Germany was the most correct. The classics could not imagine that Russian Social Democrats would appear on the scene and be able to lead...
              And this somehow prevented the German proletarians from rising up against the world bourgeoisie? You wrote it correctly - “postulate”. This is a statement accepted without evidence, and serves as the basis for the construction of any scientific theory. Its “fidelity” can be judged only after the appearance of evidence in the course of social practice. They never appeared, there are only refutations, in many socialist revolutions in countries where not only there was no German proletariat, but there was a predominance of the peasant population. The stubborn ones do not want to see this, like Rashkin the elk, they spit on socio-historical practice as a criterion of truth and insist that “Marx’s teaching is omnipotent because it is true” like the followers of the Aum-Shinrikyo sect.
            2. 0
              27 November 2023 14: 29
              You are absolutely right...

              In addition, for a socialist revolution, an OBJECTIVELY necessary PROLETARIAN, CAPABLE party and a LEADER of such a party, NO LESS GIFTED than Marx, is a follower of Marx.

              So V.I. Lenin became the leader. He created the PROLETARIAN BOLSHEVIK party...
          2. +15
            19 November 2023 10: 15
            Quote from Silver99
            If you read Marx yourself, and not in free translations, you would be horrified

            We read it and weren’t “horrified.” This is what V.I. Lenin said about Markism (you couldn’t say it better, even though it’s an excerpt)
            Marxism is not only a theory, much less a dogma, but a guide for action. By losing sight of this side of Marxism, we make Marxism one-sided, ugly, dead, we take its soul out of it, we undermine its fundamental theoretical foundation - dialectics, the doctrine of comprehensive and full of contradictions historical development; we undermine its connection with certain practical tasks of the era, which can change with every new turn of history...
            1. +9
              19 November 2023 15: 18
              "...we are undermining its fundamental theoretical basis - dialectics, the doctrine of comprehensive and full of contradictions historical development;...". V.I. Lenin reveals the essence of Marxism, the doctrine of class struggle. There is and could not be anything else in Marxism: the main work of K. Marx is “Capital”, a critical analysis of contemporary European capitalism. He derived the law of surplus value. He substantiated that surplus value is created by human labor, direct or indirect, and nothing else. Neither capital nor rent... only human labor. Marx has nothing about the structure of a socialist society, especially a communist one. Lenin's main work: "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." Thorough, involving a lot of factual and statistical material, but it does not say anything about socialism and communism. Further, topical materials of party building, revolution and “war communism”, the rationale for the NEP. All! As you can see, it is useless to look for a theory of the structure of a socialist society, as well as a communist one, from the founders.
              1. +1
                20 November 2023 08: 13
                Error correction
                Dear SavranP (Paul), what you call the “law of surplus value” was derived = not by K. Marx, but by Adam Smith, for example, Adam Smith’s work “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776). Read also other works by A. Smith.
                1. +4
                  21 November 2023 12: 44
                  Yes, you are right, the definition of surplus value belongs to A. Smith. But Smith called the source of surplus value capital. Karl Marx, as I understand it, did not agree with this, and justified human labor, direct or indirect, as a source of surplus value. Capital, according to K. Marx, can be a means or an instrument, but not an active source of surplus value.
                  On this topic. Theoretically, the Marxists are right: they divided the world not horizontally (nations, peoples), but vertically (into classes of the oppressed and the oppressed). Hence the international and the slogan “Workers of all countries unite!” The fallacy of the theory (or its prematureness?) was proven by the first and then the second world wars. This, in my opinion, is what the author of the article proves?
          3. +3
            19 November 2023 20: 38
            Quote from Silver99
            If you read Marx yourself

            ....then they realized that Marx’s theory remained a theory. His pseudoscientific arguments about capital are no longer interesting to anyone. I am more than sure that none of the Marsist-Leninists present here have read the 4 volumes on abstract capital. And by Marxism, everyone means their own personal understanding. I counted more than 20 definitions of Marxism - and they are all different. The Marxist Lenin rejected the understanding of the theory of Marx by the Marxist Plekhanov with the same success as today's commentators reject each other's understanding of it, considering their understanding to be truly correct. The Marxist Khrushchev understood Marx's theory differently from the Marxist Brezhnev, and the Marxist Andropov did not understand the theory from Brezhnev and Khrushchev. And so on.
            1. +1
              20 November 2023 06: 12
              Quote: Silhouette
              Marx's theory remained a theory
              Clarification. A theory is a proven, tested concept. Marx's concept remained a concept.
              1. -4
                20 November 2023 10: 34
                Not certainly in that way . Theory is a concept that is derived from the Greek word theoria - consideration, research. That's all. Here Marx considered a certain abstract industrial capital, already formed. That's all. Nothing more. And from this abstract theory of industrial capital, all kinds of Marxists put forward a bunch of fantastic concepts in relation to practice and became Leninists, Stalinists, Khrushchevites, Maoists, etc. Well, what happened is what happened.
                1. +2
                  20 November 2023 13: 33
                  Quote: Silhouette
                  Not certainly in that way . Theory is a concept that is derived from the Greek word theoria - consideration, research. That's all.
                  This is only part of everything, because... concept (Latin concipere - to collect) is the basic idea of ​​​​gathering facts and studying a phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon already proven by research. This is how it is accepted in science.
            2. 0
              11 March 2024 05: 49
              I am more than sure that none of the Marsist-Leninists present here have read the 4 volumes on abstract capital

              In confirmation of your words. In the 80s, after college, I was assigned to one of the enterprises. Local deputy The secretary for ideological work immediately demanded that I attend my desk once a week after work. study (I was never a communist, of course I was a Komsomol member). I sat for several evenings and listened to the boring reading (sometimes literally syllable by syllable) of the works of the classics of M.L., which we had already “studied” at the institute, I began to play truant. Our “ideologist” caught me in the corridor and began to scold me for absenteeism. I justified myself by saying that I had already studied these works, and, moreover, I was preparing to enter graduate school, and I needed to “study” them there too. I directly said that I knew the question better than anyone present at the readings. And he asked the “ideologist” a question: “Do you know how many volumes there are in Capital? Silent scene! The ideologist not only didn’t read it, he didn’t know how many volumes there were in it!
        2. +15
          19 November 2023 07: 31
          This is simply an attempt by the author, who does not understand the issue, to draw out the impossibility of restoring a fair society due to an artificially created national problem... I laughed out loud when I read about the “leftism” of the Democrats in the USA Yes
          1. -7
            19 November 2023 10: 16
            tongue The minus is probably the village residents who have moved under the wing of the diaspora influencing the authorities...
            1. +5
              20 November 2023 14: 00
              Quote from: dmi.pris1
              The minus is probably the village residents who have moved under the wing of the diaspora, which influences the authorities.
              Exactly, as soon as they arrive in the Russian Federation, the first thing they do is register for VO. And if they don’t give you 10 minuses, then the authorities in the Russian Federation don’t register them at all. I just don’t understand what this is closer to: delusions of grandeur, or delusions of persecution. Dilemma.
          2. -3
            19 November 2023 16: 08
            Quote from: dmi.pris1
            This is simply an attempt by the author, who does not understand the issue, to draw out the impossibility of restoring a fair society due to an artificially created national problem... I laughed out loud when I read about the “leftism” of the Democrats in the USA

            We can laugh out loud at you. You are just an ignoramus who thinks you understand something.
        3. -1
          19 November 2023 08: 20
          Quote: U-58
          What does the qualifications of the proletariat have to do with it? The root of the issue is not qualifications, but the standard of living of the individual and society as a whole.

          So a highly educated worker is a valuable resource and he is provided with good conditions, a tasty salary and other benefits. Why doesn’t he want to rebel, like an uneducated worker from the village who still has a million standing on the fence, who doesn’t know how to do anything and can be easily replaced by anyone else?
          1. +18
            19 November 2023 08: 41
            Quote: BlackMokona
            So a highly educated worker is a valuable resource and he is provided with good conditions, a tasty salary and other benefits. Why doesn't he want to rebel?

            And then production moves to Asia and your highly educated valuable resource ends up on the street in line for soup along with a million uneducated people from the village! The owners of Capital do not have any valuable resource except Capital itself!
            1. -2
              19 November 2023 16: 11
              Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
              And then production moves to Asia and your highly educated, valuable resource ends up on the street in line for soup.

              And where are they standing now for the stew? Manufacturing in Asia is its own thing. Skilled workers are on their own. I wrote here about those workers of this level whom I know. There is no way for them to make any soup even here...
          2. +8
            19 November 2023 10: 17
            Quote: BlackMokona
            So a highly educated worker is a valuable resource and he is provided with good conditions, a tasty salary and other benefits

            And there are many of these???
        4. +2
          19 November 2023 10: 04
          A qualified worker at all times has had a decent income, he does not need revolutions.
          1. +7
            19 November 2023 12: 19
            And the rest, those who don’t fit in, should they die? Reluctance. So much for the revolution.
            1. -1
              19 November 2023 16: 12
              Quote: stankow
              So much for the revolution.

              And what will they go to the barricades with? in 93, did any of them prevent the tankers from shooting at the White House?
              1. 0
                19 November 2023 19: 34
                In 93, one group of newly minted capitalists fought with another for the right to plunder the country. And who needed to interfere? Then the majority had one thought: “a plague on both your houses.”
              2. -1
                20 November 2023 20: 38
                Yes, there were many who wanted to interfere, but there was nothing to do.
              3. 0
                23 November 2023 11: 57
                Quote: kalibr
                Quote: stankow
                So much for the revolution.

                And what will they go to the barricades with? in 93, did any of them prevent the tankers from shooting at the White House?

                Of course, it’s not for you to do this, is it? Justice and legality are the responsibility of others. But then don’t consider yourself better than them.
              4. -1
                23 November 2023 12: 03
                Quote: kalibr
                Quote: stankow
                So much for the revolution.

                And what will they go to the barricades with? in 93, did any of them prevent the tankers from shooting at the White House?

                Isn't it your responsibility to defend ideas of justice? Of course.... But then defending people like you is absolutely stupid and harmful. So where do the complaints come from?
          2. 0
            20 November 2023 03: 38
            In the Russian Empire they were exactly what he needed.
          3. -4
            22 November 2023 16: 55
            Quote: Cartalon
            A qualified worker at all times has had a decent income, he does not need revolutions.

            Engineer
            Information Technology Department 060
            Wage:
            from 35 000 руб.
            Number of vacancies: 1
            Requirements for candidates
            Higher technical education; learning ability; knowledge and experience working with common peripheral equipment, office equipment, server equipment; knowledge of the range of spare parts, components for computer and office equipment; Experience working on trading platforms.
        5. -3
          19 November 2023 10: 04
          A qualified worker at all times has had a decent income, he does not need revolutions.
          1. -3
            20 November 2023 02: 22
            Quote: Cartalon
            A qualified worker at all times has had a decent income, he does not need revolutions.

            He needs a workplace. What if it is destroyed or transferred to another country? What does he need then?
          2. 0
            21 November 2023 19: 04
            Is it true? You probably didn’t see how academicians became shuttle-baggers, not to mention mechanics, turners and top-class millers. In the 90s, the working class was practically eliminated. The precocious bourgeoisie, under the leadership of the Masons, cleaned the clearing, so that God forbid...
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. +4
        19 November 2023 12: 19
        Quote: Cartalon
        They are no more and never will be.

        Are you sure?

      4. +5
        19 November 2023 13: 45
        Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people demonstrate in France, in Germany, in the States... and nothing, no revolutions. Maybe something is missing?
        1. 0
          20 November 2023 17: 17
          Quote: SavranP
          Maybe something is missing?


          Ideas, leaders, parties.
          That’s why they diligently (especially there) make left-wing LGBT\SJW clowns.
      5. +1
        19 November 2023 16: 24
        To make a revolution, it is necessary that “the stars align.” An unsuccessful war, problems in the economy, etc.. Groups of thousands are not needed
        1. +2
          23 November 2023 23: 56
          You probably meant a coup. A revolution is a change in socio-political formation to a more progressive one. By the way, purely theoretically, it is possible to do without a coup. :)
          If we are talking about a coup, then you forgot to mention the specter of HUNGER. Really tangible is best. And everything will work out. :)
          And the teams have already formed naturally. National diasporas, built according to medieval or earlier patterns, are quite collectives. Enterprise workers do the same. Friendly neighbors and friends are also teams. There is no need to combine them together to make a revolution. They themselves will unite to achieve a single immediate goal.
      6. -1
        19 November 2023 16: 25
        To make a revolution, it is necessary that “the stars align.” An unsuccessful war, problems in the economy, etc.. Groups of thousands are not needed
      7. +4
        20 November 2023 03: 36
        A century ago, however, revolutionaries tended to be highly skilled workers...
      8. 0
        20 November 2023 17: 15
        Quote: Cartalon
        To make revolutions, we need teams of thousands of unskilled workers.
        They are no more and never will be.

        Let's start with the fact that the qualifications of the “victims of the Unified State Exam” are rather a funny joke (on average).
        And let us continue by saying that for a revolution this is not what is needed, but the oppressed and/or dissatisfied, so much so that they are ready to act.
    3. -2
      19 November 2023 08: 47
      Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
      there will be propaganda of a national bourgeois state with a right-wing bias...

      laughing Right bias, left bias..... whatever you call it. The mistake of not only Marxists (in my opinion) is that no one takes into account the natural essence of man: he is a predator, and everything else is an attempt to put his behavior within a certain framework. Make the wolf vegan wassat Don't make my slippers laugh, and stop arguing about nothing. hi
      1. +2
        19 November 2023 12: 22
        Looking at the organization of modern society, man is more like an ant than a wolf.
      2. 0
        20 November 2023 00: 06
        A human predator is so-so. No claws, no fangs...
        1. -1
          20 November 2023 20: 49
          He creates them for himself, because he is the most intelligent of predators and tears the flesh of his prey from a distance. The predatory essence is not in this, in individualism and the desire to create, only for oneself, the most comfortable conditions, at the expense of other individuals. Well, this is approximately how our bourgeoisie behaves, rolling over the heads of citizens who do not fit in with a roller. Listen to the red hyena talking about this on the plane.
          But you can put it in a framework. Joseph Vissarionovich and Lavrenty Pavlovich will not let you lie.
      3. 0
        22 November 2023 16: 00
        Then don’t limit yourself - have slaves, rape the women you like, indulge in cannibalism.
        Is it weak to be a free predator?
    4. +3
      19 November 2023 11: 03
      Totally agree with you. The fact that capitalism is sliding into neo-feudalism does not change anything.
    5. +2
      19 November 2023 16: 42
      I'll try to justify the author. The fact that the world is changing, or has changed, is commonplace in many publications and speeches of politicians and scientists. But the cacaphony of opinions makes it difficult to comprehend the changes. For the most part, we are talking about a phase transition of humanity to another state. Such transitions have already taken place: from gathering and hunting to agriculture and animal husbandry; from the primitive communal system to the slave society (feudalism); from feudalism to capitalism, etc. At the end of the last century, only two countries (superpowers) could begin this transition: the USSR and the USA. But since it was not known where and how to move, the matter stalled. In the 80s, the crisis began in the USA, but they held out until the collapse of the USSR and tried to take advantage of it (not in the best way, by the way). Currently, judging by their media and realities, the States have decided on the transition. Their choice: genetically modified bioforms. With flowing bodies that change at will, asexual reproduction, familyless individualists, with weak social ties, with hypertrophied voluptuousness... A sort of anthropomorphic cuttlefish, in which little remains of modern man. Russia also seems to have decided on the transition. Her choice: a scientific design and technological breakthrough, with a colossal increase in labor productivity, an artificial habitat, a cybernetic protective shell for humans, the preservation of traditional values... Time will tell who is more valuable to Mother Nature.
      1. +3
        19 November 2023 17: 39
        Currently, judging by their media and realities, the States have decided on the transition. Their choice: genetically modified bioforms. With flowing bodies that change at will, asexual reproduction, familyless individualists, with weak social ties, with hypertrophied voluptuousness... A sort of anthropomorphic cuttlefish, in which little remains of modern man. Russia also seems to have decided on the transition. Her choice: a scientific design and technological breakthrough, with a colossal increase in labor productivity, an artificial habitat, a cybernetic protective shell for a person, the preservation of traditional values...
        Both of these directions look frivolous, like propaganda... winked
        1. 0
          20 November 2023 09: 43
          Actually, there was an attempt to process and evaluate the flow of information circulating in the information space: sentiments in society, the dynamics of social movements, decisions of governing structures, project financing, suppression or encouragement of drug addiction, pedophilia, sexual promiscuity, etc. For example, where does Bill Gates invest considerable billions of dollars? In genetic research. What does Elon Musk finance? Chipization of the population. There are many such examples. Based on such information, a forecast is made, an approximation of trends for the foreseeable future. If you don't like it, make your own. We'll compare after a while.
    6. -5
      19 November 2023 18: 16
      The author has delusions of grandeur...
    7. -3
      19 November 2023 22: 16
      Let’s ask ourselves this question: Why was “VO” so frightened that it gave a public platform to an author who judges socialism very subjectively and, in the process, smoothly moves on to interethnic relations??? Well, he simply SAVINGS (with details...) the cases of Russophobia in the CIS after the collapse of the USSR... By the way, there is NOT A WORD in the article ABOUT the successful experience of COMMUNIST (!!. to the great regret of the author and those who ordered the article...) China and Vietnam in state, military, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL terms...Why??? Why, during the successes of the RF Armed Forces in the Northern Military District - in the Russian Federation, some unfortunate political scientists and journalists suddenly began to pedal interethnic relations and are foaming at the mouth to “defend” the Russians???? For what dirty purpose are they doing a disservice to the Russians??? Have they really “forgotten” that Russia is a MULTINATIONAL POWER and that not only Russians but also Armenians, Tatars, Bashkirs, Kalmyks, Dagestanis and many fighters of other Russian nationalities are fighting bravely in the North Military District??? Yes, the Russians WERE, ARE AND WILL BE THE STATE-FORMING nation of Russia, and the Orthodox branch of Christianity WAS, IS AND WILL BE a spiritual and moral beacon for the Russian (and not only..) people... Where exactly and for what purpose - the author got it " works" of some British sociologist??? Or is the opinion of too “advanced” English scientists still in the authority of the pro-Western and liberal public of Russia??? The narrative and message of the article is clear, i.e. - the author slyly and carefully tries to impose on the reader the idea that there is no alternative to the bourgeois-capitalist, and in fact the OLIGARCICAL-PLUTOCRATIC way of development of the West and the mandatory projection of this destructive model onto the rest of the world and onto Russia too....
      You can only publicly answer the author in the following way: The Union of Russia and Belarus - WILL EXPAND MORE AND MORE...!!. Socialism and communism - WITH NEW STRENGTH and POWER will be revived in the new Union of FRATERNAL republics, but without the mistakes of the USSR and with the revival positive experience of the USSR in many spheres of life of a socialist society...
      1. -1
        11 March 2024 06: 02
        And what is socialist about China? Only the CPC, the dictatorship of the proletariat? - in fact, the dictatorship of the clan, which has nothing to do with the proletariat! In their economy, they have much more real private capitalism than we do. In our country, state capitalism (in fact, what we called socialism was state capitalism) prevails in the economy, being essentially a breeding ground for corruption.
    8. -3
      19 November 2023 22: 37
      Note to the author: capitalism, usury, corruption, embezzlers, werewolves in shoulder straps and ties, as well as their sponsors in tattoos (leaders of motley organized crime groups) have caused so much harm to current Russia and the CIS countries that Russia’s external enemies are nervously smoking on the sidelines.. The new socialism in Russia and the FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE UNION OF THE RF AND BELARUS IS INEVITABLE AS THE SUN Rising....And the respected “VO” can only be advised one thing, i.e., no longer provide a platform to the crafty, cynical and cleverly disguised authors from the PRO-WESTERN and the liberal crowd.....
      1. +3
        20 November 2023 06: 45
        Quote from Romanovski
        And the respected “VO” can only be advised one thing, i.e., no longer provide a platform to crafty, cynical and cleverly disguised authors from the PRO-WESTERN and liberal crowd
        This is why they did not like Soviet ideologues and propagandists: when they had no arguments, they used administrative resources.
    9. +3
      20 November 2023 05: 35
      The main mistake of Marxism is the fight against human nature

      And an addition...
      “the fight against human nature” is something that many states have done VERY successfully.
      The author doesn’t know how they “trimmed and watered” in England for more than 100 years?
      And how did Germany change the “human nature” of its people in the 18th and 19th centuries?
      1. 0
        22 November 2023 16: 13
        T.n. “human nature” is greed, laziness, anger, etc. Humanity has been fighting it long before the advent of Christianity.
        Man became human when he began to change his animal nature.
    10. 0
      27 November 2023 14: 17
      I suggest being more lenient towards the author of the material...

      After all, the title of the article itself, after all, obliges us to do this. For almost two centuries, no matter what “scientific” schools have tried to prove the so-called. "failure" of Marxism. And so, we waited...

      It was found, not just a “mistake” of the classics, but a MAIN “mistake”...

      In principle, here, each line of the article can be surrounded by “question marks”. But I'll just ask one...

      Didn’t the simple thought occur to the author that even the “demographic” problem alone cannot have any “universal” methods for solving it, in principle?..

      After all, not only did NONE of the “pre-communist” socio-political systems solve this problem (and why shouldn’t the author start the “analysis” with these systems?..), but you also need to understand that in EVERY historical period, in EVERY region, and EVERY social situation, demographic problems are caused by DIFFERENT “causal” factors. This and DIFFERENT methods must be resolved...
      1. +1
        27 November 2023 21: 39
        Quote: ABC-schütze
        For almost two centuries, no matter what “scientific” schools have tried to prove the so-called. "failure" of Marxism.

        The inconsistency of Marxism was proven by all Marxist parties that proclaimed their adherence to this unfortunate doctrine. They achieved nothing but grief for the people. And it was not scientific schools that refuted Marxism, but the practice of its application in the lives of different peoples. - Germans, Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Libyans, Albanians, etc. And practice is the criterion of truth. And it wasn’t me or the anti-Marxists who came up with this.
        1. 0
          28 November 2023 13: 28
          In this case, the failure of capitalism as a socio-political system, with its so-called “market” economies, much earlier and much more convincingly, were already proven by the First World War. This is what I say, referring to the “criterion” you mentioned...

          After all, that FAIK, which is literally the ENTIRE imperialist (and this is the HIGHEST stage of the “development” of capitalism, by the way...) WORLD, has grabbed each other’s throats in mortal combat and, NOT BEING ABLE FOR CENTURIES, TO CONSTRUCTIVELY resolve its contradictions....

          Including the MAIN - GENERAL - contradiction between the SOCIAL nature of production and the PRIVATE OWNER nature of the distribution of the product created by such a GOODS as LABOR...

          By the way... Literally a couple of decades later, the SAME capitalist subjects, in confirmation of the criterion you mentioned, staged the Second World War...

          By the way, I’m reminding you about some “evil to the nations” allegedly “brought by Marxism”... Don’t you want to look in the mirror?...

          As for the evil REALLY brought to the PEOPLE OF THE WORLD by capitalism?.. By the same TWO WORLD WARS?..

          I suppose you have also heard about the WORLD colonial system created by capitalism?..

          By the way, do you also have “complaints” about the Chinese DIALECTIC communists, who quite successfully wipe away the snot of the United States?.. Why would that be?:..
    11. +1
      20 December 2023 10: 34
      Russian left "Marxist" and workers' organizations are like those generals who are ALWAYS preparing for the last war. Or rather revolution(. They stubbornly do not want to notice that the world and the time in which they live do not stand still, but change along with revolutions in the productive forces. And they stubbornly do not want to see who, in essence, are the producing strata of the urban population in the XNUMXst century, acting for them as if in the role of a “social base”, after the phenomenon and implementation of large-scale industrial, scientific, technical and information technology revolutions in the already world productive forces. So, if we objectively and without bias conduct even a superficial analysis of the production in which these segments of the population work, we can come to the conclusion that modern production, over the past 50 years, has become knowledge-intensive and high-tech, where applied, and, partly, fundamental science has become an integral part of the productive forces. And, if the scientific and technological revolution caused a deepening of the division of labor and the emergence of completely new specialties of scientists, engineers, workers, and employees, then, after the information technology revolution, production became even more complex, and caused the need for the emergence of NETWORK AND ENVIRONMENTAL CYBERNETIC computerized management, both technological processes and management and administration processes reaching the level of economics and state policy! How can the proletariat, that is, the first generation of peasants moving to the cities, work in such production, when even the industrial working class ABSOLUTELY CANNOT exploit it?! And if you simply, from the outside, look at the population living in cities, you can see that the sons, and even more so, the grandchildren of this proletariat, ALWAYS become a petty-bourgeois layer of the producing population or are lumpenized, turning into a classless urban asocial cattle. A logical continuation of the emergence of educated, highly qualified specialists who are able to operate such highly complex production is their interests in this production not only to work and manage it, but also to OWN it. After all, if specialists have specialized education, high qualifications and practical experience in labor and management, then they are able to do everything themselves. Why do they need parasitic managers, spiders and bloodsucking owners, especially when they have not worked for a SINGLE DAY in real production, and in the infrastructure for its support and maintenance?! (At the same time, I fully recognize and admit the owners of industrial and engineering businesses who grew up from scientists, technologists, engineers, designers with the talents of Tesla, Ford, and other similar multifaceted personalities, once again confirming that Nature does not tolerate equality). And, in general, such collective, joint ownership of private production and infrastructure property gives rise to the phenomenon of CORPORATION, reaching the level of municipal, city and regional self-government. That scientifically based self-government, capable of constant self-development and self-control in the interests of this petty-bourgeois producing layer of the urban and rural population, capable of forming a political middle class from its midst - the real master of their country! I think that this “productive” corporatism is an objective “trend” and a step for the formation of an urban national-corporate producing society - a petty-bourgeois NATION. And if someone says that corporatism is a sign of fascism, then he will be wrong, since the first theories of corporatism were developed at the end of the XNUMXth century, and Mussolini simply “took what was ready” and included it in the doctrine of Italian fascism in the interests of the local financial oligarchy , large owners of the means of production, and large latifundists. And, as long as the left and leftist “theories” of social development dominate in the minds of the petty-bourgeois layer of our population, until these very times the regime of domination of private property by the Russian financial oligarchy will dominate in our country, robbing and stealing from the state-forming ethnic group. What about the “Marxists”? What about “Marxists”?

      P.S. Is the general higher than the specific? No!
      The particular is higher than the general?! Also no!
      What then?!!! PRIVATE AS PART OF THE GENERAL!
      1. 0
        20 December 2023 12: 12
        You accuse modern Marxists of inertia of thinking, but you yourself cite definitions from the century before last! Why were the proletarians scared of this first generation of peasants who moved to the city? A proletarian is a hired worker who sells his labor and gives part of it to the owner of the means of production!
        You have written a lot of letters here, added a lot more muddiness in definitions, painted rosy prospects for an intellectual, highly qualified hybrid of a proletarian/owner! Cybernetic, robotic, artificially intelligent TeslaMaskFord)))
        Having rejected all your tinsel, let's look at the bare facts. Numbers! In 2014, 1% of the world's population owned assets equal to those of 99% of the rest of the population. Today, 1% owns 63% of assets, the remaining 99% owns 37% of assets, that is, twice as much! Now look at the dynamics - how it was 50 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago... And interpolate this into the future - 20-30 years ago...
        Now throw all your pink fantasies into the trash!
        1. 0
          20 December 2023 14: 07
          And your “rose fantasies” led to the fact that your proletariat was raised on your neck, fed, protected in a terrible, total war against Hitler’s Nazism, educated and allowed to make a career for the cruel and cynical party-nomenklatar and Komsomol members who were stolen in the 90s. e and the 2000s, their OWN POPULATION's property, savings, subsoil, means of production, supply and service infrastructure, robbed it and allowed us all to be robbed by predators from all over the world! And this will always be the case when an uneducated or VERY naive population entrusts the management of the economy and politics to a gang of cynical parasites! So today you need to throw YOUR pink fantasies into the trash. Or are you one of “those” too? From coves?
      2. 0
        20 December 2023 12: 13
        You accuse modern Marxists of inertia of thinking, but you yourself cite definitions from the century before last! Why were the proletarians scared of this first generation of peasants who moved to the city? A proletarian is a hired worker who sells his labor and gives part of it to the owner of the means of production!
        You have written a lot of letters here, added a lot more muddiness in definitions, painted rosy prospects for an intellectual, highly qualified hybrid of a proletarian/owner! Cybernetic, robotic, artificially intelligent TeslaMaskFord)))
        Having rejected all your tinsel, let's look at the bare facts. Numbers! In 2014, 1% of the world's population owned assets equal to those of 99% of the rest of the population. Today, 1% owns 63% of assets, the remaining 99% owns 37% of assets, that is, twice as much! Now look at the dynamics - how it was 50 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago... And interpolate this into the future - 20-30 years ago...
        Now throw all your pink fantasies into the trash!
        1. 0
          20 December 2023 14: 00
          And your “rose fantasies” led to the fact that your proletariat was raised on your neck, fed, protected in a terrible, total war against Hitler’s Nazism, educated and allowed to make a career for the cruel and cynical party-nomenklatar and Komsomol members who were stolen in the 90s. e and the 2000s, their OWN POPULATION's property, savings, subsoil, means of production, supply and service infrastructure, robbed it and allowed us all to be robbed by predators from all over the world! And this will always be the case when an uneducated or VERY naive population entrusts the management of the economy and politics to a gang of cynical parasites! So today you need to throw YOUR pink fantasies into the trash. Or are you one of “those” too? From coves?
    12. 0
      20 December 2023 11: 07
      Russian left "Marxist" and workers' organizations are like those generals who are ALWAYS preparing for the last war. Or rather revolution(. They stubbornly do not want to notice that the world and the time in which they live do not stand still, but change along with revolutions in the productive forces. And they stubbornly do not want to see who, in essence, are the producing strata of the urban population in the XNUMXst century, acting for them as if in the role of a “social base”, after the phenomenon and implementation of large-scale industrial, scientific, technical and information technology revolutions in the already world productive forces. So, if we objectively and without bias conduct even a superficial analysis of the production in which these segments of the population work, we can come to the conclusion that modern production, over the past 50 years, has become knowledge-intensive and high-tech, where applied, and, partly, fundamental science has become an integral part of the productive forces. And, if the scientific and technological revolution caused a deepening of the division of labor and the emergence of completely new specialties of scientists, engineers, workers, and employees, then, after the information technology revolution, production became even more complex, and caused the need for the emergence of NETWORK AND ENVIRONMENTAL CYBERNETIC computerized management, both technological processes and management and administration processes reaching the level of economics and state policy! How can the proletariat, that is, the first generation of peasants moving to the cities, work in such production, when even the industrial working class ABSOLUTELY CANNOT exploit it?! And if you simply, from the outside, look at the population living in cities, you can see that the sons, and even more so, the grandchildren of this proletariat, ALWAYS become a petty-bourgeois layer of the producing population or are lumpenized, turning into a classless urban asocial cattle. A logical continuation of the emergence of educated, highly qualified specialists who are able to operate such highly complex production is their interests in this production not only to work and manage it, but also to OWN it. After all, if specialists have specialized education, high qualifications and practical experience in labor and management, then they are able to do everything themselves. Why do they need parasitic managers, spiders and bloodsucking owners, especially when they have not worked for a SINGLE DAY in real production, and in the infrastructure for its support and maintenance?! (At the same time, I fully recognize and admit the owners of industrial and engineering businesses who grew up from scientists, technologists, engineers, designers with the talents of Tesla, Ford, and other similar multifaceted personalities, once again confirming that Nature does not tolerate equality). And, in general, such collective, joint ownership of private production and infrastructure property gives rise to the phenomenon of CORPORATION, reaching the level of municipal, city and regional self-government. That scientifically based self-government, capable of constant self-development and self-control in the interests of this petty-bourgeois producing layer of the urban and rural population, capable of forming a political middle class from its midst - the real master of their country! I think that this “productive” corporatism is an objective “trend” and a step for the formation of an urban national-corporate producing society - a petty-bourgeois NATION. And if someone says that corporatism is a sign of fascism, then he will be wrong, since the first theories of corporatism were developed at the end of the XNUMXth century, and Mussolini simply “took what was ready” and included it in the doctrine of Italian fascism in the interests of the local financial oligarchy , large owners of the means of production, and large latifundists. And, as long as the left and leftist “theories” of social development dominate in the minds of the petty-bourgeois layer of our population, until these very times the regime of domination of private property by the Russian financial oligarchy will dominate in our country, robbing and stealing from the state-forming ethnic group. What about the “Marxists”? What about “Marxists”?

      P.S. Is the general higher than the specific? No!
      The particular is higher than the general?! Also no!
      What then?!!! PRIVATE AS PART OF THE GENERAL!
  2. +12
    19 November 2023 04: 47
    In the sphere of social production, the production of services began to predominate, and the structure of employment changed accordingly. Among wage earners, the majority are now mental workers and office workers.

    Still couldn’t resist laughing These are cashiers, taxi drivers, barbers, couriers, sales managers, cleaning specialists, manicurists... and many others "service providers" is:
    people of mental work
    ? wassat
    1. +17
      19 November 2023 05: 35
      Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
      Still, I couldn’t resist. These are cashiers, taxi drivers, barbers, couriers, sales managers, cleaning specialists, manicurists... and many other “service providers”:

      The author simply repeats the backs of poorly understood Western books of the second half of the 20th century, while trying their positions on Russia (that is, he does not understand the difference between the core of the capital system and its periphery), which makes his statements especially ridiculous.
      But there is no need to offend the author, he is not an enemy, he does not engage in propaganda (as you write above), he simply does not understands . It is clear that it is impossible to organize educational courses on the forum, but it is still not worth ironizing about it.
      1. +10
        19 November 2023 05: 48
        I disagree with you. The author understands everything perfectly. But his goal is for us to “not understand.” That is, there is a false theory of modern “new capitalism” with a human grin on its bestial face. Opportunism pure and simple.
        1. +7
          19 November 2023 06: 40
          Quote: U-58
          I disagree with you. The author understands everything perfectly.

          To write in the 21st century that Marxism wanted to change human nature, but it cannot be changed only by a person with, to put it mildly, a naive consciousness. It is certainly possible to assume that we have a cunningly disguised enemy in front of us, skillfully acting like a fool, but such an assumption still seems fantastic to me.
          For comparison: Shpakovsky, who works on this site (a former ardent Marxist-Leninist, and now an equally ardent anti-Soviet) is an enemy, but a strong professional, which is reflected in many of his excellent articles on historical topics
          The author is the complete opposite - he is clearly a decent person, useful for his homeland, but in politics/ideology, etc. (that is, in the structure of life) who does not understand at all, which, unfortunately, makes him an ideal target for manipulation of consciousness.
          1. -4
            19 November 2023 08: 44
            Quote: Belisarius
            The author is the complete opposite - he is clearly a decent person, useful for his homeland

            And in what way can a naive, albeit decent, be useful for the Motherland?
          2. +6
            19 November 2023 11: 52
            Quote: Belisarius
            To write in the 21st century that Marxism wanted to change human nature, but it cannot be changed only by a person with, to put it mildly, a naive consciousness

            What's naive here?
            After all, the creation of a new person is the essence of Marxism-Leninism; in practice, all these experiments ended in a bloody mess.
            What is the proletariat and the working peasantry like now? Open your eyes, they are driving around in expensive SUVs.
            Only the office aphid remained as a revolutionary force, and even those fled to the Kazakhs and Georgians, too cowardly for revolutionary affairs.
            1. -1
              22 November 2023 16: 31
              Your horizons are extremely limited in terms of territory and time.
              What for you looks like the collapse of the communist project, for the history of mankind is a rollback of a wave, followed by a new wave.
              And not seeing the prerequisites for revolution in the ideologically degraded space of the former USSR, you think that it is the same throughout the world. Because in the box they don’t talk about 100 million strikes in India, the indestructible communist underground of Latin America, etc.
          3. 0
            19 November 2023 17: 41
            Quote: Belisarius
            Quote: U-58
            I disagree with you. The author understands everything perfectly.

            To write in the 21st century that Marxism wanted to change human nature, but it cannot be changed only by a person with, to put it mildly, a naive consciousness. It is certainly possible to assume that we have a cunningly disguised enemy in front of us, skillfully acting like a fool, but such an assumption still seems fantastic to me.
            For comparison: Shpakovsky, who works on this site (a former ardent Marxist-Leninist, and now an equally ardent anti-Soviet) is an enemy, but a strong professional, which is reflected in many of his excellent articles on historical topics
            The author is the complete opposite - he is clearly a decent person, useful for his homeland, but in politics/ideology, etc. (that is, in the structure of life) who does not understand at all, which, unfortunately, makes him an ideal target for manipulation of consciousness.
            I agree!!!
      2. +4
        19 November 2023 07: 37
        Quote: Belisarius
        The author simply repeats the backs of poorly understood Western books of the second half of the 20th century

        Absolutely.
      3. -5
        19 November 2023 15: 15
        Quote: Belisarius
        But there is no need to offend the author, he is not an enemy, he is not engaged in propaganda (as you write above), he simply does not understand.

        Indeed. Let's not offend the author by considering him a naive fool. He is a banal demagogue, apparently, considering his audience to be extremely narrow-minded.
      4. -4
        19 November 2023 16: 14
        Unfortunately, 80% of the site’s readers don’t understand this. So it was and so it will be. She is the one who is narrow-minded, Makar. How many years did you teach the history of the CPSU at a Soviet university? Have you read the entire 56th volume of the PSS, all of Marx and Engels, and passed the candidate minimum in Diamatism and History and Mathematics, coupled with the history of the party? You have it all behind you, right? Or is it not? Or are notes from political studies in the army our everything?
        1. 0
          27 November 2023 03: 35
          Quote: kalibr
          Have you read the entire 56th volume of the PSS, all of Marx and Engels, and passed the candidate minimum in Diamatism and History and Mathematics, coupled with the history of the party?

          Is all this absolutely necessary to understand that the author of the article is speaking outright nonsense?
    2. +3
      19 November 2023 07: 18
      Service providers are servants - lackeys. They are definitely not knowledge workers.
      1. -4
        19 November 2023 08: 23
        Quote: Gardamir
        Service providers are servants - lackeys. They are definitely not knowledge workers.

        Teachers, doctors, scientists, engineers, military... This is also a service sector
        1. +1
          19 November 2023 08: 32
          Quote: BlackMokona
          scientists

          fool negative stop
        2. +8
          19 November 2023 08: 35
          Teachers, doctors, scientists, engineers, military... This is also a service sector
          You are wrong. Now they have been assigned to the service sector. That's why they (in particular, teachers) began to work like that.
        3. +6
          19 November 2023 08: 51
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Teachers, doctors, scientists, engineers, military... This is also a service sector

          Well, let’s say that teachers and doctors, in today’s paradigm of Western capitalism, really become service industries. Which is fundamentally wrong! IMHO.
          But scientists, engineers and military personnel... even there there is no service sector at all!
          Here I am the project manager, bringing the project to life. To whom and what services do I provide?
          1. +6
            19 November 2023 12: 26
            Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
            Here I am the project manager, bringing the project to life.

            Foreman (at a construction site): “Who are you? Why did you come here?!”
            The chief engineer of the project and the chief architect of the project: “We?! We are the GIP and the GAP!”
            Foreman: “Clowns, or what?..”
          2. -3
            19 November 2023 16: 19
            Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
            Here I am the project manager, bringing the project to life. To whom and what services do I provide?

            And who pays you for this? You will serve him!
        4. +7
          19 November 2023 10: 02
          This is also a service industry
          Following your logic. The turner provides a service for the production of bolts. the president provides the service of leading the country. Perhaps the astronaut also provides a service?
          1. -3
            19 November 2023 16: 20
            Quote: Gardamir
            Following your logic. The turner provides a service for the production of bolts. the president provides the service of leading the country. Perhaps the astronaut also provides a service?

            Exactly! And the doctor who gives you an enema to “enlighten your mind” is also doing you a favor!
            1. -1
              23 November 2023 12: 08
              Quote: kalibr
              Quote: Gardamir
              Following your logic. The turner provides a service for the production of bolts. the president provides the service of leading the country. Perhaps the astronaut also provides a service?

              Exactly! And the doctor who gives you an enema to “enlighten your mind” is also doing you a favor!

              No, that's exactly not it! The service is also provided by a prostitute.... Moreover, such services are possible even in animals.
              But many former teachers of Marxism have forgotten that prostitution is not a profession......
              Professions appeared for housekeeping in a civilized society....and not for services.
              Therefore, the service itself can be either useful for a civilized society or harmful.
          2. -3
            19 November 2023 18: 39
            Quote: Gardamir
            the president provides the service of leading the country.

            The President is a servant of the people who elected him to this post!
            1. +1
              19 November 2023 19: 46
              The President is a servant of the people
              laughing

            2. -1
              23 November 2023 12: 11
              Quote: kalibr
              Quote: Gardamir
              the president provides the service of leading the country.

              The President is a servant of the people who elected him to this post!

              And the criminals and madmen who were also born are also gentlemen of the president? Heh...heh....some people don’t have the intelligence to realize that being a servant even to two masters at once, and not just to the whole people, is generally speaking impossible!
        5. +4
          19 November 2023 12: 26
          Engineers in the service sector? And who was left to produce? laughing
      2. +2
        21 November 2023 23: 55
        Quote: Gardamir
        Service providers are servants - lackeys. They are definitely not knowledge workers.

        That is, when a cleaning lady hires a lawyer or a migrant worker calls a taxi, do they get lackeys?
        Fresh thought, though....
  3. +16
    19 November 2023 05: 08
    Following Standing's classification, seven groups can be distinguished: at the very top are the elite, the richest citizens of the world; Next comes the salariat - employees of large corporations, state-owned enterprises, officials - they all have good social guarantees and salaries, and are generally securely employed in the “system”; Below is a group of profitians - “qualified personnel”, specialists who successfully sell their skills and knowledge on the market on their own.
    They are followed by the “old working class” or those same proletarians, but who have protection from the arbitrariness of the employer, thanks to the labor code, social guarantees, etc.; at the very bottom are the precariat and the unemployed - people who have no or almost no social guarantees, qualifications and certainty for the future, employed in the service sector with work that does not require special qualifications, as well as migrants

    A typical distortion on the right is to split society into as many groups as possible. Divide and rule! Look, there are already several dozen genders. All this takes away from the point - there are only two classes! These are the owners of the means of production and hired workers. And, accordingly, there is only one question: can these funds be privately owned or should they be socialized? That is, with the profit, the supposed Abramovich buys himself another yacht or the state builds another free clinic in another village?
    As for the difference in social status, there has always been highly skilled, less skilled and unskilled labor. And in Soviet times there were cleaners, factory directors and academicians. Their salaries and, accordingly, their standard of living were different. But access to education or medicine is the same.
    And this basis has not changed in the 19th century, in the 20th, or in the 21st. That is, throughout the entire history of Capitalism.
    Form of ownership of the means of production. That's the main question! And it is not outdated and will not become outdated!
    1. +6
      19 November 2023 09: 59
      During the Soviet era there were cleaners, factory directors and academicians. Their salaries and, accordingly, their standard of living were different. But access to education or medicine is the same.


      Yeah. That's why there were special clinics. Special stores. Distribution of the deficit among our own. Party members generally had their own laws. I'm talking about those who were in positions. There is no need to tell fairy tales about the USSR, everyone lived there. Then there was already its own elite. The only thing is that they couldn’t spend their money anywhere. They couldn’t take us out of the country. They could not buy the means of production. But as soon as they got this opportunity, they immediately showed their essence.
      1. +7
        19 November 2023 12: 31
        It is touching how some inequality “then” is used to justify the terrible injustice “now”. You won’t justify it and you won’t drown out the murmur.
        1. -3
          19 November 2023 21: 46
          Quote: stankow
          It is touching how some inequality “then” is used to justify the terrible injustice “now”.

          The current inequality has developed from the then one. Everything in the world is in development and comes from something.
      2. -2
        21 November 2023 20: 31
        That's it. In principle, the minister could not spend his salary of a thousand rubles, because the price tags were low, and plus the state gave him rations and provided him with housing, a little better than that of a hard worker. So I saved up, you can’t buy a yacht and a plane, it’s impossible. Where to put their full rubles? But their essence was ordinary, our Soviet one. All the ideas of perestroika were brought to the USSR by the fosterlings of Lieberman and Andropov, who were sent to the states for training. An entire research institute worked to change socialist attitudes. The counter was preparing thoroughly, while the proletariat was cracking bitterly. Well, the arrival of the marked one fell into fertile soil. I won’t be surprised that our Shpakovsky comes from this institution.
        1. +2
          22 November 2023 00: 02
          Quote: Essex62
          All the ideas of perestroika were brought to the USSR by the fosterlings of Lieberman and Andropov, who were sent to the states for training. An entire research institute worked to change socialist attitudes. The counter prepared thoroughly, while the proletariat was cracking bitterly.

          That is, the entire party leadership of the country, the entire Soviet leadership of the country, the entire generals of the Ministry of Defense + Ministry of Internal Affairs + KGB - were in the know and only ordinary communist proletarians drank bitterly and did not see a damn thing?
          Original, what's there...
          Only there is a problem - if your formula is correct, the USSR was doomed, because “If the captain decided to hand over the ship to pirates, he will hand it over” (c) one of the science fiction writers of the 1990s
          1. -1
            22 November 2023 11: 07
            From a certain point, yes. Many people have an itch to become the actual owners of the means of production, movable and immovable. Not all, but many. This applies to the army to a lesser extent. The Arbat Military District began to decompose a little later, when it was marked, when considerable opportunities for selling property in Eastern Europe were revealed during the withdrawal of troops. Programs to introduce bourgeois elements into the Soviet economy have been developed since the late 60s. Do you still think that the revolution is the merit of the crowd, the Moscow gopa, of shop stewards, currency traders, rotten anti-intellectuals and irrational hungover workers who are sick of cards?lol
            And yet it is doomed, because the proletariat, which was obliged to monitor the political health of the country, hammered a huge bolt on the class struggle, did not clean up the huckster elements and even used their services. Everything starts small.
            1. -1
              22 November 2023 19: 42
              Quote: Essex62
              From a certain point, yes. Many people have an itch to become the actual owners of the means of production, movable and immovable.

              Since the Bolshevik coup of people under fictitious names. Only they did not try for themselves, but for their grandchildren and for their people. They played the long game. For the future. To do this, all ownership of the means of production, subsoil and natural resources were torn away from the population, declaring them to be the people's (nobody's) property, and themselves to be managers, and then, as a result of the next coup, after two or three generations they transferred them to the legal and eternal ownership of their descendants. No scam. Communism didn't work out... It happens.
              1. 0
                23 November 2023 23: 56
                Who gave you such nonsense? Did the Bolsheviks try for their grandchildren? Why is it so difficult? They took power, gained access to movable and non-movable things, beat down competitors, well, approximately like the wrestlers in 90-00, cleaned out the dissatisfied (see above) and that’s it. There will be enough for both grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And for some reason they began to develop the industry, to be the first to go into space, to share their income with everyone and everyone so that the price tags for decades have not changed for TPN and utilities, and education is free, and a pension equal to the average salary country, and housing is free, and there are as many jobs as you want, and the working person is honored and respected, but we despise the speculator. It’s strange that they somehow played for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, for a long time. lol
                1. -1
                  24 November 2023 09: 20
                  Well, if they had immediately declared that we were supposedly doing this Great Jewish Revolution for our people, then probably no one would have understood them then. It was necessary to wait only 70-80 years to get at your disposal this entire huge country, the people of which they became the population, the population and will remain. Dying and degrading. Without the land on which he lives, without the subsoil, with the new owners of industry.
                  1. 0
                    28 November 2023 16: 04
                    And those people who lived in the Republic of Ingushetia had all this? So the Jews are to blame both then and now? Anything can happen... laughing Personally, I liked living in the USSR and the Jews did not interfere.
    2. +4
      19 November 2023 12: 29
      Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
      Form of ownership of the means of production. That's the main question!
      Well, you have socialized property. But the property remains, it needs to be managed. Who will do this? After socialization - an official. And what will improve as a result for employees?
      1. -2
        19 November 2023 15: 21
        Quote: bk0010
        And what will improve as a result for employees?

        If power is in the hands of the proletariat, then the results of their labor will belong to them, and not to the capitalist. Such a small significant difference.
        1. 0
          19 November 2023 16: 24
          Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
          If power is in the hands of the proletariat, then the results of their labor will belong to them, and not to the capitalist. Such a small significant difference.

          And did he belong to the proletariat in the USSR? And the Martians shopped at the special distributors, right?
          1. -2
            22 November 2023 17: 10
            And they were boiling with yachts, private Boeings, castles on the Cote d'Azur, margins from the public domain, what are they pumping out of the pipe? A hard worker could buy a jar of caviar and sausage. And he had every opportunity to bend any snickering bureaucrat. They sewed bourgeoisism and an insensitive attitude towards the working class - a party card on the table, a heart attack and screws for the opportunist. There were levers.
            1. 0
              22 November 2023 17: 13
              Quote: Essex62
              They sewed bourgeoisness and an insensitive attitude towards the working class - a party card on the table, a heart attack and the opportunist's fucks

              My friend, you, like me, grew up under Brezhnev. I think you have a false memory... buddy. There was no such thing in our times, and there was no trace of it.

              Quote: Essex62
              There were levers

              So, are you one of the snitches, or what? The vocabulary is too special wink laughing
          2. -1
            23 November 2023 12: 17
            Quote: kalibr
            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            If power is in the hands of the proletariat, then the results of their labor will belong to them, and not to the capitalist. Such a small significant difference.

            And did he belong to the proletariat in the USSR? And the Martians shopped at the special distributors, right?

            And in the USSR, power belonged to the proletariat? In general, it is a sin to lie, especially to a former teacher of Marxism.....
            1. +1
              23 November 2023 13: 14
              Quote: ivan2022
              And in the USSR, power belonged to the proletariat?
              “And the proletarian is the ruler of everything!” These were the words of Mayakovsky. Who exactly were the party secretaries? These are neither skilled workers, nor competent management engineers, nor the collective farm peasantry, nor the intelligentsia, nor the clergy... They are the proletarians.
              We do not sow, do not plow, do not build,
              We are proud of the social order.
        2. +5
          19 November 2023 18: 02
          Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
          If power is in the hands of the proletariat, then the results of their labor will belong to them, and not to the capitalist. Such a small significant difference.
          Real power belongs to the one who controls the property. And he will also distribute the results of labor. And this is not the proletariat (hired worker, farm laborer, etc.) in any variants, except for pre-class societies, where the economy is family.
          1. -1
            19 November 2023 19: 48
            An official, a bureaucrat, even under socialism, even under capitalism, is interested in constantly alternating cycles of nationalization and privatization of everything. He has excellent gesheft both on nationalized (direct management) and on privatized (control, inspections, protection) property, but when transferring assets from one form of ownership to another, a truly golden shower descends on them! It is with this desire that they most likely have something to do with the fact that recently the idea of ​​nationalizing previously privatized property has been actively being discussed and introduced into the consciousness of the Shirnar masses. In ten years, they will again begin to push the idea of ​​privatization, and so on in a circle.
            1. -2
              22 November 2023 11: 26
              An official under socialism (ideally, as under Stalinism) is placed within strict limits and cannot freely dispose of public property as if it were his own private property.
              More precisely, maybe, but not for long because there is a basement and a bullet, or a pick and a channel. It all depends on the ability of top management to build a control system and involve citizens in it. Remembering how Zhukov was bullied for 200 carpets and two dozen bicycle pumps, the system worked. With the departure of the real ascetic Bolsheviks Stalin, Beria and others like them, she stopped working. "Personnel decides everything."
          2. 0
            22 November 2023 17: 14
            Distributing for a salary and a minimum set of benefits does not mean owning this property. The secretary of the district committee had nothing except what the state gave him. I was convinced by my own observations. He stopped being one, everything was taken away except housing and rations.
            1. -1
              22 November 2023 17: 25
              Quote: Essex62
              The secretary of the district committee had nothing except what the state gave him

              La-la no need...

              Quote: Essex62
              I was convinced by my own observations

              Well, you blamed bureaucrats for being “bourgeois and not sensitive to the working class”... in the 1970s-1980s, yeah... cheaters...
            2. +1
              22 November 2023 19: 45
              Where have the connections gone? ....
              Quote: Essex62
              He stopped being one, everything was taken away except housing and rations.
              1. -2
                23 November 2023 09: 04
                Well, yes, the connections remain. And he bought his Lada, and even a Volga, built a dacha, so what? How many of them were there, those secretaries? They didn't eat it. The actors also rode on the Volga, are you not offended by them for this? And my father-in-law, he drove on a state farm, bought a new Moskvich. For the suffering, a mower, in addition to the salary, a few years and a car. People responsible for results should have a little more than average. They did. It is a lie that party workers tied to the economic sector were not responsible for anything. And they removed the shavings from them and pushed them out of their positions. Well, for now real socialism, albeit slightly castrated, was in the Union.
            3. +2
              23 November 2023 14: 21
              Quote: Essex62
              He stopped being one, everything was taken away except housing and rations.
              Our housing for Party members was called a “noble nest.” Well, plus there are still some personal connections ("blat"), right? And "soldering" - excuse me, what is it? Any special food basket?
              1. -2
                24 November 2023 00: 21
                You can call it whatever you want. I’ve already written here that a manager should have a little more. Otherwise, no one will be willing to take responsibility. Do you personally travel around the world today on your 100m yacht or do you travel around the world on your personal Falcon? The difference in the gap then and now is an abyss. They didn't have much more. A hundred times I gave an example from my childhood and youth - my classmate, a regular school, was the son of the secretary of the district committee. And I visited his house more than once or twice. I haven't seen a golden toilet. Yes, more spacious than ours, video and furniture from the socialist camp and that’s it. Plus a Volga with a carrier and that same “soldering” - food sets. And because of this, it was necessary to destroy the country, where everyone, even the warehouse managers, thieves and hucksters, lived comfortably, and the hard worker simply lived at ease, because whatever one may say, the world revolved around him? To hell with their connections and cronyism. This is minuscule compared to what we received.
                1. 0
                  24 November 2023 18: 17
                  Quote: Essex62
                  a manager should have a little more. Otherwise, no one will want to take responsibility.
                  It is clear that the electrician, the foreman, the director of the pig farm bears responsibility... Up to and including criminal liability for negligence in the work. Why was the secretary of the city party committee so responsible? What was he even managing? What punishment was applied to the secretary for “lapses in ideological work”?
                  1. 0
                    24 November 2023 18: 45
                    PS. They didn't even give me 15 days. And this suggests that the swearing of a drunk in a public place posed a greater threat to society than the most serious omissions in the work of a party secretary. Responsibility was under Stalin.
                  2. -1
                    24 November 2023 21: 27
                    If the industrial city or district was responsible for the secretary, along with the director(s) of the city-forming or the entire industrial district. There is no need to evaluate the work of the party apparatus of the RSFSR, BSSR and the Russian part of the Ukrainian SSR based on the last five years. Socialism came to a standstill (although it still had some achievements thanks to its enormous potential) and degenerate careerists sat in many offices. And before the coup it was already in everyone.
                    Under early Brezhnev, the responsibility was almost the same as under the temporary detention facility, then yes, everything got worse. Otherwise, given the tolerance of the working class for manifestations of bourgeoisism, the USSR would have received a counter-revolutionary coup already under Nikita. Those same secretaries and directors prevented the slush from spilling.
                2. -2
                  28 November 2023 09: 03
                  Quote: Essex62
                  I already wrote here - a manager should have a little more

                  Another Marxist has been found. .. Where in Marx, in which “Capital” is this written? How should a manager earn more than a worker? Due to surplus value - i.e. exploitation of the proletariat. How then does he differ from a capitalist? A capitalist is also a manager of his capital.
                  1. 0
                    28 November 2023 15: 55
                    What nonsense? The capitalist, exploiting, takes all the surplus value; the manager, under socialism, is the same as a hired state employee. worker. For a salary, he carries out management functions and they are also paid at a fixed rate. In the Brezhnev Union, until some time, directors and detached party organizers at enterprises did not even receive bonuses for fulfilling/exceeding the plan. The state believed that they were already living richly. It is not correct to project capitalist principles onto that developed socialism. Your owl won't fit. The bourgeois is a bloodsucker, a backbone, and not a manager and has no right to exist, because he is a foreign body in a fair society.
                    1. -2
                      28 November 2023 20: 58
                      Quote: Essex62
                      What nonsense? The capitalist, exploiting, takes all the surplus value; the manager, under socialism, is the same as a hired state employee. worker

                      The proletarian never receives surplus value - neither under capitalism nor under socialism. In the first case, it is distributed by the capitalist, in the second - by the official. The operation is the same. What is there, what is here. You can't escape it until you start your own business. And this requires brains.
                      1. 0
                        28 November 2023 23: 07
                        Leave the owl alone, it won't fit. The socialist economic system is not designed to generate margins. It is built on different principles. And there can be no exploitation by a state-appointed manager, I repeat, who works in the same way as a worker. This is the hard worker’s advantage; he delivered above and beyond the plan, and sometimes received a bonus that exceeded this very fixed bonus. And yet, that same boss easily goes on a journey on foot, because he cannot do anything to the hegemon. You can’t get further than a machine, a steering wheel, levers, and across the road is the same factory, auto plant, construction site, with the same salary and the same set of social services. And the Soviet, proletarian state strictly ensures that the hard worker receives this social benefit in full, no matter what the circumstances. Well, in different variations, something like this, in my memory. And brains, even under socialism, are in great demand. It is enough to look at the achievements of the USSR in science and technology. The current usurpers are leaving today. They are leaving for now, but the Unified State Examination will work soon.
                      2. -2
                        28 November 2023 23: 20
                        Quote: Essex62
                        This is the hard worker’s advantage, he “gave in excess of the plan”, sometimes received a bonus that exceeded this very fixed

                        Yeah. And an increase in production rates in the next quarter. We swam, we know.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        across the road is the same factory, auto plant, construction site, with the same salary and the same set of social services

                        Avotbuy. Example: Royal offices in the glorious city of Korolev (formerly Kaliningrad near Moscow) have their own clinic, at least an order of magnitude higher than the general one. For employees of the mentioned offices - free of charge. For others - now - for money, under the Union - absolutely nothing. Not allowed.

                        There are many such examples, if anything.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        It is enough to look at the achievements of the USSR in science and technology

                        Well, as a result - in electronics the Union was at least 80-10 years behind by the 15s, in computer science - more, in the production of "Be group goods" - in general the bottom...

                        Next time you start arguing, better prepare your arguments. Be more careful. Buddies Yes laughing
    3. -2
      19 November 2023 14: 26
      Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
      Divide and conquer!... All this takes away from the essence - there are only two classes!
      2 classes - this is “divide and conquer”. The division into “100 genders” is also essentially a division into 2 classes: traditionalists and liberals, where traditionalists are equated with obscurantists, and liberals are free and advanced. Trotskyist communists want the world's largest corporations to seize all power, so that their literate and organized proletariat will carry out a world revolution, they are fighting to eliminate the differences between men and women, etc. Everything is according to Marxist feng shui. But ours don’t even want a world revolution, they just want to get into parliament.
    4. -5
      19 November 2023 16: 23
      Dear Alexander? Who are you by education and profession? As a person associated with issues of the historical development of society, this is very interesting to me. Where do you get such caveman views... If you don’t want to “shine”, you can do it in a private message - it won’t go anywhere in public. For self-development and in order to study society..
      1. -1
        22 November 2023 16: 24
        In the mouth of a degenerate who betrayed his ideals and recently pushed Marxism to the masses, words about caveman views look piquant.
  4. +20
    19 November 2023 05: 12
    One certainly cannot blame the author for his modesty! laughing But can a conclusion based on erroneous grounds be correct? feel
    1) Marx’s teaching is not an economic theory, but a philosophical teaching (although economics is present in it);
    2) personnel really decide everything: the notorious “breakdown of the communist system” did not lead to a rapid acceleration of economic development, since the people remained the same;
    3) the main task was not the fight against human nature, but its development. This idea was absolutely correct, but a lack of understanding of its leading role, starting with Khrushchev, first led to a loss of development rates, and then to a rollback into petty-bourgeois philistinism. Well, what does refusing the purposeful development of human nature and giving it complete freedom in “victorious liberalism” lead to? Just look at Chubais, Merkel, Soros to understand where the biggest mistake is! laughing
    1. +7
      19 November 2023 08: 57
      Quote: BMP-2
      but a lack of understanding of its leading role, starting with Khrushchev

      This is not a misunderstanding. This is a purposeful counter-revolutionary coup within the party, as a result of which opportunists came to power! And then it was a matter of time... The first generation freed themselves from criminal liability, the next generation freed themselves from all responsibility - they were no longer even removed from their positions... but the latter simply privatized the country and became capitalists!
      1. 0
        19 November 2023 16: 26
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        This is a purposeful counter-revolutionary coup within the party, as a result of which opportunists came to power!

        Where did the honest and principled ones look? Or was the whole party “like that”? So then she will always be one of “those”, because shit floats and gold sinks.
        1. +3
          19 November 2023 20: 35
          Vyacheslav Olegovich, well, you understand that with your question you are first of all putting yourself in an uncertain position? wink And who then, if not you, knows the answer to it? Yes
          1. -2
            19 November 2023 21: 50
            Quote: BMP-2
            Vyacheslav Olegovich, well, you understand that with your question you are first of all putting yourself in an uncertain position? And who then, if not you, knows the answer to it?

            Do not understand why? What is the uncertainty? The fact that the people around me were... people? With all their advantages and disadvantages? Well, there was one... who was with female students... so he was kicked out of the university. So to speak, they “cleared the ranks.” And... I don't know the answer. I have never met anyone who is terribly honest and principled, or someone who is terribly irresponsible and unprincipled!
            1. +4
              19 November 2023 22: 59
              What's so incomprehensible here? At that time you yourself were in the party. And then only two options are possible: either they themselves looked “in the wrong direction”, or they were not honest and principled. request
              1. 0
                20 November 2023 19: 21
                Quote: BMP-2
                either they themselves looked in the wrong direction, or were not honest and principled

                We looked at the Central Committee, where the “closed letters” came from. And everyone was a little honest, a little not, a little principled, a little unprincipled. They were people, not mannequins!
                1. 0
                  24 November 2023 21: 53
                  Nice try, but no: “being human” in the sense of “having human flaws” is a lesser value compared to “being honest and principled.”
        2. -3
          19 November 2023 20: 57
          Do you consider yourself a one-way swimmer or diver?))))
          1. +1
            19 November 2023 21: 52
            Quote: ee2100
            Do you consider yourself a one-way swimmer or diver?)))

            Alexander! It is customary to address people who are not personally represented to you as you. I hope your mom and dad introduced you to this doctrine in childhood?
        3. 0
          23 November 2023 12: 28
          Quote: kalibr
          Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
          This is a purposeful counter-revolutionary coup within the party, as a result of which opportunists came to power!

          Where did the honest and principled ones look? Or was the whole party “like that”? So then she will always be one of “those”, because shit floats and gold sinks.
          And what are the celestial inhabitants for?
          But this is frank and correct. !.. a former teacher of Marskiism teaches people that even during the USSR it was disgusting for him to be honest. Because others were responsible for “watching” for the correctness of the party line. But not him, although he was clearly a member of the CPSU. And such a position can be classified as “shit” - or not? heh...heh... after all.....yoklmn... they swim out - and even under any power!
      2. -1
        20 November 2023 10: 15
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        a purposeful counter-revolutionary coup within the party, as a result of which opportunists came to power!
        If the majority of opportunists turns out to be, this is not a coup, but a change of course; and if it is a minority, then this is not democratic centralism in the party and not democracy in the country, but negative social selection into the party, which led to the worst, weakest (according to Aristotle) ​​form of statehood - oligarchy, in which numerous meetings of deputies of different types and ranks could We can only welcome with stormy applause and unanimous support the decisions of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee (up to 25 people) and those arising to one degree or another from the first decisions of the USSR Council of Ministers and local party and economic bays.
      3. +1
        22 November 2023 19: 46
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        The first generation freed themselves from criminal liability, the next ones freed themselves from all responsibility - they weren’t even removed from their positions... but the last ones simply privatized the country and became capitalists!

        Here I am about the same ....
        1. -1
          24 November 2023 13: 40
          Now the data on how many thieving bureaucrats with a party card were leaned against the wall or sent to cut down forests does not seem to be closed. You can also find out about their “non-jurisdiction”.
  5. +7
    19 November 2023 05: 15
    The time has come for new socialists—“new leftists” or “neo-Marxists”—who have found new “oppressed” and “oppressors.”
    The new generation of socialists shifted the focus of “oppression” from workers to women (feminism), sexual minorities (LGBT), the unemployed, racial minorities and migrants. For more information on what the New Left is, see “The New Left and the 1968 Revolution: How the Fight against Inequality Transformed into a Cult of Repentance, Cancel Culture, and the Dictatorship of Minorities.”

    The new left is the old opportunist Menshevik! Strikebreakers sitting at the mercy of Capital! Pursuing one goal - to discredit Marxism and the struggle for property rights, replacing them with the struggle for all this dregs...
  6. -10
    19 November 2023 05: 16
    Yes, there are still many people who are nostalgic for the times of the USSR. Like, it was better under the communists. And some even remember the “dashing 90s” with emotion. And in the first years of the USSR, many people were similarly “nostalgic” for the times of Tsarist Russia. Like, it was better under Nikolashka. And before that, “it was better under Katka,” and before that, someone else was secretly baptized “according to the Old Believer.” And before that - in pre-Christian times. And for some, life was certainly better under the mammoths) Such is human nature: to mutter after the younger generation about “those glorious times when we ourselves were still young” :)
    1. +14
      19 November 2023 07: 38
      Quote: Tarasios
      Yes, there are still many people who are nostalgic for the times of the USSR. Like, it was better under the communists.

      Was it worse under the communists? Much better! The time was bright. This can be understood even from films. Then they were kind and positive. And now everything is hopelessly gray.
      1. -13
        19 November 2023 08: 25
        Quote: Stas157
        They were kind and positive back then.

        Because there was censorship and a complete lack of competition. If Western films had been allowed to enter Soviet cinemas, no one would have watched our films. That’s exactly what happened when they let me in. Young people who are not nostalgic for old films do not watch anything from the old Soviet winked
        1. +7
          19 November 2023 09: 13
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Because there was censorship and a complete lack of competition.

          Is that bad? Well, they gave you freedom and? Such cult directors as Ryazanov and Danelia, in their new free time, filmed a blatant mess!
          Quote: BlackMokona
          If Western films had been allowed to enter Soviet cinemas, no one would have watched our films.

          Western films were welcome in our release. Only the best. They separated the wheat from the chaff... And then the flow began.
          Quote: BlackMokona
          That’s exactly what happened when they let me in. Young people who are not nostalgic for old films do not watch anything from the old Soviet

          But here the question is different! Should art ennoble and elevate or cater to the tastes of the crowd? If the crowd is given a choice, where will they go: to the theater to watch a clever play or to the square, to a booth to watch Parsley farting???
          In the West they approached this simply - there is art for the elite, and there is art for the cattle!
          It was different in the Soviet Union! There they tried to raise the level of the masses...
          1. -1
            19 November 2023 18: 24
            Judging by the fact that the highest-grossing film in the USSR was a Mexican soap opera, it didn’t turn out very well.
            1. 0
              19 November 2023 19: 52
              The highest-grossing films of the USSR are “Pirates of the 20th Century”, “Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears”, “The Diamond Arm”.
              And what did you mean about the Brazilian series? shown in 1988, and this country was already changing its skin to capitalism.
              1. -2
                19 November 2023 21: 50
                Actually, Mexican and in 1975 not 1988. If you look at the list of the highest-grossing foreign films in the USSR, it becomes obvious that long before perestroika, among the leaders in film distribution, comparable to the most popular Soviet films like the masterpieces you listed, was Indian-Mexican melodrama trash . This means that it was not possible to create a new Soviet man.

                And this is even despite the fact that films were imported from abroad very selectively. If the market were open, I’m afraid that foreign ones would greatly squeeze out the Pirates, the Hand, and so on. Hollywood and Bollywood worked much more efficiently, as practice has shown.
            2. -3
              19 November 2023 21: 54
              Quote: Kmon
              Judging by the fact that the highest-grossing film in the USSR was a Mexican soap opera, it didn’t turn out very well.

              And the "Greek Fig Tree"! The most watchable film in the USSR!
            3. -2
              22 November 2023 17: 26
              This is no longer the USSR. And the level of the masses in the time before the counter-revolutionary coup was appropriate. They were driven like sheep into wild capitalism and stripped of all their wool.
              1. 0
                22 November 2023 17: 47
                Quote: Essex62
                the level of the masses in the time before the counter-revolutionary coup was appropriate. They were driven like sheep into wild capitalism and stripped of all their fur.

                And what about you, not in the masses? Are you breaking away from the people? Not good, buddy Yes laughing
    2. +5
      19 November 2023 07: 52
      The author's reasoning about people's nostalgia is a typical transition from a fundamental issue to the individual. The fact that “the girls used to be young” is not an argument in a fundamental dispute! It's just a cheap ploy In the same way, the reader can object to the author that the author is biased.
    3. +11
      19 November 2023 09: 04
      Quote: Tarasios
      And in the first years of the USSR, many people were similarly “nostalgic” for the times of Tsarist Russia. Like, it was better under Nikolashka.

      Where did you get this information from? You yourself can’t remember, have you read enough anti-Soviet crap? Who could be nostalgic? A foreman from the factory, who graduated from the Soviet technical school for free, and who had previously come from the village where his illiterate father was, until 1905, paid the mortgage for the land plot that his ancestor received along with the will in 1861. And even then, in 1905, all mortgage debts were forgiven due to the revolution.
      Only the “Preobrazhensky professors” could be nostalgic, but there were clearly no such people
      many who
      1. -4
        19 November 2023 16: 32
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        Where did you get this information from?

        For example, I read about this in Soviet newspapers. And he even wrote that he read the POISONED FEATHER in the flock series, here on VO. "Bring back Nikolai! Everything was cheap with him." - peasants of some Penza village wrote to the newspaper.
    4. +9
      19 November 2023 10: 31
      Quote: Tarasios
      And in the first years of the USSR, many people were just as “nostalgic” for the times of Tsarist Russia

      Who was “nostalgic for Nikolashka”? Crisp bakers? So they are still nostalgic to this day...
      1. +1
        22 November 2023 09: 05
        Quote: Doccor18
        Quote: Tarasios
        And in the first years of the USSR, many people were just as “nostalgic” for the times of Tsarist Russia

        Who was “nostalgic for Nikolashka”? Crisp bakers? So they are still nostalgic to this day...

        That is, it doesn’t bother you that In spite of IN THE SOVIET AUTHORITY - there were bakery bakers not only in 1930, but also in the 1970s???!!!!!
        1. -1
          22 November 2023 17: 02
          We finished cleaning early. But in the 70s they kept their hatred of the power of the worker in their rotten guts. It was fraught with even hissing in public, they poured it out in the kitchens.
  7. 0
    19 November 2023 05: 23
    The fact that theory and practice are often two extremes is no secret to anyone.
    Stated topic: the main mistake of Marxism is not entirely clear what it is. On the national issue? In relation to personal property or still in the character of people?
    The Russian Federation is a capitalist country and all the “sores” of capitalism are inherent in it.
    The three problems that the author wrote about are typical for all developed countries. The fact that women are giving birth less is because society is pushing them to do so.
    You have to work, make a career, etc.
    Migration is controlled and the laws of the Russian Federation in this regard are good, but the fact is that the local population, especially in big cities, does not want to work in industries, construction sites, etc. where physical effort must be made, it is not the migrants who are to blame.
    Now at a construction site in St. Petersburg, a migrant handyman earns an average of 3-3,5 thousand rubles a day. Law of the market.
    As for Islamization, what's wrong with that? They are people like everyone else. Different culture, yes.
    For you, Judaism or Buddhism is not a problem.
    What the so-called the working class has become segregated, this is the merit of the ruling elite or the elite, as you prefer.
    Such people are easier to manage.
    Nostalgia for socialism exists because it was a fairer society than the one we live in.
    New time - new songs!
    1. +10
      19 November 2023 07: 47
      Quote: ee2100
      Migration is controlled and the laws of the Russian Federation in this regard good

      Good ones?

      I recently rode a tram (the car broke down), and I was so shocked by the number of migrants. It’s like being in Tajikistan! I got the impression (the numbers also confirm) that they are getting here uncontrollably.

      Quote: ee2100
      the local population, especially in big cities, does not want to work in industries and construction sites

      The population, not spoiled by salaries, wants to be paid more. Pay - there will be no end!

      Quote: ee2100
      For you, Judaism or Buddhism is not a problem.

      Yes. I'm not afraid of them.
      1. -10
        19 November 2023 09: 13
        [quoteGood?][/quote]
        What's bad?
        Pay - there will be no end!

        Go to HH and look for vacancies. Nurse from 45 to 150 thousand rubles
        I'm not afraid of them.

        Why are you afraid of Muslims? Do they bite?
        Other culture. That's all.
        1. +9
          19 November 2023 10: 35
          Quote: ee2100
          Nurse from 45 to 150 thousand rubles

          Oh, where is this? On a shift in sunny Salekhard?
          1. +1
            19 November 2023 20: 59
            In sunny Salekhard there were also the cost of an apartment there comparable to Moscow
      2. -12
        19 November 2023 09: 23
        Quote: Stas157
        The population, not spoiled by salaries, wants to be paid more. Pay - there will be no end!

        How long does it take to work? Here I work in the North, here general workers-slingers earn from 90k a month on a shift, up to 160k a month for machine operators or welders... Is this not enough? Russians don’t want to work for this money! At the same time, they whine that in Central Russia the salary is almost 50k...
        Quote: Stas157
        Yes. I'm not afraid of them.

        Are you afraid of Muslims? From what? Judging by what is happening in Gaza, it is the Jews who should be feared... laughing
        1. -3
          19 November 2023 15: 28
          Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
          How long does it take to work? Here I work in the North, here general workers-slingers earn from 90k a month on a shift, up to 160k a month for machine operators or welders... Is this not enough? Russians don’t want to work for this money! At the same time, they whine that in Central Russia the salary is almost 50k...

          Is this some kind of attempt at opportunism?
      3. 0
        20 November 2023 06: 41
        Quote: Stas157
        Quote: ee2100
        For you, Judaism or Buddhism is not a problem.
        Yes. I'm not afraid of them.
        Islamophobia is curable.
      4. +1
        22 November 2023 09: 09
        Quote: Stas157
        The population, not spoiled by salaries, wants to be paid more. Pay - there will be no end!
        -the problem is that exactly the same amount -AUTOMATICALLY - the price of the goods produced will rise. Or even more...
        And the population will howl: why did an apartment cost 10 million - if before it cost 5-7?
        1. -1
          25 November 2023 09: 51
          That’s right, and to prevent this from happening, the market should be liquidated and the salary should be tied to a rigid tariff, with bonuses for difficult working conditions. This will automatically eliminate all speculators, moneylenders and other profiteers, all distortions in the unfair distribution of income and the skids of capitalism.
    2. -8
      19 November 2023 09: 17
      Quote: ee2100
      As for Islamization, what's wrong with that? They are people like everyone else. Different culture, yes.

      In fact, the second largest nationality is the Tatars. Muslims.
      Quote: ee2100
      For you, Judaism or Buddhism is not a problem.

      Yes, he's just heating up...
      1. +3
        19 November 2023 10: 21
        The second largest nationality is the Tatars.
        Feel the difference between 105 million Russians and 5 million Tatars.
        1. +2
          20 November 2023 02: 14
          Quote: Gardamir
          Feel the difference between 105 million Russians and 5 million Tatars.

          How many Tatars poured through Upper Lars? How many Russians were there in the crew of the Alyosha tank? Are there 80% Russians there? Did you feel the difference?
          Otherwise, an unhealthy trend is emerging in the country - on the one hand, they are shouting about crowds of migrants who are interfering with life and inflating ethnic conflict, and on the other hand, the same people are fleeing mobilization.
        2. -2
          20 November 2023 11: 41
          Quote: Gardamir
          Feel the difference between 105 million Russians and 5 million Tatars.
          Feel the difference too: this year the number of Muslims could reach 25 million people, which would be almost 18% of the population. There are 70-80 million Christian believers, 1,5 million Buddhists and 1,7 pagans; 3-4 million people are atheists. Only a few atheists are concerned about the growing number of supporters of traditional beliefs.
    3. +9
      19 November 2023 09: 30
      What's wrong with Islamization? What else can you say is bad about the numerous crimes of migrants?
      1. +1
        20 November 2023 02: 19
        Quote: Reader
        What's wrong with Islamization? What else can you say is bad about the numerous crimes of migrants?

        How do they differ from crimes committed by non-migrants? If you are killed or robbed by a native Russian, will it be easier for you? Maybe we have some kind of electoral laws that put pressure on local crime, rather than letting local crime go? No? Maybe our police work selectively?
        What are you suggesting? Celebrate Kristallnacht and adopt the Nuremberg laws?
      2. -2
        20 November 2023 11: 52
        Quote: Reader
        What else can you say is bad about the numerous crimes of migrants?
        Among them, crime is lower than among indigenous people.
        Those who broke the law among migrants in 2020 were 0,5%, among citizens of the Russian Federation - about 1,3%.
        We have a lot to learn from them.
  8. +11
    19 November 2023 05: 23
    The author writes very nice and happy bold articles about the state of affairs at the front and about some of the problems of Russia, for which many thanks to him, but here he took on a topic that he simply does not understand.
    He doesn’t understand absolutely from the basics to the details, so the article looks as if a fifth grader began to scold the theory of quantum mechanics.
    This has led to the fact that in general almost all statements in the article are erroneous, from the most [fundamental ones - such as “you cannot change human nature”, although in fact man became a man and came out of the state of an animal by changing his nature, and, for example, capitalism changes human nature is no less (and in fact even more) than socialism, ending with particulars such as the “collapse of communist regimes,” which a priori could not happen because communism was not built at all in any of these “regimes.”
    The same applies to the national question of the specially interested author, he does not understand the difference between a nation and a people, does not understand Soviet national policy, confuses classical Marxism with Marxism-Leninism, confuses the complete absence of interethnic conflicts (mythical paradise) with the fact that national policy in the USSR failed well, etc. to infinity.
    But there is no need to scold the author, he is not a class enemy, not a traitor (from the category of former ideologists and bosses of the CPSU), but simply a naive person who has grasped the heights of the mass cultural understanding of socialism within the capitalist media machine.
    1. +8
      19 November 2023 14: 26
      It’s wonderful that you are an intelligent person and understand everything, and your consciousness is not subject to manipulation! But modern neo-Marxists, unlike you, understand that the world has changed, and the “recipes of Marxism” that were used in the twentieth century are no longer viable. This was written, for example, by the neo-Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky, who referred to the same Guy Standing and his “class classification” and argued that a purely economic struggle was becoming impossible for the “left”. They are probably all naive fifth graders too? Or are they secret agents of capital? wassat However, I am not going to convince anyone - everyone is free to have their own point of view.

      What’s interesting is that many commentators, when criticizing the article, ignore the main point: Marxism and the national question. The fact that Marxism ignored national and cultural differences, considering them a product of bourgeois society, etc. The funniest thing is when some commentators, not just clearly “left-wing”, but apparently of Marxist views, criticize the current migration policy, thanks to which Russian cities are filled with migrants from Central Asia and the fact that Russian people have no rights in their country, while forgetting that this policy is largely the brainchild of the Soviet “people-friendly” policy.

      I indicated this in the material: Majority nationalism is bad. Minority nationalism is good. The Russians played the role of cement holding the republics of the USSR together. The current authorities are clearly continuing this policy. Therefore, Russian nationalism is evil for them, but Chechen or Tuvan, for example, is supported in every possible way.
      1. +5
        19 November 2023 16: 42
        Victor! In 1987, I worked in the archives of the Komsomol Central Committee, collecting material for a dissertation on the party leadership of university science. They bring me a report from the secretariat of the Komsomol Central Committee to the CPSU Central Committee that the number of students in Central Asian universities involved in research work, judging by the reports, exceeds 100%!!!!! And the average for Russian universities is 5-7%. And considerable money is allocated for research work... On the document there is a signature (illegible) and it is written: “The East is a delicate matter... Let’s leave it as it is for now...” So they were delivered. I inserted this into my dissertation, defended in 1988.
        1. 0
          23 November 2023 12: 34
          Quote: kalibr
          Victor! In 1987, I worked in the archives of the Komsomol Central Committee, collecting material for a dissertation on the party leadership of university science. They bring me a report from the secretariat of the Komsomol Central Committee to the CPSU Central Committee that the number of students in Central Asian universities involved in research work, judging by the reports, exceeds 100%!!!!! And the average for Russian universities is 5-7%. And considerable money is allocated for research work... On the document there is a signature (illegible) and it is written: “The East is a delicate matter... Let’s leave it as it is for now...” So they were delivered. I inserted this into my dissertation, defended in 1988.


          So isn’t this a violation of party charters and Soviet laws? Or was the right to lie and steal written down in the USSR Constitution? And there are such masters - changing shoes in the air!
      2. +1
        19 November 2023 16: 48
        Quote: Viktor Biryukov
        neo-Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky, who referred to the same Guy Standing and his “class classification”

        Sorry, of course, the last thing I would like to do is offend you in some way, but get all these Standings and Kagarlitskys out of your head. There is no need to try to understand the complex without understanding the simple. Look at reality, use common sense when you write about military topics, you are good at it. If you still want to understand Marxism, then it is advisable to start with Marx smile Sorry, but from your article it follows that you simply do not understand the essence of his teaching. Just as you don’t know all of modern anthropology, which just shows how man stood out from the animal kingdom precisely changing your nature
        Quote: Viktor Biryukov
        What’s interesting is that many commentators, when criticizing the article, ignore the main point: Marxism and the national question

        Just because you have swung too wide, you have dozens of complex problems intertwined here on which you jump like a grasshopper. Even on a separate issue - Marxism and the national question. there are relations to it of classical Marxism, there are relations of Leninism, there is Soviet national policy, there is its implementation at different times, and all these are different questions. You have them woven into an unimaginable heap. But you also have errors in certain provisions. For example
        Quote: Viktor Biryukov
        The fact that Marxism ignored national and cultural differences, considering them a product of bourgeois society

        This is absolutely false. Classical Marxism adhered to the primordialist concept of ethnicity, that is, it considered it innate and not at all generated by “bourgeois society.”
        Quote: Viktor Biryukov
        The funniest thing is when some commentators, not just clearly “left-wing”, but apparently of Marxist views, criticize the current migration policy, thanks to which Russian cities are filled with migrants from Central Asia and the fact that Russian people have no rights in their country, while forgetting that this policy is largely the brainchild of the Soviet “people-friendly” policy.

        It's funny to you because you just don't understand. Forget about all these Marxisms and other abstract concepts. Just look at reality. Is it possible in the USSR within the framework unified countries pursuing a policy of internationalism, the cities of the RSFSR were filled with migrants from Central Asia? Were Russian people in the RSFSR more powerless than these migrants? Before perestroika (that is, before the program of dismantling socialism, and Soviet nationality policy in particular) there were brutal ethnic cleansings and bloody ethnic wars in the USSR? "Guest workers", poverty, lack of rights of individual nations? This could not be imagined even in a nightmare. Why ? Yes, simply because in reality, politics after 1985, including national politics, is the exact opposite conscience of politics, including national politics.
        1. 0
          20 November 2023 12: 12
          Quote: Belisarius
          Classical Marxism adhered to the primordialist concept of ethnicity, that is, it considered it innate and not at all generated by “bourgeois society.”
          Not this way. Marx wrote that the XNUMXth century was the time of the formation of nations and nation-states. Lenin wrote: “nations are the inevitable product and inevitable form of the bourgeois era of social development.” Ethnicity is a much earlier form of social relations; nationality and nation are two different things. Nationality is emerging from the era of the disintegration of the tribal system through the creation of tribal unions and states. Stalin defined a nation as “a historically established stable community of people that arose on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and mental makeup”; that is, what remains of the ethnic group here is mainly the language.
      3. +1
        19 November 2023 17: 49
        For example, the neo-Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky wrote about this,
        They wrote that he was still sitting in a pre-trial detention center, that’s Marxism for you, my friend...
        1. -4
          20 November 2023 12: 37
          Quote: WFP-1
          For example, the neo-Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky wrote about this,
          They wrote that he was still sitting in a pre-trial detention center, that’s Marxism for you, my friend...
          Boris Kagarlitsky was arrested because of his video about the explosion on the Crimean Bridge, in which signs of justification of terrorism are seen, and not for his Marxist views, which no one needs. Rashkin also tried to use the authorities’ fight against dissent as a cover for his poaching. The rest support them. Party ethics are like this.
          1. 0
            25 November 2023 10: 09
            Superficial look. If there was a reason, there would be an article. The modern bourgeoisie cannot openly judge and punish for political views. The declared “freedom and democracy” and bonds are crumbling in the eyes of the reformatted, middle-aged and reformatted young population. They are the basis of Russian capitalism and it is not appropriate to confuse their minds with political repression. Navalny has already been burned by forcing a lot of young people not to trust the system. Although he undoubtedly deserved the bunk.
      4. +3
        19 November 2023 18: 20
        Quote: Viktor Biryukov
        I indicated this in the material: the nationalism of the majority is bad. Minority nationalism is good.

        Thought expressed inaccurately. It will be correct: Russian nationalism is bad. Any other nationalism is good.
        This, as you remember, came from “great-power Russian nationalism”, “Russian chauvinism” and other notions of the well-known classic of Marxism.
  9. +7
    19 November 2023 05: 31
    There are rational grains in this article. But, I must admit, the author is disingenuous in many ways.
    Thus, he writes about the disappearance of the proletariat as a class and its merger with the “middle class.” That is, like a union of white and blue collar workers. Yes, there is such a thing, and in many places in the West.
    But the author, deftly maneuvering, bypassed two factors. First, such a merger is a consequence of the socio-economic changes that have taken place in the Western world over the previous 100 years under the influence of PRACTICAL socialism in Russia (USSR).
    And the second, in my opinion, is more relevant. Where is the merger of the proletariat and the middle class here in Russia? Not to those who were “appointed” with a salary of 17000 thousand, but to those who are truly middle class and live excellent lives. From the workers.
    So, in the country of collapsed socialism there is no merger, no disappearance of the proletariat.
    On the contrary, by returning private property as such, Russia received new proletarians. They are smart enough to understand that with the collapse of the “communist” system and the promises of a sweet bourgeois life, they were deceived. And high wages in some cases are achievable not by increasing productivity as such, but by merciless exploitation,
    constant overtime work, which takes away people's strength and personal time.
    So the author was lying. But who wants to please him - the authorities or the people?
    There are no mistakes in Marxism, just like in Leninism. The theories were very relevant and correct for their time.
    But it should be considered a mistake that these theories were turned into dogmas and were not developed, even despite the creation of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. Bureaucracy and dogmatism ruined the development of socialism as a theory of social development.
    1. +13
      19 November 2023 05: 42
      Quote: U-58
      Where is the merger of the proletariat and the middle class here in Russia?

      There is no such thing in Russia, because the collapse of the USSR threw our country far back, just to those times about which Marx writes
    2. +1
      19 November 2023 07: 40
      Quote: U-58
      Thus, he writes about the disappearance of the proletariat as a class and its merger with the “middle class.” That is, like a union of white and blue collar workers. Yes, there is such a thing, and in many places in the West.

      You can hardly find anything like this in the West. Most US workers are not middle class
      1. +3
        19 November 2023 10: 43
        If you look at vacancies for blue-collar jobs in the United States, it turns out that on average workers earn 50-55 thousand dollars a year. For example, gas fitters and plumbers earn $25-31 per hour in the US - if we take the figure of $26 per hour as a basis and assume that the person works 40 hours per week (2000 hours of work per year), then their salary is $52 per year year or 000 thousand dollars per month. In your opinion, they cannot be considered the American middle class? More highly qualified specialists receive, of course, much more.
        1. +5
          19 November 2023 11: 02
          Quote: Viktor Biryukov
          If you look at vacancies for blue-collar jobs in the United States, it turns out that on average workers earn 50-55 thousand dollars a year.

          Yes.
          Quote: Viktor Biryukov
          In your opinion, they cannot be considered the American middle class?

          Of course not. 50-55 thousand dollars annual income in the USA is nothing, one might say - from paycheck to paycheck.
          1. +2
            19 November 2023 12: 38
            Well, actually, US citizens with incomes of more than $40 per year belong to the Lower middle class (lower middle class) following the Gilbert model. However, it seems to me a pointless exercise to argue on this topic.
            1. +3
              19 November 2023 16: 04
              Quote: Viktor Biryukov
              Well, actually, US citizens with incomes of more than $40 per year belong to the Lower middle class (lower middle class) following the Gilbert model

              Is it okay that Gilbert sculpted his model in the early 2000s? And that Gilbert’s “working class” comes after the “lower middle class”? Moreover, Gilbert’s “working class” is precisely formed from blue-collar professions (and clerks) that do not require higher education?
              Quote: Viktor Biryukov
              However, it seems to me a pointless exercise to argue on this topic.

              Undoubtedly. There is no point in arguing here.
        2. +4
          19 November 2023 11: 58
          Quote: Viktor Biryukov
          their salary is $52 per year or $000 thousand per month

          It's unlikely you'll make that kind of money in Alabama, Oklahoma or West Virginia. These are salaries in New York or Los Angeles, but prices there are much higher
          1. +7
            19 November 2023 12: 04
            Absolutely right, I didn’t focus on this point. States vary greatly in cost of living and salary by region (as do we, however), so the concept of “getting money like in Moscow, spending like in Uryupinsk” is not viable
          2. 0
            19 November 2023 22: 35
            This is an order of magnitude ten times or more. But that's not true. Still correct: several times higher, or rather slightly higher.
      2. +7
        19 November 2023 13: 46
        Most US workers are not middle class

        As soon as Andrei from Chelyabinsk goes beyond the scope of presenting the history of the Navy, a process begins that is called “cutting nonsense.” Andrey, first of all, try to figure out who in the USA is classified as “Workers”.
        1. +3
          19 November 2023 14: 38
          Well, ok, let's say I'm happy for American workers. But the article is not about the remarkable achievements of capitalism in the USA, it is about the fact that capitalism, as a concept, does not contain such errors as Marxism. But then capitalism should give excellent results everywhere, and not in the United States alone with its established system of plundering the resources of other countries (due to which it is precisely possible to raise wages for its “lower class”).
          1. +1
            19 November 2023 16: 09
            Quote: BMP-2
            Well, ok, let's say I'm happy for American workers

            And absolutely nothing.
            1. +1
              19 November 2023 20: 37
              Why in vain? The method of “by contradiction” has not yet been refuted by any debunker of Marx! wink
        2. +2
          19 November 2023 16: 09
          Quote from Frettaskyrandi
          Andrey, first of all, try to figure out who in the USA is classified as “Workers”.

          I’m afraid to even ask what the definition of workers in the USA has to do with my words. But, overcoming fear, I’ll ask: which one?
          1. +4
            19 November 2023 17: 46
            Most US workers are not middle class
            - you wrote this? Or not you?
            1. 0
              19 November 2023 17: 53
              Quote from Frettaskyrandi
              - you wrote this? Or not you?

              I wrote this. And I repeat my question: what does the definition of workers in the USA have to do with my words?
              1. +2
                19 November 2023 18: 15
                I wrote this.

                Well, thank God. Let's stop there. Running in circles doesn't interest me.
                1. +1
                  19 November 2023 21: 13
                  Quote from Frettaskyrandi
                  Well, thank God. Let's stop there

                  Well, what did you blurt out and into the bushes? You’ve been complaining here that I’m talking nonsense, so come on, expose me in all the chilling details :))))
                  Okay, you don’t know how to answer for your words. But maybe you can still squeeze out something on the merits of the issue? Here is a very simple thesis I gave:
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Most US workers are not middle class

                  Deny it, I believe in you :))))))
                  1. -1
                    19 November 2023 22: 58
                    Okay, you don’t know how to answer for your words.

                    I can, you know this very well. And I have known you for a long time, as well as the fact that an argument with you is running in circles. You and I have gone through this many times. So, regard it as you like, but there will be no “kina”.
                    1. +1
                      20 November 2023 12: 01
                      Quote from Frettaskyrandi
                      I can, you know this very well. And I have known you for a long time, as well as the fact that an argument with you is running in circles.

                      In which you talk about the fact that you can do everything, but are embarrassed to demonstrate this skill? Of course, running in circles, is it only my fault? :))
        3. +4
          19 November 2023 16: 44
          Quote from Frettaskyrandi
          As soon as Andrey from Chelyabinsk goes beyond the presentation of the history of the Navy

          + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    3. +3
      19 November 2023 13: 02
      Quote: U-58
      Thus, he writes about the disappearance of the proletariat as a class and its merger with the “middle class.” That is, like a union of white and blue collar workers. Yes, there is such a thing, and in many places in the West.
      But the author, deftly maneuvering, bypassed two factors. First, such a merger is a consequence of the socio-economic changes that have taken place in the Western world over the previous 100 years under the influence of PRACTICAL socialism in Russia (USSR).

      People can be divided into classes according to different criteria. The “proletariat” is divided on the basis of ownership of the means of production. "Middle class" in terms of income and, accordingly, consumption. This “red” and “salty” cannot, by definition, go together.
  10. +5
    19 November 2023 05: 34
    The article clearly does not resemble scientific work. Nothing interesting, twitchy quotes and thoughts from pseudoscientific creations. The author either didn’t understand the question (well then you need to take a vacation and read some books). Or he understands everything and deliberately pushes the news to the masses.
    1. +3
      19 November 2023 16: 46
      Quote from Hipper
      hipper

      But you probably have a lot of interesting scientific articles on this topic, don’t you? In the journal "Questions of History", for example? Yes?
      1. 0
        20 November 2023 13: 00
        I have the modesty not to consider myself a scientist and do not publish. Does this somehow change the validity of the published article?
        1. -3
          20 November 2023 19: 26
          Quote from Hipper
          The article clearly does not resemble scientific work. Nothing interesting, twitchy quotes and thoughts from pseudoscientific creations.

          “The article clearly does not look like a scientific work. Nothing interesting, jerky quotes and thoughts from pseudoscientific fabrications.” But write this, however. "Who is the judge?"
          1. -1
            20 November 2023 22: 27
            AND??? Can only a writer who himself publishes in scientific journals judge?
  11. -4
    19 November 2023 05: 34
    The main mistake of Marxism is the postulate that labor made a man out of a monkey, and the entire development of mankind lies in the intensification of labor. Meanwhile, the natural course of history speaks of something completely different: the stick made a man out of a monkey when, with the help of this weapon, it defeated the leader of the pack and took his place. Thus, the strength of an individual shapes his place in the hierarchy of society and society itself.
    1. +2
      19 November 2023 14: 40
      Can you give me one example of how idleness makes someone human? laughing
      1. -3
        19 November 2023 15: 00
        Did I say that idleness made someone a man? The desire for power and, as a result, the appropriation of other people's results of labor - this is what stimulated the work of the brain. When the monkey drove the leader away with a stick, she thereby forced the subordinate monkeys to collect bananas for her.
        1. +1
          19 November 2023 20: 42
          The opposite of work is not a stick, but idleness. And even if you have a stick in all four hands, but not a single monkey is working, then you won’t be able to appropriate anything. And the monkey will remain a monkey. Only with a stick.
          1. +1
            22 November 2023 07: 33
            No matter how much a cleaning lady goes to work, it won’t make her any smarter. Only a conventional stick over her head in the person of her boss will make her think and develop. Work without incentives does not exist; incentive is a stick.
            1. +1
              24 November 2023 21: 41
              A strong conclusion. Of course, a “stimulus” was a “sharpened stick” in Ancient Greece. Now a “stimulus” is any object that can satisfy a need. Without need, labor certainly cannot exist. And without incentives - it happens: in the case when the driving force is motivation. Motivation is an internal drive to activity. In contrast to the incentive - where this incentive is external.
              Whether the cleaner will become smarter is a separate question. Still, “becoming human” and “becoming smarter” are far from identical concepts. And yet, yes, there are a lot of activities that make a person dumber.
              Being smarter means starting to notice and use more relationships, learning to solve more problems. And this requires the creation of very specific conditions for development. In the context of human evolution, labor was and is a factor creating such conditions. But in the context of the development of an individual, it can also perform an inhibitory function. By the way, like incentives: back in 1935, Karl Danker demonstrated in his experiment that “stimulated” people are worse at solving creative problems. Therefore, for a cleaning lady to become smarter, the main factor is not the presence of a stick in the hands of the boss, but the presence of his head.
              1. 0
                1 January 2024 13: 36
                If we use the concept of entropy, then every living creature strives to reduce its own entropy by increasing the entropy of the environment. Using tools to reduce your own entropy turns out to be much more effective. Moreover, weapons can be used not only for physical manipulation, but also simply for intimidation.
    2. +1
      20 November 2023 00: 23
      The main mistake of Marxism is the postulate that labor made a man out of a monkey

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Роль_труда_в_процессе_превращения_обезьяны_в_человека
      At least one fashionable anthropologist doesn’t quite agree with you (although he doesn’t think that Engels was literally right, since anthropogenesis is a longer process than was imagined in Engels’ time).
      Drobyshevsky agrees that “labor activity was necessary for the emergence of the genus Homo in Australopithecines, if Australopithecines are considered monkeys,” since from the moment the latter “began to use tools, they experienced very powerful changes in the structure of the hand, jaws, and brain , behavior." And since “our entire culture is a tool-based activity,” then in this sense Engels’s train of thought is correct, since “there was a role for labor, without a doubt” and “Without tools, a person is not very much a person”[6].
      1. 0
        1 January 2024 13: 41
        I agree that labor and the use of tools to achieve one’s own goals are different concepts. There was a substitution of concepts - only the use of tools turned a monkey into a man, while tools could also be used as a tool of coercion.
  12. -4
    19 November 2023 05: 36
    Marxists are internationalists and advocate erasing borders between nations

    Classic Zionism. Remove the boundaries between nations, blend them, and then rise above them
    1. 0
      26 November 2023 11: 38
      And if you can’t rise, then what? lol
  13. +1
    19 November 2023 06: 30
    The article is full of redundant information. What does the problem with migrants and Marxism have to do with it? Marx divided society based on their relationship to the means of production. The result was owners (capitalists), the proletariat and slaves. If you do not have the means of production and sell your labor power (mental labor), then you sing of the concept of the proletariat. You can change the name, but the essence will not change.
    Man is a social being. Much depends on the environment in which he grew up and lives and not on his biological nature. This is more, of course, from the field of psychology and sociology.
    1. +6
      19 November 2023 08: 51
      In 1854, K. Marx wrote:
      “Kronstadt and St. Petersburg must be destroyed ... Without Odessa, Kronstadt, Riga and Sevastopol with emancipated Finland and a hostile army at the gates of the capital ... what will happen to Russia? A giant without arms, without eyes, which can only try to hit its opponents with blind weight. ”
  14. +2
    19 November 2023 06: 30
    Before talking about socialism, we need to define exactly what capitalism is. Nowadays it is fashionable to throw around words like “liberal”, “fascist”, without delving into the meaning of these words. Capitalism can be moderate, as well as limitless. All bourgeois strive for limitless capitalism, not realizing that this path leads only to a brown revolution. Its costs are used by people who “want to talk to the people”. A great deception of the last century. Capitalists have no time to turn to the people. And politicians are only servants of these gentlemen. It will not work to give earrings to everyone. Although all the social decisions of ordinary people lie in the wallets of the oligarchs. Socialism has done a lot for the people. But it has not eliminated the negative character traits of people. Lenin warned that party arrogance can destroy the proletarian state. It can destroy any state. The path taken by the USSR is important. You can’t build anything exactly, but all yesterday’s and current mistakes must be taken into account.
    1. +1
      19 November 2023 07: 50
      Yeah, and the main thing is that you don’t have to do anything or risk anything. Just come one spring Sunday and vote for the “smart and honest”. No, guys, no one will give up power because of a “bulletin” (1996), you’ll have to risk your skin and get up to your ears in someone else’s blood.
    2. +6
      19 November 2023 10: 42
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      words.Capitalism can be moderate

      Aha laughing laughing laughing just like a hungry wolf can be “polite”...
    3. +4
      19 November 2023 14: 47
      Well, it’s the same as “being a little pregnant”: it’s possible, but for a very short time. And then, as the author writes, you will have to “fight with human nature,” because capitalism is a choice of the direction of development, and not a choice of the state in which you will remain. And yet, yes, liberalism in this regard has a huge chance of degenerating into fascism - there are a lot of historical examples.
    4. +2
      19 November 2023 21: 00
      “Before we talk about socialism, we must define exactly what capitalism is.” It is impossible to define exactly what capitalism is and what socialism is. There are many varieties of both. In the 70s, or earlier, the term "convergence" appeared and was used in the scientific literature of that time. As far as I remember, it meant the interpenetration of capitalism and socialism. Against this background, the philosophical science of the then CPSU worked very poorly, and did it exist at all? One E. Gaidar is worth something, but apparently there were tons of them. At the CPSU Congress they announced the construction of the material and technical base of communism by the year 80, can you imagine? In communism, by this time, the social structure, social relations, economic basis, etc. are unknown, but there are “huge plans”! Communism is a dream about a better life, about an ideal person, about a fair society. This dream is hundreds, maybe thousands of years old, but for this dream to come true, a huge amount of research, searches, theoretical constructions, experiments is needed... Otherwise, communism will remain a dream, a religion.
  15. -9
    19 November 2023 06: 37
    One of the main mistakes of the Marxists was that they believed that human nature could be changed. In practice, this turned out to be nothing more than a utopia.
    Socialism is in one way or another associated with an overestimation of the importance of circumstances in people’s lives and, accordingly, with an underestimation of the influence of people on circumstances. The following statement by K. Marx is indicative:

    I would say this was the main mistake. Everything else is a derivative of it. Humans are a biological species - no more, no less.

    And a big request to all those who are now spilling bile in the comments - show where humanity lives, which can build communism.
    1. -1
      19 November 2023 07: 55
      It lives on planet Earth. It’s just that there are less than 10% of people who “like a bulldozer, row away from themselves.” Don't try to understand, you are not one of them.
      1. -2
        19 November 2023 08: 10
        Quote: lisiy prapor
        Simply, such people are less than 10%

        You are too optimistic - there are less than 1%. That is the problem.
    2. -6
      19 November 2023 09: 33
      Quote: Dart2027
      show where humanity lives that can build communism.

      On the Earth!
      1. 0
        19 November 2023 11: 03
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        On the Earth!

        And more specifically?
        1. 0
          19 November 2023 14: 49
          Can I tell you my residential address?
          1. 0
            19 November 2023 16: 05
            Quote: BMP-2
            Tell me my residential address

            Do you personally represent the whole of humanity? Uh-uh... Exactly?
            1. 0
              19 November 2023 20: 44
              Imagine: I am his representative! 100%
              1. -1
                19 November 2023 21: 44
                Quote: BMP-2
                to myself: I am his representative!

                One for the whole world.
                1. +2
                  19 November 2023 23: 04
                  Well, as they say: if you want to change the world, start with yourself. What is the problem? And wanting others to change is a thankless task. laughing
                  1. 0
                    20 November 2023 20: 43
                    Quote: BMP-2
                    What is the problem? And wanting others to change is a thankless task.

                    The fact is that until everyone changes there will be no communism. Tested in practice.
                    1. 0
                      24 November 2023 21: 19
                      It's true. But if you just sit and wait until everything changes by itself the way you would like, there is almost always someone who comes and changes everything to suit himself... but this change almost always does not meet expectations to an even greater extent.
                2. 0
                  26 November 2023 11: 46
                  You are very mistaken, which is not surprising. “Rowing to yourself” is of course more profitable for your loved one. am
      2. -3
        19 November 2023 16: 50
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        On the Earth!

        80% of people are not very smart by nature, insufficiently socialized, poorly educated, with poor nutrition, children of drunken conception and a poor social environment. Their society is developing very slowly. Because they have 20% to oppose them.
        1. +7
          19 November 2023 20: 51
          I hope you, Vyacheslav Olegovich, have links to serious scientific research. Otherwise, you will have to admit that you are completely unreasonably trying to apply Pareto’s law, which characterized only a specific structure of income distribution among Italian households, which was characterized by the concentration of 80% of income in 20% of families at the end of the XNUMXth century.
          1. -6
            19 November 2023 21: 59
            Quote: BMP-2
            I hope you, Vyacheslav Olegovich, have links to serious scientific research. Otherwise, you will have to admit that you are completely unreasonably trying to apply Pareto’s law, which characterized only a specific structure of income distribution among Italian households, which was characterized by the concentration of 80% of income in 20% of families at the end of the XNUMXth century.

            This has long since moved from households to absolutely everything! And links... the Internet is full of them.
            1. +5
              19 November 2023 23: 07
              Where did what go? Pareto's law for all other areas of application remains nothing more than a metaphor.
              And links... the Internet is full of them.
              I can't believe this is the answer of a serious scientist. Vyacheslav Olegovich, are you trolling me now or what?
              1. -4
                20 November 2023 07: 26
                Quote: BMP-2
                I can't believe this is the answer of a serious scientist.

                Have to! Or read my textbooks for universities on PR, advertising and public opinion management, where there is information about this. My student wrote her thesis on the work of the Pareto principle in trade and advertising. A large amount of research... It turned out that 80% of the store's profit comes from 20% of regular customers, and 80% of casual customers come from only 20%. Developments were made to create a chain of Pareto's Law stores and much more. Long to explain here. And there’s no need to throw beads...
                1. +4
                  20 November 2023 10: 44
                  So there won't be any links? Clear. And in the thesis, as I understand it, the advertising was somehow connected with “children of drunken conception and a bad social environment” or is this just another far-fetched example of how Pareto’s law works? Then excuse me, I’ll bypass your textbooks, I’d better go and finish the last bag of beads. laughing
                  1. -5
                    20 November 2023 19: 28
                    Quote: BMP-2
                    Then excuse me, I’ll bypass your textbooks

                    In vain! They are approved by specialists no match for you...
                    1. +1
                      21 November 2023 20: 39
                      Dual feelings torment me in this situation: on the one hand, they did something stupid, but I am ashamed. But on the other hand, now I’m even proud that they are no match for me! Yes
  16. -2
    19 November 2023 06: 45
    Thanks to the author. good The national question is the weakest point in Marx's theory. He destroyed the Union. Despite the titanic efforts of propaganda, in the 80s yesterday's "builders of communism" instantly legalized their nationalism.

    And a very correct assessment of the “left” Europeans and “our” right. The Russian right-wingers were completely destroyed and expelled. Instead of the elite, there is another International of crooks. What kind of mythical “class solidarity” can there be when migrants make “Mega-Palestine” out of Russia?
    1. +7
      19 November 2023 07: 38
      The national question is the weakest point in Marx's theory.
      So you think that the current president is a Marxist? he has been telling tales about a multi-religious and multi-ethnic country for 20 years. 80% of one nation is not multinational. The same percentage is considered Orthodox. But the Kremlin government, hiding behind words about multinationality, made the Chechens the main nation of the country
      1. -4
        19 November 2023 09: 37
        Quote: Gardamir
        80% of one nation is not multinational. The same percentage is considered Orthodox.

        Why is this interesting? So, apparently, you count yourself among this 80%? Which parish do you belong to? Who is your superior? Or are Orthodox Christians the ones who paint eggs and drink vodka for Easter?
        1. +3
          19 November 2023 10: 33
          Not the point. You consider all Central Asians to be Muslims by default. And when it suits them, they will play along with you.
          I don’t know anything about rectors and parishes. But I can read the Lord’s Prayer without looking on the Internet.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  17. -9
    19 November 2023 07: 02
    the second problem is the mass uncontrolled migration of people from Central Asia, who have a negative attitude towards Russians and Russian culture; the third problem is the Islamization that accompanies all this, because migrants from Central Asia, who are gradually replacing the Russian population, are mainly Muslims.

    Where did the author come up with this nonsense? And why does it provoke interfaith contradictions?
    Russia has always been, is and will be a multi-religious country. Russian Muslims: Tatars, Chechens, Bashkirs and many others have always made up a significant part of the population of our country. This has never stopped us from living in peace and harmony with people of other faiths.
    There is no need to confuse Islam and radical Islamists.
    Such articles should be regarded as an attempt to incite interethnic and interfaith hatred!
    1. +7
      19 November 2023 11: 05
      Do you understand the difference between those who have lived side by side with Russians for hundreds of years and the visiting rabid Muslims? Aggressive, imposing Islam, trying to establish their own order everywhere? I myself am 25% Tatar. He grew up in a near-Tatar environment. Nobody imposed anything on anyone. They buried them in a separate cemetery and celebrated their own holidays. They drank less, and so did ordinary people.
      1. +2
        19 November 2023 13: 29
        I am a Tatar myself
        It's not a matter of nationality. It’s just that these Novorussians want to live as they are used to. on the other hand, for your own pleasure. Well, thirdly, so that no one interferes, they pretend to be Muslims.
      2. -1
        19 November 2023 14: 36
        visiting rabid Muslims? visiting rabid Muslims? Aggressive, imposing Islam, trying to establish their own order everywhere? trying to establish their own rules everywhere?

        Where did you get the idea of ​​“the visiting rabid Muslims? Aggressive, imposing Islam, trying to establish their own order everywhere?” 99,9% of guest workers came to the Russian Federation to work from the countries of the former USSR. And they work where the Russians themselves do not want to work. Well, there are “violent and planting...” among all peoples, incl. and Russians. Listen to the crap the stars and stars who fled from Russia over the past 1.5 years are talking about. "Ears wither" and disgusting.
        ps Taking into account your 25% Tatar, remember what terrible nationalism and Islamization was carried out quite recently in Tatarstan by Mirtemir Shaimiev, who was previously the 1st secretary of the regional committee of the CPSU. But he didn’t come from anywhere.
        1. +4
          19 November 2023 15: 25
          The creeping Islamization of Russia, the displacement of Russians from entire sectors of the economy, and the numerous crimes of migrants can only be ignored by the blind. Every day there are reports of beatings and attacks. All this is proudly posted on the Internet. They are already openly mocking government officials, ignoring the police, demanding compulsory medical insurance and special treatment. To understand and to forgive.
          1. +1
            22 November 2023 09: 18
            Quote: Reader
            Numerous crimes of migrants can only be overlooked by the blind. Every day there are reports of beatings and attacks.

            and the vulgar statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs say that about 2% of the total number of crimes in the country are committed by migrants. Simply due to the fact that there are many times more citizens of the Russian Federation.
            It’s just that the crimes of migrants are promoted, but stabbings of locals due to drunkenness are not....
            1. -2
              22 November 2023 10: 12
              Migrants commit about 2% of the total number of crimes in the country. Simply due to the fact that there are many times more citizens of the Russian Federation.

              Citizens of the Russian Federation are also migrants who have already received a passport.
              Therefore, migrants with a Russian passport are no longer included in the “migrant” statistics.
  18. -9
    19 November 2023 07: 22
    An excellent article that is a typical (and rather mild) critique of Marxism from the right. Which, of course, will be received with hostility by die-hard Soviets and, even more so, by fanatical Marxists - because their thinking occurs not on a rational, but on a religious level. Any logical arguments are powerless here, because for them it is Faith. So the comparison of Marxism with religion is spot on. Just like everything else in general. It would seem that the article lists long-known truths for those interested in the topic - but however, I personally, for example, learned with interest about the differences between Marxism and neo-Marxism, as well as about the commonality of Marxists with liberals. I have never come across this information in such a concise and clear form before. Thank you.
    Well, in any case, for all those who have not yet decided (not Soviets and Marxists!), repeating common truths will not be superfluous.

    I still disagree in one place:
    “People are initially, genetically, very dissimilar and even opposite. The dissimilarity between them gives rise to differences in their interests. And the dissimilarity of interests gives rise to clashes between people, their mutual struggle.”
    "evil is an ineradicable part of human existence"
    Who told you that differences in interests are caused by dissimilarity? two packs of predators in the forest, identical as two drops of water, competing for territory and resources - generated by “dissimilarity”? Conflicts and violence are generated not by “evil” and “dissimilarity,” but by evolution—the need to compete, including collectively (“in groups”) for limited territory and resources. Genetics is geared towards this. And in general, this behavior is ultimately rational and evolutionarily justified.
    1. -3
      19 November 2023 18: 33
      Quote: squid
      So the comparison of Marxism with religion is spot on.

      Not only Marxism, but also Leninism, which means the theory and practice of Marxism in relation to Russia, to which Marx himself did not consider it possible to apply his theory. Marx himself! .....And Lenin took it and applied it. Creatively. We found out what came of it 70 years later. Marx was right. It was not for Russia then.
    2. 0
      20 November 2023 00: 38
      Conflicts and violence are generated not by “evil” and “dissimilarity,” but by evolution—the need to compete, including collectively (“in groups”) for limited territory and resources. Genetics is geared towards this. And in general, this behavior is ultimately rational and evolutionarily justified.

      You may not be aware, but what you have stated is extremely close to so-called social Darwinism.
      Social Darwinists transferred Darwin's teachings about natural selection and the struggle for existence to human society

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Социальный_дарвинизм
      Or are you aware of what you wrote?
      1. 0
        28 November 2023 18: 09
        You may not be aware, but what you have stated is extremely close to so-called social Darwinism.


        not really. or rather, not at all. I described the source and nature of violence, etc. "evil".
        but even if he mentioned social Darwinism - so what? man was and remains a part of nature, and in it natural selection is the main engine of evolution. the fact that this is a taboo for someone is not my problem and not Darwin’s.
  19. +3
    19 November 2023 07: 31
    Well, in this case, more than 30 years after the collapse of the union, everything that “effective managers” have succeeded in under the conditions of a “free market” is throwing... mud (I won’t write the right word, otherwise they will ban ) our Soviet past?
    1. 0
      22 November 2023 09: 27
      Quote: lisiy prapor
      Well, in this case, more than 30 years after the collapse of the union, everything that “effective managers” have succeeded in under the conditions of a “free market” is throwing... mud (I won’t write the right word, otherwise they will ban ) our Soviet past?

      Exactly because 30 years ago there was not a single real communist out of 16 million (all the authorities, the KGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, all the commanders in the army) who would take EBN to Red Square and publicly cut off his head.
      “We didn’t receive any instructions from Moscow, but we ourselves are stupid and don’t understand anything, we can’t take responsibility!!” - why not water such opportunistic slugs with feces????
    2. +2
      22 November 2023 11: 46
      Quote: lisiy prapor
      everything that “effective managers” have succeeded in under the conditions of a “free market” is throwing... mud (I won’t write the right word, otherwise they will ban) our Soviet past?
      The communists started with the shameful Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, according to which they gave the enemy a large territory of the Republic of Ingushetia with a developed infrastructure, and ended up meekly merging the entire USSR: from a German agreement to an American one. And if Stalin had not defeated Trotsky, the German agreement would have ended in the complete collapse of the USSR much earlier according to the original plan of “the weak link in the world chain of imperialism” by V.I. Lenin. There were great victories and achievements, but they did not belong to the CPSU, but to the entire people, when the “leaders” did not betray them. The kind of mud that the CPSU poured on itself cannot be found anymore. The “effective managers” of the 90s are just the heirs of the party from among the former Komsomol secretaries (see biographies) who have merged with the trade mafia.
  20. +4
    19 November 2023 07: 56
    I will repeat myself, but the author is “brilliant” in that after reading the first couple of sentences of his article, you can unmistakably determine who wrote the article. In fact, this is the only value of many of his articles... By the way, perhaps he is even a decent person, who for some reason in Soviet times was not accepted into the “team” of balabols, characterized and characterized in the words from the film “Forgotten Melody for Flute” " :
    "We don't plow, we don't sow, we don't build,
    We are proud of the social order."
    It was in them, in my opinion, that there was the main trouble and the main reason for the tragedy of Soviet society.
    The mistake was not in Marxism, but in that army of tens of millions of propagandists-balabols who did not plow and did not build, but while explaining to us how savingly tempting and attractive socialism is, they themselves all the time cast their gaze with hope on capitalism. And at, in fact, the first opportunity, they betrayed the USSR and now they, too, without sowing and without building, are already proud of the capitalist social system. Naturally, if in the USSR under socialism their army consisted of tens of millions, since even among the buffoons then there was no need to fight for competition, then according to the laws of capitalism, now they are needed not tens of millions, but only a few thousand, and they must prove their professional suitability through selection and competition Moreover, they must praise capitalism with a sweet, mandatory smile for capitalists, on their faces for no reason. By the way, babbles that, according to the laws of competition, did not fit and were not useful to the capitalists, they will also “neither plow nor sow.”
  21. +11
    19 November 2023 08: 01
    A crafty article from start to finish. About demography. According to the author, it turns out that the USSR was an underdeveloped country, since during this period, the birth rate in the country was higher than in Western European developed countries. In Russia, which returned to capitalist rails and became a country highly developed, demographics went downhill. Uzbekistan, when it was part of the USSR, was also an underdeveloped country with a high birth rate. Naturally, having become a highly developed country after the collapse of the USSR, the birth rate there began to decrease. Not at the same rate as in Russia, but still less. One of the reasons given is migration. It turns out that Uzbeks leave their highly developed country to work in even more highly developed countries. smile
    1. +4
      19 November 2023 09: 29
      In such an “underdeveloped” country as Israel, the birth rate among Jews is 3 children per woman.
      1. 0
        22 November 2023 09: 31
        Quote: ism_ek
        In such an “underdeveloped” country as Israel, the birth rate among Jews is 3 children per woman.

        And in Switzerland it’s 1.8. And yes, you forget about the Arabs living there, who traditionally give birth more. That’s why 3...
    2. +1
      22 November 2023 14: 49
      Quote: parusnik
      According to the author, it turns out that the USSR was an underdeveloped country, since during this period the birth rate in the country was higher than in Western European developed countries.
      Where do the firewood come from? The dynamics of the total fertility rate in the RSFSR have not reached the level of simple reproduction (2,15) since 1970. Considering that the total fertility rate of all the republics of the USSR in the well-fed Brezhnev year of 1970, the RSFSR had the penultimate - 2; Only Latvia is lower - 1,9. The bourgeoisie has much more fun this year: Italy - 2,43, Great Britain - 2,44, the Netherlands - 2,57, etc. There is nothing even to compare with India, Africa, Islamic countries (and the republics of the USSR!).
  22. +3
    19 November 2023 08: 32
    It’s interesting, what class does the author consider himself to be?
    According to Marx, it is determined not generally by “the relationship to the means of production,” but by the method of appropriation.

    An intellectual sells a specific product of his mental work: a book, a painting, music, a computer program.... . An order is placed for a specific job. And this work is piecemeal, it cannot be mass produced.

    And the proletarian sells his ability to work by going to work and concluding a contract before he starts working. And it doesn’t matter at all whether his work is mental or physical.
    I guess that the author is a typical proletarian who did not realize that he is a proletarian. Because his article is clearly not “Capital”
    When you write something comparable, then make statements at the level of a world sensation....
    1. +3
      19 November 2023 08: 53
      [B]
      It’s curious who the author considers himself to be[
      /b] A revolutionary conservative, in his views. smile
    2. -1
      19 November 2023 09: 28
      Quote: ivan2022
      And the proletarian sells his ability to work by going to work and concluding a contract before he starts working. And it doesn’t matter at all whether his work is mental or physical.
      Really?
      But the bourgeoisie not only forged the weapon that would bring death to it; she also gave birth to people who will direct these weapons against her - modern workers, proletarians.
      (Manifesto of the Communist Party)
      1. -2
        19 November 2023 11: 54
        So what, you didn’t send it? Or heh... heh... some strengthened and others directed? Uncle, what did you want to say?
        1. -1
          19 November 2023 12: 17
          Quote: ivan2022
          Uncle, what did you want to say?


          Quote: ivan2022
          And it doesn’t matter at all whether his work is mental or physical.


          Quote: Dart2027
          But the bourgeoisie not only forged the weapon that would bring death to it; she also gave birth to people who will direct these weapons against her - modern workers, proletarians.
          (Manifesto of the Communist Party)
  23. +4
    19 November 2023 09: 25
    the third problem is the Islamization that accompanies all this, because migrants from Central Asia, who are gradually replacing the Russian population, are mainly Muslims.

    Yes, how much can you explain. The countries from which migrants come are secular. There are strict autocratic regimes, any dissent is persecuted there, there are no Islamists there, children from kindergarten are taught to obey the regime.
    There are Islamists in Russia. For some reason, our state harshly persecutes Christian sects, while avoiding Muslim sects. Anyone in our country can open a Muslim house of worship, write an imam from ISIS, give the local police “their paws” and collect money from migrants.

    Regarding migrant crime. I saw a little of the time when there were no migrants in our capital, but there was a “limit” who also settled on the outskirts of the capital. I remember, living in a dorm with Dolgoprudny, we created squads that met students from the evening train.

    Crime among migrants is associated with their poverty. This is where the unplowed field is for Marxists)
  24. +12
    19 November 2023 09: 26
    Why did Soviet communists compare the results of socialism with the best year for the Republic of Ingushetia, 1913? And to boast about what happened under capitalism and what they did under socialism.
    The enemies of the USSR who captured the USSR have nothing like this. They are AFRAID of comparing the results of their highly paid work under their vaunted capitalism with what they had under socialism.
    All 32 years there was only malice against the USSR, socialism, and bragging about how much they got at the expense of other people’s labor, at the expense of their country and people, how they ate up on counterfeits of Soviet products, traveled around the world, and all these cowardly nonsense about the “USSR” collapsed," "socialism turned out to be unviable," "The USSR collapsed on its own." .
    1. -4
      19 November 2023 11: 04
      Quote: tatra
      The enemies of the USSR who captured the USSR have nothing like this

      And who destroyed the USSR?
      1. +6
        19 November 2023 13: 31
        And who destroyed the Russian Empire?
        And then in vain you play with this question. The current rulers are making leaps and bounds towards the collapse of the Federation.
        1. -3
          19 November 2023 14: 37
          Quote: Gardamir
          And who destroyed the Russian Empire?

          Who signed the document on Finnish independence?
          Quote: Gardamir
          The current rulers are making leaps and bounds towards the collapse of the Federation.

          When they rake away what Lenin created?
    2. +2
      19 November 2023 17: 04
      Quote: tatra
      All 32 years only anger against the USSR, socialism, and bragging about how much they got at the expense of other people’s labor

      And my city has become very beautiful during this time. A concert hall with a wonderful organ has been built, a huge circus is being completed, old houses are being insulated one by one, “workers needed” posters hang along the roads. Salaries from 60 tons and above... I cited their photos here... They put asphalt where 32 years ago there was pure mud. I posted a photo of mud in the center of Penza in 1959. I'm not even talking about supplies. The croissants are baked no worse than in the Parisian Café Paul...
      1. +3
        19 November 2023 19: 59
        The croissants are baked no worse than in the Parisian Café Paul
        This is the triumph of the consumer.
        1. 0
          19 November 2023 22: 00
          Quote: Gardamir
          This is the triumph of the consumer.

          Does God feed you?
          1. 0
            19 November 2023 22: 06
            WE DON'T NEED THE SUN, THE PARTY SHINES FOR US,
            WE DON'T NEED BREAD - GIVE US WORK!
      2. +3
        19 November 2023 20: 58
        Or maybe you just pay attention only to what you want to see? wink There is a cognitive bias called “confirmation bias.”
      3. -2
        23 November 2023 12: 41
        Quote: kalibr
        Quote: tatra
        All 32 years only anger against the USSR, socialism, and bragging about how much they got at the expense of other people’s labor

        And my city has become very beautiful during this time. A concert hall with a wonderful organ has been built, a huge circus is being completed, old houses are being insulated one by one, “workers needed” posters hang along the roads. Salaries from 60 tons and above... I cited their photos here... They put asphalt where 32 years ago there was pure mud. I posted a photo of mud in the center of Penza in 1959. I'm not even talking about supplies. The croissants are baked no worse than in the Parisian Café Paul...

        We open Wikipedia and find out that asphalt was laid in Penza back in the late 40s. And in the mid-50s, trolleybuses drove through the streets. As they say, your mustache has come unglued! In your photo, all the cars are exclusively “Victory”. This could not have happened in the late 50s. laughing
      4. 0
        27 November 2023 16: 35
        Quote: kalibr
        And my city has become very beautiful during this time.

        In general it is clear. Feast in Time of Plague. What about the PCHZ?
  25. +3
    19 November 2023 09: 39
    How is the “vanguard of the working class” doing today? Where are the links to the works of prominent theorists and leaders of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation? I would like to know their views.
    1. +1
      19 November 2023 10: 11
      Yes, calm down, you and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, this is now a “trademark”. Let me remind you that Zyuganov, in the mid-90s, it seems after the defeat in the elections, declared that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is not communists at all, but ..... social democrats and with the words: “Well, take me!” asked to join the Socialist International. Marxism-Leninism is a science. And science, having stopped developing, turns into dogma. M-l, ceased its development in the mid-50s of the last century. From that time, it began to undergo revisions, one of such revisions was “Eurocommunism”, the main theorist of Eurocommunism was A. Gramsci, one of the founders of the ICP. Zyuganov, far from ml, like Mars from the Earth.
      1. +2
        19 November 2023 18: 44
        Quote: parusnik
        Marxism-Leninism is science.

        Very funny.
        This science has not stood the test of practice even for 70 years. Only.
        Repeatability of the result?
        Where have the socialist countries gone? They ran away first. What about the communist parties in the USA, France and Italy?
        Is the hereditary socialism of the DPRK also according to Marx? Is Chinese socialism also according to Marx or Lenin?
  26. Eug
    +2
    19 November 2023 09: 40
    I believe that Marx is right in the main thing - no matter what FORM the conflicts take - national-ethnic, territorial, etc. - in the end, everyone has an economic CONTENT, that is, reasons. And those who are behind these conflicts primarily pursue their economic interests. Well, in the end - Lenin's brilliant phrase -
    Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action... the contradiction between labor and capital has not gone away, having acquired another, softer form, and is realized not between two (three), but between four or five social groups. Well, imperialism is trying to transform itself into globalism, causing resistance from the national state system that has not outlived its usefulness... something like that.
  27. +4
    19 November 2023 09: 45
    Yes, obvious opportunism and revisionism.
    and the last quote evokes an association with some smart Western historical film:
    “Do you really think that the king doesn’t always think about the good of the people? It’s all the machinations of the devil that the people live badly!” (not verbatim)
  28. +1
    19 November 2023 09: 56
    The main mistake of Marxism is not this at all... but the fact that Marxism recognized capitalism as a necessary stage of development, which creates the conditions for the creation of a classless society. And capitalism is a cancer that only leads to the death of the organism (humanity). Cancer cells grow much faster than healthy ones and from the point of view of the cancer cell it is very successful (developed countries), the cancer cell uses the resources of healthy cells (colonialism) and poisons the entire body with waste from its vital activity (environmental problems of our time)... if desired, this list can be continued and clarify.
    But a cancer cell does not create a new useful quality; it is impossible to obtain a super-efficient lung or liver from lung or liver cancer. Likewise, it is impossible to obtain any communism from capitalism.
    What then is “real socialism”? This is a return to pre-capitalist relations on a new technological and ideological basis with a complete lack of understanding of what is happening.
  29. +4
    19 November 2023 10: 03
    Scholastic approach. The whole value of Marxism lies in the fact that it must be creatively developed. China, Cuba, Vietnam are examples of this. And in Russia there are ardent enemies of both Marxism and socialism in power.
    1. +4
      19 November 2023 10: 17
      For some reason they forgot North Korea. This is the brightest showcase of Marxism these days. and China and Vietnam have long been “capitalist” countries, in Marxist terminology. which, by the way, is what their successes are connected with
    2. +2
      19 November 2023 20: 46
      Quote: avia12005
      The whole value of Marxism lies in the fact that it must be creatively developed.

      Yesterday we buried two Marxists,
      The bodies were dressed in bright red,
      One of them was a right dodger,
      The other one, as it turned out, had nothing to do with it.
  30. +12
    19 November 2023 10: 10
    It was possible to raise a new person in the USSR. The trouble is that there was a war in which the best representatives died. And their place began to be taken by representatives of the “Tashkent front”.
    Which was the main reason for the death of the USSR.
    However, yes, socialism has made mistakes. But capitalism commits crimes; this system, in principle, cannot think for the future. The main thing for him is profit here and now.
    And yes, capitalism also influences a person, but not through education, but through banal duping.
    Much like in their time the British fooled the Indians by soldering them.
  31. +7
    19 November 2023 10: 14
    Holy shit! The author lies with all his breath, confirming the axiom - any anti-adviser is, first of all, a liar. "All communist states have collapsed"!!! And China? What about Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba? Of course, there is socialism with national characteristics, but the essence is according to Marx and Lenin. There are so many lies piled up in this opus that sorting it all out takes a long time and requires separate work (which is what such scribblers rely on). In short, this whole sheet can be characterized simply - socialism is so unviable, backward and harmful that after 30 years it is necessary to allocate serious finances and write false articles to prove it.
    1. -2
      19 November 2023 11: 05
      Quote: oleg Pesotsky
      And China? What about Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba?

      Capitalism or monarchism.
      1. 0
        19 November 2023 11: 15
        Quote: Dart2027
        Quote: oleg Pesotsky
        And China? What about Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba?

        Capitalism or monarchism.

        Monarchy is a social system in which nobles, large landowners, rule. . One man cannot rule millions. Where are the nobles in China or Cuba?

        You don’t seem to understand the difference between an autocracy, a parliamentary republic, a parliamentary monarchy and a socialist republic. It is primarily in the structure of the state.

        For a society whose consciousness has not changed in 400 years, it’s a complete waste of money in the village.
        With any legislation and formal structure, it is all the same - it lives under Autocracy and feudal-patrimonial relations laughing
        1. +1
          19 November 2023 12: 20
          Quote: ivan2022
          Where are the nobles in China or Cuba?

          Korea is ruled by a dynasty, which passes on its place by inheritance in a completely feudal manner. In Cuba, almost all the time, one person ruled, on whom everything rested. Vietnam and China are capitalist countries.
          1. 0
            19 November 2023 12: 48
            Quote: Dart2027
            Vietnam and China are capitalist countries.

            I can’t say anything about Vietnam, and China is not a capitalist country, but not a socialist one either. China has quite a traditional Chinese empire.
            1. 0
              19 November 2023 13: 20
              Quote: Alexander Kochurkov
              In China there is quite a traditional empire for China

              I may not be that well versed in the topic, but the key fact is that it is NOT socialism and NOT communism.
  32. +2
    19 November 2023 10: 30
    Biryukov!
    Hit 100%!
    good hi
    This is how it was:
    Majority nationalism is bad. Minority nationalism is good.

    Who's coming? Because we eat the substance and while the process of eating is tragic for the Russians. There is a saying - “victim of abortion”. Russians are the creators of the great Soviet socialist state, but are now victims of capitalist abortion. The role of cement holding together the bricks of the national republics into a single whole no longer suits the Russians in Russia either - we are melting under the hot sun of local nationalism and the pressure of the Horde hordes. And no one from the ruling elite realizes that if we don’t exist, Russia won’t exist either. But then the question is for those at the top: do you really need Russia in its current form?
  33. +2
    19 November 2023 10: 48
    The main mistake of Marxism

    I always remember Ilya Semyonovich’s phrase from the film “We’ll Live Until Monday”:
    Every now and then I hear: “Zhores did not take into account, Herzen failed, Tolstoy misunderstood”... As if a company of losers were operating in history!

    There are a lot of comments, I don’t want to retell and prove anything to those who consider Marx a mediocre German who was carried away by utopian ideas. I will only say one thing: Marx did not write about Russia and not for Russia specifically. Russia had its own Lenin:
  34. +4
    19 November 2023 10: 49
    Anti-communist nonsense, under the guise of science.
    The differentiation of classes and their geographical blurring are presented as extinction.
    Rotten meat from the times of the "Frankfurt School", in a cocktail with nationalism and idealism.
    It’s so “ordered” that it seems the author himself doesn’t believe in what he wrote.
    Like, “the cattle will eat it up” and believe in the death of Marxism. Well, well - hope......
  35. +1
    19 November 2023 11: 23
    If society as a whole is mentally normal, its problems are simply caused by thieves, cretins and traitors. And if this is already a semblance of “ward number 6”, then yes.... Its troubles come from “... isms...”, Gosplan, collective farms, friendship of peoples.... etc..
    Like, “We spent 70 years building and building, and then it turned out that Marx put the comma in the wrong place... That means he was mistaken..” - - here we definitely need to call the orderlies.
  36. +3
    19 November 2023 11: 31
    Unfortunately, our people are extremely skeletal and dogmatic for the most part - any thoughts about “braces” and “symbols” for them are sacrilege of varying degrees of severity, and therefore (including) any radical changes (for the better or for the worse) are always with us go through incredible violence and cruelty (of one form or another). That Ivan the Terrible, that Peter I, that the Bolsheviks, that Yeltsin and Co. - everyone, regardless of their goals, faced colossal resistance from this environment, not to something specific, but literally to everything.
    This resistance was not targeted-selective, it was precisely organic, irrational and, even in the presence of focal leaders, decentralized. It was resistance to change, resistance to changes in views, resistance to changes in eras.

    Now, the trouble is that we always spend a lot of energy on this resistive decentralized boiling water, then (and in the process) there is simply no left for refinement by soft power - and therefore new pictures of the world simply fall on the old ones and leave them as piles of rubble and shapeless debris. Some people who come to change something “seemingly for the better or for something more perfect” are the same “rhinoceros” as those whom they will break for the glory of the new world - they are just rhinoceroses painted differently.

    While the right, left, centrists and other -ists will once again stupidly hammer away, I will draw attention to the key problem with which it all began.
    Often (usually even) our problems are not in what kind of system we are building - our problems are in our inherent qualities. We like to glorify these qualities, but this is in many ways a vicious jumble that has not made us into the 21st century the superpower that we have long wanted to become or even imagine ourselves to be. We love to castigate in others those qualities that we ourselves are not fully endowed with - we enjoy the fruits of the world while hating the trees that bear these fruits. We hate their very essence, and at the same time we are not particularly inclined to think deeply about how we could do it ourselves and BETTER.
    In this search (if it goes on at all, and is not a dogmatic simulation like a dispute between a student and a teacher), we are looking for extremely simple solutions, relying either on inflated authorities or on some sacred texts - instead of just sitting down and learning to analyze what is happening, learning conduct a civilized dialogue, including between professionals, between profs. and society. In our culture, Dialogue itself, unfortunately, is either Demagoguery, or some kind of crude, direct manipulative techniques and traps designed to achieve disorientation of the “enemy” and the dominance of one’s own views. Not so much for a useful result, but for a kind of sophisticated machismo.

    So I would recommend getting out of this vicious cycle with the endless struggle between left and right ideas. The problem of both the limited success of capitalism and the failure of socialism is in the human mentality. Some nations are culturally more perfect than others - and because of this, their systems, built according to any pattern, will be more perfect. Just as the work of a master and an amateur using the same patterns will differ like heaven and earth. This is exactly what all these philosophers did not take into account when swimming in the clouds with naiads and dryads - the human factor, by the foot of him.

    A well-made imperfect product will be stronger than a poorly made perfect one. Stronger doesn't mean better, it means stronger. All this philosophizing in the style of “socialism was cooler” is an identification of the concepts “stronger” and “better”, and these are very different concepts - like “warm” and “loud”. Medieval castles were hellishly strong, but life in them was so-so. Modern living quarters are hellishly comfortable, but there will be a three-magnitude earthquake and they will go to hell along with the residents. It is the ants who will use something who must go over it in detail, and not Karl Marx or Mahatma Gandhi or some other giants of thought who have died long ago.

    People need to be taught to deal with the current situation with their eyes and minds open. And be a team.
  37. -1
    19 November 2023 12: 08
    I have sometimes reproached the author for superficiality, but this article is a plus for him.
    Yes, economic determinism is the weak point of Marxism. This is despite the fact that even the basic economic model there is scanty.
    Yes, Marxism ignored national and cultural differences, considering them a product of class, bourgeois society and doomed to die out in connection with the development of the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat.
    Yes, the modern proletariat has lost even a semblance of unity and the identification of the “precariat” looks promising for understanding current processes.
    The disagreement prompted an appeal to biology at the end. Yet conflicts at the biological and human levels are very different. Politics does not come down solely to economics, but it doesn’t need to be reduced to biology either.

    And it was also funny to read the comments of the deep establishment, unable to write literally anything other than rotten slogans half a century ago or even older.
    1. -1
      19 November 2023 12: 51
      Marx created the theory of the 19th century labor movement in the West. And where does he not take into account national and cultural differences? Which ones exactly? Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "determinism"? Where is Marx and in relation to what did he use it?

      Marx literally wrote that the aspirations of the masses of people are born of their needs, which unite people... ...And what are your aspirations caused by? Strong hunting without the need to show off?

      Right in the spirit of “cult values”: let’s create obscenity just like that, just so that some kind of “determinism” doesn’t happen....
      1. +2
        19 November 2023 13: 11
        And where does he not take into account national and cultural differences?

        Nowhere. On the one hand, the right of nations to self-determination was proclaimed, on the other hand, as soon as socialism comes, the basis for the supranational unification of the workers’ association will appear = the disappearance of national antagonisms. Life has shown that this does not work in the example of the same countries of the socialist camp

        Do you actually understand the meaning of the word “determinism”? Where is Marx and in relation to what did he use it?

        Determinism is the identification of a certain key factor, which becomes a universal explainer of everything. The primacy of economics in Marx is classical determinism.

        What are your aspirations? Strong hunting without the need to show off?

        Sometimes I do charity work - I educate narrow-minded Marxists laughing
    2. 0
      19 November 2023 13: 24
      This is nonsense from the very first lines, starting with the fact that the enemies of the communists are white men who are in charge in their families. The enemies of the communists were families where women and children were simply things for a man, nothing more.
      1. +2
        19 November 2023 14: 34
        You read/understand somehow strangely
        "Enemies of the Communists" is from Grandma Tatra.
        The text talks about "new socialists"
        1. +4
          19 November 2023 19: 09
          The new ones are old, this is to confuse the people.. There are socialists (old), and there are perverted socialists (new) who are making jokes..
  38. 0
    19 November 2023 12: 29
    The headline smells like provocation, but I don’t recognize them
    Does the author need a scandal?
    1. -1
      19 November 2023 19: 07
      The title can be characterized.. "The last gasp of a liberal." .. like Mr. Py Zhe.. :)
    2. -1
      20 November 2023 00: 55
      As far as I understand, as a rule, the author of the headline on VO is not the author of the article
  39. +3
    19 November 2023 12: 36
    In general, the articles of the respected author are interesting and often raise pressing questions of our time.
    As for the topic of this article - “The main mistake of Marxism is the fight against human nature”, then in this matter Marxism was not mistaken.
    A person changes under the influence of various circumstances. Also, individual people and huge masses of people change under the deliberate influence of other people, the media, authorities, etc. There is a large number on this issue. literature on mind manipulation.
    We have the most striking examples of changes in the consciousness of the masses in the 20th century, both negatively and positively. Negative changes in consciousness in huge human masses were brought about by Nazism.
    Positive - socialism. The Soviet man appeared in the revolution. Then there was an increase in development in quantity and quality until the mid-30s. Then there was a plateau with some rise to the mid-60s. The decline continued in the 70s and 80s with a further collapse. A certain number of Soviet people still exist. All work on the creation, education and development of Soviet people was carried out under the leadership of the party. This is a vivid example of a change in the consciousness of the masses, a change in human nature.
    1. +3
      19 November 2023 13: 40
      Like physical or chemical analogies, simple human transformations will also be easily reversible under environmental influences. Simply formed compounds either had already formed by themselves long before man and Marxism, or just as easily disintegrated under the influence of the surrounding reality. Complexly formed compounds require longer and better quality work. The problem of the left in the USSR was, among other things, its reliance on dogma as some kind of “particle of God,” like a magic wand or the holy grail. It seemed to them that the magical power of dogma could trample on the basic laws of existence, but they simply laughed at them in the end, turning all their efforts and panegyrics into a pile of rusting garbage.
      Yes, the human essence is changeable, but by analogy with the physical model, this is also similar to deformation. There is Elastic deformation - after which the object returns to its original state when the influence of forces ceases. There is plastic deformation - when an object no longer returns to its original state. Finally, there is the destruction of an object as a result of an impact that critically disrupts its structure.
      Somewhere the leftists worked too roughly from a physical point of view, somewhere they did not take into account the ability of elastic deformation from the same point of view, from a chemical point of view they tended to create unstable compounds that were minimally resistant to the conditions of influence of the objective environment.
      As a result, everything was like in physics and chemistry - efforts were expended, but they were not sufficiently structured and methodical. Something truly strong always requires a deeper approach to the material and a better understanding of its structure than it was among those leftists who retained their health and head after the revolution, guards, purges and party squabbles. The soups that emerged behind them were much more susceptible to sorcerers like Lysenko than to scientists like Vavilov. And so in everything scientific, practically - including the view of the restructuring of human essence.

      I’ll end with the popular quotes “Do it right, it will be fine” and “The devil is in the details.”
      1. +3
        19 November 2023 17: 50
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        Yes, the human essence is changeable, but by analogy with the physical model, this is also similar to deformation.

        That is, Marxism has set a very real and achievable goal.
        Deformation is a type of change and, of course, exists.
        There were several reasons for the deformation of Soviet consciousness. One of them was the short exposure time. There was a qualitative impact for only 40 years. Since the mid-60s, it has been replaced by formalism and fraud.
        1. +1
          19 November 2023 18: 09
          Yes, in general, any analogy that does not contradict physical or chemical (that is, fundamental, I would say) is achievable, just as any invention or research that does not contradict the same laws is achievable.
          Another question is what we will do with these tools, by analogy, again, with the analogy of using fundamental things.
          Here we take the laws of population selection according to the required trait - yes, in some hands new types of meat and dairy cattle or delicious apples are obtained, while in others breeds of dogs are produced that are unable to be independent in all respects without an owner on whom they are completely dependent, which are not healthy and viable organisms from a natural point of view.
          The question of the ethical side of directed influences of this kind (and I’m not even talking about genetic ones, I’m talking about any) on the part of experimenters driven by limited ideas is a controversial issue. It was enough to look at how hellishly the USSR and many other social networks were sausaged. countries to understand that by giving such effective transformational tools you can get a very effective inferno without achieving the final result.

          Is it possible to rework human consciousness, reorganize human relationships, etc.? Yes, you can. Should this Pandora's box be opened, or can a more natural, calm way be found? I think it's the second one. In a short period of time, if you have effective tools, you can get things done, it would be tempting. If Stalin had effective tools to turn the Siberian rivers - but did not have the tools (or desire) to fully deal with the consequences of this - the output result would be worse than the input.

          And finally, I will note that by deforming the natural in one direction or another, we are faced with the question “what will be natural then?” . Now Americans are trying to instill in people the idea that same-sex relationships or gender nonbinary are natural. Let’s say this number works for them, and after some time with similar tools they will be able to begin transforming the consciousness of the masses in other directions, and the question will arise: if the unnatural can be made natural, the unacceptable acceptable, then where will the boundaries be, who will set them and establish them? is it? Will not such a path of directed (sort of) step-by-step transformations lead us to a world familiar to distant descendants, but absolutely infernal from our point of view? Here it is worth remembering the bad variety of ancient cultures that considered themselves normal in their society, but did completely wild and immoral things from the point of view of an outside observer.
          1. +2
            19 November 2023 19: 05
            Thanks for the detailed answer.
            Quote: Knell Wardenheart
            Is it possible to rework human consciousness, reorganize human relationships, etc.? Yes, you can. Should this pandora's box be opened?

            Yes, no one asks us. For example, on the issue of population replacement and others. They do what they want.
            Quote: Knell Wardenheart
            Or can I find a more natural, calm way?

            And what a way this is - more natural and calm. This is where the article suggests itself.
            Quote: Knell Wardenheart
            It is worth remembering the bad variety of ancient cultures that considered themselves normal in their society, but did completely wild and immoral things from the point of view of an outside observer.

            Social engineering is a very powerful tool. The development and, in fact, the degradation of Western cultures is heading towards something similar, if we talk about the madness of genders and so on. Are the ancient cultures mentioned Sumerians and Carthage?
            1. +1
              19 November 2023 20: 07
              Are the ancient cultures mentioned Sumerians and Carthage?

              No, I meant the Aztecs, Polynesians... Carthage with its child sacrifices too, in general, from this series. The range of what could be perceived by large communities as the “norm” without gravity, so to speak, was incredibly wide - cannibalism and sacrifices and genocide, and incest, pedophilia, sodomy, hereditary slavery, forced euthanasia, lynching, and so on and so forth. The human psyche is flexible and, at times, it is much more flexible than it would be objectively good... through various tools you can introduce different things into the population, so much so that Adolf Aloizovich with his ideas will seem like a boy. Yes, this could take generations, but I believe that Unfortunately, with the right sauce, modern barbarism in our heads can quite coexist with the development of science, and unfortunately our society, despite the myriads of books and cultural products imbued with humanism, is in no way protected by a huge natural shield from bloody, savored obscurantism.
              And if so, what would prevent, in principle, from drowning in this obscurantism for several generations? Nothing except what still seems to be existing intersystem competition. The hope that somewhere out there the average person has a stop valve is much more abstract than neighbors with nuclear weapons and slightly better living conditions.

              What kind of way is this - more natural and calm?

              Here opinions may vary because this issue really requires not just controversy but volumes of data. I personally believe that a “society of sufficient abundance” combining certain control mechanisms based on the interweaving of upbringing, culture, traditions, philosophy - in unobtrusive but confident measures over several generations will bring people (not all, and this is an important addition) to a level of stable well-being, with in which destructive impulses will not go away, however, with a long and successful combination of circumstances, with the passive suppression of culture, they will gradually fade away in the population as an extra element that does not bring benefits. Good laws and good planning of what is being conceived, work on the environment - and through this, changes for the better will be inevitable in the population, there will be no need to pick people’s brains, so to speak.
              The Americans at one time came quite close to this, but preferred to focus their production on the formation of unnecessary needs in order to fully develop an environment of sufficient abundance and move on to large projects of the next quality level (scientific, energy, for example).
              Here, of course, thinking about this, we come out with a question from the category “what would happen if you give people everything they need but don’t drive them to hell for it?” . Questions do not have a clear answer. This is why I emphasized that I cannot imagine GLOBAL abundance. A number of populations are much closer to avoiding falling into trash once they get into this environment; a number of populations are apparently absolutely incapable of doing this in the foreseeable future. For example, you can observe the quite successful so-called “Scandinavian socialism” (with all the disadvantages inherent in it, of course) in the Scandinavian states, but it is absolutely impossible to extrapolate it to some states in Africa or to us or, for example, even the USA. People who have been accustomed for generations to tearing, eating, over-consuming and crushing each other at the level of reflexes cannot, in the vast majority of cases, integrate after moving from position A to position B. In general, I’m not talking about individual specimens.
              Yes, and Scandi social. This is not abundance, this is such a paradise, I would say, not for everybody.
              The question of what people “en masse” will do when they find themselves in a society of abundance is a good and open question. There are two ways to introduce them into this - the path of violence, coercion and training - a conditionally “short path”, through social breakdown and the sieve of repression. And the path is gradual, putting at the forefront not the destruction of man and society “under the environment,” but the creation of a comfortable and evolving environment for man, the way we would like to see him and the way we ourselves would like to be. This is a long journey.
              But the left or the right need tools for this and slogans will be used - this is no longer the point. When we build a house, it is important for us that it be strong and fit certain criteria, it will be built with red or white shovels and of red or white bricks - it doesn’t matter. Any system is a mechanism for an ultimate goal - more or less perfect. If there is friction, you can get to the Moon by cart - but if the driver is drunk and drunk, he will not reach where he needs to go at the speed of light.
              1. 0
                19 November 2023 22: 42
                Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                When we build a house, it is important for us that it be strong and meet certain criteria

                When we build a house, we have an idea for this house. This is a list of our desires and a list of our possibilities. All this is ideology. And it is very important to choose the right one.
                The same is true with the choice of ideological directions. Each of them has a certain set of desires-goals and possibilities-methods. There is no way to avoid choosing a certain ideological direction, be it chinism, menchism, renewed socialism or something else.
                Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                The question of what people “en masse” will do when they find themselves in a society of abundance is a good and open question.

                Oh, I know that! They won't do anything! I read somewhere that similar experiments were carried out in ancient times with disastrous results.
                1. -1
                  19 November 2023 23: 36
                  No, building a house is a progressive process, more or less efficient, economical and meticulous relative to other processes. It is from the perspective of these criteria that it is worth treating the checkboxes - the criterion of efficiency, meticulousness, speed, overall efficiency. Since everything is ultimately not done for show or competition, the issue of convenience for builders and collateral damage to society is also a priority.
                  I don’t consider ideological directions necessary in this scheme, although perhaps for some they are desirable, because people are different and some are interested in the fact of creation, some are interested in the process, some are interested in the goal, and others just want to learn how to eat soup with their feet or put panties over your head. If there are people who, as a matter of principle, learn to build houses from bast and crushed eggshells, and, moreover, with prayers - for good health. the main thing is that other criteria are met - and that the issue of the final goal and ultimate interests is not pushed to the 100500th place in the process.

                  Now, the more I’ve been thinking lately on the topic “They won’t do anything”, the more I come to the very sad thought that the larger the community as a whole, the less likely it is to become something effective and a good compromise for everyone and at the same time everyone. Just as “direct democracy” of the polis type is scaling increasingly poorly to larger systems, human society, as it enlarges, is probably more likely to slide into some kind of totalitarian trash, regardless of wishes and flags. Just as evolutionary convergence sharpens different organisms into similarities in the face of objective environmental problems, so the objective problems of an overpopulated world and the “human factor” will apparently push a variety of systems to one disgusting point for the individual, in which neither right nor comfort, nor the value of life will have any meaning in the face of the survival of the System.
  40. 0
    19 November 2023 12: 57
    But practice refutes the imaginary falsity of Marxism literally every day. It is enough to look at the achievements of the Marxist and even not entirely Marxist Soviet Union and compare them with the achievements of the capitalist Russian Federation.
    USSR, when Hungary foreign agents gathered to organize an orange “revolution”, within a few weeks (emnip), they brought order there. (I note, in the interests of the working people of Hungary, as history has shown) The capitalist world community responded with notes of different tones, but mostly shrill ones.
    RF forced carry out SVO. Forced by Western partners. On the territory of the former fraternal republic. The international community responded with tangible sanctions and supplied weapons to Ukraine. Almost two years have passed.
    Well, which country is more viable? The USSR, in which backward individuals, suppressed by totalitarian collectivism, unitedly prepared the country for an inevitable war in 10 years and won this war in 4 years? The USSR, where talented diplomats were able to turn things around in such a way that the USA and England, who hated communism, were forced to help the USSR, and not class-close Germany?
    Or the capitalist Russian Federation, where everyone is one, unusual, bright personalities? Which, let me remind you, has the largest territory and does not even have its own smartphone production, from scratch. In which only one, miraculously surviving Kirov plant, produces almost entirely domestic tractors. In which, instead of talented diplomats, there is Minister Lavrov, for whom everyone in Europe and the UN is an idiot, but for some reason everyone is against us. Apparently, because they did not adequately absorb the riches of Russian culture.
    Lenin (a Marxist) wrote a hundred years ago that imperialism is fraught with inevitable wars. And what? A hundred years have passed and everything has changed? The whole world has destroyed weapons, disbanded armies and is sniffing flowers? And there is no hint of a third world war ahead?
    In general, as practice has shown, everything that the Bolsheviks lied to us about for 70 years turned out to be the pure truth.
  41. +3
    19 November 2023 14: 48
    Complete nonsense, XNUMX% distilled. The quintessence of bourgeois propaganda. The author will first answer the question: to what class do people belong (and these are the majority) who live solely on wages, and then discusses the absence of a proletariat.
    1. +1
      19 November 2023 15: 31
      Quote: hermit
      The author will first answer the question: to what class do people belong (and these are the majority) who live solely on wages, and then talk about the absence of a proletariat.

      It seems that in Russia there are no such people at all.
  42. +4
    19 November 2023 15: 05
    Such simple demagoguery made my eyes bleed.
  43. +2
    19 November 2023 17: 34
    Victor!
    Thanks for the published material!
    This number of comments and commentators is an indicator that the topic you have chosen is relevant. This is good. For those who read and decided to express their opinion.

    As often happens when high-profile material is published, some comments are better than what is being commented on.
    1. 0
      20 November 2023 07: 21
      On the Internet, articles about the Soviet period always receive much more comments than about the anti-Soviet period, because the Soviet period has both supporters and opponents, but the anti-Soviet period has no supporters or defenders, there is only the boasting of the enemies of the USSR - how much they got thanks to the destruction of the USSR , and their cowardly whining that they all had “nothing to do with” what they did, starting with their capture of the USSR.
      1. -1
        20 November 2023 07: 38
        Quote: tatra
        and the anti-Soviet period has no supporters or defenders

        You are greatly exaggerating! They will call and there will be as many as needed!
        1. 0
          20 November 2023 08: 05
          Why should you be called upon to defend the created Russian Federation, your capitalism, which you, the enemies of the USSR, imposed on Russia and the Russian people after you captured the RSFSR, your anti-Soviet power, the results of your highly paid work?
  44. -1
    19 November 2023 18: 15
    The author has delusions of grandeur, starting with the title “The main mistake of Marxism” ... he would like Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un to talk to the adherents of this teaching about this ... the author is clearly not that level of berry. So keep your thoughts to yourself, citizen..
    1. 0
      20 November 2023 07: 39
      Quote: zombirusrev
      (Zombies of the Russian Revolution)

      How long ago have you passed the candidate minimum in Marxism-Leninism? Maybe they even taught it? I wonder where and for how long?
  45. 0
    19 November 2023 18: 23
    Funny title "Is a return to socialism possible?" .. and China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam... according to the author, where are they? They are in the first phase of Communism called socialism... The author writes fictitious maxims and either refutes them or proves them with far-fetched maxims.. An ordinary liberal propagandist..
    1. +1
      20 November 2023 05: 31
      This is true. The lying libertine is trying to convince us of the inferiority of the Soviet era, justifying it with the fact that a bunch of moneybags rule the country as a raw material colony of the West.
    2. +3
      20 November 2023 07: 40
      Quote: zombirusrev
      Laos, Vietnam

      ???????????????? There is no smell of socialist ism there.
  46. -4
    19 November 2023 18: 28
    To begin with, would you explain what kind of Marxism is this?
    1. +5
      19 November 2023 19: 05
      Read the primary sources, but the author didn’t bother and is confused in concepts..
      1. -2
        20 November 2023 05: 29
        It’s hard to expect anything else from this anti-Soviet hypocrite.
    2. -2
      23 November 2023 15: 16
      Quote: Bone1
      To begin with, would you explain what kind of Marxism is this?

      In a nutshell, Marxism is a generalization of the experience of revolutions in the West in the 19th century. It boils down to the fact that it is necessary to elect ministers, not parliaments or presidents. And if they can’t cope, drive them away. (But this is such a big secret that even grandfather Lenin warned in his book “State and Revolution” that 99,9% of the population does not know about it)
  47. -1
    19 November 2023 18: 30
    Quote: populist
    There was a qualitative impact for only 40 years. Since the mid-60s, it has been replaced by formalism and fraud.


    It turns out that the USSR could only be viable under the eternally living Lenin-Stalin
    1. -3
      20 November 2023 07: 42
      Quote: Kmon
      Since the mid-60s, it has been replaced by formalism and fraud.

      And who replaced him? That’s interesting... And where did the righteous communist-Leninists... Stalinists look!
      1. -2
        23 November 2023 15: 12
        Quote: kalibr
        Quote: Kmon
        Since the mid-60s, it has been replaced by formalism and fraud.

        And who replaced him? That’s interesting... And where did the righteous communist-Leninists... Stalinists look!

        But if you taught Marxism, then you were probably a member of the CPSU? Well ...... ?
    2. +1
      20 November 2023 08: 02
      Then it turns out that your States, enemies of the USSR, on the territory of the USSR you captured, are generally “stillborn”.
  48. +1
    19 November 2023 19: 22
    The respected author periodically uses the term “new left”. The concept of “new left” is widespread in modern political science. This concept was introduced to manipulate the consciousness of the electorate. These are not leftists. These are the Menshists.
    Menchism is a modern ideology and practice of the masters of the world. Its essence is to highlight the true or imaginary problems of various minorities in order to suppress the legitimate interests of the majority of the people. The ideology and practice of minorityism are rarely described and are almost unknown to the general public, as the authorities of many countries do not benefit from exposing themselves.
  49. 0
    19 November 2023 19: 51
    Therefore, when someone calls for the return of socialism, the question immediately arises - what kind of socialism are we talking about?

    Interesting question. It seems that many supporters of socialism (and I am among them) will answer it differently. There were and are several socialisms: war communism. NEPchinism, Stalinism, Khrushchevism-Brezhnevism (or separately?)... The Communist Party of the Russian Federation talks about “new socialism”...
    1. -1
      19 November 2023 23: 58
      To begin with, the term “socialism” should be updated to reflect the image of the new century and its already available technical and information capabilities.
      What is socialism, what tools is it kosher to use, and what tools is it not kosher? Can he use capital instruments and to what extent will this not be considered opportunism?
      What position will this “socialism” take in relation to other attempts that have taken place, old formulations, scriptures and bosses? Which of the approaching models will he designate as “the closest to success”?

      At the moment, economic laws, whether we like it or not, also dominate our capital systems, as well as social ones. systems. And they are presented with absolutely identical challenges, forcing them to drive each other’s populations away. Exactly the same criteria are effective-ineffective, productive-unproductive within them, as with their antagonists.
      In existing social systems, the distribution of goods was also ultimately managed by the elite, and it doesn’t matter whether it was hereditary aristocrats or party nomenklatura or burghers wearing kid gloves. They all had the same habit of being weird and making frankly subjective decisions, and the “fool-proof” systems there were equally eaten up by rust and exuded by ship worms.

      So the question “What is socialism” is not an idle question, and now, having been formulated as much as possible, another question will arise - how achievable is it? Attractive? Overall, resource- and labor-intensive compared to the current situation? Will the benefits to the masses in the intermediate stages of the move be sufficient to offset the potential benefits of staying the course?
      Because without this, all these nipple systems are nothing more than deep theorists and “young modeller” designers.

      I also think that due to the so-called unpretentious bankruptcy of socialism of the USSR version, not one of those periods “in a nesting doll” can be considered successful in a more or less comprehensive version. Everything that happened in the past led us to death and 1991. Therefore, I can recognize the success of individual tools, but the success of the entire system makes me laugh homeric, because a normal model does not turn into a pile of dog poop from the second economy in the world in a couple of years. And in general, it doesn’t get to this point within a generation “from the norm.” So there was no “good”. And individual successes should be looked at as individual successes, and if you really think, think from 0 and not revive the cadaver.
      1. -1
        20 November 2023 07: 17
        Why, if the Soviet people have always been proud of their revolution, your anti-Soviet people have been cowardly whining for 32 years that they “had nothing to do” with your anti-Soviet Perestroika, your counter-revolution, your seizure and dismemberment of the USSR?
        What kind of "bankruptcy" of the USSR? Yes, thanks to what was created and built in the USSR, for all 32 years your anti-Soviet-Russophobic States have been parasitizing on the territory of the USSR you captured.
        1. +1
          20 November 2023 07: 48
          Quote: tatra
          (Irina)

          The main achievement, Irina, is that you write it FREELY!
          Imagine that we are in 1952 and you wrote the same thing criticizing the USSR. Like, under the tsar there was even more and even better. And where would you be? And now you are blaspheming the state in which you live and that’s okay, everyone... don’t give a fuck. And you write freely and are not afraid of any consequences. That's what's valuable. It was for freedom that people died on the barricades. ... but he uses it and doesn’t thank him.
          1. 0
            20 November 2023 08: 00
            This is how we in the USSR scolded the authorities in queues, in transport, in clinics, and no one sent us to your beloved Gulag, the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people. And now everyone is afraid. And even on the Internet, with your vaunted “freedom of speech,” it is not safe to speak out against what the authorities are doing.
            And that all 32 years after you captured the USSR, you selflessly “suck” what happened 80-100 years ago, but you are so afraid to honestly discuss what you YOURSELF did after you captured the USSR?
            1. -2
              20 November 2023 19: 32
              Quote: tatra
              And even on the Internet, with your vaunted “freedom of speech,” it is not safe to speak out against what the authorities are doing.

              Then they will pick you up soon. Get ready!
            2. +1
              29 November 2023 18: 24
              Quote: tatra
              And even on the Internet, with your vaunted “freedom of speech,” it is not safe to speak out against what the authorities are doing.

              Yes good
              Quote: kalibr
              Then they will pick you up soon. Get ready!

              It’s in vain that you, Vyacheslav Olegovich, are being ironic... Doesn’t the fate of Professor Nikolai Nikolaevich Platoshkin mean anything to you? Maybe you consider him a greater evil than Chubais, who evaded criminal responsibility for his affairs?
              * * *
              Sorry, not everyone has the privilege of having their own doctor at home. Some at one time got a clinic 30 km away, as a result of which they died, like my aunt...
              stop However, I don’t think that a socialist state, like the USSR, is worse than that formation with built-up banking speculation, with a host of unafraid and untaxed oligarchs, with shameless and unscrupulous millionaire officials and the same deputies who believe that it is possible to live in Russia for a minimum wage of 16 rubles.
              And all this is controlled by Putin, who called himself the guarantor... Only for a quarter of a century we still have not understood what he is the guarantor of. Maybe he is simply a successor and follower (one might even say an admirer) of one statesman, about whom I don’t even want to remember:
        2. -2
          20 November 2023 11: 00
          What kind of "bankruptcy" of the USSR?

          Yes, the most natural thing is that a unilateral refusal of obligations is bankruptcy. People have been fed promises of a bright future for years, and in the end it has reached a point, with queues for toilet paper and empty shelves in grocery stores. In the “person-state” relationship, although the person was not ideal, it was the state that “failed”, unable to organize an adequate market, adequate reforms, an adequate team in power, anti-crisis management, and so on.
          Having a cyclopean staff of internal monitoring of the situation and analytics - it worked from the word “no way” in a complex to solve not the most complex chain of situations, taking into account peacetime.

          This is not a matter of taste - it is a matter of facts. The system has been pursuing total control for years, arguing that it is necessary for its survival and safety - and in the end it did not work at the right time and everything fell apart. This is Bankruptcy in its purest form.
          1. +1
            29 November 2023 18: 36
            Quote: Knell Wardenheart
            Having cyclopean staff of internal monitoring of the situation and analytics

            Don't touch the USSR with your own hands. There, without you, there was a perversion in the economy, when officials from the CPSU went into the Kalash row with their knowledge of the parochial school...
            There was a lot of bad stuff there, but there was no exploitation of man by man for personal gain. And if she was caught, then the sentence was drastic.
            In addition, the USSR did not lower its National Flag to please the perverted officials, and during the performance of the Anthem of the Soviet Union, even the Germans stood at attention, not to mention the presidents and leadership of the hyena countries...
      2. -3
        20 November 2023 08: 55
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        Will the benefits to the masses in the intermediate stages of the move be sufficient to offset the potential benefits of staying the course?
        Plus the costs required to change course. But they won't count. The principle is the same: just give us power, and only then - land for the peasants, factories for the workers, palaces for everyone.
  50. 0
    19 November 2023 21: 42
    Quote: SavranP
    Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people demonstrate in France, in Germany, in the States... and nothing, no revolutions. Maybe something is missing?

    Lenin has a good definition of a revolutionary situation. Leninism, however, is outdated, like Marxism...
    1. -3
      20 November 2023 07: 49
      Quote: acetophenon
      there is a good definition of a revolutionary situation

      Eat. But she herself is not there, and is not expected!
      1. 0
        20 November 2023 09: 09
        Well, in 1916, no one could imagine that as many as 2 revolutions would take place next year, before the “Liberator” of the enemies of the USSR and Russophobes, Gorbachev, seized power, no one could imagine your anti-Soviet counter-revolution.
        1. -4
          20 November 2023 14: 55
          Quote: tatra
          The “Liberator” of the enemies of the USSR and Russophobes - Gorbachev - seized power, no one could imagine your anti-Soviet counter-revolution

          In the USSR, literate and even not very literate people knew back in the late 70s that the USSR would collapse. And even all the Jews I knew began to leave en masse and directly said that “only very brave people or fools can stay here...”.......And many figures in the international labor movement warned back in the late 50s that Khrushchev was pushing the party and the country to destruction. It was removed in 1964, but the process of criminalization had already gripped society. Simply because in the late USSR and modern Russia we came to the final result of the development of society; the lads are the only social stratum capable of self-organization.. It was not difficult to guess - thief makes thief chase with thief... since the times of Peter the 1st and Catherine the 2nd, in principle, it was already clear that someday everything would finally fall apart...
        2. -2
          20 November 2023 18: 57
          Quote: tatra
          no one could imagine

          And people in general are not very perspicacious by nature. This is what some charlatans use. And quite successfully.
  51. The comment was deleted.
  52. +2
    20 November 2023 08: 50
    I noticed in some of the author’s words, IMHO, some illogicalities.

    The author talks about three problems
    - demographics, that is, the low birth rate of Russians
    - influx of migrants
    - Islamization
    however, there is only one problem - demography, and the rest is a consequence of these problems.

    The author talks about the confrontation between Russia and the West as an almost eternal process; in fact, Russia does not separately oppose the West, nor does it oppose the East. There are temporary alliances (well, at least there were), there are temporary opponents in this competitive world. Russia in this sense is not unique; there were more Anglo-French wars than conventionally “Russian-Western” wars.
    1. -2
      20 November 2023 09: 19
      Quote: S.Z.
      however, there is only one problem - demographics
      This is not a problem, but a medical fact, as they say. To understand the problem, one would need to look at the reasons that are dr