Communism is like a sin. Again about the official Church

301
Communism is like a sin. Again about the official Church


Is communism sinful?


Honestly, I didn’t want to write on this topic again, but, as if on purpose, I came across an article in the vast sea of ​​the Internet entitled “Why is communism a sin? Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov explained.” Yes, yes, the same well-known Dimitry Smirnov, whose statements have spread across the Internet and are causing mixed reactions. Father Dimitri himself left this world several years ago, but his works continue to find their audience.



I admit, I still have not been able to form an unambiguous attitude towards this figure of the Russian Orthodox Church. On the one hand, he has a lot of wonderful statements that clearly speak of his sincere desire to return the people to the path of true Orthodoxy, which cannot but find agreement and approval in me. On the other hand, when it comes to communism, socialism and Lenin, I see a completely different person in front of me.

I once came across a statement that anti-communism inevitably leads to Russophobia and the denial of everything Russian. And this is not without reason! Look, for example, at what the Baltic countries and Ukraine have become. And the Third Reich received blessings from the USA, England and France only because its slogans said: death to communism.

Let's return to the Zen article.

So, a certain parishioner turned to Father Demetrius: “This morning I went to the temple and took one paper brochure there that was lying next to the donation box. This brochure tells how to prepare for the Sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist, and at the end there are the Ten Commandments of the Lord. And below is a list of sins, and among them are the following: “atheism, adherence to false teachings (magic and communism).” And communism, in this case, I admit, confused me. Is adherence to communism really a sin, Father Dimitri?”

What did the priest answer?

As expected, he burst into an angry rant: “Hello, my daughter! Yes, communism has always been, is and will be a sin.”

But this seemed to him not enough, and he added: “Communism, as I already said, has, among other things, elements of religiosity. The people were fed nothing except endless promises: tomorrow this very “bright future” will come, and former peasants who have become proletarians will begin to decide the destinies of the world. But this is not true. None of these claims came true. People were left with the same amount of resources they had.”

Unfortunately, Father Dimitri was lying, because communism never was, and could never be, a religion. If we take everything literally, then anything can be declared a religion. The same “United Russia”, for example. Or the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

I'll try to justify it according to my own understanding.

Any teaching is based on a philosophical basis, principles, postulates, its teachers, researchers and students. But does this serve as proof that the doctrine becomes a religion? No! To recognize a teaching as a religion, it is necessary to recognize the eternity of the founder; the presence of employees of the other world; as well as miracles, prophets and holiness. All this is present in any religion in the world, but is absent in the works of materialist philosophers and in the teachings of communism.

By the way, for some reason Father Dimitri did not call National Socialism and Fascism religions, although there are much more elements close to religious practices.

Bakery happiness


What about “false” promises? Let's look at the "crystal" happiness of pre-revolutionary Russia and at the "people fed with nothing" (according to Dimitry Smirnov).

Here, for example, is the Moscow Gazette for 1800. “Servants are sold for excess: a 22-year-old shoemaker, his wife a laundress. Its price is 500 rubles. Another fisherman has been with his wife for 20 years, and his wife is a good laundress and also sews linen well. And the price for it is 400 rubles. You can see them on Ostozhenka, under number 309... Six gray young horses of light breeds, well ridden in collars, for which the last price is 1 rubles. You can see them on Malaya Nikitskaya in the parish of Old Ascension.”

During the reign of Alexander II, famine periodically began, which had not happened in Russia since the time of Catherine II and which took on the character of a real disaster (for example, mass famine in the Volga region in 1873). In 1842, the government stated that crop failures recurred every 6–7 years, lasting for two years in a row.

During the second half of the 1873th century, the famine caused by crop failures in 1880, 1883 and 1891 was especially cruel. In 1892–16, famine struck 35 provinces of European Russia and the province of Tobolsk) with a population of 20 million; Voronezh, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Samara, and Tambov provinces suffered especially then. In the Volga region, the eastern regions of the black earth zone - 40 provinces with a 1892 million peasant population - suffered from a catastrophic famine. In a less extensive area, but with no less intensity of disaster, famine recurred in 1893–XNUMX.

In a report to Alexander III in 1892 it was written: “The loss of food alone amounted to two million Orthodox souls” (the same is evidenced by newspaper materials of those years and letters from Count Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy.

According to liberal-minded historians, no more than 500 thousand people died). The records were kept by church parishes, so we are talking about Orthodox. But non-Orthodox souls were not taken into account. The Volga region, the Caucasus, Central Asia - how many Muslims and followers of other faiths died of hunger there is still unknown.

And here is from a report to Nicholas II in 1901: “In the winter of 1900–1901. 42 million people starved, and 2 million 813 thousand Orthodox souls died.” To suppress peasant unrest in connection with this famine, 200 thousand regular troops were used in the Poltava and Kharkov provinces alone, i.e. 1/5 of the entire Russian army of those years, and this is not counting the thousands of gendarmes, Cossacks, constables, etc. (according to Adjutant General Kuropatkin).

From a report by Stolypin in 1911: “32 million were starving, losses were 1 million 613 thousand people.”

Somehow it doesn’t fit with popular print pastoral, right?

What about a certain Lenin? What did he promise there and not do?

Pros of communism


1. Lenin: the right to an eight-hour working day. For the first time in the world in stories humanity. In our time: oligarchs and entrepreneurs force workers to work more than 8 hours, refusal to work beyond the norm leads to automatic dismissal, workers are turned into a dumb herd, ready to work not only out of a desire to earn money, but also out of fear of being kicked out.

2. Lenin: the right to annual paid leave. For the first time in human history. Now: the vacation remains in principle. But it’s not a fact that you will take him off completely.

3. Lenin: the impossibility of dismissing an employee on the initiative of the administration or the owner without the consent of the trade union and party organization. Now: they are fired just like that, with complete silence from the lured trade unions that have become appendages of the management.

4. Lenin: the right to work, to the opportunity to earn a living by one’s labor. Moreover, graduates of vocational educational institutions had the right to compulsory employment in the labor field with the provision of housing in the form of a dormitory or apartment. What we have: the right to look for work at our own peril and risk, without providing housing.

5. Lenin: the right to free general and vocational education. Moreover, both secondary vocational education and higher education. For the first time in the world. And we have complete commercialization of higher education, with division into classes and castes, with the establishment of a system of impossibility of obtaining education for people from poor sections of the population.

6. Lenin: the right to free use of preschool institutions: nurseries, kindergartens, pioneer camps. For the first time in the world. But now the situation with free kindergartens is simply catastrophic. There are unspoken extortions everywhere.

7. Lenin: the right to free medical care. For the first time in the world. We have achieved the almost complete disappearance of free treatment. A sharp rise in prices for any medical services and medicines. Free trips to resorts have sunk into oblivion.

8. Lenin: the right to free sanatorium treatment. For the first time in the world. In modern Russia: complete abolition.

9. Lenin: the right to free housing. For the first time in the world. In our country, free housing was abolished, and only our own people received it. Introduction of bonded mortgages.

10. Lenin: the right to freely express one’s views on all problems of modern life in the country. For the first time in the world. It seems to be the same now, except that patriots can be imprisoned (for example, Kvachkov), and criminals can be pardoned (for example, Savchenko).

11. Lenin: the right to protect the state from the arbitrariness of local bosses and officials. For the first time in the world. Something similar may be happening here, but I haven’t heard about it. Rather, complete immunity of officials and oligarchs from prosecution.

12. Lenin: the right to free travel to the place of work or study using an individual travel document paid for by the state.

13. Lenin: women received the right to three years of maternity leave with job preservation (56 days - fully paid; 1,5 years - benefits, 3 years - without interruption of service and a ban on dismissal by the administration.). Now, in general, there are few changes. But what kind of woman sits without work for three years?

14. Lenin: the right to free medical and sanatorium treatment for any childhood diseases. And after the coup d'état of 1991, we have every right to stand on the street and beg passers-by for money for the treatment of a child. At the same time, don’t forget to throw trillions at plugging holes in banks.

These are the things, dear Father Dimitri.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the official church of Russia has always been reactionary, guarding the interests of the private owner and the Tsar-Father. This is precisely what causes such an attitude of modern officials and church hierarchs towards the communists and Lenin.

To admit that communism and Lenin pulled 99 percent of the population of the Russian Empire out of the swamp and gave them the opportunity to touch not only the benefits of civilization, but also the masterpieces of world and Russian culture means admitting your mistake and losing the support of the oligarchy and the authorities.

PS


And finally, purely personal: despite Father Dimitri’s hatred of communism, I want to note that his sincere desire to prevent the peoples of Russia from falling into the abyss finds complete understanding in me. In any case, the Kingdom of Heaven to you, Father Dimitri.
301 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -4
    April 7 2024 04: 09
    Comrade Author, there was no communism, we didn’t have time to build it, what are you writing about? there was socialism.
    1. +30
      April 7 2024 05: 08
      Yes, communism as a social formation did not exist. But, if you carefully read the beginning of the article, then it talks about Father Demetrius’s opinion of COMMUNISM, and not as a formation, but as a teaching
      1. +17
        April 7 2024 05: 40
        If we consider the current formation in which we live, then there is sin upon sin... Yes And in general, these sins can attract anything
        1. +19
          April 7 2024 06: 18
          The trouble with Russia is that it jumped from a feudal-serf formation almost immediately to a communist one, bypassing the capitalist one, unfortunately, since the 90s we have been going through it. Let's hope that, having eaten our fill of wild capitalism, we will finally move on in order to real socialism.
          1. +8
            April 7 2024 07: 33
            Quote: vasyliy1
            Let's hope that, having eaten our fill of wild capitalism, we will finally move on in order to real socialism

            But the capitalist ones are in no hurry to join any kind of communism.
            1. P
              +4
              April 7 2024 19: 38
              nothing will happen on its own, no one will do for you what you should do yourself
              1. 0
                April 7 2024 19: 40
                Quote: Pandemic
                no one will do for you what you should do yourself

                So what's the problem? None of the capitalist countries is in a hurry to embrace communism - this is a fact.
                1. P
                  +5
                  April 7 2024 19: 43
                  How are they not in a hurry? The global carnage to which the main countries of the imperialist world are being drawn will certainly create opportunities for socialist revolutions, this is the objective side. The presence of capable parties and a developed science of building socialism, as the first stage of communism, is a subjective side,
                  to which you can personally contribute
                  1. -5
                    April 7 2024 20: 00
                    Quote: Pandemic
                    The global carnage to which the main countries of the imperialist world are being dragged

                    It will end in the Middle Ages, at best.
                    Quote: Pandemic
                    The presence of capable parties and a developed science of building socialism, as the first stage of communism, is

                    myth. There are no parties as such, and we are still sorting out the consequences of using this “science”.
                    1. P
                      +3
                      April 7 2024 20: 04
                      There are no capable parties ready to organize a revolution and establish a new state, but in general there are parties. The consequences in the form of the rights of workers all over the world, the huge infrastructure on which the beneficiaries of the Russian Federation parasitize, let us clear them up. But don’t worry, everything is coming to an end, for example, the housing and communal services sector, inherited from the USSR, has already been almost completely destroyed.
                      1. -4
                        April 7 2024 20: 06
                        Quote: Pandemic
                        There are no capable parties ready to organize a revolution and establish a new state, but in general there are parties.

                        Those who are not going to organize any revolutions.
                        Quote: Pandemic
                        Housing and communal services inherited from the USSR have already been almost completely destroyed

                        That’s right, back then the hot water was turned off for a month, but now it’s for a decade.
                      2. P
                        0
                        April 7 2024 20: 08
                        The programs of different parties vary. If anything, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is not a party
                      3. -2
                        April 7 2024 20: 49
                        Quote: Pandemic
                        programs of different parties vary

                        But none of them calls for revolutions.
                      4. P
                        +1
                        April 7 2024 20: 51
                        none of the official parliamentary ones, but they are not parties either
                      5. +1
                        April 7 2024 21: 41
                        Quote: Pandemic
                        none of the official parliamentary

                        Well, which ones?
                      6. -2
                        April 8 2024 17: 52
                        Well, which ones?
                        from those who are now marginalized and who will continue to grow.
                2. +1
                  April 10 2024 00: 30
                  Dart2027
                  What does this have to do with countries? The capitalists who rule these countries don't care about communism
                  1. -3
                    April 10 2024 18: 56
                    Quote: futurohunter
                    The capitalists who rule these countries don't care about communism

                    It’s just that people aren’t eager to join it at all.
                    1. +2
                      April 10 2024 20: 24
                      Dart2027
                      Yes, people in general are only striving for a good life, and the majority absolutely don’t care about all these “-isms”. Yes, people are not eager to join capitalism either... except for those who decided to become capitalism.
                      But most of those who lived in the USSR very much regret that it is no more - I heard about this from many...
                      1. -1
                        April 10 2024 21: 15
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Yes, people in general are only striving for a good life, and the majority absolutely don’t care about all these “-isms”.

                        And there is.
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        they are very sorry that he is no more - I heard about this from many

                        Me too, but there is one point here - the majority are not nostalgic for ideology. Some people even remember how they were young. It’s clear that at 20 you feel much better than at 60, in fact, already at 40 you feel that the grass is not so bright and the Sun is somehow not the same as before.
                      2. +2
                        April 10 2024 21: 44
                        Well, no one is nostalgic about ideology)) I still remember the mossy teachers of scientific communism at the institute... But, I must say, I read the brick “History of the CPSU” like a detective story - and all sorts of deviations, and squabbling, and intrigue))
                        But people didn’t tell me about youth. And they remembered what happened in the USSR, and how they went everywhere, and no one was divided into “ours” and “not ours”...
                      3. 0
                        April 10 2024 21: 54
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        But people didn’t tell me about youth.

                        They are not talking about youth, but if you listen carefully, they are talking about it, although often the person himself does not understand this.
                      4. +1
                        April 10 2024 22: 40
                        Youth is youth, but I myself remember what happened then and what happened next...
                      5. +1
                        April 10 2024 22: 49
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        and what happened next

                        This also leaves an imprint. If perestroika had not been accompanied by a massive betrayal of the country, as was the case in China, then the attitude would have been different.
                      6. +2
                        April 10 2024 23: 13
                        The so-called “gorbostroika” was carried out on an external order from abroad. The betrayal had already taken place; all that remained was to carry out the “order” to destroy the country.
                        What was needed was only optimization of the management system, with the introduction of some decentralization and improvement of the feedback mechanism, and elements of a mixed economy (for example, trade and services could be safely given into private hands, but large enterprises could not be privatized). Even the party did not have to be removed from power. Which, in fact, was done in China...
                        But we just broke everything stupidly and rudely... However, no one cared about the result...
                      7. 0
                        April 11 2024 18: 47
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        The betrayal had already taken place; all that remained was to carry out the “order” to destroy the country.
                        All that was needed was optimization of the management system, with the introduction of some decentralization and improvement of the feedback mechanism, and elements of a multi-structured economy

                        This is what I wrote about.
                      8. 0
                        April 11 2024 20: 09
                        But this does not mean introducing capitalism instead of socialism! Capitalism would have been introduced approximately like the NEP, but strategic sectors and enterprises, as well as the social system, would have been preserved. A mixed, multi-structure economy is the most promising, as the experience of China has shown. In fact, pure capitalism now remains only in the most backward countries (on the verge of feudalism). Even in the USA, a significant part of the economy... is not state-owned, of course, but private business there has become the state. And this big business doesn't allow any competition
                      9. 0
                        April 11 2024 21: 15
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Even in the USA, a significant part of the economy... is not state-owned, of course, but private business there has become the state.

                        And it always comes to this. But this is not socialism.
                      10. +1
                        April 12 2024 00: 08
                        Socialism, in general, is an abstraction. It would be more accurate to say that in the USSR there was state capitalism (the state is the owner and hires citizens), and the state was social. But development paths may be different.
                        1. Most countries in Africa and Latin America are in a state of wild capitalism. Well, this was the case in Russia in the 90s. There is no social security, everything is in private hands, the best pieces are grabbed by foreign capitalists or local oligarchs, who don’t care about anything else. And they are happy with everything.
                        2. Chinese option: a totalitarian state gives part of the economy into private hands, reserving key enterprises. The social service also remains.
                        3. US option (already discussed): growing companies become monopolies and divide the economy among themselves. And at the same time they are privatizing the state. At the same time, they are forced to introduce at least some kind of economic regulation and at least some kind of social services (so that there are no riots).
                        4. Option of a strengthening state (let's hope it is implemented in Russia): a strengthening state takes back key enterprises and industries, leaving small businesses in private hands. Local monopolies are also taken away by the state, foreign ones are expelled. Partial regulation is introduced to prevent crises.
                        How are the last two options different? If monopolies privatize the state, then this is very dangerous. They are guided by personal business interests, and can withdraw capital from the country, or even bring down entire industries if it suits them.
                        A strong state is guided by its state interests, “pinning down” large companies, and, if necessary, can even take them away from their owners and manage them itself. This is the best option for returning to a strong economy from option 1 (wild capitalism). Other options will lead to the collapse of the economy, or are simply no longer possible (like option 2: the state allowed the market).
                      11. 0
                        April 14 2024 08: 17
                        Socialism also has many stages and many shades, for example, Chinese socialism today is not at all like Soviet socialism. Socialism is not a dogma at all, but for some reason many people believe that socialism is like in the USSR or North Korea, and if not, then it is not socialism.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. +14
              April 7 2024 12: 18
              The achievements of global technological progress should not be confused with the reality of pre-revolutionary Russia. The peasants, as for the abolition, that after the abolition of serfdom they both plowed on horseback and continued, Sikorsky built his planes in the Republic of Ingushetia on foreign engines, instead of building new modern shipyards and machine-building plants, hundreds of millions of gold rubles for decades went to purchase battleships and components overseas . The 1887 circular “about cooks’ children” left Russia without the opportunity to practically embody in metal the achievements of our science, which was at the highest level: “gymnasiums and pre-gymnasiums will be freed from the enrollment of children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and the like , whose children, with the exception of those gifted with genius abilities, should not at all strive for secondary and higher education.” Instead of oil then there was grain, selling which even in times of famine, they bought technological goods in Europe. "We'll buy everything."
              1. +14
                April 7 2024 12: 35
                And note that the circular did not even talk about peasant children, and peasants made up the largest part of the population! Even without the circular, there was practically no way for them to get an education; those who learned to read in the parish school were few.
                The bakers claim that the circular was not actually in effect, but this is a blatant lie. Violated - yes, but not “did not act”. And its very presence, as well as the huge number of illiterate (!) population in 1917 in the Republic of Ingushetia, speaks of the attitude of the imperial government to education in the country, which resulted in the technical backwardness of Russia before the First World War, despite the presence of the most advanced science in the country.
              2. +1
                April 10 2024 00: 34
                Chief Officer Lom
                Don’t forget that Russia was also ruled by a foreign dynasty, whose affairs were all “over there,” and they carried a semi-literate foreigner in their arms, unlike an educated Russian engineer
          3. +2
            April 7 2024 09: 45
            Quote: vasyliy1
            The trouble with Russia is that it jumped from a feudal-serf formation almost immediately to communist,

            Jumped somewhere almost immediately?! belay What are you talking about, dear? Do you consider the period from 1917 to 1991 to be the time of the communist formation on the territory of Russia (USSR)?
          4. 0
            April 8 2024 00: 55
            The trouble with Russia is that it jumped from a feudal-serf formation almost immediately to a communist one, bypassing the capitalist one,

            Why did you decide that there was no capitalism in Tsarist Russia? There was, but not developed, since industry was underdeveloped. And the socialism that Comrade Stalin built was also underdeveloped and quite despotic.
            1. +2
              April 8 2024 19: 29
              Maybe under Stalin there was despotic socialism, but the country performed a miracle in 20 years (from 1921 to 1941) - a huge leap in its development, and from scratch, so the country was in complete devastation. No other country in the world has made or will make such a leap. Stalin lifted the people out of poverty, the communists fed the people and gave housing to almost everyone for free. The whole world saw this and many foreigners treated the USSR well, and this is what the rulers of the West were afraid of. And the priests, well, what can I say about them? Lenin was right when he said that they are opium for the people. Priests have always been at the service of the authorities, helping to keep the people in line, although there are many attempts to show priests as fighters for the people.
              1. 0
                April 8 2024 23: 44
                The communists fed the people and gave housing to almost everyone for free.

                We don’t know how we would have lived if the Bolsheviks had not come to power. Maybe not worse. Who knows? As for food, the famine of 32-33 was not weak with millions of deaths. As for the believing churches, why bother them by creating waves of hatred among the people. The main thing is that they do not conduct anti-state propaganda. The Bolsheviks were too radical, which led to great casualties. And then we wonder why we had so many traitors during the Patriotic War.
                1. -1
                  April 9 2024 08: 26
                  We don’t know how we would have lived if the Bolsheviks had not come to power. Maybe not worse. Who knows?

                  Look at the development of Poland from 1921 to 1941 (well, more precisely, it’s better to limit it to 1939). This was a part of the empire in which there were no Bolsheviks. Moreover, the most developed and educated part by the beginning of WWII. And without the huge debts that remained to Russia after the war.
                  At best, we would be on her level.
                  The main thing is that they do not conduct anti-state propaganda.

                  That's how they behaved.
                  1. 0
                    April 9 2024 15: 46
                    There are different examples. For example, Finland has developed very well. In general, if you are a developed country or are still developing rapidly, then the population is also developing, becoming more prosperous and more educated. Moreover, without education there will be no development. And this happens, among other things, under capitalism.
                    1. 0
                      April 9 2024 15: 57
                      For example, Finland has developed very well.

                      In 1920-1940? Are you laughing or what?
                      And this happens, among other things, under capitalism.

                      Under capitalism, the development of some occurs at the expense of others.
                    2. 0
                      April 10 2024 00: 45
                      Alexey Lantukh
                      Finland has developed very well

                      In what direction did Finland develop before the war, which practically fell under the Germans, and which imported everything from abroad?
                2. 0
                  April 10 2024 00: 42
                  Alexey Lantukh
                  And “if it weren’t for the Bolsheviks...” - then, most likely, you would not have lived at all. The country was torn to shreds by civil war, and it was the Bolsheviks who put it back together. If they had not collected it, there would not have been the Soviet Union, but a bunch of colonies of foreign states fighting among themselves. And then Hitler would come and populate this territory with Germans, “clearing” it of the already unnecessary “subhumans”.
                  The church HAD to be “touched” precisely during the great famine. The state did not have enough money to buy grain. And the church had a lot of money. And they did not want to help save the people from starvation. These were the “saints”. Yes, and for the record. It was not so much the Bolsheviks who persecuted the church, but rather the people themselves. Yes, yes, precisely “on the initiative from below.”
                  1. -1
                    April 10 2024 10: 51
                    The country was torn to shreds by civil war, and it was the Bolsheviks who put it back together.

                    Through the fault of the Bolsheviks, the country was torn to shreds by a civil war, and it was the Bolsheviks who were responsible for it.
                    1. +1
                      April 10 2024 17: 12
                      Alexey Lantukh
                      The country, through the fault of the Bolsheviks, was torn to shreds by the civil war, and it was the Bolsheviks who were responsible for it
                      Liberals love to blame everything on a sore head.
                      At first, the liberals unanimously overthrew the tsar, then they brought the country to the brink and lost power, and then suddenly they began to fight for this power (the country was somehow not needed, but money and power were needed). And the ideological descendants of those liberals ruined the country for the second time and brought it to ruins in the 90s.
                      You will also say that all these Kolchaks, Yudenichs, Skoropadsky with the Petliurs, as well as the French with the Japanese and other British who invaded Russia then, were also Bolsheviks.
                      And you wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the Bolsheviks.
                      And you have a religion - anti-communism is called: “I believe, because it is absurd”
                      1. -1
                        April 10 2024 18: 11
                        It was not so much the Bolsheviks who persecuted the church, but rather the people themselves. Yes, yes, precisely “on the initiative from below.”

                        Oh well ! In general, watch your words, what kind of nonsense are you writing? Go outside from your party office. It was thanks to the believing ordinary people that the faith was preserved. And Muslims or Orthodox, it doesn’t matter for faith. Personally, I am not religious, but I am against the spread of rot on believers, and also against the church meddling too much in public life.
                      2. 0
                        April 10 2024 20: 21
                        Alexey Lantukh
                        Go outside from your party office
                        Well, if only you give me the key to such an office)) I’ve never even been a member of the party))

                        At the expense of believing ordinary people, the faith was preserved

                        As usual, you are confusing concepts. I was talking about the PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH BY ORDINARY SOVIET CITIZENS, and not the persecution of believers.
                        For (it has been written here several times in other comments), the church was perceived by ordinary people in those days as a social parasite, and with complete justification.

                        Personally I'm not religious
                        And then what kind of church are you getting so worked up about?

                        against spreading rot on believers
                        No one particularly oppressed them... It’s just that the majority of citizens of the USSR considered religion a relic... And in Russia, suddenly a fashion for it appeared - with people completely misunderstanding the meaning of all these crosses and hand gestures.

                        against the church getting too involved in public life
                        This was one of the reasons for the persecution of the church by ordinary people.
                3. 0
                  April 10 2024 19: 16
                  However, there were many more heroes, this time. Re-read the article regarding the listing of the famine years under the kings, that’s two. Believing churches are the only things that have been separated from the state, so the not-so-believing people have given up on churches. And the priests actually carried out anti-state propaganda because of the deprivation of the feeding trough. Which state will like this? Have you forgotten the maxim that today a paper cup was thrown at a National Guard member, but what will happen tomorrow? So there are idyllic tales about thousands of innocent murdered priests. As it seems now, there were no such people.
                  1. 0
                    April 11 2024 14: 08
                    You are telling lies. Here's an example:
                    Professor of medicine, famous surgeon and scientist, laureate of the Stalin Prize. A prisoner who spent 11 years in camps. Priest, archbishop, great martyr. It's all one person. In the world - Valentin Feliksovich Voino-Yasenetsky, in eternity - St. Luke.
                    The young doctor, who brilliantly graduated from Kiev University, was one of the best surgeons of his time. During the Russo-Japanese War, Voino-Yasenetsky found his main scientific interest - purulent surgery. Since there were no antibiotics in those years, he decided to fight the inflammation with a scalpel. The doctor presented the results of his research in the book “Essays on Purulent Surgery,” which is still considered the bible for surgeons. Voino-Yasenetsky began writing it while still a zemstvo doctor, continued as a priest, and later as a prisoner and exile. For this work in 1946 he received the Stalin Prize.
                    Expert of the “Fight for Life” program on the “Doctor” TV channel, head of the National Medical Research Center VMT named after. A.V. Vishnevsky, Major General of the Medical Service, Honored Doctor of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Medical Sciences Alexander Esipov says that this book has become a reference book for every surgeon.

                    This saint certainly did not fight against the Bolshevik system.
                    1. +1
                      April 12 2024 00: 16
                      Alexey Lantukh
                      It is you who are telling lies. Bad example.
                      Even your beloved Wikipedia says that Voino-Yasenetsky had a history of anti-state sins. And what kind of state will tolerate protests against it?
                      And you yourself wrote that your beloved “evil tyrant Stalin” did not shoot, did not rot in the taiga, but gave a bonus! Or maybe your hero was both convicted and rewarded “justly”? Have you thought about this?
                      Look, Kolchak was also a scientist and polar explorer! But who remembers this now? But they don’t forget what a bloody dictator he was.
                      So don’t mix flies with cutlets (and you really like to do this).
            2. 0
              April 14 2024 08: 24
              Underdeveloped because socialism cannot immediately become developed, is it logical? It needs to be developed. And despotic, it is adequate to the conditions that existed at that time. If some soft-hearted person had been in Stalin’s place at that time, the country would not have existed long ago.
              1. -2
                April 14 2024 21: 34
                At the instigation of Comrade Stalin, collectivization was carried out. As a result of dispossession, millions of people died during the famine of 32-33. Was there such a strict need for this? Hardly! Or this fact: over the 70 years of Tsarist Russia, a large number of railway lines were built. For 70 years of Soviet power, not even half of this length of railway was built.
                1. 0
                  April 15 2024 00: 53
                  Without collectivization there would be no industrialization, and without industrialization there would be no victory over fascism, and therefore no country. So it was a severe necessity of that time.
                2. 0
                  April 15 2024 00: 59
                  As for railways, this is not a FACT, but a myth spread by bourgeois historians. You can read about this yourself simply by typing in a search engine.
                  1. -2
                    April 15 2024 09: 24
                    My words about the railway are confirmed by Soviet statistics, and not by your fabrications.
                    1. 0
                      April 15 2024 18: 06
                      This is manipulation. Just manipulation. That’s why I sent you to read and understand the issue. And the conclusion is this: many more roads were built in the USSR than under Tsarist Russia. And this is confirmed by any statistics. Everything needs to be counted, not selectively, that’s what manipulation is all about.
                      1. 0
                        April 15 2024 19: 57
                        Of course, not everything is so simple. The Tsar's Transsib was single-track, but in Soviet times it became double-track. And in the Moscow zone, some tracks became three-track. And this is accumulated under 60 thousand km. Of course, if you count the second routes, then more were built in Soviet times, and if you don’t count only the new routes, then less. It is easier to build and modernize where there is already a road and other infrastructure.
                      2. +1
                        April 15 2024 20: 09
                        Not only the second and third ways. There we are also talking about the network of local roads, and not just about long-distance destinations. This also needs to be taken into account.
          5. +6
            April 8 2024 14: 53
            Venerables, is it really a matter of the opinion of the holy father?
            In the ancient period of European history, wars were constantly going on: the Greeks and Romans fought with everyone, the Goths, the Punic Wars... but about 1000 years ago, Christianity swept Europe. Everyone became believers, and unbelief was severely punished. It would seem that the peaceful preaching of Christ, the desire for non-resistance to evil through violence, the search for love for one’s neighbor should have put an end to belligerence, violence, and crime. But - the endless wars of everyone with everyone, the crusades, the genocide of the local population in both Americas, the fires of the Inquisition were wonderfully combined with piety. Religion has become closely fused with power. In addition, various movements of Christianity arose, and Catholics enthusiastically gutted Protestants, and Orthodox Christians attacked everyone, including themselves: Nikon’s reform alone killed up to 10% of the Russian population. Did Orthodoxy save Russia from riots and uprisings? All sorts of deeply and sincerely believing Razins, Bolotnikovs, Pugachevs released the guts of their landowners, and the believers, the Tsar-Father and his associates, flogged and hanged the rebels and cut off their heads.
            So what has it given, religion, other than strengthening the power of the state through mass duping? Maybe culture? Under the same Patriarch Nikon, all musical instruments were destroyed, so thoroughly that even archaeologists know almost nothing about them. Our first composers - Verstovsky, Bortnyansky, Glinka - studied in Italy. But the church only allowed monophony and only in church. When Bach, Handel, Scarlatti were working at full speed, we only hummed gloomy psalms. Maybe literature? But apart from the brilliant “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” our literature began only in the 18th century, and flourished under Pushkin in the 19th century. Painting? But why did our first secular artists study not with the Bogomaz, but in Italy? Theater? But to this day, our priests consider acting a sin. Science? Don’t make me laugh, obscurantist priests have always been against science.
            Under the “damned communists” the crime rate was much lower than it is now - even though there are much more security forces today. The principles “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal” are conveyed to children much better through parents than through priests and monastic parasites. So why did Russia suddenly become a clerical state? Why do churches multiply like toadstools after rain? What, does the government have too much money? Maybe we need to use our brains? We will not have a bright future under the church, just as we have not had a bright past over the past ten centuries.
            1. -1
              April 10 2024 18: 14
              The whole of Britain is discussing Stephen Fry's anti-God monologue, which he delivered on Irish television.

              - Imagine that you are approaching the gates of heaven, and the Lord meets you there. What will you tell him?
              “I think I would say, 'Children's bone cancer?' How is this in general? Aren `t you ashamed? How dare you create a world where there is such suffering for which we are not to blame? This is pure, unadulterated evil. Why should I respect a capricious, evil and stupid God who creates a world in which there is so much injustice and pain?
              - And do you think they would have let you in after that?
              - No! But I wouldn’t go myself. I wouldn't want to go there on his terms. Now, if I died, and there was Pluto, Hades, twelve Greek gods, it would be closer to me. Because the Greek gods did not pretend that they were not like people in their desires, in their whims and in their inexpediency. They did not pretend to be all-seeing, all-knowing, beneficial, kind. Because the God who created this universe - if God created it - is obviously a maniac. An absolute maniac. Incredibly selfish, incredibly... Should we spend our whole lives on our knees, thanking him? What kind of God would behave this way? Yes, the world is wonderful. But it also contains insects whose life cycle is to get into the eyes of small children, blinding them. They eat their eyes out! How is that? Why treat us like this? It was possible to create a world in which this does not exist.
              So, you see, atheism is not only and not so much the belief that there is no God, but thinking about the question: even if he exists, what kind of God is this? It is absolutely obvious that he is a monster, an absolute monster who does not deserve any respect. And the moment you give it up, your life becomes simpler, cleaner, clearer.
          6. +1
            April 10 2024 00: 29
            vasyliy1
            There was a capitalist stage in Russia. At least 50 years (from the abolition of serfdom until 1917).
            And our country fell into the capitalist stage because the most communists of communists wanted to live, not even as capitalists, but as feudal lords. And in the former republics of Central Asia they became feudal lords
          7. 0
            April 10 2024 19: 00
            Once we have skipped, then why return to the worst, rejecting the best?
            1. 0
              April 14 2024 08: 30
              Yes, people must evaluate and compare what is better and what is worse, and their brains must come into place. It doesn't work out any other way, unfortunately.
        2. 0
          April 7 2024 23: 11
          And in general, these sins can attract anything

          It is possible to attract something, but, fortunately, there is the concept of “historical perspective”. According to her, “sins” somehow do not fit into the concept of “anything.”
      2. +24
        April 7 2024 05: 57
        roosei
        not as a formation, but as a teaching

        We must pay tribute to the man, he told the truth, without any pseudo-philosophy -
        and former peasants who became proletarians will begin to decide the destinies of the world.

        This is what they were all afraid of, and are still afraid of, that an ordinary person will be able to build his own future, solve the problems of his country, that they will take away their estates and distribute rights and freedoms to the “cattle”, and will allow them to have an education... Therefore, it is worse than “communism” nothing will happen, even a world war will always be a lesser evil for them than the victory of socialism in a single country...
      3. -9
        April 7 2024 07: 49
        I read it. The author argues that anti-communism leads to Russophobia. That's bullshit.

        I’ll be surprised, but Vladimir Ilyich was a Russophobe. He was a Bolshevik. But not a communist.
        And what a Russophobe Trotsky was!

        The idea of ​​​​building communism in a single country is much closer to me. According to Stalin.

        What is the conclusion: we need to agree on terms. And make links to history.
        Lenin did a lot of evil to the Orthodox Church.

        I respect Dmitry Smirnov very much.
        But I also respect Stalin.

        Yes, I don’t accept Russophobia.
        1. +17
          April 7 2024 09: 24
          Vladimir Ilyich was a Russophobe. He was a Bolshevik. But not a communist.
          And what a Russophobe Trotsky was!

          The idea of ​​​​building communism in a single country is much closer to me. According to Stalin.

          Lord - what a coolly brewed eclair, but in fragile minds... Horrible.

          It’s somehow not smart to comment on something like this.. You, dear one, read at least some literature on this topic, otherwise it’s not even convenient for you..

          Maybe then you will understand who Lenin was and who he was not.. And also where and why the Stalinist concept came from. And - did it contradict Lenin’s?
          1. -4
            April 7 2024 13: 18
            And you comment. I read your post. He's vague. Stalin undoubtedly relied on the works of Lenin.

            But, I’ll repeat the thought. Stalin was not a Russophobe. Lenin built a utopian state on the ruins of the Russian Empire, to the collapse of which he also had a hand.

            I have a negative attitude towards the “bulkokhrusts” who believe that everything was fine under the kings. There were a lot of problems that buried the Russian Empire and the last tsar.

            But, I repeat, Lenin, although he was the founder of the Soviet state, was a Russophobe. And he was anti-religious.

            Unlike Stalin.
            1. +8
              April 7 2024 17: 11
              Evidence of Lenin's Russophobia? Just please, without the phrases taken out of context that liberals love so much...

              Evidence of Comrade Stalin's religiosity?

              Evidence of Lenin's construction of a type of utopian state? Actually, today’s China is practically following Lenin’s NEP..
              1. -4
                April 7 2024 20: 10
                Just look at the national composition of the Bolshevik government under Lenin!

                Lenin + wonderful Georgian + Pole. The rest are Jews.
                1. P
                  +3
                  April 7 2024 20: 45
                  I suggest you found your own communist party, or with your labor take the highest places in the existing one. Then, with your name, enter the nationality you need where you need it
                2. +1
                  April 8 2024 14: 19
                  Hmmm.. I read your posts and felt sad.

                  Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars - Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin)
                  People's Commissar for Internal Affairs - A. I. Rykov
                  People's Commissar of Agriculture - V.P. Milyutin
                  People's Commissar of Labor - A. G. Shlyapnikov
                  People's Commissariat for Military and Naval Affairs - committee, consisting of: V. A. Ovseenko (Antonov), N. V. Krylenko and P. E. Dybenko
                  People's Commissar for Trade and Industry - V.P. Nogin
                  People's Commissar of Education - A. V. Lunacharsky
                  People's Commissar of Finance - I. I. Skvortsov (Stepanov)
                  People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs - L. D. Bronstein (Trotsky)
                  People's Commissar of Justice - G. I. Oppokov (Lomov)
                  People's Commissar for Food - I. A. Teodorovich
                  People's Commissar of Posts and Telegraphs - N.P. Avilov (Glebov)
                  People's Commissar for Nationalities - I. V. Dzhugashvili (Stalin).

                  So, what were all these people's nationalities? Eight people - Rykov, Milyutin, Shlyapnikov, Nogin, Lunacharsky, Skvortsov, Oppokov, Avilov - are Russian.
                  Three - Ovseenko, Krylenko and Dybenko - are Ukrainians.
                  Dzhugashvili - Georgian
                  Teodorovich is Pole.
                  Trotsky is a Jew.
            2. P
              +11
              April 7 2024 19: 46
              Lenin, quite the opposite, put the state back together after the complete collapse of the Romanovs and the Februaryists. Next, it would be nice to somehow substantiate your thesis about Russophobia, otherwise it looks wild and ridiculous.
        2. +6
          April 7 2024 18: 54
          Don’t accept it, but you probably voted for a liberal president. If Stalin was not afraid to raise a toast to the Russian people. The current president, with a tenacity worthy of better use, talks all about some kind of multinationality. He doesn’t pronounce the word Russian at all.
          1. P
            +4
            April 7 2024 19: 48
            words and toasts don’t have any meaning, but the statistics of births and deaths in the Russian Federation really do and show who is a Russophobe and who is not
          2. +1
            April 7 2024 20: 08
            And it’s too bad that Putin doesn’t raise a toast to the Russian people!
            1. P
              0
              April 7 2024 20: 46
              I, a Russian, don’t care about toast.
        3. +3
          April 8 2024 09: 16
          Truly surprised! But not because Lenin was, in your opinion, a Russophobe, but because of your complete illiteracy. Read Gorky's memoirs, at least. To improve education
        4. +1
          April 10 2024 01: 35
          If you carefully study the history of those times, you will find out that the church was not persecuted by abstract Bolsheviks, but mainly by very specific people from the people
      4. +25
        April 7 2024 08: 26
        What is characteristic is that in not a single Russian fairy tale is a priest a positive character. And looking at everything that has been happening over the last 30 years, I clearly understand why...
        1. P
          +4
          April 7 2024 19: 48
          Nobody likes parasites
        2. +1
          April 10 2024 01: 48
          paul3390
          In not a single Russian fairy tale is a pop a positive character.

          There was even a word that was used to call churchmen - MYROEATES
      5. 0
        April 11 2024 21: 54
        The Code for Building Communism is Christian morality in a stripped down form. The main part was cut. And the most important question that has been tormenting me for 30 years. Soooo, why didn’t the people, who had so much free and good things, come out to defend their Motherland when it was being destroyed? Why did the Communist Party give up and sell the country?
        1. 0
          April 12 2024 00: 38
          Anyuta Glorious
          The Code for Building Communism is Christian morality in a stripped down form. The main part was cut

          Not really. “Christian morality” is something that does not exist. The 10 banal commandments that almost every nation has are not morality. Rather, “Christian a-morality” - be a slave and obey the master, beat those who differ even in the slightest from you, pay taxes to the racketeer who says that “he is your father” (while your own father is alive), drive money to concert halls (temples) and concerts (worship services), etc. Were there religious wars before Christianity? - No! – The first 1600 years of Christianity were continuous religious wars!
          Why didn’t the people, who had so much free and good things, come out to defend their Motherland when it was being destroyed? Why did the Communist Party give up and sell the country?

          These questions were well answered by Sergei Kara-Murza in his books, for example, “Dismantling the People.” You know, so far no ideology or morality has been able to cope with banal human egoism and self-centeredness. After Stalin's death, his “comrades-in-arms” began to share power. And perhaps these “comrades-in-arms” killed Stalin. And then the degradation of the top began. Increasingly. They, you see, wanted to live like kings (although they had everything like that). And then, everyone wanted to have their own personal fiefdom. Who were our very first businessmen? - Party and Komsomol activists!
          And the people... The people are simply accustomed to trusting the authorities. Because, until the authorities became stupid, they took care of the people. And when they got tired of caring and decided to fill their pockets, they began to feed them fairy tales about “democracy” and “business”. Well, not without the help of the “good foreign countries” that bought these same authorities.
          1. 0
            April 12 2024 12: 34
            Other religions do not have 10 commandments, but much more and are measured in hundreds... But we cannot even fulfill 10! Sin is very old...We all live inside the Bible whether we like it or not. No political system is able to cope with its main enemy - sin. Everything is correct, that’s how it is... Any government will inevitably degrade. Because these are people and they simply cannot be anyone else.
            1. 0
              April 13 2024 01: 30
              Anyuta Slavnaya:
              Other religions do not have 10 commandments, but much more and are measured in hundreds

              Almost all nations have these 10, regardless of religion. In this case, the inventors of Christianity simply stole them and passed them off as their own. In general, they always prefer to take someone else's... Without asking.

              But we can’t even complete 10! Sin is very old
              Sorry, but you are not very aware of the sins in Christianity)) Any Christian is a sinner, and will never wash himself away from it... The only way to remove this sin from yourself is to stop being a Christian, and become a free person)))


              We all live inside the Bible whether we like it or not.
              Why do you think so? The priests are trying to impose such a point of view, because this is their business. But where do you see this? We don’t have any biblical ideas, and if you read an excerpt from the Bible to the first person you meet, not to mention where you got it from, then he will consider you an ancient person laughing laughing laughing

              Any power is bound to degrade
              Why?

              Because these are people and they simply cannot be anything else.
              It all depends on the person himself. He has free will, and whatever he decides to be is what he will be))
              1. 0
                April 14 2024 11: 54
                You overly idealize a person with his free choice)). First they live as they want, do whatever comes into their head, and then save, help))). I didn’t quite understand your phrase that we don’t have any biblical ideas. Don't know. Maybe you don't have them.
        2. 0
          April 14 2024 08: 45
          Why didn't the people come out? Because the people were deceived, the people thought that everything free would remain the same, but capitalist goodies would also be added. Why did the party sell? Because it was degenerated, a generation of revolutionaries and front-line soldiers left and opportunists like Gorbachev and Yeltsin came, people with the priority of money, philistines, and when their critical mass exceeded the leadership, then betrayal occurred.
          1. 0
            April 14 2024 12: 09
            The USSR had the best education and the most widely read people in the world. This means that the majority have read the works of Lenin, Marx and TD. So why didn’t they see the lie then? Why didn’t they see and understand what, what kind of system the government was leading to? I agree that a generation of front-line soldiers and TDs has passed away. But it turns out that the system and its future are directly dependent on the presence of certain qualities and people in power? Why did the empire of the pharaohs go on and on for thousands of years, and then suddenly boom and a huge state collapsed?
            1. 0
              April 14 2024 12: 42
              Because the power of the pharaoh was inherited, just like the monarch, and the power of the councils seemed to belong to everyone and no one in particular, and even the secretary general was just an appointed official. But in the USA, for example, power belongs to the so-called “deep state”, so it never changes there, unlike the decorations in the form of presidents, so they are not threatened by the arrival of a conditional “Gorbachev”, who will surrender the country or betray.
    2. -1
      April 7 2024 05: 46
      there was socialism
      And even Ravita wink
    3. +5
      April 7 2024 07: 52
      They also did not have time to build socialism. There was a transition period.
      1. +14
        April 7 2024 07: 53
        Quote: hermit
        They also did not have time to build socialism. There was a transition period.

        but they built a powerful country in which there was no such bullshit as there is now.
        1. +11
          April 7 2024 08: 24
          That's it! We built a powerful country. And they exchanged it for forty varieties of sausage (((

          This is also a bitter truth.

          Free housing, education, medicine, low prices for housing and communal services... And all in exchange for the specter of a consumer society.
          1. +15
            April 7 2024 10: 54
            We built a powerful country. And they exchanged it for forty varieties of sausage (((
            Built by one generation, traded for chemical sausage by another. And all because the last theoretical work, “Economic Problems of Socialism,” was written by Stalin at the end of 1952. And everything after that is first the delirium of Khrushchev Kukuruzny, then a creeping into complete stagnation. “Without theory we are dead,” said Stalin. And so it happened.
            1. P
              0
              April 7 2024 19: 56
              Khrushchev and his group were not removed for trial and execution in one day because the entity that was supposed to do this (armed councils, formed only from workers and electing representatives to all levels of government, including senior officials) did not exist by 1953
              1. +5
                April 7 2024 20: 28
                Stalin did not have time to reduce the role of the party to the level of developing an ideology of development and, accordingly, assigning the main function of governing the country to the Supreme Council. The party leadership felt that they wanted to take away the feeding trough from it. There have never been “armed councils”.
                1. P
                  0
                  April 7 2024 20: 30
                  "armed councils" carried out the revolution and were the state power for a long time.
                  1. +3
                    April 7 2024 21: 30
                    "armed councils" carried out the revolution
                    The revolution was carried out by the Bolshevik party, by the way, Lenin removed the slogan “All power to the Soviets” in the summer of 1917, the composition there was purely compromising. But when the 2nd Congress of Soviets took place in the fall of 1917, its composition was already Bolshevik, and the slogan was completely justified. The armed forces of the Soviets at that time were the Red Guard, which only took volunteers. After February 23, 1918, instead of the Red Guard detachments, the Red Army was created, the principle of recruitment of which was already by conscription.
                    1. P
                      +2
                      April 7 2024 21: 33
                      The Bolshevik party itself was extremely small in number and could not alone carry out the seizure of power and the exercise of power.
                      1. +2
                        April 7 2024 21: 43
                        The Bolshevik party itself was extremely small in number and could not alone carry out the seizure of power and the exercise of power.
                        The party is strong because it has found class supporters, first proclaiming and then fulfilling their wishes - the land question (Decree on Earth) and the question of war (Decree on Peace). By the way, ask for what reason, when and where Lenin said “There is such a party!”
                      2. P
                        +1
                        April 7 2024 21: 44
                        class supporters were not an amorphous mass, but had already organized themselves into councils.
                      3. 0
                        April 7 2024 21: 47
                        Whoa. Until there was a majority of Bolsheviks in the Soviets (sorry for the pun), they could not do anything. The Red Guard obeyed the party, not the Soviets.
                      4. P
                        0
                        April 7 2024 21: 49
                        the situation with the representation of the Bolsheviks in the soviets changed, both due to the popularity of the Bolshevik program and due to the inclusion of other parties in their ranks; in any case, the form of the soviets was stable and effective for a long time in the fight against the Februaryists and gathering the state
                      5. +1
                        April 7 2024 22: 04
                        the situation with the representation of the Bolsheviks in the soviets changed, both due to the popularity of the Bolshevik program and due to the inclusion of other parties in their ranks; in any case, the form of the soviets was stable and effective for a long time in the fight against the Februaryists and gathering the state
                        Yes, I don’t argue. In the Soviets, at first there were left Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists.
          2. +2
            April 7 2024 13: 42
            The fact is that the answer to the question: why did this happen is both complex and simple.
            But without an answer to it, first of all to ourselves... moving on is impossible.
          3. +1
            April 7 2024 18: 22
            That's it! We built a powerful country. And they exchanged it for forty varieties of sausage (((

            This is also a bitter truth.

            Free housing, education, medicine, low prices for housing and communal services... And all in exchange for the specter of a consumer society.

            None of this was free, that's the problem. That's why there wasn't enough for sausage. sad
            1. 0
              April 14 2024 08: 53
              When they say free, they mean free for people, not in general. In general, nothing is free, since resources are spent on any benefits, this is a no brainer.
              1. 0
                April 14 2024 10: 15
                When they say free, they mean free for people, not in general. In general, nothing is free, since resources are spent on any benefits, this is a no brainer.

                This is a scam. They simply removed hidden taxes and underpaid wages, that’s all.
                1. 0
                  April 14 2024 11: 11
                  And when everything became paid, did they add a salary or something? Or have taxes been reduced? Not at all.
        2. P
          +1
          April 7 2024 19: 51
          It is not so important how powerful a country is, as it is vitally important in whose hands it is.
      2. +7
        April 7 2024 16: 46
        And socialism itself is a transitional stage from capitalism to communism. Accordingly, it has different forms and includes elements of both communism and capitalism. Under Stalin, the private and cooperative sectors of the economy were highly developed, which smoothed out the “right angles” of the developing planned economy, especially in the production of consumer goods. Khrushchev destroyed this to “accelerate the transition to communism.” In the 80s they tried to return to the cooperative sector of the economy, but it turned out wrong.
  2. +21
    April 7 2024 05: 04
    . “Servants are sold for excess: a 22-year-old shoemaker, his wife a laundress. Its price is 500 rubles.

    So this is the ultimate dream of our feudal lords! They are endlessly sorry that the communists raised the dignity of the common man to a previously unattainable level. But now there are no communists in power, but there is (again) huge social inequality.
  3. +10
    April 7 2024 05: 13
    Again about opium for the people... Socialism made it possible to turn backward tsarist Russia into a world power... But this cannot be compared with what the church did... It accomplished the unimaginable - it cleansed the souls of people. Whoever in power you don’t point at, whoever you don’t point at, they’re all unmercenary people, total altruists, sneaking through the coal eye in an effort to prove it...
    Nice illustration:
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +1
      April 7 2024 13: 47
      You see, colleague, you don’t want to understand the reasons for this. Initially, the first generation of the new government (any, under any ism) values ​​power itself as a means and a way to achieve its goals. Three times, and especially the third generation, have different values.
      Psychology, however.
  4. +6
    April 7 2024 05: 52
    Communism is not just some kind of social formation or economic doctrine. This is primarily a worldview. Whether to accept it or not is a personal matter. But if it is imposed by force and does not accept other forms of worldview, then it does take on elements of religion.
    1. +12
      April 7 2024 08: 24
      You see, what a thing... Any concepts are imposed by force. Did Christianity or Islam win exclusively peacefully? Capitalism? Feudalism? Unfortunately, a significant part of humanity perceives only violent methods as convincing. It’s like a young idiot who doesn’t care about any persuasion, but his dad’s belt is an indisputable authority.
      1. +3
        April 7 2024 09: 02
        Christianity does not call for the violent overthrow of power. Another thing is that it was used to build political ideologies and justify regimes. But most political ideologies see revolution as a solution to social problems. Let's compare the Declaration of Independence of the United States and the Manifesto of the Communist Party: highlighting the problem (tyranny-exploitation of man by man), proclamation of values ​​(freedom, independence, the right to change the regime-the right of the proletariat not to be exploited, universal equality). The call to action is revolution. In the first case, the overthrow of the tyranny of the English king, and in the second, the power of the capitalists. It is not surprising that Russia still does not have a political ideology. First of all, because of the fear of another revolution.
        1. +9
          April 7 2024 09: 15
          Christianity does not call for the violent overthrow of government

          Actually, many schools of Marxism do the same. I’ll keep quiet about the rest of the socialists.

          And the point is not in the calls of the founders, but in what the followers do. You will also call Christianity, like Islam, a religion of peace. How much blood was shed under the sign of the cross in the name of the Lord over a couple of thousand years? Any fascism nervously smokes on the sidelines...
          1. +2
            April 7 2024 09: 34
            The teachings of Christ and Christianity as a political instrument are two different things. Mahatma Gandhi also said: “I love Christ, but I hate Christianity.”
            1. +7
              April 7 2024 09: 36
              And this is as usual with humanity - the king is good, but his boyars are bastards.. wink
              1. 0
                April 7 2024 10: 08
                Well, it’s the same for the communists: Lenin and Stalin are good, but the scoundrels Khrushchev and Gorbach betrayed everyone like Judas. Or you can say the Messiah was betrayed by a disciple. There is nothing new under the sun.
                1. +11
                  April 7 2024 10: 50
                  You, like all liberals, have, as always, a factual error - neither Khrushchev nor those labeled communists were. But only members of the CPSU. These are two big differences.
                  1. 0
                    April 14 2024 09: 07
                    This is called looking at the root, or seeing the essence of things, Lenin and Stalin were communists in fact, in fact, Yeltsin and Gorbachev only formally, according to their party cards, in fact we all now know who they were.
            2. +7
              April 7 2024 12: 14
              .....the teachings of Christ and Christianity........different things......

              You, dear Glock-17, want to say that the words of Christ and the words of the priests are different from each other. But the time machine (or time portal) has not yet been built! Archeology will not answer this question either. Bye. Therefore, people learn about the teachings of Christ, about what He Himself said, only from the words of the priests!!!!!!!!!!! After all, both the Old and New Testaments were edited during rewriting and distorted accordingly. I, reading the modern Bible, realized that the author of the Notes does not know either Latin or Greek. Accordingly, the comments themselves. And you think you know His true words?
              1. 0
                April 7 2024 18: 49
                The Qumran manuscripts confirm that the Holy Scriptures were copied accurately and without errors. If the clerk made at least one mistake, then he started over from the beginning. The words of Christ are one thing, but their interpretation and application to one’s advantage is another. In general, for a believer, the Bible is not known by reason, but by faith.
                1. +1
                  April 8 2024 12: 39
                  Linguistic studies, dear Glock-17, show that later scribes did not know the language of the earlier ones. For example, the expression
                  ......a camel goes through the eye of a needle.....

                  begs the question: why a camel? Why not an elephant? Not a hippopotamus? Not buffalo? Not a crocodile? Yes, because camel in Greek KAMELOS, CAMILLA means "rope" in Latin! The original expression was
                  ......the rope go through the eye of the needle......

                  All clear!
                  Or for example, in the modern Orthodox Bible, in one of the Books of Moses, it is written---
                  .......eat camelopard........

                  In the Dictionary attached at the end of the Bible, the cameloperd is said to be an unknown animal, possibly a wild goat. And if you look at the Starry Sky Map, where the names are in both Latin and Russian, you will see that Camelopard is a Giraffe!!! Moreover, modern Jews know this!
                  So I advise you to read not only the Bible. And in general, of the Apostles, only John and Paul were literate!
                  1. 0
                    April 9 2024 08: 33
                    and CAMILLA means "rope" in Latin.

                    Camilla in Latin means camel, and cable in Latin means funiculus (hence the cable car - funicular)
                    1. 0
                      April 10 2024 02: 02
                      Foul skeptic
                      Camilla means camel in Latin.

                      You obviously smoked Camel. Camel, in English "camel" is a corruption of the Arabic "jamal".
                      Kamila is also an Arabic word, كاملة - meaning “whole, perfect.”
                      1. 0
                        April 10 2024 09: 09
                        You obviously smoked Camel. Camel, in English "camel" is a corruption of the Arabic "jamal".
                        Kamila is also an Arabic word, كاملة - meaning “whole, perfect.”

                        How does one contradict the other?
                      2. 0
                        April 10 2024 16: 35
                        Completely different words. Here, in general, verbiage has been created about the origin of words. Not a single person arguing (and not only about you), not only does not know Greek, nor Latin, much less Arabic, even bothered to look in the appropriate dictionary. And in my opinion, only the lazy don’t know about the origin of the name of a pack of cigarettes
                      3. 0
                        April 10 2024 16: 41
                        I have just two questions for you:
                        1) What is the Latin word for camel?
                        2) What is the Latin word for rope?
                      4. 0
                        April 10 2024 17: 06
                        I didn’t find fault with the rope)) And Latin, well, centuries, until the 17th-18th century, was a living language and lingua franca in Western Europe. All these Kamals and Kamels came to European languages ​​straight from the Arabic “jamal” - a well-known historical fact.

                        Do you know, the Arabs spent their entire lives on camels, were born on them and died on them. And for medieval Europeans, the camel was an overseas curiosity. If we're really being picky, the main meaning in Arabic is conveyed by harfs - syllables in which the main consonants are. J-M-L is not at all the same as K-M-L (camille-camilla). Even a first grader won’t argue with this)))
                      5. +1
                        April 10 2024 17: 17
                        All these Kamals and Kamels came to European languages ​​straight from the Arabic “jamal” - a well-known historical fact.

                        Who can argue? It just seems to me that from Arabic the word first got into Greek, then into Latin, and then into English from Greek or Latin, and not directly from Arabic.
                      6. 0
                        April 10 2024 17: 46
                        The path is no longer important)) Origin is important.
                        And not necessarily through Greek. Europeans had direct contact with the Arab world through the Caliphate of Cordoba, which was in what is now Spain. Many educated people of that time in Europe knew not only Latin, but also Arabic. And some have been to Cordoba itself (for example, the founder of alchemy, Pope Gerber).
                        Actually, Indo-Arabic numbers (the Arabs have slightly different numbers) came to Europe directly from the Arabs.
                        Therefore, most algorithms and arabesques came into Latin directly from Arabic. Through Greek they most likely came to us, to the Russian language - we had the closest contacts with Byzantium, and they had contacts with the Arabs. Rus'/Russia had little contact with the Arabs
                      7. 0
                        April 11 2024 12: 48
                        I answer the Vile Skeptic.
                        I don’t know about Arabic, but in Hebrew camel--- Gimel!
                      8. 0
                        April 12 2024 00: 46
                        And I answer you)) Both Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages, which means they have the same ancestor language. And the similarity between the Arabic “jamal” and the Hebrew “gimel” is obvious. But this word definitely did not come to Medieval Europe from Hebrew. As far as I understand, there was no Hebrew then. Yes, and Jews, it seems, did not ride camels - only Arabs))
                  2. +1
                    April 11 2024 06: 30
                    There are many versions here. One interpretation of this passage from the Bible is that the Eye of the Needle was the name of one of the low gates near the walls of Jerusalem. A camel could pass through them, but on its knees. Difficult, but not impossible. Some theologians interpret this passage in such a way that a rich person can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but through repentance and humility.
                2. 0
                  April 8 2024 12: 56
                  I will continue. In the original version of the Bible there was no division into verses, there were no spaces between words and no punctuation marks. There were no capital letters --- sometimes there were spotlights at the end of words. Capital letters
                  and spaces began to appear only in Greek and Latin! And there was no division into Canonical and Apocryphal books. And the ban on changing the text of the Bible during correspondence appeared much later! This was done under one of the Popes at the Ecumenical Council. At the same time, the names of Beelzebub, Belial and other demons were removed from the Bible. But when was this??? what I do not remember. I've been reading about this for a long time.
                  P.S. I don’t give negative marks during a conversation!
        2. +13
          April 7 2024 10: 16
          Quote: Glock-17
          It is not surprising that Russia still does not have a political ideology. First of all, because of the fear of another revolution.

          And in Russia there is no ideology because any ideology other than socialist (communist) implies slavery of workers in one form or another. And what should the current bourgeoisie call for after this? What path of development can it offer, if all the ins and outs of such a path are clear and understandable?
          Socialism is “free labor of freely assembled people.”
          A revolution occurs when the upper classes cannot and do not want to offer anything new, and the lower classes are tired of living in the old way.
          And religion calls for humility and patience, preaching a happy afterlife. Is such a life necessary and why is it worse, for example, the life of a stone or a tree?
          Our clergy have more than once demonstrated a personal craving for luxury, and “greed (greed)” is one of the deadly sins... And the commandments that you cannot create an idol for yourself have been shelved...
          1. -10
            April 7 2024 11: 07
            Likewise, the communists called for humility and patience in the name of a bright future. They said that communism was on the horizon, but it never appeared, but moved away as it approached, like the horizon. I personally see the problem with revolution that when they come to power, revolutionaries themselves become those whom they overthrew. It turns out that the slave does not want to be free, but wants to be a slave owner himself.
            1. +10
              April 7 2024 12: 45
              Quote: Glock-17
              Likewise, the communists called for humility and patience in the name of a bright future.

              Again, you are talking all sorts of crap here... Did the communists call for humility and obedience in relation to the bourgeoisie?
          2. +12
            April 7 2024 12: 49
            And that’s why there is no ideology in Russia ----ROOS 42

            hi in fact, Russia has an ideology. In accordance with it, the E.B.N. Center and lies about socialism, monuments to Kolchak and naked parties, talk shows about DNA, etc. But they are somehow embarrassed to name it and clearly define it. Whether. At the same time, this silence, that there is no ideology, is very convenient. When you need to give the population hope for something that everything can return
            1. +12
              April 7 2024 12: 52
              After awarding the title of Hero of Russia to Kiriyenko, Hero of Labor to Rotenberg and Matvienko, the ideology of the authorities became clear to me and I realized who could easily become a Hero...
              1. +10
                April 7 2024 13: 05
                There are much worse examples with bribe takers, theft, escaping punishment, foreign agents or relocants. I don’t even want to remember the last names, but everyone can remember a bunch of them anyway. Everyone has some kind of awards and titles in the past...... and people like the Galkins or Khamatova, Isinbaeva, Nazarov, Makarevich are nonentities, garbage and petty people, compared to those who specifically harmed the state with theft and bribes
        3. 0
          April 10 2024 01: 56
          glock-17
          Christianity does not call for the violent overthrow of power.

          Well, my friend, you haven’t read the Gospel. Read it and immediately change your idea of ​​Christianity.
          Literally at the very beginning, on the 3rd or 4th page of the Gospel of Matthew, “I did not bring you peace, but a sword.” What's it like? Peaceful religion?
          Not a single “Christian” could explain to me the meaning of this phrase. And the meaning is as obvious as “God’s day.”
          And so on, in the same spirit... Religion of War
          1. +1
            April 12 2024 10: 26
            In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul says, “Let every person be subject to the supreme authorities, for there is no authority except from God; and the existing authorities are established by God. For whoever resists authority resists God's institution; and whoever resists will bring condemnation upon himself.” I don’t see how Christians call for the overthrow of the government. The word sword cannot be taken literally. This is a metaphor for the word of God, which cuts into the hearts of men like a two-edged sword.
            1. 0
              April 13 2024 01: 21
              glock-17

              Yeah, right now! And who called himself the king of the Jews? Despite the fact that Judea had a very specific ruler - a Roman governor! According to the laws of modern times, this was called imposture.
              About the sword. Not a single so-called “Christian” has yet been able to clearly explain this phrase to me. The mythical Christ himself (in fact he did not exist) did not explain this pearl of his.
              Also answer the questions:
              -Are you a slave?
              - Is there a shepherd above you?
        4. 0
          April 12 2024 00: 42
          glock-17
          Christianity does not call for the violent overthrow of government
          You are not familiar with Christianity. Read at least the Gospels: “I did not bring you peace, but a sword...”, etc., in the same spirit. Christianity is a totalitarian sect that actually seized power in the Roman Empire (and not only there)
    2. +1
      April 7 2024 13: 50
      I agree that de facto communism has degenerated into a type of religion, with all its attributes. And this, among many reasons, went into the actions to collapse the USSR.
      1. +8
        April 7 2024 19: 10
        Communism has not degenerated, it did not yet exist. To judge the Soviet Union you need to know the history of the world. For example, in France there were four revolutions: 1789, 1830, 1848 and 1870. You see how long feudalism resisted. But the bourgeoisie won.
        What do we have? Perhaps Annushka spilled oil.
        1. 0
          April 9 2024 18: 22
          It depends on which side you look at, colleague. If it’s a formation, yes, it didn’t exist. But from the ideological side, it was present and degenerated.
    3. P
      0
      April 7 2024 19: 59
      idealism will one day stop poisoning and killing people, but judging by you, this will not happen anytime soon
    4. P
      +2
      April 7 2024 20: 06
      violence and the threat of its use are a mandatory form of exercise or seizure of power by definition. The fact that Christianity calls on one of the parties to ensure this violence does not bother you?)
  5. +9
    April 7 2024 05: 58
    A society filled with religious content cannot change. A long time ago, Ecclesiastes wrote, “I saw the house of Truth. And there is untruth. I saw the House of Justice. And there is lawlessness.” All parables and testaments remain beautiful words. Religion is also an ideology. The law applies here - “Whoever is not with us is against us.” Now a cruel time has come. Life itself must tell us which direction we need to move. I have always believed in a person through life itself. And not a person who consists only of words.
  6. +17
    April 7 2024 06: 22
    Communism is a social workers' movement whose goal is the dictatorship of its class. Similar to the social bourgeois movement-capitalism or the movement of feudal lords-feudalism.

    As for the Russian Orthodox Church, everything is as simple as orange. The Bolsheviks issued a decree on freedom of conscience, which stated that the Russian Orthodox Church would be deprived of its rights to property as a legal entity. This is where the priests’ satanic hatred of Soviet power came from.
    At the same time, they attribute hatred to the Bolsheviks “by definition”: “Bolsheviks hate the Russian Orthodox Church... simply because they are bad...” laughing

    In fact, the laws of the USSR returned the Church to the apostolic norms of her life.... Without money, as Christ commanded.
    Even at the time of the coming of Christ, it was the priests of that time who hated Him most of all and handed Him over to be crucified. They were afraid that He would quarrel with Rome and they would lose their money
    1. +7
      April 7 2024 08: 18
      Communism is a social workers' movement whose goal is the dictatorship of its class.

      In fact, communism aims to end the division of humanity into classes... The dictatorship of the proletariat is a purely Leninist concept, with which not all Marxists agree. But in vain.
      1. -12
        April 7 2024 09: 00
        Quote: paul3390
        In fact, communism aims to end the division of humanity into classes

        Even in the first half of the twentieth century, the ideology of fascism was based on the complete absence of classes. And this was implemented for the first time in Italy in 1922-1943...
        1. +4
          April 7 2024 09: 02
          This is the first time I’ve heard of such a concept in fascism... As well as its implementation in Italy. Would you mind giving me a link?
          1. 0
            April 7 2024 15: 04
            Quote: paul3390
            This is the first time I've heard of such a concept in fascism.

            This is its main basis - everyone is equal, everything is a single whole, everything is in one bundle (fascis). Classes only create a split in society...
            1. 0
              April 8 2024 11: 42
              This is its main base - everyone is equal, everything is a single whole, everything is in one bundle (fascis). Classes only create a split in society...

              Its "basic basis" was formulated in the Carta del Lavoro in 1927. Therefore, leave the tales of "the complete absence of classes in fascism" in a corporate state with a National Council of Corporations and the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations (lower house of parliament) for others.
              1. +1
                April 8 2024 16: 01
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                Therefore, fairy tales “about the complete absence of classes in fascism” in corporate state with the National Council of Corporations and the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations leave for others

                You spoke about the corporate state. Read at least on Wiki what a corporate state is. Are you reading some fairy tales... wink
                1. +1
                  April 8 2024 16: 07
                  You spoke about the corporate state. Read at least on Wiki what a corporate state is. Are you reading some fairy tales...

                  Is that okay?
                  Quote: Large legal dictionary
                  CORPORATE STATE is a term used to designate one of the state forms of authoritarianism in which the main collegial bodies are formed from representatives of professional corporations strictly selected by the government. Classical capitalism existed in fascist Italy (1926-1943). In 1926, free trade unions were replaced by syndicates (controlled by the government), which united into corporations and were recognized as government bodies with the right to issue regulations binding on the syndicates in the field of regulating labor relations and production. In 1939, the Italian parliament was replaced by the chamber of fascists and corporations, consisting of members of the central corporate council, the leadership of the fascist party and ministers.
                  1. 0
                    April 8 2024 16: 10
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Is that okay?

                    It smelled like Soviet propaganda. I haven't read this for a long time... wink
                    Do you draw your knowledge from propaganda brochures?
                    1. -1
                      April 8 2024 16: 25
                      It smelled like Soviet propaganda. I haven't read this for a long time... wink
                      Do you draw your knowledge from propaganda brochures?

                      You decided not to notice the link to the source.
                      For you I can “expand and deepen” - the 2001 edition of the dictionary.
                      Having not read for a long time, do you have anything to object to what you wrote?
          2. 0
            April 9 2024 19: 50
            I once read in an essay by Hemmingway (from his days as a reporter in Italy) his definition: fascism is the union of social democracy and capital. Unfortunately, I can no longer find this text.

            However, property relations are not affected, therefore, antagonistic class contradictions are not overcome, even as a goal. Thus, such a union can only exist temporarily, at the expense of third parties.

            To compare this concept with the communist idea of ​​a truly classless society is extremely vicious propaganda.
      2. +8
        April 7 2024 09: 16
        Quote: paul3390
        The dictatorship of the proletariat is a purely Leninist concept
      3. +9
        April 7 2024 10: 25
        Quote: paul3390
        The dictatorship of the proletariat is a purely Leninist concept

        This is the concept of a socialist system - a form of political power that expresses the interests of the working class.
        Only under such a dictatorship many questions immediately arise for some civilians, such as: “Where did you get this wealth?”
        1. +10
          April 7 2024 10: 54
          What was the main reason for the difference between Lenin and the Bolsheviks and Martov, Plekhanov and other Mensheviks? The Mensheviks believed that socialism should grow naturally from capitalism as a result of growing contradictions within it. Actually - according to Marx. And Lenin said that this process can and should be accelerated by introducing the dictatorship of the proletariat. Which serves as a tool for the destruction, and not the gradual degeneration of capitalist relations.

          As practice has shown, Lenin was more right. For even with complete control over the bourgeoisie, such as market relations inevitably lead to counter-revolution and a temporary renaissance of capitalism. All you have to do is give in and metastases will spread everywhere. For greedy human nature cannot be changed even in 100 years. This is a very long and difficult process.
          1. +4
            April 7 2024 11: 21
            Quote: paul3390
            For greedy human nature cannot be changed even in 100 years. This is a very long and difficult process.

            And it won’t change in 1000 years. And for 10 years. There is no single human nature. One for all.
            There will always be misanthropes and altruists, scoundrels and conscientious ones.
            1. +6
              April 7 2024 11: 27
              Once upon a time, humanity sincerely believed that eating the inhabitant of a neighboring cave for breakfast was right, healthy, and tasty... Now, of course, relapses happen, but they are extremely rare... Still, people can be changed, you just need to work long and hard working on it..

              The whole question is who rules the tribe... If ideological cannibals, there will be one situation, if gastronomic opponents of such cooking will be completely different. And it doesn’t even matter very much why they are against it - for humanistic reasons, or simply their neighbor causes heartburn and diarrhea because of his extreme disgust..
              1. P
                +1
                April 7 2024 20: 22
                again no. There have always been ideological cannibals, but food production, when a living person is MUCH more valuable in calories than a dead person, varied at different times. We don’t eat each other not because we are very moral, we don’t eat each other because there is plenty of food now and this fact shapes us from birth to death
          2. -8
            April 7 2024 11: 28
            Quote: paul3390
            The Mensheviks believed that socialism should grow naturally from capitalism as a result of growing contradictions within it.

            The Mensheviks were right. Capitalism formed naturally and naturally grew into state capitalism. Socialism was built by violent revolutionary means and collapsed due to natural reasons of growing internal contradictions, about which neither Marx nor Lenin said a word.
            1. +15
              April 7 2024 11: 33
              Yes, of course - natural... Of course, you haven’t heard about bourgeois revolutions in many countries, centuries-old wars, etc. I’m not saying anything about the fact that outside of Europe, capitalism in the full sense of the word was imposed by force, with machine guns and cannons at bayonets...

              About falling apart - this is a strong word for the very first experience in the history of mankind. In addition, it allowed the creation of not only the Soviet Union as a superpower, but even a little of the current PRC..

              Everything is still ahead. Capitalism also did not win in a year - one war in the Netherlands lasted longer than the USSR lived.
            2. +12
              April 7 2024 12: 17
              Capitalism formed naturally
              All bourgeois revolutions led to capitalism. So capitalism was built by force
              1. -10
                April 7 2024 14: 49
                The concept of bourgeois revolution is used by the bankrupt ideology of Marxism to justify the violent seizure of power. She has long been of no interest to anyone. Let's go.
                1. +5
                  April 7 2024 18: 47
                  So you think that liberalism is the future?
                  1. -5
                    April 7 2024 21: 12
                    Liberalism is the lot of half-educated and superficial people. They have been and will always be. And in the future too. I prefer healthy (sensible) conservatism.
                2. P
                  +6
                  April 7 2024 20: 24
                  so uninteresting that you are in the minority) And why does the violence during the exercise of power by the modern bourgeois government not bother you, but the violence during the seizure of power by a revolutionary party bothers you?)
                  1. -10
                    April 7 2024 21: 02
                    You confuse violence in the exercise of legitimate power with violence in the seizure and retention of power by conspirators to whom no one gave authority. You are an ignoramus. An ordinary Marxist ignoramus.
                    1. P
                      +7
                      April 7 2024 21: 06
                      “legitimate”, yeah) the majority of workers in the Russian Federation are sellers and drivers. Where is our president-seller and where is our prime driver?) How can lawyers and singers represent sellers and drivers in all branches of government? None. You are an ignoramus, an ordinary bourgeois ignoramus)
            3. +1
              April 10 2024 02: 14
              Silhouette
              Socialism was built by violent revolutionary means and collapsed due to natural reasons of growing internal contradictions, about which neither Marx nor Lenin said a word.

              Neither Lenin, nor even Marx, nor even in a nightmare could have dreamed that the leaders of the socialist state would destroy it with their own hands.
              There were no natural reasons, but the betrayal of Gorbachev and others like him
              1. -1
                April 10 2024 07: 45
                Quote: futurohunter
                There were no natural reasons, but the betrayal of Gorbachev and others like him

                Why did the betrayal happen? What are its reasons? Isn't it natural?
                Why doesn’t anyone betray capitalism so that it collapses?
                Why did Stalin's daughter, Khrushchev's son, and the children of Politburo members choose capitalism?
                1. +1
                  April 10 2024 08: 58
                  Silhouette
                  Why doesn’t anyone betray capitalism so that it collapses?
                  It was not capitalism or socialism that collapsed - it was just ideas. They deliberately DESTROYED a huge country. Which has already become capitalist. Examples of the collapse of countries by capitalists (for example, transnational corporations) are a dime a dozen. They are not averse to destroying completely capitalist Russia, the USA or China. And if something didn’t fall apart, they bought it.

                  Why did Stalin's daughter, Khrushchev's son, and the children of Politburo members choose capitalism?
                  I don’t know whether it’s on purpose or not, but you persistently confuse buses with cucumbers. All the people you listed chose to betray their country. They didn't care about capitalism
                  1. -2
                    April 10 2024 09: 13
                    Quote: futurohunter
                    They deliberately DESTROYED a huge country. Which has already become capitalist.

                    In what year did the USSR become capitalist?
                    Quote: futurohunter
                    It was not capitalism or socialism that collapsed - it was just ideas.

                    Capitalism was never an idea. Just as there is no idea of ​​turning a child into a young man, or a young man into a man. There were no ideologists of capitalism
                    The Bolsheviks came up with socialism when they realized the utopianism of the communist idea. Then they broke it into phases. Marx had none of this. The ghost of communism, which wandered across Europe and strayed into Russia, remains a ghost and lives only in the minds blinkered by the Short Course.
                    You haven't answered any of my questions. Is there any point in continuing the discussion?
                    1. +1
                      April 10 2024 16: 58
                      Silhouette
                      In what year did the USSR become capitalist?
                      I don’t remember the exact year, but it was 1989-90. When the “market economy” (very uniquely understood) and “democratization/pluralism” were proclaimed. Formally, the USSR was called socialist, but in fact it became capitalist. This is how Sri Lanka is considered a socialist country, but the only thing from socialism there is that there are public schools.

                      Capitalism was never an idea... There were no ideologists of capitalism
                      You don’t really know anything about your beloved capitalism. There were so many ideologists there that no communists could have dreamed of. Starting with Martin Luther. Max Weber alone is worth something with his Protestant ethics. There were so many authors who substantiated the “market economy”, etc., that it is impossible to count. And in the USSR it was introduced precisely as an ideology. At the same time, the socialist system was mercilessly denounced.

                      The Bolsheviks came up with socialism when they realized the utopianism of the communist idea... Marx had none of this. The ghost of communism that wandered across Europe and strayed into Russia
                      Yes, Marx did not like Russia at all. And I didn’t think that anything worthwhile could be built in it. So the Bolsheviks had to Russify Marx’s ideas, considerably altering them and adapting them to our reality. And you are also lying. How many countries were socialist, and how many chose the socialist path of development? And some still haven’t left it.

                      You haven't answered any of my questions. Is there any point in continuing the discussion?
                      I love people who like to argue with themselves am
                    2. 0
                      April 10 2024 19: 33
                      Quote: Silhouette
                      Why did the betrayal happen? What are its reasons? Isn't it natural?
                      Why doesn’t anyone betray capitalism so that it collapses?

                      Are the questions clear?......Where are the answers?
                      1. +1
                        April 12 2024 01: 00
                        Silhouette
                        Actually, there are traitors in any country. Why? This is rather a question for psychologists: why do people betray in general? I don’t think that Svetlana Alliluyeva betrayed any kind of socialism or communism. She betrayed not so much her country as her father, Stalin. As far as I understand, she had some kind of grudge against dad. Well, Western intelligence agencies worked thoroughly with her.

                        Each betrayal has its own motive - greed, thirst, glory, resentment against someone, revenge, stupidity, etc. I'm too lazy to pick apart every traitor to the Soviet Union. They've already done this without me.

                        I have already written that socialism, capitalism or feudalism, as well as the primitive communal system, cannot be betrayed. These are some abstract concepts to designate a whole set of phenomena. You can only fight against the economic or political basis of some formation in a particular country. Examples of politicians changing their worldview in any direction are a dime a dozen. Either from communism to capitalism, or in the opposite direction.

                        And it is not capitalism or socialism that is falling apart, but the economy and political system of a particular country.

                        Yes, did you know that most of the creators of the American atomic bomb were communists, or at least sympathized with communism?
                      2. 0
                        April 12 2024 09: 16
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Yes, did you know that most of the creators of the American atomic bomb were communists, or at least sympathized with communism?

                        Communism, like any utopian idea, always evokes the sympathy of immature idealists.
                        As for the betrayal of communism as an idea, this is not betrayal, but growing up, understanding the utopianism of one’s youthful, immature delusions about the structure of man and society. One must part with children's ideas in time, otherwise mental infantilism is guaranteed for life.
                        No one really studied the internal contradictions of socialism, because one could immediately be labeled an anti-Soviet - and this led to his death.
                      3. +1
                        April 13 2024 01: 14
                        Silhouette
                        In general, childhood is a fascination with any “-isms,” including liberalism. “Adult” sensible politicians are always pragmatists, otherwise no “isms” will save. In particular, Lenin and Stalin were pragmatists to the core. But the passion for liberalism has never brought anyone any good, and has ruined more than one country.
                        Every idea, and not just ideas, has limitations, not internal contradictions. You can, of course, hammer nails with a microscope. Regarding the “stigma” - why? There were many of them.
                        And here you are, just a supporter of socialism and communism. You persistently confuse different phenomena. It wasn't socialism that had the contradictions - once again, it's just a concept. And she has no contradictions. Contradictions, or rather, a crisis, arose in the USSR, and they were not resolved by its leadership, which simply preferred to first let the country take its course and then destroy it. You will be surprised, but crises hit “capitalist” countries much more often, and much stronger than the USSR. In general, one of two things: either you don’t understand and confuse completely different things (for example, country and idea), or you understand everything and are deliberately lying
                      4. +1
                        April 13 2024 01: 31
                        Let me add: an idealist is a supporter of idealism. A communist cannot be an idealist, because he adheres to materialism laughing laughing
                      5. -1
                        April 13 2024 09: 01
                        The idea of ​​communism is pure idealism. The materialism of the adherents of this idea lies in attempts to put it into practice in the lives of different peoples. And among all peoples this idea perished and was transformed so that nothing worthwhile remained from it. North Korea is a clear example of this. Communist monarchy in the third generation.
                      6. +1
                        April 13 2024 09: 52
                        Here You are not strong in terms. I suspect that not only in terms, but also in the understanding in general of political phenomena. I’m throwing out the definition directly.
                        Idealism - a direction in philosophy opposite to materialism, proceeding from the primacy of spirit, idea, consciousness and the secondary nature of matter, nature, being.
                        Before arguing, people agree on terms, otherwise everyone argues with themselves.
                        ...And what do you know about North Korea? Have you been there? Or “I don’t know, but I have an opinion”? Also, what about idealism?
                      7. -1
                        April 13 2024 10: 52
                        You do not understand what I said in the context of this conversation. The utopianism of the communist idea has been repeatedly proven by practice. And you have to be blind or deny the obvious not to understand this.
                        I visited Korea twice under Kim-1 in 1985 and 1987 on the Tallinn armored ship.
                      8. +1
                        April 13 2024 15: 40
                        And you clearly do not understand the meaning of the concepts you use.

                        You convince yourself that one thing is utopian and another is promising. How is it possible, in general, to prove or disprove some unknown crap?
                        First, “examine the materiel.”

                        ...and how many years have passed since you looked at the Juche land from aboard a ship?
                      9. 0
                        April 13 2024 18: 52
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        And what do you know about North Korea? Have you been there? Or “I don’t know, but I have an opinion”? Also, what about idealism?

                        Both times we were in Wonsan. The land of Korean socialism has come more than once, but enough to get an idea. This doesn't suit us. Weaken the repression and everything will fall apart, just like ours.
                        As for idealism and materialism, I will remind you of the well-known statement of our home-grown Marxist that an idea becomes material when it takes possession of the masses. Or the masses take possession of the idea. This is a mutual process. This is the idealism of Marxists who consider themselves materialists. The only trouble is that they tried to make the utopian idea of ​​an ideal communist society material. It is this idealism of communist-materialists that I am trying to explain to you. Alas, to no avail.
          3. P
            +3
            April 7 2024 20: 19
            the point is not in someone’s personal nature, the point is in the development of productive forces and social relations, and none of this cancels the violent nature of revolutions and counter-revolutions.
            1. -5
              April 7 2024 21: 07
              Yet again. Productive forces and social relations develop in an evolutionary way, and not in a violent revolutionary way. You can't fly into space on a cart. We must go through the necessary evolutionary path to the rocket. And then go through another 18 unsuccessful launches. Follow the brainchild of Elon Musk and count to 18. And no revolution. Then there will be success.
              1. P
                +4
                April 7 2024 21: 12
                Historical science does not agree with you. Socialism and communism can be realized without violence in exactly one way, if next to the bourgeois state there will be a socialist state that is much stronger militarily and the bourgeoisie will be threatened with complete inevitable physical destruction in case of resistance. The unfounded belief in the evolutionary path is beautifully debunked by the example of Allende.
                1. -9
                  April 7 2024 21: 16
                  Your clichéd nonsense deserves no comment.
                  1. P
                    +2
                    April 7 2024 21: 29
                    But in essence there will be at least something?)
                2. -6
                  April 7 2024 21: 47
                  Quote: Pandemic
                  Historical science does not agree with you.

                  Who authorized you to speak on behalf of historical science? Based on this statement, I conclude that you are competent.
                  Quote: Pandemic
                  Socialism and communism can be realized without violence in exactly one way,

                  Socialism and communism have nothing to do with historical science. In exactly one way, you are uneducated and illiterate in the Russian language. Adju, amigo!
                  1. P
                    +5
                    April 7 2024 21: 51
                    that is, essentially nothing. I sincerely hope that your tail dries out and that you begin to walk upright, I will be glad to see you when you are ready to support the discussion.
                    1. +2
                      April 13 2024 15: 43
                      P
                      With a citizen silhouette there is no point in arguing, because he does not understand the meaning of the concepts he uses
      4. P
        +2
        April 7 2024 20: 17
        The dictatorship of the proletariat is a prerequisite for socialism, i.e. the first stage of communism and this is not a purely Leninist concept. Do you somehow like the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie better?)
    2. -3
      April 7 2024 12: 20
      Communism is a social workers' movement whose goal is the dictatorship of its class. Similar to the social bourgeois movement-capitalism or the movement of feudal lords-feudalism.


      Wrong! Dictatorship and communism are mutually exclusive concepts.

      The very idea of ​​communism is exclusively Christian.
      And many Christian communities of the First Church were communist.
      Such a community is described in Acts:

      “The multitude of those who believed had one heart and one soul; and no one called anything of his possessions his own, but they had everything in common.” (Acts 4:32)

      Notice before, “one heart and one soul.”
      And only then, as a consequence, the topic of property and communism.

      Ask yourself, was there such unity in the USSR?
      1. -3
        April 7 2024 13: 44
        Quote from Emperor_Alive
        Wrong! Dictatorship and communism are mutually exclusive concepts.

        Right ! The concept of state dictatorship, if I’m not mistaken, was introduced by Marx, who with this word stated the fact that any state power rests on force. And it cannot do without the police, the army, the courts.

        "....And all the elders of Israel assembled and came to Samuel at Ramah,
        and they said to him: ..... therefore set a king over us, so that he judges us like other nations... And Samuel prayed to the Lord.
        And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."
        / 1 Samuel chapter 8/
        You simply have a wrong idea about human society, which would have destroyed itself a long time ago, without state power, due to internal hostile contradictions.
        This is well stated in Engels's work "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"..... It is unlikely that you know the idea of ​​communism better than Marx and Engels.

        The question “what will happen under communism?” is a question invented by Khrushchev’s confused people and fools who were eager to learn good prophecies.... But the Bible prophesies something completely different to humanity.
        1. -2
          April 7 2024 14: 21
          You simply have a wrong idea about human society, which would have destroyed itself a long time ago, without state power, due to internal hostile contradictions.


          Did I say that people in this world should live without government power?
          Нет!

          It is unlikely that you know the idea of ​​communism better than Marx and Engels.


          I'll say it again. The idea of ​​communism was given to the world by Christ.

          He did not say that all people in this world are capable of living in communism.
          And he did not call for the elimination of state power in this world.


          “...My kingdom is not of this world...”, said Christ (John 18:36)

          True communism in this world was built only in some Christian communities.
          There, not only property, but also all troubles and joys were common.
          Otherwise, communism cannot exist.

          The idea of ​​Marx and Engels about building communism through violence,
          The dictatorship of the proletariat turned out to be a failure.
        2. 0
          April 10 2024 02: 18
          ivan2022
          But the Bible prophesies something completely different to humanity.

          What does the Bible prophesy to humanity? The end of the world and the war of all against all?
      2. -3
        April 7 2024 13: 54
        Quote from Emperor_Alive
        Ask yourself, was there such unity in the USSR?

        Why should I ask myself? Did I claim this? On the contrary, I spoke about dictatorship, the necessity of which follows not from the unity, but from the contradictions of society.
    3. P
      +4
      April 7 2024 20: 15
      worse than that, the Evil Communists laid the costs of maintaining the priest and the religious building on the laity themselves. The Church became completely free in its relations with its flock. And the flock simply did not want to contain most of the parasites
    4. +3
      April 11 2024 01: 35
      As for the Russian Orthodox Church, everything is as simple as orange.

      the laws of the USSR returned the Church to the apostolic norms of her life...

      Absolutely.
      In 1911 alone, Russia spent thirty-seven million five hundred thirty-five thousand four hundred seventy-eight gold rubles.
      Of these, only for the salaries of the clergy, fourteen million two hundred twenty thousand one hundred ninety-two rubles.
      It was an absolutely state structure, and according to the “Code of Statutes for State Improvement”, parts four and five, in the second section “On the production of church buildings”, article 196:
      “Churches are built and maintained at the expense of the treasury,” or in parentheses: “at the expense of the parishioners.”
      It was all state-owned and supported with state money. Moreover, maintaining such a number of churches was very expensive. Buildings are constantly in need of repairs, restorations, cleaning, cleaning; Significant amounts of money are required for coal or firewood to heat such large rooms, and it is impossible not to heat, otherwise everything begins to get damp, fall down, and mold. I'm not even talking about the salary parable, but this is not only a priest, it is, as a rule, also at least a deacon, paraecclesiarch, choir, various altar girls, and so on, and so on, and so on.
      And what happened?
      At some point the church was told: guys, believe it or not, here is absolute freedom for you, and according to the “Instructions of the People's Commissariat of Justice dated August 24.08, 1918,” the churches were handed over to believers - the state renounced the need to maintain them. Not a single one again. The state did not give a penny to these churches, these priests, these believers.

      As soon as a huge number of articles of the Criminal Code on punishment for apostasy from the faith were annulled, approximately 80% of Russian residents ceased all relations with the church, naturally, financial ones too.
      And the small groups of parishioners who remained at the churches, naturally, were unable to maintain these structures and were unable to pay as they would have been obliged to pay. The small parishes that remained at these churches, naturally, were not able to pay even a hundredth part of what these huge and complex architectural structures required.
      Because as soon as the churches handed over a certain lease to the believers, they were charged with the responsibility of storing and protecting the national property entrusted to them, making repairs to the said property and expenses associated with owning the property, such as: heating, security, payment of debts, local taxes, etc. Further.
      And the churches, of course, began to empty. Priests and clergy ran away because no one else paid them for their work,
      Therefore, first dozens, then hundreds, and then thousands of ownerless churches appeared all over Russia, which then, naturally, like everything ownerless, began to be ruined, destroyed, populated by street children, windows, doors, everything wooden, everything relatively useful in everyday life began to be uprooted. ..
  7. ada
    +9
    April 7 2024 06: 40
    Thank you for the article on this topic and your position, although it seemed to me that you are a religious person and not everything is simple for you. A conversation about religion is always ambiguous and complex in terms of the definition of the very object of treatment - the source of faith, hope and a whole series of descriptive manifestations of universal human feelings, in relation to an object that actually does not exist, which is created only by the will of the consciousness of people interacting with each other, but... . But there is always this “BUT”, right? It does not arise out of nowhere, someone, comparable to other people, brings it into this life of society - a real person. Why does he need this? Is it not for the sake of realizing your aspirations in this life?
    Your hero is the same, and also a free interpreter, it seems that something is not right in the “conservatories”, maybe something needs to be tweaked? So one caustic person advised until he realized that he was looking for cause-and-effect in the wrong place, but it was already too late... . The desire to protect from one does not give the right to drown in another.
    The separation of church and state is the only correct solution in the system of state development of the country, which is of fundamental importance for the future - a new era of humanity. Hope wassat
    1. +1
      April 7 2024 07: 24
      So, after all, the Church of Christ was separated from the state from the very beginning. This is a natural state corresponding to the letters of the apostles.

      Joining the State in the form of an actual ministry, and even headed by the chief prosecutor, took place under Peter.

      The reason, I guess, was that before this Nikon, for the sake of “uniformity of ritual,” organized such a terrible church schism that any Tsar should have had the thought that these cretins could not be trusted to lead people.

      Among the chief prosecutors of the Russian Orthodox Church there were people of other faiths and even atheists, but they knew their job.....
      1. ada
        +1
        April 7 2024 07: 55
        Quote: ivan2022
        So, after all, the Church of Christ was separated from the state from the very beginning. This is a natural state corresponding to the letters of the apostles. ...

        Sorry, I’m not strong in theology, but even in this state, I won’t believe anyone that anyone, other than our experience, once and somehow seriously separated such an apparatus as the church from the state governance structure, except perhaps some persons According to historical fact, Christianity, in the church system of self-reproduction under various state organizations in the form of countries and individual nationalities, looks like a very successful enterprise for managing the masses and their finances - it would be a sin not to use such an administrative and payment system, where the transaction can be financed both in cash and and soul-saving appeals... Then, how many iterations has this belief survived, how many times has it arisen in the community of people?
      2. +3
        April 7 2024 10: 23
        Quote: ivan2022
        So, after all, the Church of Christ was separated from the state from the very beginning. This is a natural state corresponding to the letters of the apostles.
        So that's the Church of Christ. And then Paul appeared, built the church structure, hierarchy, established interaction between communities and with the authorities. Google “church symphony”, the concept of cooperation with power was laid down in the foundation of the church no later than the beginning of the Middle Ages. Just don’t mistype it: “simony” is something else.
        1. -4
          April 7 2024 14: 20
          Quote: bk0010
          And then Paul appeared, built the church structure, hierarchy, established interaction between communities and with the authorities... Just don’t mistype: “simony” is something else..
          Paul was called by Christ. Are we talking about him? And Pavel established interaction with whom? With the authorities of Rome, who roasted Christians alive for another three centuries?
          It looks like you made a typo. The "symphony" was first formulated in the 6th century. But this nonsense of crazy people was never realized. For it is said; "...you will be hated by everyone because of My name."
          In the 16th century, Tsar the Terrible took Philip of Moscow and put him in a monastery, and Malyuta killed him. Here's a "symphony" for you. After this, the Russian Orthodox Church forever became an instrument in the hands of the kings. The result was exactly “simony” - you noticed this correctly.
          1. +1
            April 7 2024 15: 34
            Quote: ivan2022
            Are we talking about him?
            About him
            Quote: ivan2022
            And Pavel established interaction with whom? With the authorities of Rome
            With the authorities of Rome - not Paul, and much later. With the locals.
            Quote: ivan2022
            The "symphony" was first formulated in the 6th century.
            Introduced into secular laws in the 6th century.
            Quote: ivan2022
            But this nonsense of crazy people was never realized.
            Seriously? Nowhere did the church support the authorities?
            Quote: ivan2022
            After this, the Russian Orthodox Church forever became an instrument in the hands of the kings.
            It was a little later that Nikon forced the authorities to organize a split because of his ambitions.
            1. -1
              April 7 2024 16: 48
              Quote: bk0010
              Seriously? Nowhere did the church support the authorities?

              And where did I write that “The Church never supported...”?
              1. +1
                April 7 2024 18: 27
                Quote: ivan2022
                And where did I write that “The Church never supported...”?

                Quote: ivan2022
                But this nonsense of crazy people was never realized.
        2. 0
          April 7 2024 15: 19
          So that's the Church of Christ. And then Paul appeared, built the church structure, hierarchy, established interaction between communities and with the authorities.


          You are wrong. Paul did not build any church structure, and he could not.

          The Church, until the 4th century, was a decentralized organization consisting of independent communities over which there was no ruling hierarchy.
          It was for this reason that the Church was “outlawed” in the Roman Empire.

          "Interaction with the authorities" consisted of only one thing
          - The authorities of Rome tried to destroy the Church.

          For they could not tolerate the existence of a mass religion that they were unable to control.
          1. +1
            April 7 2024 15: 21
            Well, technically they became outlaws when they refused to pay tribute to the “divinity of the emperor.” Accordingly, after this they began to naturally “encroach on the foundations of the state system.”
            1. 0
              April 7 2024 15: 26
              Yes, it was a formal occasion.
              The true reason for the persecution of the first centuries lies deeper.
              This is what I said.
              The authorities of Rome wanted to control all religions on their territory.
          2. +1
            April 7 2024 15: 48
            Quote from Emperor_Alive
            Paul did not build any church structure, and he could not.
            The simplest thing: who introduced the bishops?
            Quote from Emperor_Alive
            The Church until the 4th century was a decentralized organization consisting of independent communities
            Independent interacting communities. The structure you presented would not be able to hold ecumenical councils.
            Quote from Emperor_Alive
            For they could not tolerate the existence of a mass religion that they were unable to control.
            Nero blamed Christians for setting fire to Rome, which is why serious persecution began. Before that, they were persecuted because the Jews declared Christianity a Jewish heresy. The Romans were not against old religions, but they did eradicate heresies.
            1. +1
              April 7 2024 16: 17
              The simplest thing: who introduced the bishops?


              Bishops (aka elders in the New Testament!) are leaders elected by communities.
              It was then impossible to impose a leader on the community against the will of the community.
              There were no levers of influence for this until the 4th century.

              The myth that bishops and elders were appointed by the apostles was created in the Second Church.
              As I already said, this is also a useful organization, but of a different nature.


              Independent interacting communities. The structure you presented would not be able to hold ecumenical councils.


              Ecumenical councils have been meeting since the 4th century in the Second Church.
              The First Church never had a ruling hierarchy, a single doctrine, dogmas, creeds and an approved list of sacred books (the Bible)

              The Romans were not against old religions, but they did eradicate heresies.


              Until the 4th century and before the creation of a single state religion, the Roman authorities did not care about heresies.
              They had a bunch of different religions, but all the priests were under the control of the authorities.
              1. 0
                April 7 2024 18: 26
                Quote from Emperor_Alive
                They had a bunch of different religions, but all the priests were under the control of the authorities.
                Remember the Gospel and the Jewish high priests. What was Rome's control over them?
                1. +1
                  April 7 2024 18: 53
                  Remember the Gospel and the Jewish high priests.
                  What was Rome's control over them?


                  They were "in the legal field" of the Roman Empire,
                  interacted with the emperor's representative in Judea.
                  Rome controlled the conquered Jews through them.
                  At least, they created such an appearance.

                  They could pacify popular unrest
                  (or raise people to revolt).

                  They made sure that Rome collected taxes from the people.
      3. -1
        April 7 2024 14: 33
        So, after all, the Church of Christ was separated from the state from the very beginning. This is a natural state corresponding to the letters of the apostles.


        This was the First Church - a decentralized organization consisting of many independent communities over which there was no ruling hierarchy.

        Joining the State in the form of an actual ministry, and even headed by the chief prosecutor, took place under Peter.


        Wrong. The Second Church was created in the 4th century by the Emperor of Rome.
        It was originally a state structure of the empire.
        She created the Bible, by the way.

        This necessary and useful organization today is represented, perhaps, exclusively by Russian Orthodoxy. For all other branches of the Second Church today are to varying degrees under the control of globalist Satanists.

        Stalin also appreciated the usefulness of the Second Church for the USSR. Especially during the war...

        At the same time, there is an opinion that the First Church still exists to this day.
        It still consists of independent communities over which there is no hierarchy.
      4. 0
        April 10 2024 02: 21

        ivan2022
        Nikon organized such a terrible church schism
        Nikon did not plan a split. On the contrary, he wanted to “tighten the nuts”, but he tore off the thread...
  8. +4
    April 7 2024 07: 01
    The official church of Russia has always been reactionary, guarding the interests of the private owner and the Tsar-Father
    In the 16th century, “money-grubbers” became the head of the church, and since then the Russian Orthodox Church has been an acquisitive church, and “non-money-grubbers” were subjected to repression. Fleeing persecution, my paternal ancestors fled beyond the Urals.
    1. +6
      April 7 2024 07: 39
      Yes, this is what happens when people like Smirnov are entrusted with power. This is probably why Peter 1 abolished the patriarchate and it remained so until 1918.

      Only in the 20th century did people capable of intelligently governing appear in the Russian Orthodox Church, but with the collapse of the USSR, they again began to be replaced by types from the 17th century.
      1. -3
        April 7 2024 08: 32
        types from the 17th century
        They appeared not only in the Russian Orthodox Church...
      2. +9
        April 7 2024 09: 13
        Quote: ivan2022
        Yes, this is what happens when people like Smirnov are entrusted with power.
  9. Msi
    -8
    April 7 2024 08: 07
    refusal to work above the standard leads to automatic dismissal,

    1.Working at a metallurgical plant. (10 thousand) People are asked to stay when the equipment is down (idle), they send three letters and leave and everyone works after that. No one is fired. Rave.
    But it’s not a fact that you’ll take him off completely.

    2. Even better. Many would have stayed and not gone on vacation if they had received monetary compensation for it. But no, they force me to take a vacation.
    And we have complete commercialization of higher education, with division into classes and castes, with the establishment of a system of impossibility of obtaining education for people from poor sections of the population.
    3. I don’t know. I come from a poor family. Studied at Misis (branch) 2002 - 2007. On a budget basis. Mr. Biryukov, you know, if you’re smart enough, a young man can go to work on a budget.
    the right to protect the state from the arbitrariness of local bosses and officials. For the first time in the world. Something similar may be happening here, but I haven’t heard about it.

    4. Our mayor has been in jail for three years now. Former official. Did you hear, Mr. Biryukov?
    But what kind of woman sits without work for three years?

    5.I know two female colleagues. Didn't come out after 1.5 years.
    Classic article by Biryukov. Classic sketch. We have a lot of problems, but we shouldn’t exaggerate.
    Lenin is undoubtedly a global figure. He made a huge contribution to the development of civilization and our country.
    1. -1
      April 8 2024 04: 54
      You can't explain it to people. They live in fairy tales and in their imaginations. But education is such a thing - if you can’t afford it on a budget, then maybe you don’t need it? Well, it happens when you only want to go to a certain university. Now everything is with the tower. But what kind of tower is this? We still have to watch.
  10. +6
    April 7 2024 08: 14
    all the beauty and richness of the decoration of churches suggested that it is possible that not everything, starting with metropolitans and ending with rural priests, is sacrificed to God in this way! This is the same as the luxurious palaces for the Tsars, which suggested that millions were still left for the “nuts” of the royal family, associates, relatives, favorites, etc. So, after October 1917, both the church hierarchs and the tsarist rulers were primarily infuriated by the fact that now it was the workers and peasants who would conduct an audit and, distraught from the deception they saw, would demolish the churches and palaces along with the metropolitans, priests, tsars and their relatives. This is what happened, and one should not be naive in thinking that the Lennin-Stalin Bolsheviks would have blown up churches if the workers and peasants were opposed to it.
    Of all the 14 points listed by the author, I do not agree with point Nr10, because in response to my question in 1975 to a communist about fake Komsomol meetings and the fact that who, if not the Tsars, gathered, created and left us as a legacy our wide native country where there are a lot of forests, fields and rivers, I “listened” to the answer already in the office of the special officer.
    But the History of Russia asks us another question: how many of these pillars are there in reality on which Russia has stood and rested for a thousand years? One pillar, the King, was removed. It has held on and is holding on. If you remove Orthodoxy, only Nationality will remain. But a nation without Orthodoxy may turn out to be a Soviet people unable to resist its own traitors, with whom only yesterday they applauded together at the same party meetings.
    By the way, it is possible that not a single pillar on which the Motherland stands and rests needs to be removed. You just need to notice in time and remove the pests that are devouring the pillar from inside and outside...
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. +7
    April 7 2024 09: 52
    1. The development of the world occurs according to the will and plan of God, thereby rejecting the objective laws of the development of nature, the ability of people to cognize them and use them in their own interests.
    2. Exploitation and appropriation of the results of someone else’s work, i.e. Is it not a sin for some people to steal from others? Peace, equality, brotherhood - is it a sin?
    3. Religion is one of the most important supports of the ruling class. Preaching humility and submission, religion distracts the oppressed classes from the struggle for social justice and the distribution of the results of social labor and therefore opposed the proletarian revolution, taking the side of tsarism and the oppression of some people by others, and after the Yeltsin coup d’etat and restoration of capitalism, it makes great efforts to discredit the ideology of Marxism since school days, the praise and canonization of former exploiters who unleashed a civil war and shed rivers of blood.
  13. The comment was deleted.
    1. +8
      April 7 2024 10: 06
      Medicine is a necessity, and a car is a luxury.
      1. -3
        April 8 2024 04: 55
        Come on! Then it turns out that food was a luxury for us.
        laughing laughing tongue
  14. -8
    April 7 2024 11: 13
    To recognize a teaching as a religion, it is necessary to recognize the eternity of the founder; the presence of employees of the other world; as well as miracles, prophets and holiness. All this is present in any religion in the world, but is absent in the works of materialist philosophers and in the teachings of communism.

    Not necessary. Any religion is a faith. Belief in the unprovable. Belief in something that is not confirmed by practice and repetition. This is communism as a social theory, not confirmed by practical life.
  15. +1
    April 7 2024 11: 35
    A very interesting article.
    The main thing is the saturation point. Whether it is religion, monarchy, aristocracy or ideologies like marxism, leninism, nazism or fascism - there is a saturation point. Beyond this point the religious, political or ideological influence will start to diminish. This is because human's loves change (with respect to time). Constant change is a human nature. But the basic instincts of humans remain unchanged. They are (a) survival instincts (b) reproductive instincts (c) social instincts (d) exploration instincts (e) creativity instincts etc.
  16. +3
    April 7 2024 11: 55
    Anything can be declared a sin, as well as a virtue.
    The main thing is to achieve such a right, survive at the same time, and make others believe you.
    Yes, and with the advent of writing, don’t forget to write down your point of view, passing it off as the TRUTH right from THERE!
    Torah, Bible, Koran or Bhavad Gita, it doesn't matter that much.
    It is important that followers, disciples and apologists appear, and there must be good reasons for this, like Constantine the Great, St. Vladimir.
    And so, everything flows, everything changes... In many ancient, and sometimes not ancient, communities, cannibalism was quite worthy and respected behavior.
    But the rabid denialist is always with the bathwater and can throw out the baby.
    So the course of our current authorities towards resistance in a hostile environment, the fight against the fifth column - and at the same time with fanatical anti-Stalinism - this is where the perdimonocle is complete.
  17. 0
    April 7 2024 11: 59
    The article is long, but with its own examples.

    However, in folk wisdom, everything has long been reflected in sayings.

    Here are some:
    Make a fool pray to God, and he will bruise his forehead.
    (Can be applied to Islamic radicalism (terrorism), Catholic radicalism (witch hunt).
    Hence the attempt of communism to explain to the masses: religion is the opium of the people.
    And here is the next saying: Everything is good in moderation.

    But just as in radicalism, there were also zealous communists/terrorists who began (out of good intentions) to carry out their red terrorism by starting persecution of churches and clergy.

    Hence the point of view of Father Dimitri.

    As they say, teaching light is not teaching darkness.
    In general, the real sin and scourge of man are servicemen and terrorists, idolatry. An equivalent crime is the position: I’m the boss - you’re a fool. (the full word has not been preserved).

    Man - your destiny lies in your hands. You just need to stop bowing and lift up to heaven...
    1. +3
      April 8 2024 04: 20
      You're right. And also, when you read/listen to fathers like Dmitry, you understand the meaning of the word obscurantist.
    2. +3
      April 8 2024 04: 58
      It’s worth thinking: maybe God sent these persecutions so that the church could be cleansed? In recent years, the RI church was, to put it mildly, not in great authority.
  18. -8
    April 7 2024 12: 09
    the Gospel says that if a matter is not from God, then it will fall apart in any way

    This is what we have observed throughout the history of mankind: we forgot God - we received sorrows

    the communists fought with God so much that he retreated from Russia for a while... or maybe not for a while (((
    1. +2
      April 7 2024 12: 22
      How did people live on this earth until the Christians came, baptizing with fire and sword?
  19. +4
    April 7 2024 14: 11
    Communism, as I have already said, has, among other things, elements of religiosity. The people were fed nothing except endless promises: tomorrow this very “bright future” will come, and former peasants who have become proletarians will begin to decide the destinies of the world. But that's not true

    It’s funny to hear something like this from an adept whose religion has been waiting for the “Last Judgment”, the resurrection of the dead, and so on for a couple of thousand years. And, by the way, there are no fewer promises there than among the communists. In general, it’s funny to hear from religion (faith is an unprovable essence) thoughts about “truth” and “untruth.” Any refuted pillar of faith, according to this logic, makes it all a cluster of unproven lies, if you look at the question objectively. For example, according to this logic, if it is proven that the sun is not in the center of the world and does not revolve around the earth, or that the world was created 8000 years ago, or that man descended from primates and did not appear by himself in the Garden of Eden, then all these are supports under " lies."
    Speaking of promises - Christianity also sins with promises, even bypassing the issue of the “Last Judgment”, the end of the world, etc. - this is, first of all, the thesis that you will be good and righteous and everything around you will be great if you keep the commandments and so on. However, it can be observed that religiosity or its absence does not necessarily guarantee changes in the quality of human life or the presence or absence of “higher” factors influencing this quality.

    In no way do I want to act here as an adherent of atheism, because I am not an atheist. It just freezes me when these arch-stupid religious or near-religious disputes go on and this or that confessionalist connects these pathetic manipulative cases straight from kindergarten or the 18-19th century. If you listen to such people, the brain becomes liquid like diarrhea, and the listener himself loses his confident core and freedom of action, trying to indulge these ornate constructions, sometimes hanging in the air on the snot of Jesuits and the fantasies of old incels.
    In principle, any faith is dangerous precisely because of its manipulative case and “closed ideology,” and communism is no exception. Dogma, manipulation, lack of feedback - and all this in exchange for various kinds of fairy tales, vague promises and a burning light with the inscription "WAIT".

    And yes, I am not going to defend leftists. There are enough of the same narrow-minded people there as among the narrow-minded adherents of any religions. Any faith is a purely voluntary topic, and not just voluntary, but also with an “open ideology”. I like to combine good deeds with devouring meat and dairy during Lent - and for good health. It’s really funny and absurd that somewhere in heaven a person would go to hell for liking sour cream or for being a leftist, for example. Now, if in his leftist excitement he lets 100500 intellectuals or “middle peasants” go to okroshka, then yes, but only if everything really works like that there (and if there is anything there at all).

    And I’ll finish with this thought - life is too short to read all these speakers with your beak, none of them knows a damn thing about who is there and what is in the afterlife and in general in lofty matters. Stupid NOBODY. This is %%% their personal fantasies, based on the fantasies of those who came before them and the fantasies of those who came before them.
    It's better to read Zhora Martin or something scientific, IMHO.
  20. +2
    April 7 2024 14: 41
    Wangyu, without even reading the comments, what a hysteria is about to begin.
  21. BAI
    +6
    April 7 2024 14: 42
    I prove with my fingers why the Russian Orthodox Church is a sin.
    We have Festivalnaya Street in Sergiev Posad. Pine trees grow along the road. They were already big in the 60s and continued to grow happily. And on the street there was a thoroughly communist military unit. This means the USSR, a military unit - pine trees are growing. Not a single dead tree.
    The USSR collapsed, the military unit was disbanded, the buildings and territory were transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church.
    And the pines STARTED TO DIE OUT! Conclusion: ROC
    and wildlife are not compatible.
    Those. The Russian Orthodox Church is so sinful that even pine trees cannot exist next to it.
    1. +4
      April 7 2024 15: 09
      Stop it! All wrong.
      These pines were saturated with the juices of Soviet sinfulness, and therefore could not survive in the conditions of the new high spirituality. lol wassat
      They will plant new pines, they will absorb the highly spiritual juices of the new Russia of the future and there will be happiness.
    2. -3
      April 7 2024 15: 20
      Your conclusion is incorrect. The pine trees began to dry out due to the disbandment of the military unit. The pines are drying up due to the war. That's for sure.
      1. 0
        April 7 2024 17: 58
        According to the military, women always dried up before, but what about pine trees? Phenomenon.
        1. 0
          April 9 2024 09: 43
          What is the phenomenon here if the pine tree is feminine?
    3. P
      +3
      April 7 2024 20: 40
      The Russian Orthodox Church is a sin and heresy, if only because it doesn’t give a damn about its founder. Jesus Iosifovich was asked repeatedly and in detail whether he was a god and each time he answered that he was not. What do we see hundreds of years after his death? Not God, and in general everyone agrees with this. But as soon as certain people gather under the patronage of a certain king and vote, he is suddenly posthumously appointed as a god.
      1. 0
        April 10 2024 02: 29

        P
        Jesus Iosifovich was asked if he was a god and every time he answered that he was not.
        I don’t remember what the AI ​​said about God, but he definitely called himself a king
  22. +3
    April 7 2024 15: 55
    This is not Father Dmitry, but an ordinary priest Dmitry.
  23. +1
    April 7 2024 20: 05
    In the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism, about 80% of the articles are taken from the Holy Scriptures. Well, only the blind don’t see about capitalism degenerating into Satanism. Now there is a change in socio-political formations and Church leaders must understand this. The SVO really gave a sharp acceleration to this process. Not understanding this means not taking the necessary actions in this direction and this can lead to defeat.
    1. P
      +1
      April 7 2024 20: 43
      Apparently, you did not open the source. There are 12 articles in the code and 80% of them do not give a whole number, not to mention the fact that the articles have little in common with the postulates of the Bible
  24. +4
    April 8 2024 01: 33
    Religious obscurantists and apologists of wild capitalism, as usual, do not disappoint! They pour bullshit into the ears of the common population and don’t even blink.
  25. +3
    April 8 2024 04: 16
    Hehe... Didn't the church feed the people with promises of eternal life? Just bring in the money))). And how she justified social inequality..... Uuuuu....
    However, all power comes from God. That's who we serve. Only the power from which the church has money, honor and power is good. From God. And if you turn to your own people, then there will be anomachic and unprecedented persecution of the church.
  26. +3
    April 8 2024 04: 40
    I notice that the worse the education of the people is, the more they begin to believe in something amorphous, including religion, which is opium for the people. Unfortunately, despite the president buying me a ticket to heaven, I won’t be able to get there, because I listen to rock and heavy metal, and all gurus know that this is the music of the devil. Although I don’t quite understand where “church” rock bands will end up, in general everything is complicated with them, we take you, we don’t take you. That's why I'm not religious, but at least I'll listen to my favorite music in hell.....
  27. -5
    April 8 2024 10: 51
    В report Alexander III wrote in 1892: “The loss of food alone amounted to two million Orthodox souls.”

    And now from the report Nicholas II in 1901: “In the winter of 1900–1901. 42 million people starved, and 2 million 813 thousand Orthodox souls died.”

    Of the report already Stolypin in 1911: “32 million were starving, losses were 1 million 613 thousand people.”

    Somehow it doesn’t fit with popular print pastoral, right?

    Of course, it doesn’t fit, because the cited “reports” are pure FAKES, never existing in nature, just like the College of Life Chancelleries lol , which allegedly composed them.

    Even Soviet propagandists did not write this nonsense.

    But according to the DOCUMENT:
    Report of the Central Statistical Bureau of the USSR, Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and Institute of Nutrition of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR HA Bulganin on the level of consumption of basic food and industrial goods in the USSR per capita

    3th of October 1955
    OWL. SECRET.

    TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE USSR
    Comrade BULGANIN HA

    the Russian man was able to eat and dress, like in 1913 in Russia, only in FORTY YEARS!

    Somehow it doesn’t fit with the blissful pastoral painted by the author, right?

    But the multimillion-dollar starvation mortality under the benevolent Bolsheviks, in PEACEFUL times, in the MIDDLE of the 20th century, with cannibalism (of which there was no trace in Russia), corpse-eating and carrion eating is a documented fact.
    Even in the year of socialism, 1937, documents reveal massive swelling and DEATH of people from hunger (see Historical Math)
    1. -1
      April 8 2024 11: 47
      Hurray, Olgovich is back!
      Shake off the cobwebs from your favorite nonsense and let’s sow “reasonable, good, eternal.”
      Are you staying late or passing through?
    2. 0
      April 11 2024 01: 55
      How can you compare the past and the non-existent? Can you prove that if the royal monarchy had survived for another 40 years, there would have been neither war nor famine?
      1. -2
        April 13 2024 11: 01
        How can you compare the past and the non-existent?

        only the past is compared.

        Can you prove that if the royal monarchy had survived for another 40 years, there would have been neither war nor famine?

        In Russia, after the famine of 1892 with its 400 thousand victims, there was no trace of multi-million deaths from hunger, much less mass cannibalism, corpse-eating and eating carrion, as was the case under the Bolsheviks until the mid-20th century, in PEACETIME.

        These are the FACTS.
        1. 0
          April 13 2024 13: 51
          Well, that is, are you sure that under the whites there would not have been such a famine until the mid-20th century? On what basis do you claim this? This is called comparing the past with the past. In the end, surplus appropriation and the crisis of the country's entire economy did not begin under the Reds.
          Are you comparing the past and the future? Let me try to compare using your method.
          Let's take the Russo-Japanese War, which the Tsarist Empire lost miserably, and under the Bolsheviks in the mid-20th century, the Red Empire brilliantly won the war with Japan.
          These are facts.
          And there would have been a second world war. Because it didn’t depend on the whites or the reds.
          1. -2
            April 13 2024 16: 19
            Well, that is, are you sure that under the whites there would not have been such a famine until the mid-20th century? On what basis do you claim this?

            based on the fact that there was NOTHING like this in Russia at all in the 20th century (and ANYWHERE in the world, not even in Africa), there was nothing like this - just get this FACT on your nose.. For NOBODY has such wild management measures. ignoramuses, leading to famine and death, no longer used
            In the end, surplus appropriation and the crisis of the country's entire economy did not begin under the Reds.

            do not equate the root vegetable with a finger - Russia is the ONLY non-starving country of WWII (Germany - 800 thousand corpses from starvation), and the multimillion-dollar death rate from starvation and cannibalism was under the Bolsheviks and is purely their merit.

            Let's take the Russo-Japanese War, which the Tsarist Empire lost miserably, and under the Bolsheviks in the mid-20th century, the Red Empire brilliantly won the war with Japan

            Japan was defeated by the USA with the help of the USSR
            и
            just find out that the first Russian person stepped on the site of the future Vladivostok in just 40 years BCI'M IN. DURING this time, the steel ridge of Russia, cities, fortresses, ports was built, which saved the Far East for Russia in conditions of many thousands of kilometers from the center of Russia - an excellent result!

            And there would have been a second world war. Because it didn’t depend on the whites or the reds

            Without the Brest betrayal, Karlhorst 45 would have taken place back in 1918
            1. -1
              April 15 2024 16: 57
              based on the fact that there was NOTHING like this in Russia at all in the 20th century

              Well, it would have been with whites. Can you prove that not?
              -Russia is the ONLY non-starving country during WWII

              So the beginning of the crisis does not cancel the beginning of food appropriation either.
              Japan was defeated by the USA with the help of the USSR

              On the mainland or where the US defeated Japan? Or the famous American Operation Cottage?
              Without the Brest betrayal

              Do you know anything about the “grain world” of the UPR and the Central Powers? It was signed before the Brest Peace Treaty. Does this circumstance tell you anything?? If, of course, you turn off emotions and turn on logic, everything will work out...
              1. 0
                April 17 2024 14: 02
                Quote: Redoubt
                Well, it would have been with whites. Can you prove that not?

                This did NOT happen with white people in the 20th century. WHY would it have become in the 1930s? Did they take away food during the drought?
                Quote: Redoubt
                So the beginning of the crisis does not cancel the beginning of food appropriation either.

                cancels HUNGER. Famine occurred exclusively under the Bolsheviks.
                Quote: Redoubt
                On the mainland or where the US defeated Japan? Or the famous American Operation Cottage?

                what a wild question...? Japan is broken in principle. What does the mainland have to do with it?
                Quote: Redoubt
                Do you know anything about the “grain world” of the UPR and the Central Powers? It was signed before the Brest Peace Treaty. Does this circumstance tell you anything?? If, of course, you turn off emotions and turn on logic, everything will work out

                you just can’t do anything: the Brest betrayal predetermined the non-defeat of Germany and predetermined the future WWII,
  28. +2
    April 8 2024 11: 00
    I would add here the anti-alcohol riots of 1858-1860, where the people fought for sobriety, and the state, together with the clergy, spread alcoholism throughout the country just to fill the coffers. More than 11 people were sent to prison alone. There were over 000 peasants killed and exiled to hard labor in Siberia. It would seem that who else but the church should have fought for sobriety.
  29. +4
    April 8 2024 11: 41
    The practical activities of Lenin’s party were aimed at protecting hired workers; today, representatives of big capital are in power, whose interests are defended by the top of the Russian Orthodox Church.

    Hence the sinfulness of communism, Lenin’s invention of Ukraine and everything else.
  30. -1
    April 8 2024 14: 42
    The people were fed nothing except endless promises: tomorrow this very “bright future” will come.

    It’s immediately clear that Putin is one of the former... :)
    Nothing changes, he still feeds you breakfast and asks you to be patient a little...
  31. +2
    April 8 2024 17: 07
    According to the postulates of the Russian Orthodox Church, all power comes from God. Therefore, the Russian Orthodox Church is a successful commercial project, and the communists have pushed them away from such a feeding trough, so the churchmen hate them. But now what a blessing, the Guarantor himself and his associates go to churches, cross themselves, whisper prayers. How many churches have been built recently? Just don’t fool people, the Russian Orthodox Church defends its selfish interests through priests, namely income, and you don’t even hear about any spirituality there. There’s the same loot all around, just like with a united Russia. Same eggs, just a view from side.
    1. +2
      April 8 2024 17: 31
      Loot all around

      When I saw an ATM in the monastery, I was even taken aback.
      And when at the cash register in the refectory I wanted to pay with a card and heard - please withdraw money from the ATM, we’d rather have cash, I was taken aback a second time.
      1. +2
        April 10 2024 20: 27
        Foul skeptic
        When I saw an ATM in the monastery
        Well, business based on religion is the oldest business.
        A successful priest is given a rich parish, an unsuccessful priest is given a seedy parish.
  32. +1
    April 9 2024 04: 11
    Churches. There is no point in imposing your Jewish faith. Everyone chooses priests themselves, you can’t trust those scoundrels in your soul, you must have faith, you must always remain human
  33. +3
    April 9 2024 11: 09
    Judging by the current times, ROC LLC is a very high-quality business project
  34. -1
    April 9 2024 13: 36
    The people were fed nothing except endless promises: tomorrow this very “bright future” will come, and former peasants who have become proletarians will begin to decide the destinies of the world. But this is not true. Not a single one of these statements came true" - as I understand it, the kingdom of heaven and the second coming have already happened? And where are the confirmations about eternal life?
    1. +1
      April 9 2024 19: 24
      Quote: LeshaPitersky
      The people were not fed anything except endless promises: tomorrow this very “bright future” will come..... But this is not true.

      And the 14 advantages of communism that the author cited here are not true. - or how ?
    2. 0
      April 9 2024 21: 57
      Quote: LeshaPitersky
      The people were fed nothing except endless promises

      An excellent post from an 18th century serf brought into the 21st; "The red master was bad and angry and did not feed." Dear. In a society like you, there can be no structure other than serfdom and Autocracy!
    3. 0
      April 10 2024 20: 25
      LeshaPitersky
      Did you actually live in the USSR?
    4. 0
      April 11 2024 19: 58
      This is different :)) repent :))
  35. +1
    April 10 2024 00: 53
    Every time I see an overgrown man in a long black robe, or find myself inside a stuffy gilded building, I feel some kind of mossy antiquity, as if I had touched something primitive and archaic. And the question arises: how can this even exist in the 21st century, which is so proud of its scientific and technological progress?
    Another observation, “not patriotic”. Why is it light and easy to breathe in a Catholic cathedral, people sit on benches, but in an Orthodox cathedral people stand in stuffy twilight? But people are different - some are not even able to stand...
  36. +2
    April 10 2024 02: 18
    Jean Paul Sartre wrote about the connection between anti-communism and Russophobia.
  37. +1
    April 10 2024 02: 38
    By the way... At first, the Bolsheviks not only didn’t fight with religion itself - on the contrary, they tried to win them over to their side. There was an attempt to create a “renovationist church”, as opposed to the Russian Orthodox Church, by drawing believers to the “renovationists.” They even flirted with sects. For example, they tried to create sectarian collective farms. Only all these flirtations failed miserably. And the people did not support it. Let me emphasize once again that the anti-religious and anti-church policy was warmly supported by the common people. People are tired of deception... The Bolsheviks proposed to stop being “slaves of God”, and to become builders of a “bright tomorrow”, which people built with their own hands
  38. +1
    April 10 2024 02: 42
    Yes, why suddenly someone in a dark long robe demands to call him “father”? Why the fright? And if he wants to be someone’s slave, then we cannot prohibit him from doing so.
    Remember how the literacy lessons began? From the phrases “We are not slaves! We are not slaves!” This is very symbolic!
  39. +1
    April 10 2024 02: 45
    Another episode. One winter I dropped into a church for company. For company. The girlfriend was a believer. But he didn’t take off his hat. Someone immediately jumped up to me and almost knocked my hat off! Who was that? And who allowed him to behave like this? Don't you think these people are insolent?
  40. 0
    April 10 2024 20: 44
    Gentlemen, well, the topic is exclusively philosophical and religious and has nothing to do with economics or politics. First of all, you need to understand what religion is, and then understand whether communism is a religion. Under feudalism, under capitalism, under socialism, there were religions and they depended little on the political formation, on the economic structure.
    1. +1
      April 12 2024 01: 09
      Communism is a theory, a concept about the structure of society.
      Religion is a set of ideas about the world, created by someone and controlled by someone, and who must be obeyed, as well as a set of social institutions that force people to believe in this “someone”, and also to ensure these social institutions so that they do not die from hunger (after all, they are not doing anything useful), and could continue to force people to pay themselves and believe in “someone”
  41. +3
    April 11 2024 02: 04
    The Soviet government is criticized for unfair repression of clergy based on false accusations of anti-Soviet activities.
    And then 1991 comes and the Russian Orthodox Church takes an anti-Soviet position. It turns out that about unfair repressions - you yourself understand what happens.
    With the denunciation of Lenin and Stalin, the church puts itself in a simply indefensible position. Like the thousand-year slavery in Rome and Byzantium, everything is normal, “slaves obey your masters.”
    The Roman and Byzantine emperors of the Christian period were thugs, they simply had nowhere to put their samples - the church supported them.
    Serfdom in Russia, when Orthodox Christians were sold on the market like cattle, is also normal for the church.
    The murder of Peter-3 and Paul-1 - no claims against the killers, Catherine-2 and Alexander-1, respectively.
    And here the church has complaints about the moral character of the communists...
    1. +1
      April 13 2024 01: 42
      Redoubt
      Left-handed impostors modestly keep silent about the presence of monastic prisons in tsarist Russia. There were also serfs at the church. So what? Everything is fine - we are all slaves and must obey the shepherds!
      As for the “moral character” - they will not die from modesty - golden domes, luxurious clothes, expensive foreign cars in the courtyards of churches and monasteries. A fair share of churches in Russia were built with gangster money, and criminal activists tend to be very devout.
      And in Rus' they publicly flogged those who did not want to go to church.
  42. 0
    April 11 2024 19: 52
    We talk a lot and do little well. They are even worse at doing something constructive together, even defending class, group, and even personally selfish interests. This is where all the trouble comes from. But communism, Christianity or capitalism are particular. Second. The Church, like any community of people, is a community and the opinion of the subject of one of the community members cannot be objective. Yes, denying God and placing all hopes on oneself and the collective instead of God is from a religious point of view. sin = error = error.
    1. 0
      April 12 2024 01: 10
      Everything was mixed together. Milk, pea soup and cucumbers
  43. +1
    April 12 2024 01: 36
    Now pay attention to some interesting details. Almost all forces opposing communism also oppose Russia. And this is Russophobia. All these liberals, Nazis, Christians of all varieties and colors, monarchists, Jehovah's Witnesses and other Russophobes somehow periodically merge in a single ecstasy of hatred of Russia and Russians.
    Let's take the communist of the past. A real, active person, and not a careerist, degenerate and “businessman”. What did you care about? About the people!
    What does a churchman care about? About golden domes, sell more candles, and collect more money for rituals. The same "business". For a churchman, the people are only a means. How does a clergyman look at the people? And he considers them slaves, and himself above them - suddenly some kind of “father”. What is pop? - Shepherd of Orthodox sheep! Isn't this Russophobia?
    Hey, defenders of Christianity! Do you consider yourself slaves or sheep? No? And why?
    Not only did they once forcibly baptize an entire people, but they also forced them to forget their self-name - Russians. But instead they forced us to call ourselves Christians (peasants). And if a person did not want to go to church, they beat him with a whip. Isn't this Russophobia?
    Nevertheless... The people did not like the priests... But the priests were never able to eradicate paganism. People worshiped pagan oak trees even in the 19th century
  44. +1
    April 13 2024 01: 36
    Archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church MP Alexey Chaplin (excerpts from the article):
    The main problem of modern Orthodoxy is that we have forgotten how to be slaves. Christianity is a religion of conscious and voluntary slavery. Slave psychology is not some hidden subtext, but a norm of attitude for an Orthodox Christian. The entire modern society worships the idol of social rights and freedoms. But only The Orthodox Church stubbornly asserts that man is a powerless servant of God. That’s why a modern “free-thinking” person feels so uncomfortable in an Orthodox church, where everything is permeated with the archaism of slavery. How dissonant for his ear is the address to the hierarchy “Holy Master”, “Your Eminence”, “Your Holiness”, “is polla these Despotas” (many years to the bishop), and even more so the constant calling of Christians in prayers “servants of God" What is behind the concept of “slavery of God” is revealed to us by the Gospel. The slave has nothing of his own. He lives only by the mercy of his Master, who, having “reckoned” with him, finds him either a good slave, fulfilling His commands and worthy of even greater mercy from his Master, or wicked and lazy, worthy of strict punishment. The slavery of God deprives Christians of even affection for those closest to them - husband, wife, parents, children. They are not ours - they are also slaves of our Lord. And our Master demands that we be attached only to Him and be ready at any moment, without regret, to separate not only from our dearest people, but also from life itself, which belongs not to a slave, but entirely to God.
    GENTLEMEN, CITIZENS, COMRADES! - ARE YOU SLAVES??!!
    ARE YOU READY TO OBEY YOUR MR. CHAPLIN AND HIS LIKE?!
  45. +1
    April 13 2024 17: 59
    As expected, he burst out with an angry philippic: “Hello, my daughter! Yes, communism has always been, is and will be a sin.”

    But this seemed to him not enough, and he added: “Communism, as I have already said, has, among other things, elements of religiosity. The people were fed nothing except endless promises: tomorrow this very “bright future” will come, and former peasants who have become proletarians will begin to decide the destinies of the world. But this is not true. None of these claims came true. People were left with the same amount of resources they had.”

    How “blind” the priest is in his prejudices. Of course, the resources remained the same, but in the era of post-socialism (not even communism), all these resources “miraculously” flowed into the hands and pockets of a limited group of people. We have it. And in the West this has long been a fact. Is this the reason why people there are turning away from the church en masse?

    And regarding the endless promises, this is right to the point, but only about religion. Communism was built in just over 70 years, but the leading religions have existed for one, two, or even more thousand years. This means that they fed people their breakfasts in the same time frame. It is true that under socialism people already received something of what was promised during their lifetime, but religion feeds them breakfast from the afterlife. That's the whole difference.
  46. -1
    April 15 2024 11: 00
    Without a life-giving pendal, without mortgage slavery, most people work rather poorly. And many in Soviet times did it openly to “love it.” Therefore, when I went to work while studying at the institute and after it, I was so struck by the difference between piece workers and time workers. It was because of this, and also because of the lost arms race, that the USSR covered itself with... what it covered itself with.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  47. +1
    April 15 2024 17: 16
    I have been waiting for such an article for a long time... this mistake of the current Church will come back to haunt us harshly...
  48. 0
    April 17 2024 00: 11
    Yes, write more, more.
  49. +1
    April 20 2024 13: 29
    How can a person with a sober mind and strong memory, in all seriousness, believe in the tales of Jewish fishermen and shepherds?
    1. P
      +1
      April 23 2024 19: 21
      these are tales of Roman and Greek scum of the 4th century, creatively reworking Jewish tales