Military Review

Back in the USSR: “OT” motivation or “K” motivation?

105
Back in the USSR: “OT” motivation or “K” motivation?



Who does not regret the collapse of the USSR, he has no heart,
and he who desires his rebirth has no head.
Vladimir Putin, three-time president of Russia


The theme of a return to a socialist-type society appears on our website quite regularly. The last example is the article by Alexander Evdokimov “The collapse of the USSR is a crime without a statute of limitations” (http://topwar.ru/37049-razval-sssr-prestuplenie-bez-sroka-davnosti.html). The “Back to the Future” phenomenon is not new in the post-Soviet space.

Back in 1995, a former security officer and then a writer, Mikhail Lyubimov published an article entitled “Operation Calvary's Secret Reorganization Plan” (http://flibusta.net/b/319836/read). A journalistic work written in the style of a memoir of a KGB officer close to Yu.V. Andropov told about the supposedly existing secret restructuring plan, according to which Russia was to be led through “wild capitalism” and, using the indignation of the masses who had eaten “freedom” with a full spoon, to return the country to the communist path of development. M. Lyubimov then explained for a long time before the alarmed State Duma that it was just a literary joke and there was no secret plan in the KGB of the USSR.

But, as you know, in every joke there is some joke. The serious side of the “secret restructuring plan” from Lyubimov lies in the psychology of people, in particular, in motivation their actions and aspirations. Among a certain part of specialists in human studies, there is a simple and intuitive theory, according to which all the diversity of human aspirations can be classified as “The motivation to avoid anything” or how “Motivation for striving for something”. For brevity, they are called motivation. "FROM" and motivation "TO". For example, a marriage may disintegrate because the joint life of the spouses has become unbearable (“OT” motivation), or because one of them found love on the side (“K” motivation). The saying “choose the lesser of two evils” illustrates the “OT” motivation. For the motivation of the type “K”, another proverb is appropriate: “No matter how much a wolf you feed, it still looks into the forest”.

Or turn to the work of the famous singer-acrobat Oleg Gazmanov. During the time of perestroika, he, performing a social order, pumped millions of audiences with “OT” motivation, dancing on the stage to the song “Fresh Wind”:

"... I will tell him how it was with me
How they treated me for freedom
How they wanted me to be blind
It’s so easy to take away from a blind man.
They wanted to solve everything for me
What to go, where to live and how to breathe,
How they wanted to forbid me to dream
But now I can not hold! ”

Now, the same Gazmanov, apparently having taken hearty breath of the fresh wind of the home-grown democracy, suddenly began to cry that he was "born in the Soviet Union, and what was done, they say, he was in the USSR." Surely the motivation of "K" cut through? It hardly seems to fulfill the social order again, lumping together Lenin, Stalin, Gagarin, and modern oligarchs ... God be his judge, showman ...

And yet, what motivation are driven by people in their desire to return to the USSR — the motivation to leave the “OT” of wild capitalism of modern society, or the desire “K” to the realities of the Soviet Union? How painless can a reverse transition occur if such a miracle happens that our political elites will also remember where they came from and proclaim “suddenly all right” to the socialist course of development? And if the classic Soviet appeal again sounds from the high tribune: “Be prepared for the struggle for the cause of the Communist Party!”, Will everyone be inspired and with a feeling of deep satisfaction: “Always ready!”?

Even the younger generation, not smelling the "Soviet powder"?

Or those who, during 20 years of democracy, managed to dig out noblemen in their genealogy, or, at the worst, but ambitious end, merchant roots?

Or maybe those who found in themselves an entrepreneurial or commercial vein, dozing for the time being in a latent state?

Or those who, especially not bothering, dressed in a T-shirt with the inscription: “I am an egoist”?

Perhaps some will object: “No one is going to step on the same rake twice and return to the USSR, for example, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, or, not by the night, will it be remembered, of Gorbachev's era. We will ask our political leaders to have this updated USSR 2.0. Or even not the USSR and not 2.0, but the “Eurasian Union 1.0 blue number”.

The point is obviously not in the title, but in the content. In the USSR gone, there were both light and dark sides. Similarly, in our modern society, if you wish, you can find bits of positive in the vast sea of ​​negative.

In order to clearly understand, “OT” of what we want to get rid of, and, conversely, “To” what we are striving for, having a new type of society in sight, I suggest to respected forum users to use in their comments a fairly common analysis tool, SWOT analysis. SWOT is an English abbreviation of four components:

Strengths are the strengths or strengths of a society.
Wfacts - the weaknesses or weaknesses of this society.
Opportunities - the opportunities that it opens up for its citizens.
Threats - the threats or risks that it contains for its citizens.

In other words, you are invited to participate in a kind of survey, building your comments according to the following scheme:

================================================= ================================
THE USSR:
1) Strengths of society: (list).
2) Weaknesses of society: (list).
3) Opportunities for citizens: (list).
4) Threats or risks to citizens: (list).

Modern Russian society:
1) Strengths of society: (list).
2) Weaknesses of society: (list).
3) Opportunities for citizens: (list).
4) Threats or risks to citizens: (list).

Free comment.
================================================= ================================

Other forum users may be indignant: how dare the author encroach on His Majesty's Personal Opinion and the form of its expression? We decide what and how to write in our comments! Pluralism as one of the achievements of a democratic society has not been canceled yet! Well, we will consider my proposal a litmus test for those who dream of returning to the USSR. After all, where we all come from, the principle dominated "Collective above personal".

For those who, for whatever reason, are not ready right here and now, under this article, to express their opinion on the scheme proposed above, the e-mail address is still open. [email protected]. Veterans of the site should remember him on the project "Evaluation of state-political figures." Send your answers to this address with a “SWOT analysis”.

For my part, I undertake a socialist obligation to summarize individual responses carried out according to the scheme proposed above, and present the results in the next article in the form of a collective opinion of members of the forum. Of course, provided that the individually completed questionnaires, comments will be typed enough.

To be continued?
Author:
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. makarov
    makarov 10 December 2013 08: 43
    +1
    ".. Well, let's consider my proposal as a litmus test for those who dream of returning to the USSR. After all, where we all come from, the principle of" Collective over personal "prevailed.

    The fulfillment and enforcing of the principle “Collective above personal” destroyed or broke many brilliant and creative people. Indeed, in its continuation it read: - Whoever is not with us is against us. Not realizing that there is a MIDDLE. In extreme cases, the rule of the Golden Mean so claims.
    1. RussianRu
      RussianRu 10 December 2013 11: 17
      11
      Of course, it’s not possible to enter the same river twice. But, social justice is worth considering. Probably the experience of the USSR should be adapted in today's society. Let there be private property, taking into account social justice (approximately equal income of each). Let it be self-expression, but, taking into account the moral principles of society. Etc.
      1. Pit
        Pit 10 December 2013 11: 35
        +3
        It sounds beautiful, but it will not work. Equality is sought by those who do not have anything and they don’t share anything. But when a person has something material and worth at least a little bit, then a person is ready to share this only with a selected circle of people and is constantly trying to build up his property.
        So where there is private property, there is class division. The rich tries to become even richer and seeks not to let anyone else on his throne.
        But on the issue of "collective over personal", this slogan should not apply to spiritual and moral values. Each person should strive for himself to become richer spiritually. And material values ​​must be either shared or equally distributed. And everyone should strive to enrich materially, not themselves, but society as a whole.
        Utopia of course, but ...
        1. RussianRu
          RussianRu 10 December 2013 12: 05
          +1
          Here's the catch. Material values ​​always prevail over spiritual ones. And in general, this does not bring anything good to society. Only human vices. Delema however.
          1. vladek64
            vladek64 11 December 2013 11: 04
            0
            Material values ​​always prevail over spiritual ones.


            Only at a certain stage of human development. After a person outgrows a certain level, his material values ​​are reduced to the minimum required amount. Because they "lose in value" a lot.

            The USSR slipped precisely on material values. When people stopped growing spiritually, material values ​​soared over everything. Well, to compete with the West in consumerism is a hopeless matter.
        2. Shur
          Shur 10 December 2013 20: 18
          +1
          Capitalism is the same change .. Is it effective in the implementation of civilizational development? Hardly .. The richest are the most conservatives. They don't really need real progress. This is the same neo-slavery system, just as "productive" as in the third century. Anyone who enters a new stage of development of society based on higher spiritual principles (ie, conducts spiritual evolution, not "re-evolution") - he will become inaccessible. All these isms will seem primitive and degradation. Moreover, their stability will be simply no ... because the spirit will conquer everything. Say utopia? Of course, they probably also perceived the idea of ​​a slave-free society in Greece and Rome, or did not perceive it at all. Everything fits into what will (or will not) change the social order. It will either move towards the "society" as a family, or it will revolve on the egoistic pyramid of injustice, which is extremely lagging behind in terms of human development. Efforts for this are simply enormous.
      2. A.YARY
        A.YARY 10 December 2013 11: 56
        +5
        Who does not regret the collapse of the USSR, he has no heart,
        and he who desires his rebirth has no head.
        Vladimir Putin, three-time president of Russia

        The question is, who endowed Putin V.V. the title of the Messiah and the true last resort ?!

        Opinion of one person - and only that.

        "I know the city will be!"
        Everything, I emphasize-ALL land spent by temporary workers,BUT bearing the indelible seal of Russia,poured more than once and not two with the blood of Russian soldiers and ordinary people ALL of these lands will return!
        the USSR or something new but just as fair!
        1. Shur
          Shur 10 December 2013 20: 35
          +2
          Thought is material .. +
      3. andrejwz
        andrejwz 10 December 2013 12: 18
        +2
        Quote: Russian
        Of course, it’s not possible to enter the same river twice. But, social justice is worth considering. Probably the experience of the USSR should be adapted in today's society. Let there be private property, taking into account social justice (approximately equal income of each). Let it be self-expression, but, taking into account the moral principles of society. Etc.

        Perestroika was started, sort of, in order to get rid of what the author calls the forgotten dark sides of the bygone USSR. What led. Here is drunk on freedom, in a creative impulse of reformism, along with water, they threw out the child.
        1. MAG
          MAG 10 December 2013 18: 12
          +2
          About 7 years ago, I watched an interview with Lukyanov, where I casually mentioned the "new man" project, which began in the early 70s. I was looking for what kind of project and that was what I found - the project began to study even under Stalin the question of how to defeat the capitalistic system without a global war. The answer is simple, given the preservation of the socialist USSR, this is not possible. The USSR encouraged the West to improve the lives of working people and gave the smartest and most hard workers the opportunity to get rich. The USSR is gone 22 years have passed and wild capitalism all over the world shows that ordinary people are just slaves and this gives a new impetus to socialism but throughout the world. And what if the "shadow cardinals" (let's say the KGB) carried out this project. There were a lot of questions: they assembled Gorbachev's "team", then Yeltsin and the liberals, and then Volodka the Tsar. All of them appeared as if out of nowhere and all the way to power someone pushed them to the top. The Union collapsed and the West around the world went on the offensive both in the economy and in wars, increasing debts and forcing the world to turn away from them little by little. If this is so, then we are waiting for the next president who will also appear out of nowhere and hope that he will be better than the previous 4.
    2. andrejwz
      andrejwz 10 December 2013 12: 08
      +4
      Quote: makarov
      The fulfillment and enforcing of the principle “Collective above personal” destroyed or broke many brilliant and creative people.

      Yah! Now no one is destroying or breaking. There are many creative ones left, the question is: Where did the brilliant ones go?
    3. Shur
      Shur 10 December 2013 20: 30
      0
      "He who is not with us is against us" is not a continuation of the "Collective over the individual". For example, when you are asked to accept the "true faith" or to die, then "He who is not with us is against us," and when you are called to defend the fatherland, then "the collective over the individual." To really achieve the principle of "collective over individual" you need evolution in your heads .... Where have you seen the implementation of such a principle, give examples, only without the USSR, since no one has canceled the "Soviet nobles". The principle can be extended to "the individual for the good of the collective."
  2. Just Vasilich
    10 December 2013 09: 00
    0
    Makarov: As a last resort, the Golden Mean rule so says.

    If you notice, in the proposed form there is room for free comments. So the rule of the golden mean is observed.

    Another thing is how the commentators, including you, will use it.
    1. Canep
      Canep 10 December 2013 13: 28
      +1
      Vasilich When summarizing you take into account the number of pluses / minuses for one or another SWOT.
  3. Mart
    Mart 10 December 2013 09: 14
    +2
    Good afternoon, Stanislav! About the epigraph: link.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 09: 56
      +1
      Greetings March!

      Yes, I am familiar with the background of this aphorism, starting from W. Churchill. But the president of Russia also noted in the paraphrase of this popular expression. And the fact that he did not refer to the source at the same time, well, this is not the first time for him, before that there was a precedent with the dissertation http://slon.ru/russia/v_svoey_dissertatsii_putin_sam_napisal_po_vidimomu_vsego_p
      aru_stranits-959136.xhtml
  4. Christian
    Christian 10 December 2013 09: 18
    +5
    Who does not regret the collapse of the USSR, he has no heart,
    and he who desires his rebirth has no head.
    Vladimir Putin, three-time president of Russia
    A question for reflection - can there be a president in an imperial country, a person who believes that the revival of the empire is a headless dream !?
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver 10 December 2013 10: 19
      +4
      Quote: Christian
      ... A question for reflection, can there be a president in an imperial country, a person who believes that the revival of the empire is a headless dream !?

      And where is it said that he believes so generally about the Empire?
      We are talking about the USSR with all its tribal sores, half dead and decayed by the 80th. an elite incapable of self-development and self-purification.
      A different format of the Empire is needed, on other principles.
      A copy is ALWAYS worse than the original.
      1. Ded_smerch
        Ded_smerch 10 December 2013 10: 43
        +3
        "The copy is ALWAYS worse than the original" huh ???? Well, tell us how the elite of the Republic of Ingushetia did not decompose and how well the majority of the people lived.
    2. Russ69
      Russ69 10 December 2013 10: 30
      +1
      Quote: Christian
      A question for reflection - can there be a president in an imperial country, a person who believes that the revival of the empire is a headless dream !?

      At the same time, he spoke about the collapse of the USSR and GDP as the biggest mistake ...
      In general, today's Russia and the USSR have their pros and cons. It would be more correct not to revive (copy) the USSR, but to take the best from there and build it into the modern world.
      1. Algor73
        Algor73 10 December 2013 16: 27
        +3
        Firstly, in present-day Russia (as the offender of the USSR) there are much more minuses than pluses compared to the USSR. Yes, it’s hard to call pluses (name significant if you can), and secondly, building a state is not a LEGO constructor, every model has something that some people will perceive negatively, the state is a compromise of interests. But still, the USSR was a more just state.
  5. FormerMariman
    FormerMariman 10 December 2013 09: 18
    +3
    I think the analysis proposed by the author of the SWOT can fully reveal the picture only from the inhabitants of Russia, since honestly I can only answer the first part of the SWOT, it is difficult for me to judge the second. Thus, the picture obtained by the author of a virtual painless reverse transition to "K" as allusions to one-sided "matchmaking"!
    It is clear that there were more pluses in the USSR (you can list them for a long time) and for all, at all excesses, everyone only won except the Baltic republics (as they consider)!
    The assumptions about a turn towards a socialist course of development in the conditions of the established market economy and the same mentality of citizens ("personal over collective") in all the former republics are insane and unrealistic. USSR 2.0 is from the category of fiction, more like it is EurAsEs, but even then without any "K". Not because we don't want to yet, but because we can't.
    1. Asgard
      Asgard 10 December 2013 12: 48
      10
      First I’ll answer, pure statistics, so to speak))))
      USSR: (Was for citizens-ADEQUATE))
      1) Strengths of society: (collectivism, everything in sight, total employment, safety, concern for Children, literacy, respect for heroes and Labor, the development of creativity ....)
      2) Weaknesses of society: (hope for a state in everything, lack of alternatives in objections, hope for one party, lack of discussion, there was no economic freedom for citizens)).
      3) Opportunities for citizens: (career growth (although not welcomed)) clean food and living environment, guaranteed housing and work, free education and the inability to die with free medicine, sports and technical creativity are welcome, initiative is encouraged).
      4) Threats or risks for citizens: (Only the struggle with the ideology of the USSR was fraught)))).

      Contemporary Russian society: RF-occupation regime ...
      1) Strengths of society: (economic freedom for the elite).
      2) Weaknesses of society: (gigantic stratification, iron doors in entrances, drug addiction, sick children, GMOs in stores, no amateur public organizations, low education, stratification at the family level (atomization of society, propaganda of sex and violence, "prosperity" through TV and the media, zombification of citizens through Monospellable advertising ..... lack of childhood-the child is immediately included in the adult society).
      3) Opportunities for citizens: (a thief is thriving, with a certain abundance, it is unenforceable, with sneaky views career growth is possible, well, or along the Kindred line, traveling abroad in camps (all included)) freedom of speech (up to a certain point)).
      4) Threats or risks for citizens: (addiction, Police, Housing and Utilities (in winter)), Transport, Loans, job loss, health care, fake drugs, social apathy-drunkenness, GMO products, in the absence of control, microwave and microwave propagation )))).

      Across the USSR 2.0 ...... There will be NATIONALIZATION (this is unique) "effective" owners have shown themselves to be thieves, the laws adopted by athletes in the "duma" do not imply the development of the country, which means the abolition of all acts adopted since the beginning of 1985. The task of industrial development - This can only be done by the collective Reason (as an example - the state plan)) For this, Engineers are needed - it will be necessary to retrain "lawyers and managers" who by that time will not have money (hence free)))
      In the countryside he died as a class-peasantry, which means the state farms will need to be revived, again the state. In a huge country, the distribution of responsibilities, goods and logistics is again a state plan, if we want the population to grow and the state grow stronger))))


      So, so that USSR 3.0 (Power of Russia) would not chat there) it will still be.
      They grabbed 30 years of Shit with "thieves" in power and they need to Work ... Thieves in mines (in the Far North, We are in a free country without fines, loans, debts on machines, machines and a Head ...

      The latter must be used, but then something Wait it is not welcome)))))
      1. Just Vasilich
        10 December 2013 14: 13
        +1
        Vladimir, thank you for your contribution to the survey.
      2. internatio
        internatio 18 February 2014 01: 08
        0
        Asgard, why the USSR 3.0 and not 2.0? And, for starters - the CU, the Eurasian Union, and, years of commercials through ... - the evolutionary path or ...?
    2. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 10 December 2013 16: 39
      +1
      Quote: Former Mariman
      Assumptions of a U-turn towards the socialist course

      Legally, we did not leave this course.
  6. aszzz888
    aszzz888 10 December 2013 09: 33
    +3
    "Think about your homeland first, and then about yourself!" Remember the words of this song. Of course, they are relevant now, but somehow the priorities have changed places.
    1. Pit
      Pit 10 December 2013 11: 47
      +2
      From the same opera: Do not ask for a lighter weight, but ask for a stronger backpack.
      Although now everyone wants a stronger backpack, but I just would have dragged it
      somebody else and do not ... g, how much he tears. The main thing is that
      there everything is yours, your beloved and the porter cannot touch it. All
      they think only of their beloved, and what’s happening with a neighbor is not important if
      his mortal body did not stink and the stench did not go to your house.
  7. bairat
    bairat 10 December 2013 09: 37
    11
    THE USSR:
    1) Strengths of society: Stability and predictability. The leaders had a certain code that did not allow the construction of palaces and yachts. Corruption is minimal. There is no strong stratification of society.

    2) Weaknesses of society: The supremacy of ideology did not allow making decisions that were obvious to the economy. For the sake of the triumph of communism all over the world, huge funds were scattered in the wind. Inexplicable distortions in the provision of the republics, as I understand it, the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was at the bottom of the list of priority regions for supplying. Deficit of everything.
    3) Opportunities for citizens: The widest opportunities, workers were encouraged to get an education and move up the career ladder. Free medicine, holiday homes and more.
    4) Threats or risks for citizens: Even for a hint of entrepreneurship, it was possible to get the deadline. Strict censorship in all areas of life. The imposition of party propaganda.

    Modern Russian society:
    1) Strengths of society: Accessibility of information. An abundance of opportunities.
    2) Weaknesses of society: Everyone is for himself. No generality. Corruption has penetrated everywhere.
    3) Opportunities for citizens: Wide opportunities for capable and active people. Disabled and old people in a difficult situation.
    4) Threats or risks for citizens: If before the bandits were the main threat, now law enforcement officers have taken their place.

    This is generally the correct form of survey. And then we like to wave a saber while swearing or raising the USSR (RF) and simultaneously hanging labels on opponents. It was both bad and good.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 09: 59
      +1
      Thanks Ayrat! You are the first swallow, with an initiative!
    2. Ded_smerch
      Ded_smerch 10 December 2013 10: 06
      +1
      on 4 points: the USSR was different and were treated differently in different years. I recommend clarifying what period you voiced.
      2 points as well.
      1. bairat
        bairat 10 December 2013 10: 14
        0
        Well, I clarify, I spoke about the last decade of the USSR.
        According to paragraph 4. A neighbor in the country served in due time. During the year I changed two cars, and this actually became a crime. They imputed unearned income, and for a heap a garage was also confiscated.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. sergey32
      sergey32 10 December 2013 10: 18
      +5
      Airat, the autonomous republics of the RSFSR were not at the very bottom of the priority regions for supplying, it was worse in neighboring regions, for example, in Kirov. I lived in Mari El as a child, I remember how we would go to my parents ’homeland in Kirovskaya, on the border of the regions the asphalt ended, if it was bad, then you would go to the village only on GAZ 66. The shops are empty, the whole youth left, some grandmothers.
      1. Just Vasilich
        10 December 2013 10: 28
        0
        Dear commentators, first suggest your version of the SWOT analysis, and then discuss other options. So it will be fairer and more correct.
        1. Ded_smerch
          Ded_smerch 10 December 2013 10: 36
          0
          Dear Vasilich, I have already written my opinion on the topic of SWOT
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. bairat
        bairat 10 December 2013 10: 48
        +1
        Quote: sergey32
        it was worse in neighboring regions, for example in Kirov.

        Well, you have to convey your opinion. And then here are the residents of Kazakhstan, where, according to eyewitnesses, in each village in the village selmag there were televisions and refrigerators, they tell us about the abundance of those years. Not everywhere was the same.
    4. alone
      alone 10 December 2013 22: 27
      +1
      Quote: bairat
      Stability and predictability. The leaders had a certain code that did not allow the construction of palaces and yachts.

      In a predictable state, such as Gorbachev could not come to power and destroy the country. Once the country was destroyed, it means its stability was visible. The leaders didn’t have to build yachts and palaces. They all had the expense of the state. They preferred to keep the stolen in jewelry and in antiques.
      Quote: bairat
      Corruption is minimal.

      You are mistaken. Corruption has always been. Just caught those who stole a penny. And underground millionaires lived as they wanted.
      Quote: bairat
      3) Opportunities for citizens: The widest opportunities, workers were encouraged to get an education and move up the career ladder. Free medicine, holiday homes and more.

      In this I completely agree.
      Quote: bairat
      Strict censorship in all areas of life. The imposition of party propaganda.

      100% true.
      Quote: bairat
      Modern Russian society:

      But what you wrote here is also true. And it concerns not only Russia.
  8. ImPerts
    ImPerts 10 December 2013 09: 42
    +1
    Quote: makarov
    The fulfillment and enforcing of the principle “Collective above personal” destroyed or broke many brilliant and creative people. Indeed, in its continuation it read: - Whoever is not with us is against us. Not realizing that there is a MIDDLE. In extreme cases, the rule of the Golden Mean so claims.

    Do not tell))) It was time and prices were reduced)))
    "Artels and cooperatives: the basis of the working middle class"
    http://www.sensusnovus.ru/analytics/2013/11/21/17511.html
    A real, not literary, economy does not withstand the formalities of dualism. Tough antagonism (“prohibit freedom of entrepreneurship / business,” “only the market / only the plan”) becomes the lot of theorists, but in reality synthetic economic systems compete with each other, mixing up planning and market elements in different proportions. One of the products of this synthesis are artels and cooperatives, now crushed and half-forgotten.
  9. groin
    groin 10 December 2013 09: 42
    0
    In 1995 he was a student and read "Golgotha" by M. Lyubimov in the newspaper "Top Secret". It is not for me to judge what, it is true, that fiction, but to look at the world around under a different (not cluttered with ideology) gaze made me. the impact of certain emotions. How to create these emotions and, accordingly, influence our actions, a lot of professionals work. Remain independent (in thoughts) and believe in God, teach children. I advise those who have not read to read "Calvary" is still relevant today.
  10. Canep
    Canep 10 December 2013 09: 43
    +5
    I'll try.
    THE USSR:
    1) Strengths of society: (list).
    Better education, Confidence in tomorrow, Ideological content, Presence of global goals, Lack of stratification of society into oligarchs and paupers. Free housing education and medicine. Stable economic growth.
    2) Weaknesses of society: (list).
    Equalization of income (engineer and handyman received the same), Queue for housing and cars. Lack of public awareness. Deficit of some goods
    3) Opportunities for citizens: (list).
    Almost all the top leaders were from the bottom, that is, if you have abilities, the possibilities are endless. High possibility of mobility "for young people everywhere we have a road". Availability of leisure activities for children.
    4) Threats or risks to citizens: (list).
    Very limited nationalism. Alcoholism. Speculation on scarce goods.

    Modern Russian society:
    1) Strengths of society: (list).
    Religious freedom. Lack of deficit.
    2) Weaknesses of society: (list).
    The stratification of society into oligarchs and the poor. Actually paid medicine. Unavailability of housing. Corruption on all levels of government, from the sergeant of the traffic police to the minister. Lack of economic sovereignty (dependence on the dollar)
    3) Opportunities for citizens: (list).
    The possibility of treatment abroad, and generally the ability to travel the planet. Opportunity to receive education abroad. But all the possibilities for a lot of money. The ability to conduct your business.
    4) Threats or risks to citizens: (list).
    Organized crime. Addiction, alcoholism. Sects. Corruption. Unemployment.

    something like that, basically everything seems.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 10: 01
      +1
      Accepted, Minesweeper!
  11. HollyGremlin
    HollyGremlin 10 December 2013 10: 10
    -1
    To change one to another, you need to highlight the essence:
    1. The USSR was building "communism", social equality.
    2. In the current state, we are moving towards "democracy" with capitalism.
    The first has already passed, the second is full, and the third has not yet been invented (here I exaggerate a little, there are still options, but everyone has already tried).
  12. Not hearing
    Not hearing 10 December 2013 10: 11
    +4
    the USSR
    1 Strengths. High social protection: medicine, housing, education - for free. Lack of unemployment.
    2 Weaknesses. Deficit. Leveling. Lack of freedom of speech and religion.
    3 Opportunities for citizens. The widest opportunities for a citizen within the framework of the Soviet bloc, subject to political loyalty.
    4 Threats and risks for citizens. Political repression for dissent. Drunkenness. Theft.
    Modern Russia.
    1 Strengths. Freedom of speech. The ability to move around the world. The ability to create your own business and work for yourself and not for uncle. Freedom of religion.
    2 Weaknesses. Corruption, unemployment. Essentially paid medicine.
    3 Opportunities for citizens. For healthy and active - are endless. For the rest, it’s very bad.
    4 Threats and risks. Drugs, drunkenness, theft, terrorism.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 10: 30
      0
      Thank you, Sergey, accepted!
  13. Ded_smerch
    Ded_smerch 10 December 2013 10: 12
    +3
    After reading the comments I saw that the analysis of the USSR takes place mainly in the Brezhnev period (in particular, egalitarianism and attitude to commerce), I think this is not correct. In the USSR there were at least 6 periods and in each of them they treated the described phenomena differently.
  14. SAG
    SAG 10 December 2013 10: 19
    -2
    As briefly as possible (I hope I guessed with the context):
    1.1 Strong State
    1.2 Inefficient Economy
    1.3 Be no worse than others
    1.4 Minimum
    ---------------------------
    2.1 Efficient Economy
    2.2 Weak State
    2.3 Enrichment
    2.4 Poverty
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 10: 35
      0
      Thanks, SAG, accepted!
    2. Bezarius
      Bezarius 10 December 2013 11: 20
      +6
      1.2 Inefficient Economy

      What do you mean by "ineffective"? In my opinion, an economy that has shown growth of 20% or more for over 10 years cannot be ineffective.
      1. Canep
        Canep 10 December 2013 11: 41
        +3
        Yeah, and during the first five-year period, growth was 35%.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. engineer74
        engineer74 10 December 2013 11: 51
        +8
        I agree that the "ineffective" economy provided free housing, education, medicine, maintained a powerful military-industrial complex, maintained efficient air forces, promoted space programs, and developed a deliberately unprofitable agricultural sector.
        The only thing that the "inefficient" economy did not provide was 40 varieties of soy sausage, jeans and cheap cars.
        IMHO
        1. ICT
          ICT 10 December 2013 12: 06
          +2
          Quote: engineer74
          what the "inefficient" economy did not provide is 40 varieties of soy sausage

          those. the same ineffective economy forgot or thought it was not necessary to do something to save the people who created it from the wonderful word Get out request
          1. engineer74
            engineer74 10 December 2013 12: 21
            +3
            There is already a Filosovsky question: Which is better - a peaceful sky and free housing or jeans and sausage? smile
            Any economy ensures the interests of those in power, if the elite has rotted and is torn off from the people, then no economy will help here.
        2. SAG
          SAG 11 December 2013 06: 57
          0
          you do not turn on! performance indicator is expressed in%, and not in the volume of output. What are you interfering with cutlet flies? By your logic, a tank is an efficient vehicle!
          PS: in general, it was infa for the author at his request. And you poke me minuses the whole team!
      3. SAG
        SAG 11 December 2013 06: 52
        0
        a planned economy may not be effective; look at the economics textbook before poking cons. Do you know anything about Kosygin’s reforms, their causes, consequences and why they were turned off ???
    3. Sour
      Sour 10 December 2013 14: 52
      0
      Quote: SAG
      2.4 Poverty

      Poverty was enough then. And what else to name those who received a pension of 30 rubles? And there were many.
      1. SAG
        SAG 11 December 2013 07: 02
        +1
        the question is very extensive, you can answer all week! no context has been set (politics, economics, social conditions), no time period has been set.
        If we take developed socialism, then I disagree with you, there were practically no beggars, as evidenced by the coming era.
  15. Per se.
    Per se. 10 December 2013 10: 32
    +2
    SWOT analysis includes the concepts - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, where one object should be investigated and compared, and the author has two of them - society (strengths and weaknesses) and citizen (opportunities and threats). A SWOT analysis, although it involves a study of the strategic development and marketing plans of not only organizations (companies and firms), but also sectors of the economy, cities, individuals, nevertheless, transfer it to the assessment of an entire country (with many different institutions and objects) divided not only by socialism and capitalism, but also by time incorrectly. Which USSR is meant, 1928, 1937, 1980 or 1991 of the year? What the USSR might become in the 2013 year, we cannot know to compare with the capitalist Russia of the 2013 year. Of course, the world is seen differently from the window of the palace on Rublevka and the window of the shack in a dying village, and to assert that now both have equal opportunities, this is cynicism and demagogy. Capitalism has no future, whether you like it or not, but you have to return to the strengthening of social institutions and a planned economy, without this civilization, on a crowded planet, you cannot survive. Finally, capitalism is not the end in the development of society; it fulfilled its role and outlived itself in evolution. He who does not regret the collapse of the USSR does not have a heart, and he who DOES NOT desire its rebirth has neither a heart nor a head.
  16. Viktor Shmagin
    Viktor Shmagin 10 December 2013 10: 52
    +1
    For example, I choose K
  17. Egor.nic
    Egor.nic 10 December 2013 11: 06
    -13 qualifying.
    Article - tuftology ...
    Desire to realize unfulfilled dreams.
    The approach of the red revenge-seekers who missed or lost a piece of greasy cake.
    What was good about the USSR, what do you want to revive? - concentration camps for their people and to destroy everyone without exception who disagree with the party's policy, huge queues, lack of consumer goods and food throughout the country, poverty-stricken life in a style that is ugly but monotonous for the whole people and a brilliant life for the party nomenklatura, partocracy-bureaucracy , corruption-national elite living on subsidies from Russia, pumping resources into the national republics to the detriment of Russia and the Russian people. And in the end, what we get is a scream that Russia again "enslaved and occupied", but at the same time feeds them forcibly and for free, a beggarly life and a shameful pension for its people, a brainless economy and other "joys from Leninism-Stalinism" have already passed.
    What will change? - party officials, embezzlers and bribe takers will disappear, bribe givers and bribe takers will disappear, perfect people with new communist thinking will appear from nowhere, what if the quality of medicine grows to foreign, millions of mediocre engineers start to generate great ideas and create super technology, will culture and self-awareness of people grow?
    What will change in the minds of the whole people of the new USSR, what do you want to achieve and what to build, what is your great and deeply developed program, what will bring this to Russia and its people?
    Nothing will change, except for the redistribution of spheres of influence and the formation of new thieves' clans and the theft of budgetary flows. Nothing good for an ordinary person.
    Therefore, communism and the USSR is only one demagogy behind which are the personal interests of some at the expense of others.
    And for a start, Russia should be pulled out of the shit that the Communists drove it into, and then the Democrats, to revive the country, restore all destroyed human values ​​that have existed for thousands of years, and after a while, when Russia will stand firm on its feet, think about the possibility and conditions restoration of a great empire - but not the USSR.
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 10 December 2013 13: 02
      +2
      Sorry for the mat. But where did you see homeless people in the USSR, a drug addict and an initiate?
    2. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 14: 17
      +2
      Egor, you’re a magician! Of those that first smear everything in shit, both the past and the future, and then yourself go out into the arena in a white frill and with white gloves take out a chocolate future from your pocket.
      1. Egor.nic
        Egor.nic 10 December 2013 16: 40
        -6
        Unlike mummers and clowns like you, I don’t wear a mask, I call a spade a spade and I have nothing to do in the arena. To grimace and throw mud is your destiny.
        As far as tricks are concerned, I do my best to rake up the dirt and, helping the president to revive Russia, after brilliant figures.
        And who does not see the difference in the intentional destruction of a huge country (by the Communists themselves) and in the fall of the outdated communist system, he has not yet reached the point of understanding. Moreover, the country is destroyed again.
        With any reforms and division of power, ordinary people suffer, but do you (communists and other ... nists and ... aty) think about his aspirations, you do not care about ordinary people and Russia itself, because today you have been removed from power and from the feeder - here it is your great idea and pink glasses for the people.
        And judging by your vulgar reaction - criticism is not in the eyebrow but in the eye.
        PS
        It is not an easy period for Russia and the Russian people after the time of troubles, but it will worthily survive it. Who craves a new redivision of Russia will not wait.
        Russia has a great future, but without people like you.
        Life will show...
        I have the honor.
        1. Just Vasilich
          10 December 2013 17: 08
          0
          Follow your course.
  18. engineer74
    engineer74 10 December 2013 11: 31
    +3
    USSR (80s)
    1. Confidence in the future, collectivism, a sense of security.
    2. Dead ideology, level-playing (be like everyone else and do not stick your head out), delusional restrictions on information, closed borders.
    3. Unlimited opportunities for education, sports, child care (circles, sections, p / l), choice of field of activity (in accordance with the norms of the USSR).
    4. The planned system of law enforcement, the risk of getting a "bad" record in a personal file, ecology.
    Russia (2010s)
    1. The availability of information, the possibility of commercializing ideas, open borders.
    2. Mass egoism, the principle of "saving the drowning is the work of the drowning themselves", the search for personal gain in any situation.
    3. The free labor market and education, the possibility of enrichment in any way (to steal and not get paid).
    4. Alcohol, drugs, terrorism, become a victim of someone else's thirst for profit (in the broad sense).
    1. asadov
      asadov 10 December 2013 11: 59
      0
      all right, I join the "K". What did the loss of the USSR give us? Only disappointment in dreams and aspirations. A lot of pretentious words and promises and a terrible hopeless reality.
    2. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 13: 02
      +1
      Dmitry, thanks for the contribution to the common piggy bank
    3. The comment was deleted.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 10 December 2013 11: 39
    +3
    When promoting a market economy, egoism towards others is simultaneously propagated. Without this, there can be no market. However, history shows that only in a collective can a person survive. Unfortunately, you have to survive very often, and not only in historically distant times. Socialism as a stepping stone to communism is more powerful. Why did he lose? So it’s no secret that if traitors are leading the economy, industry, agriculture, the army, then what can they build? The same thing is happening now. Socialism stimulates common labor for the good of the country. Who doesn’t like this system? Yes, to those who intend to get rich by any means, and he wanted to cheat, decency, decency and everyone around.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 13: 06
      0
      Vladimir, you have a fairly informative comment. Can you arrange it in the form of the proposed form of SWOT analysis? If I do this in your place, I can distort.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 10 December 2013 13: 54
        0
        the proposed form in my opinion is somewhat simplified, because I answered as I answered, although very briefly. because the topic is so vast that you can compare and analyze for quite some time. Although if nevertheless point by point:
        THE USSR:
        1) unity and by the way, not in words, examples: earthquake in Tashkent, the Great Patriotic War, etc.
        2) The party structure, society should be non-partisan, then it will not be guiding and guiding.
        3) It’s not even worth comparing with opportunities for citizens.
        4) What threats, I lived most of my life in the USSR and did not see any threats for myself, I lived calmly and carefree.

        Modern Russian society:
        1) Strengths of society: (There is no society, and therefore there are neither its strengths nor weaknesses).
        2) Weaknesses of society: (Greed, anger, selfishness, psychosis as expanding schizophrenia can be listed for a very long time).
        3) Opportunities for citizens: (It all depends on the wallet).
        4) Threats or risks for citizens: (threats: yes, look at almost every apartment there are metal doors, there are metal bars on the first and second floors, and again, you can list for a long time).
        1. Just Vasilich
          10 December 2013 14: 07
          0
          Thank you, your point of view is clear.
  21. ICT
    ICT 10 December 2013 11: 39
    0
    Quote: Not Hearing
    Lack of freedom of speech and religion.
    did not encounter the second

    the answers in my opinion are obvious I agree for example
    Quote: SAG
    As briefly as possible (I hope I guessed with the context):
    1.1 Strong State
    1.2 Inefficient Economy
    1.3 Be no worse than others
    1.4 Minimum
    ---------------------------
    2.1 Efficient Economy
    2.2 Weak State
    2.3 Enrichment
    2.4 Poverty
    (sorry for plagiarism)

    the question must be posed differently, how can we (people from the bottom) change life in our country for the better and is it even possible? in the words of the classic omitting the first part: What to do ?
  22. SPLV
    SPLV 10 December 2013 11: 45
    0
    And I will fit.
    THE USSR.
    1. The existence of ideology. The unity of society. Social guarantees. Hope for a better future! Equality. The prestige of the army and navy. Fairly adequate UK. The bowels are for everyone.
    2. Formality of ideology. Bureaucracy. Partial deficit.
    3. The widest at some limits.
    4. Do not renounce the sum and the prison.
    RF
    1. Declaration of Liberty.
    2. Lack of freedom. Lack of ideology. More bureaucracy and bureaucrats. Social inequality. Liberal Criminal Code. A lot of stupid laws. National wealth is unreasonably used by units.
    3. Steal. Cheat. Sit down. Work for a low salary or for an unreasonably high salary. Many new professions: drug dealer, prostitute, pimp (they were before, but without advertising, and in a smaller number). More opportunities to live without actually working.
    4. Do not renounce the sum and the prison. And from poverty.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 13: 11
      0
      Adolfovich, thank you, your opinion is accepted
    2. Gardamir
      Gardamir 10 December 2013 13: 31
      +1
      Liberalism is also an ideology. And it hinders life no less than the communist one.
  23. saag
    saag 10 December 2013 12: 01
    +2
    ================================================== ==============================
    ==
    THE USSR:
    1) Strengths of society: (the presence of a unifying idea in society).
    2) Weaknesses of society: (bureaucracy, closed country).
    3) Opportunities for citizens: (to grow professionally, climbing the social ladder).
    4) Threats or risks for citizens: (the word said, in different epochs there are different risks, for example, under Stalin there were much more, under Brezhnev less).

    Modern Russian society:
    1) Strengths of society: (hard to say).
    2) Weaknesses of society: (disunity, there is no national idea).
    3) Opportunities for citizens: (the acquisition of any benefits in accordance with the financial situation).
    4) Threats or risks for citizens: (interethnic conflicts, external influence, separatism).

    Free comment.
    ================================================== ==============================
    ==
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 14: 42
      0
      Saag, thanks for participating in the survey, your opinion will be taken into account.
  24. Igor39
    Igor39 10 December 2013 12: 17
    +2
    USSR 80 years
    Strengths
    1.Free education, medicine, inexpensive travel in any transport.
    2. The absence of unemployment, respect for the person of work, provision of housing for the citizens (acceptable)
    3. The correct youth policy, passion for sports, patriotism, building groups.
    4. Development of scientific potential.
    Weak sides
    1. Lack of private property and free market.
    2. The strongest propaganda of communist ideology.
    3. Shortcomings in the development of light and food industries.
    4. Squandering huge funds to support ideology abroad.
    Modern Russia (Kazakhstan)
    Strengths
    1. The ability to build a business, private property.
    2.Ability to access any information.
    3. A huge selection of products of light and food industries from different countries and manufacturers.
    4.Ability to travel the world.
    Weaknesses.
    1. Illegal privatization (robbery of financially illiterate citizens) social stratification of society
    2. Corruption, bribery, patronage, impoverishment of the unprotected layers of the population, rampant crime, prostitution, drug addiction, drug trafficking, human trafficking and their organs.
    3. Abandoned youth (the future), the promotion of free love and homosexuality, alcoholism, beer alcoholism, tobacco smoking, disunity and general degradation of society.
    4. Official chaos and disrespect for the person of work.
    5. Uncontrolled rampant religions and sects.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 14: 45
      0
      Igor, thank you for your contribution to the common piggy bank of opinions.
  25. Boris55
    Boris55 10 December 2013 12: 32
    0
    Quote: just Vasilich
    Back in the USSR: “OT” motivation or “K” motivation?

    When talking about the USSR, could you indicate in what period of our history you mean:
    - Trotskyist-Leninsky
    - Stalin
    - Khrushchevsky-Brezhnevsky
    - Gorbachevsko-Yeltsinskits

    Depending on these periods, there will be answers from OT or K. To speak about the USSR in general is not entirely true.
    Surely there will be lovers to wave a saber, build something, do nothing or drink everything ... they will have completely different motives from OT or K.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 10 December 2013 13: 47
      +4
      I said in the comment above about the same thing, I want to add for Just Vasilich, such a "SWOT analysis" would be more accurate if the army with the army, education with education, health care with health care and so on were compared on points 1-4 ... Without this, it is difficult to count on any acceptable objectivity when everything is interfered in one heap. In addition, even when one person believes that the weak side of the USSR is the "closed borders", one can argue that this, at that time, had advantages, and it was possible to travel to the same Bulgaria as "abroad", and so on many issues. Most importantly, do not die from stupidity and betrayal of the Soviet Union, by 2013 it could have become much better than what it was, and, most importantly, is now. Speaking of the revival of the USSR, there is no return to the past, to Khrushchev or Gorbachev, one must understand the revival of a new superpower, a new Soviet Union, at a new and better stage in the evolution of socialism.
      1. Just Vasilich
        10 December 2013 15: 00
        +1
        Sergey, I read both of your critical comments. You can agree with some of your points. In particular, I agree that this is not a classic SWOT analysis, but a modification of it, since in the classics the first two criteria (strengths and weaknesses) relate to the object of analysis, and the 3-4 criteria (opportunities and risks / threats) refer to environmental characteristics.

        But let's try to work with the proposed option, where, in my opinion, the concepts of society and its citizens are organically combined.

        I promise to describe all the methodological inconsistencies in a generalizing article.
  26. Lk17619
    Lk17619 10 December 2013 12: 35
    +5
    Exaggerating a little:
    the USSR
    1. Confidence in tomorrow (if you work normally, there will be a day, there will be food.) It seems to me that this outweighed all the negatives of life in the USSR.
    RF
    1. In general, you don’t know what will happen tomorrow (either you will become a pauper, or the state will rob you, or your own police will kill you) ..... And all the other pluses are now not so important.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 10 December 2013 12: 51
      +1
      Quote: Lk17619
      ... if you work fine ...

      And you will not work for the state (private ownership of the means of production is prohibited) - we will force it!

      The 12 article of the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 of the year read: “Work in the USSR is a duty and a matter of honor for every capable citizen on the principle:“ who does not work, he does not eat ””

      209.1 Article. Malicious evasion of the decision on employment and termination of parasitic existence

      Malicious evasion of a person leading an antisocial lifestyle from fulfilling a decision of the executive committee of a district (city) Council of Workers' Deputies on employment and termination of parasitic existence

      - Punished by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to one year or correctional labor for the same term.

      The same act, committed by a person previously convicted under the first part of this Article, shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to two years. "

      Parasites recognized as persons not working for more than 3 months.
      1. ekzorsist
        ekzorsist 10 December 2013 21: 30
        -1
        Yes it was and I think that few people think that this is bad!
        With the very postulate - "To each according to his work and from each according to his abilities." It seems that how should it be?
        And again now we constantly hear - "What have you done for the country?" So then this question was more relevant and, accordingly - "... Article 12 of the USSR Constitution of 1936 read:" Labor in the USSR is a duty and a matter of honor for every capable citizen according to the principle: "who does not work, he does not eat “” ".
        In my opinion, everything is correct.
    2. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 14: 38
      0
      Well, Ivan, the basic idea is clear ...
  27. Bigriver
    Bigriver 10 December 2013 12: 48
    +1
    Quote: Ded_smerch
    "The copy is ALWAYS worse than the original" huh ???? Well, tell us how the elite of the Republic of Ingushetia did not decompose and how well the majority of the people lived.

    I don’t understand who bit you and what does RI have to do with it? Somewhere I made it clear that I consider RI as a matrix for copying?
    1. Ded_smerch
      Ded_smerch 10 December 2013 13: 23
      0
      then explain to me not literate what was the post about the copy then?
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 10 December 2013 13: 35
        +2
        Quote: Ded_smerch
        then explain to me not literate what was the post about the copy then?

        You can dream about the return of the USSR with all its pros and cons. This is a dream of copy and idiocy.
        And you can, exploring life and new opportunities, dream of a New Empire and build it.
        1. Ded_smerch
          Ded_smerch 10 December 2013 13: 48
          +1
          Then I'm sorry I misunderstood you. It is not just pointless to return the USSR such as it was, but it is also not possible because the country of the USSR was formed as a result of historical events that most likely will never be repeated.
  28. Candy wrapper
    Candy wrapper 10 December 2013 13: 14
    +2
    Caring for a person, striving for moral and intellectual education of adolescent generations. So, as brought up the generation of 20-30 years. XX century who won the Second World War (for some reason, subsequent generations have not been brought up like that). This is the most valuable thing that happened in the USSR. And it is necessary to return, return the USSR, albeit in a different format (Russia + Belarus + Ukraine), well, after Gorbachev’s betrayal, it would be logical to make the post of Secretary General exclusively nominal, and to concentrate the fullness of the supreme power in the hands of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, i.e. finally get away from tsarism.
    It would be nice if science and the Russian Academy of Sciences are more actively involved in state building. For example, instead of the Ministry of Economics, the corresponding structure of the RAS, etc. Each ministry is replaced by a research institute. And the party - in the trash. The whole ideology and national idea is the intellectual and moral development of a person and social justice (payment according to work).
  29. Gardamir
    Gardamir 10 December 2013 13: 15
    +1
    the USSR
    1. Stability, confidence in the future.
    2. Lack of freedom of movement.
    3. Affordable education, affordable work ...
    4. The usual risks for any system.

    Russia.
    1.3. The ability to move around the world.
    2.4. Lack of state.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 14: 35
      0
      Leonid, it’s understandable from the USSR, but somehow not quite with Russia ...
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 10 December 2013 16: 04
        +5
        I meant that in the USSR we could always feel the protection of the state, sometimes bothersome. Now our federal entity has completely eliminated itself. We ourselves must heal ourselves, protect ourselves, obtain our daily bread ourselves. And complete freedom, as in space. It would seem that this is bad. But federal education reminds of itself. Says you pay me taxes, and I will give you tenants (guest workers), house-2, ege. In short, I am dissatisfied with modern Russia on all counts.
  30. Bigriver
    Bigriver 10 December 2013 13: 38
    +3
    And nitsche, if dofiga? belay
    the USSR:
    1) Strengths of society:
    - The strongest humanistic super-ideology of a just society without borders. Man is a brother to each other, regardless of nationality and property status;
    - the desire of the authorities to give any person, regardless of their starting conditions, the opportunity to choose a personal realization;
    - paternalism, ensuring security (economic, moral, cultural, physical).
    2) Weaknesses of society:
    - self-reproduction of power. A one-party system and a lack of competition of views would inevitably lead to decay of the ruling party;
    - lack of control over power by society;
    - lack of interest of the team and the individual in the results of labor;
    - paternalistic regulation in all areas of society;
    - the overgrown paternalism created a weak society that could not defend itself economically, morally, or culturally when the "pope" died;
    - a lie in society that has become the norm. Dividing the life of society into public (vowel) and kitchen (intimate).
    3) Opportunities for citizens:
    - conflicting. On the one hand, freedom was declared and ensured to achieve any personal professional goals. On the other hand, it turned out that a social elevator is closely connected with a person’s ability to endure lies, to lie and mimic himself;
    - The opportunities for personal growth are limited, due to the dosing and censorship of information exchange;
    - very limited freedom of movement around the world.
    4) Threats or risks for citizens:
    - the blocked channels of ideological and cultural replenishment from the outside world created a human child who is not able to act individually and responsibly.

    Modern Russian society:
    1) Strengths of society:
    - informational openness creates freedom of choice of points of view in various fields. Formally, this creates the prerequisites for legitimizing the decisions of the authorities.
    - Greater interest of the employee (and society) in the final results of labor;
    - competition of goods and personnel;
    - freedom to receive and create information;
    2) Weaknesses of society:
    - lack of a unifying idea and long-term motivation. The lack of ideology opens society for alien ideological and cultural infections;
    - strong property stratification divides the society into communities;
    - Lack of a high-quality power-society dialogue. However, in the USSR it was not at all;
    - lack of law for everyone. Although, for the USSR-is also characteristic.
    3) Opportunities for citizens:
    - for an active person - wide opportunities for personal, business growth, self-realization;
    - in potential, almost unlimited freedom of movement around the world.
    4) Threats or risks for citizens:
    - The extraordinary ability to "lose" everything in an instant;
    - a very uncertain degree of citizen protection by the state.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 14: 19
      0
      Okay, Big River, thanks!
  31. Sour
    Sour 10 December 2013 15: 13
    0
    THE USSR:
    1) I will highlight the strongest side - the ability (albeit with difficulty) to suppress nationalism.
    2) I will highlight the weakest side - the terribly inefficient spending of state money, just burying it in the ground and throwing it into the wind (current corruption and embezzlement rest against the backdrop of the then mess). At that time, they didn’t steal a lot (only by little), but 90% of the money was wasted, which is no better than theft (although to whom it’s like, for some it’s the opposite).
    Current Russia:
    Strengths:
    1.1) The ability to earn to the best of abilities, the ability to relax to the best of what is earned.
    1.2) Lack of government interference in personal life.
    Weak sides:
    2.1) Poor education, just ugly.
    2.2) Low prestige of military service.
    2.3) Lack of clear guidelines for society.
    ---------------
    Everything else is characteristic of both formations. Or are these shortcomings, which are a continuation of the merits. For example, Soviet social security is not an unambiguous plus, it also has many minuses. The current freedom of speech is also not an unambiguous plus, it is full of minuses.
    I indicated only those shortcomings that can be eliminated without touching the positive points.
    I would also add that many modern problems have grown out of the problems of the Soviet era (for example, corruption, as well as the irresponsibility of the authorities to the people), therefore I do not single out them separately. He highlighted only those problems that arose independently of the past.
    1. Just Vasilich
      10 December 2013 15: 36
      0
      Accepted, Sour, thanks for your input!
  32. saag
    saag 10 December 2013 15: 17
    0
    Quote: Per se.
    In addition, even when one person believes that the weak side of the USSR is the "closed borders", one can argue that this, at that time, had advantages,

    Actually, this meant not only the impossibility of a person to go on vacation abroad, but the country's closeness to new technologies, because there were many restrictions on trade and there was nothing to come up with (as in the case of the purchase of machine tools in Japan) to buy the goods needed for the country
    1. Sour
      Sour 10 December 2013 15: 28
      +3
      Quote: saag
      (as in the case of the purchase of machine tools in Japan) in order to buy the goods needed for the country

      My brother worked for me and continues to work in the military industry. In their 70s and 80s, all the equipment was German and Japanese. So the military power of the USSR was forged. I myself worked at GAZ, it was full of German trophy machines and American Lend-Lease. But the Soviet machine-tool industry worked for a warehouse, machine tools (in such quantity) were not needed by anyone, stood in warehouses, waiting for the deadlines, then they went to remelting. But on paper, there was always an increase in production and the absence of unemployment (after all, no one stopped production because of the uselessness of products, although there were plenty of unnecessary products). Light industry also worked at 50% for the warehouse and landfill, because everyone who could dress and put on shoes in imports. That's how it was. It's just that not everyone knows or remembers it. And it annoys me personally when they say that there were no economic downturns in the USSR. Yes, they were not there, but there were worse things — the aimless work of entire factories, millions of people.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 10 December 2013 20: 22
        +3
        Quote: Sour
        That's how it was.
        There were captured German machines, there were Lend-Lease machines, but there were also Soviet ones, and they were the majority. The army and navy did not feed themselves with humanitarian aid, there was first-class Soviet cosmonautics, aviation, navy, armored vehicles. I was fond of photography, had the Soviet "Zorkiy" and "Zenith", where are our cameras and radios, bicycles and motor boats now? Say, "everyone who could, dressed and put on shoes in import", this is now the country is shod and dressed in Chinese consumer goods, moreover, it eats GMO stuff and TUSHNAYA boodyag. Moreover, not only food, but also medicines, which was impossible to imagine in the USSR, are bodyated. For this, it is necessary to plant a spruce stake, but for the millions and billions in profits of such "pharmaceuticals", traders caught in counterfeits pay penny fines. We helped and fed half of the world before, now they collect money on TV from all over the country for the operation of the child, and people beg and rummage through the trash heaps. Doesn't that annoy you?
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 10 December 2013 19: 57
      +2
      Quote: saag
      Actually, this meant not only the impossibility of a person to go on vacation abroad, but the country's closeness to new technologies
      I will answer you so here, saag, for more than 20 years there is no USSR, Russia has entered the WTO, and our overseas "partners" are in no hurry to lift their ban on favorable trade with our country (Jackson-Vanik amendment), which the United States introduced back in 1974 year. Moreover, the "Magnitsky law" appeared, the list of restrictions on which the United States intends to expand. The EU, also those still "friends", not only are they one-sidedly striving to use the WTO trade, they are also considering the possibility of imposing trade sanctions against Russia, on our restrictions in relation to Kiev and Chisinau. Do not flatter yourself, no one will bring the latest technologies to us on a silver platter, and, even, will not sell them, and we are still using Soviet technologies, mined and created.
  33. saag
    saag 10 December 2013 15: 49
    +1
    Quote: Sour
    Yes, they were not there, but there were worse things — the aimless work of entire factories, millions of people.

    The fact that there was no sales of goods does not make the work aimless, at first glance it seems so, first of all people were busy, social infrastructure worked at the enterprise, vocational education aimed at this industry, the region was at least afloat, migration flows were regulated, in general, people knew something and knew how to organize and produce it, another thing it was regulated planning for five years in advance
    1. Sour
      Sour 10 December 2013 16: 05
      0
      Quote: saag
      firstly people were busy

      Well, if it is considered as an end in itself, then the USSR was an ideal society.
      But the laws of the economy do not tolerate violence against them, they pay very cruelly. The main reasons for the collapse of the USSR are, along with nationalism, artificial employment and artificial growth of production, and this means the release of a huge amount of resources and human labor.
      At each enterprise in the USSR there were a considerable number of people who did not do anything decisively, knit stockings or solve crossword puzzles, or simply wandered around without purpose on the territory of the enterprise. They were not paid much, but still paid. It was hidden unemployment, and their salary was hidden benefit. And this demotivated the population, for it knew that they would not give him anyway to die of starvation. And with such a population, advanced countries cannot be caught up. Only a country with people living according to the laws of competition, and not according to the laws of a social hostel, can be a strong country. And this is precisely our main misfortune to this day. People weaned to work, weaned to fight for survival. Yes, weaned that it is still hard to learn. Now at the age of 18 it is full of those who have not done anything for the country, but are outraged that the state does not want to take it for maintenance.
      Quote: saag
      The fact that there was no sale of goods does not make the work aimless,

      This alone makes the work aimless, and does nothing else. If the lack of demand for the product of your labor does not matter, then labor does not matter. Labor is not entertainment. They just don’t do it.
  34. IslamMoyReligion
    IslamMoyReligion 10 December 2013 16: 07
    +2
    Vasilich is that a dream of nationalization? Or are you nostalgic? USSR 2.0 USSR 3.0 paper will endure everything! Nevertheless, if you close your eyes and dream, then I am for "K"!
  35. Gardamir
    Gardamir 10 December 2013 16: 29
    +4
    I’ll add to the USSR there was a communist ideology, which had not only minuses, but also pluses, now we understand this. And in modern Russia, a liberal ideology (as if they did not say that there is no ideology. It always exists)
    And also when we remember the USSR. We remember, not socialism, but what can be called the "SPIRIT OF THE EPOCH". Here everything is the home of the Pioneers and the carefree childhood, when maniacs and pedophiles met one for 10 years. And then I don't understand, but in that country (USSR), which I lived in there was everything. Carpets, crystal and red caviar did not interest me. The empty shelves began during the Marked One and not immediately.
    1. Sour
      Sour 10 December 2013 17: 26
      +4
      Quote: Gardamir
      Everything is here and at home Pioneers and carefree childhood

      Yes, the fact of the matter is that for some the USSR it’s just childhood memories, and for some it’s just the stories of mother and grandmother.
      But at the time of the collapse of the USSR, I was already in my 4th decade, had already managed to get a higher education, start a family, work in civilian life and serve in the army, gain experience in managing people and gain some knowledge of life and economics. Of course, it is difficult to debate with those for whom the USSR is the "home of pioneers". It's simple for them. And they still do not understand why everything collapsed then. Explained except that "the intrigues of enemies", there are no other explanations.
      And the recipe for all troubles, as a rule, is the same - "shoot". Nothing else is suggested. At the same time, the confidence that they will definitely not be shot.
      But this only disorients the youth. And she needs to tell the truth. Otherwise, she will not recognize anything and will move in the wrong directions. The outcome is predictable. And I am offended for the State, and not only for the "spirit of that era." We will continue to hold on to this "spirit" - we will completely profuse the State.
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 10 December 2013 17: 41
        +1
        I accept your criticism. But the time of resentment has passed. Suggest.
        1. Sour
          Sour 10 December 2013 18: 02
          +4
          Yes, I already suggested a hundred times, I came across a stupid minus.
          1) In the field of economics, the long-term benefit for the state and the nation should be put in the first place, without populism and without targeting certain segments of the population, both the poorest and the richest. Reduction of imports (where possible) due to the development of its production.
          2) In the field of social policy - assistance to those who really need, and not to everyone. Young people must earn money on their own (exception for disabled people and single mothers). I'm retired, but I also work. And at the same time I know young people, quite healthy, whose salary is less than my pension. But they are all waiting for manna from heaven, a good "Fuhrer", and as a remedy for all problems, they offer someone to "shoot". If youth is our future, then this is a shitty future.
          3) In the field of the fight against corruption - first of all, start with yourself, and not appeal for executions. In Denmark and New Zealand, the lowest level of corruption is not because everyone is shot there, but because there do not give bribes and they do not steal even on trifles, and if a neighbor steals, they will definitely report him. If we want to live the same way, then we must be the same, and not scream about "executions of corrupt officials." What's the point that they shoot in China? Corruption is not decreasing, and they admit it themselves.
          4) In the field of national politics - a bet on the indigenous peoples of Russia, as state-forming, primarily on Russian. Who wants to integrate into Russia - welcome. Others should not forget that they are outsiders here, that they have their own states, and if they want equality, then do not forget that no one called them here.
          5) In the field of foreign policy:
          5.1) Calculate long-term interests, do not support those who betray anyway.
          5.2) Remember that they respect the strong, and not those who speak beautifully in the UN Security Council.
          5.3) Foreign policy must be subordinate to domestic. Before thinking about integration with someone, you need to calculate how this will affect the Russian people. And without sentimentality about "brotherhood and unity", this is a road to a dead end, this is the death of the Russian nation, this sacrifice is not clear to what and to whom, it is not clear in the name of what and whom.
          You can talk for a long time. As far as possible, I try to convey my views to everyone. And not just to convey, but to argue them.
          1. Gardamir
            Gardamir 10 December 2013 18: 45
            0
            Well, here we are one. But, on 3 points. The ideology of the federal president is such that corruption must be encouraged. The atmosphere in the country and young people go to officials. After all, bureaucracy is the most profitable business. It is necessary to change the ideology.
            And in vain the federal president says. that we are supposedly a multinational and multiconfessional country. We are a single people of a single state.
            The rest is fully supported.
            1. Sour
              Sour 10 December 2013 19: 10
              +1
              Quote: Gardamir
              The ideology of the federal president is such that corruption must be encouraged. The atmosphere in the country and young people go to officials. After all, bureaucracy is the most profitable business. It is necessary to change the ideology.

              Ideology is needed. A clear and understandable, but not populist, but really patriotic.
              Encouragement of corruption? Probably it is. Because this is the most convenient way to govern the country now. But the problem also lies in the fact that people are accustomed to corruption, and moreover, it generates it with their behavior, their mentality. Not only power is corrupt with us, but the whole people. And as you please shuffle the officials, the new officials will come from this very people, and not fly from the moon. Or do you think that Putin travels to villages and cities and picks up in power who would be worse, the most corrupt? You don’t have to think like that, with anyone we appoint, everything will be the same. Because the people themselves reproduce corruption and do not mind it. But he objects mainly to those who live richly. We honestly earned a million dollars cause more anger and hatred among the people than stolen a hundred rubles. And this mentality is the worst threat to our future. When people talk about corruption, our people are not interested in the rule of law (nobody cares about it), but the so-called social justice (in the Bosky sense). And the government just adapts to it. The people, until they overcome this, will not have honest power, they simply have nowhere to come from.
  36. saag
    saag 10 December 2013 18: 06
    0
    Quote: Sour
    This alone makes the work aimless, and does nothing else. If the lack of demand for the product of your labor does not matter, then labor does not matter. Labor is not entertainment. They just don’t do it.

    I remember the times when, for example, there were watermelons in Astrakhan and they didn’t know what to do with them, but in other regions they didn’t exist at all, this does not mean that they were grown in vain and their work was aimless in general, production has nothing to do with it, it’s already the problem of marketing
    Quote: Sour
    Well, if it is considered as an end in itself, then the USSR was an ideal society.

    This is not an end in itself - work for the sake of work, a busy person receiving a salary and an unemployed person think of completely different things, which is why now there is an invasion of the people from Central Asia into Russia, because they have nowhere to work there or no income at all, and for some reason in Russia it’s I don’t like why, is this the economy of competition?
    1. Sour
      Sour 10 December 2013 19: 13
      0
      Quote: saag
      production has nothing to do with it, this is the problem of marketing

      Your hint understood. The people are engaged in production, and the bosses should be engaged in marketing. Right? No need to tear production from sales, this is artificial.
      But if we talk about the USSR, then where was the product of the time to be sold, for example, winter coats and boots that were worn only by poor pensioners and were released all over the country? Where to sell them? And this is not the only example.
  37. The comment was deleted.
  38. ImPerts
    ImPerts 10 December 2013 18: 16
    +4
    "From" or "To".
    That is not the problem. The problem is this:
  39. saag
    saag 10 December 2013 19: 47
    +1
    Quote: Sour
    winter coats and boots worn only by poor pensioners, but were issued all over the country?

    As long as I remember, they wore coats and boots, imports were so scarce that the vast majority could not wear them
    1. Sour
      Sour 10 December 2013 20: 01
      +1
      But for as long as I can remember, for some reason everything was imported - a Japanese jacket "marubeni", a Chinese winter hat "golden leaf", two Czech suits, Indian jeans, Romanian and GDR shirts, Polish ankle boots ... Only a sheepskin coat was domestic. , and then not factory, but sewn from a private owner. The clock was also Soviet. Well, of course, the uniform was domestic, I was an officer then. But my civilian relatives also mostly dressed and put on imported shoes. Although they did not belong to any "cream of society", ordinary workers and employees.
  40. Sour
    Sour 10 December 2013 19: 48
    0
    Well, straight, everyone who has a visa to the United States is a "brain drain". The citizen has completely lost his mind. I have a nephew in the States who lived and worked, and not at all in a prestigious job. So what? I earned money to pay off the mortgage and buy a car, and returned home to Russia. And he is not going to the States anymore. You never know who takes a visa to the States? The same tourists, for example. There is a "brain drain", but judging by the queues at the US Embassy is a very strange line of thought.
    1. vladek64
      vladek64 11 December 2013 11: 20
      0
      Quote: Sour
      A citizen has completely lost his mind.


      Showing disrespect for one of the creators of the Soviet space industry, you dishonor your parents who did not instill in you respect for elders. And also set a bad example for your children.
  41. MaKeNa
    MaKeNa 10 December 2013 20: 20
    +1
    In my opinion, everything is simple! We had two options - either West or East. We chose the beautiful label "Made of ......" There was no party, no pioneers, no Komsomol, no Great country. And in the East (it is clear where) everything remained as before, the party, the pioneers, and the Komsomol ... and the Great Country is the second economy in the world! Well, we are not lucky with the choice of the path in the 20th century, we are not lucky! and that's it!
  42. AlexA
    AlexA 10 December 2013 20: 36
    +3
    Quote: Asgard
    First, I’ll answer, pure statistics, so to speak)))) USSR: (It was ADEQUATE for citizens))

    I do not want to repeat myself. All that IMHO should is with Asgard. I subscribe. Please attach.
  43. Candy wrapper
    Candy wrapper 10 December 2013 21: 28
    0
    In general, the proposal of the author of the article to describe the USSR and the Russian Federation on four points is inadequate in my opinion. It seems like an attempt to equate the Russian Federation with the USSR, they say that both the USSR and the Russian Federation have their own + and -. But after all, the Russian Federation and the USSR did not stand near. This is the same as offering to paint on + and - threshing floor and cake. Litter thieves and a great country.
  44. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 10 December 2013 21: 41
    0
    Actually, I don’t think I’m smart myself, I’m thinking that you need to compare over the years. From Russia, the new 23rd and the USSR means 40th, take and compare. So I think it will be fair.
  45. Current 72
    Current 72 11 December 2013 04: 22
    +1
    In the USSR there was a slogan-appeal: EQUAL RIGHTS and EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES for EVERYONE, and in the aftermath of the war years this was confirmed by the unprecedented work of all people. But after Stalin's death, this magnificent appeal, slogan was gradually forgotten, especially managers and bureaucrats (as we them they called parteigenoss) .And after the collapse of the USSR, this slogan-appeal was completely forgotten. It turned out that the goose is not a comrade. I rejoice more for returning to the post-war STALIN USSR. In the USSR it was bad, but good still prevailed.
  46. Kostya pedestrian
    Kostya pedestrian 11 December 2013 06: 54
    0
    The USSR was not an ideal. There were people worthy of imitation like some of the life systems, including the educational and moral-moral interconnection of generations that the same KhAC could not create in 1000, or destroy.

    But it was a worthy springboard for the development and growth of the well-being of our peoples.

    By the way, if the Marines read, this is when the Nazi krigmarins gave you cuffs and took the melee weapons, sacred to each marine - a sickle and a hammer. (For clarification, see the coat of arms of Austria) And then some sort of escaped criminal-recidivist, and even omitted by our red soldiers, will hold you for suckers? It's time to remember the grandmothers and grandfathers.

    PiS: Eddie Murphy's hammer, our kid, from black pea coats! Not everyone can make the Schwartz jump and bark like a dog in "A Trip to America". Did this secret society like Mu (r) Doc Rupert from The Simpsons bombed skyscrapers and show the Pentagon?

    Although, these crusaders since the time of Chudsky (miracle Nissan Di2zel?), The battles were frostbitten. Full bulls, do not spare no children, not women for the sake of Deutsche.

    And in general, I don’t understand if they have a Schwartz who is the ex-governor or a jumper from our movie "Girls"?

    And in general, Girls, where is the article about the Huns here, I really miss our server latitudes, hanging out with our friends rajas under the sunny sky of Australia.
  47. demotivator
    demotivator 11 December 2013 06: 56
    +2
    "... I will tell him how it was with me
    How they treated me for freedom
    How they wanted me to be blind ... ".
    Only a downright stupid person, like Gazmanov, could come up with such a thing that in the USSR people were made blind. And who carried out a massive cultural revolution that has no world analogues in the history of mankind and the elimination of the illiteracy of the population? Why did the Soviet government need this if it wanted "I was blind"? Yes, under the Soviets, not everything was good and smooth, but there is no need to juggle!
    1. Just Vasilich
      11 December 2013 09: 49
      +1
      Well, he probably didn’t come up with it. He, the paid showman, performer, fulfilled the order.
  48. Nursultan
    Nursultan 11 December 2013 08: 08
    0
    THE USSR:
    1) Strengths of society: Each person felt that his homeland needed him. Throughout his life's journey, he was accompanied by the state in the form of free admission to kindergartens and schools, receiving free higher education with subsequent employment. (it all depended on the person himself). A person had the opportunity to grow spiritually by going into science or art (all outstanding people were initially workers in factories and plants). People were primarily proud of their country; they were confident in the future and felt safe under the protection of the Red Army of the USSR.

    2) Weaknesses of society:
    Too bureaucratic apparatus.

    3) Opportunities for citizens:
    Growth opportunity and free choice of specialty. (it all depended on the person himself).

    4) Threats or risks for citizens: I can not clearly answer.

    Modern Russian society (or any post-Soviet society):

    1) Strengths of society:
    the opportunity to make money on others.

    2) Weaknesses of society:
    General corruption, raiding, fraternity and clannishness, lawlessness of law enforcement agencies, kickbacks, legal fraud, speculation on anything, etc.

    3) Opportunities for citizens: If you are not in a team or a relative, then you have no opportunities.

    4) Threats or risks for citizens:
    Constant threats from organized crime groups and terrorists, there is no confidence in the future.
    1. Just Vasilich
      11 December 2013 09: 45
      0
      Thanks Nursultan, accepted.
  49. brainkiller
    brainkiller 11 December 2013 13: 43
    +1
    you know, a lot has been said here but I want to add only one.
    I do not want to return to the USSR, because the result of unparalleled work for decades, insane simply insane dedication and heroism of people who raised a country destroyed after the war with their hands, all this can be merged overnight with a group of traitors from whom it is impossible to defend oneself.
    The result of this whole story was that the USSR raised an elite which, like natives, can be said to have sold the state for beads, and there would have been no other Gorbachev.
    What about the people? What are people? Freethinkers were not held in high esteem.
  50. The comment was deleted.