Stalin and the wind of history
Once, Stalin said that after his death, a lot of garbage would be put on his grave, but the wind stories dispel it. Everything happened just as the leader had foreseen. Less than a few years, N. Khrushchev (exactly at his request to increase the quota for execution, Stalin wrote: “Calm down, you fool”) began pouring dirt on the leader as one of the main “Stakhanovite terror” 1930s. Khrushchev was not the first in this regard: the systematic watering of Stalin (albeit interspersed with real criticism) was begun by Trotsky, well, the former Trotskyite Khrushchev, who did not come out of his mind, left only watering. Then Khrushchev was joined by the most zealous of the Sixties as "scavengers", and there is nothing to say about dissidents who "sang" against other people's voices "and" floated "on others' waves," they were part of Western anti-Soviet propaganda.
Perestroika marked a new stage in the defamation of Stalin. Here, however, not Stalin was the main target, but Soviet socialism, the Soviet system, Soviet history, and behind them Russian history as a whole. After all, one of the demons of perestroika declared that with perestroika they broke not only the Soviet Union, but the entire paradigm of a thousand-year Russian history. And the fact that Stalin was chosen as the main figure of breakdown once again testifies to the role of this man-phenomenon not only in Soviet, but also in Russian history - Stalinism, among other things, became an active and great-power form of Russian survival in the 20th century. in the conditions of an extremely hostile environment, aiming at the "final solution of the Russian question" - Hitler is not the only one in this regard, he simply - in a plebeian manner - shouted the loudest of all, repeating what the Anglo-Saxons had gathered.
("The USSR collapsed, the Soviet system was destroyed. It would seem that Soviet-style fools can calm down about Stalin and the USSR. But no, it’s bothering about them. True, the current de-Stalinisers are mostly farcical and odd, they look even small compared to the tuning rod. On the screens TVs grimace miserable social types such as the half-educated, bakery-fake publicist, the under-educated academician with snitches of a snitch, an alcoholic with a claim to the role of an international businessman and other meddling. Then you will remember Karel Chapek ("they come as and faceless masks "- about salamanders) and Nikolai Zabolotsky (" Everything is mixed up in the general dance, / And they fly to all ends / Hamadril and the British, / Witches, fleas, dead ... / Candidate of the past centuries, / Commander of new years, / Reason my! These freaks - / Only fiction and nonsense ").
Indeed, it’s not a delusion not to mention what the "carpet anti-Stalinists" serve as "arguments." These are either continuous, on the verge of hysterical emotions in the spirit of amateur club activity with shouts of "nightmare", "horror", "shame", very reminiscent of a jackal Tabaki from Kipling's "Mowgli" with his "Shame on the jungle!" - emotions without any facts and numbers. Or operating with fantastic numbers of victims of "Stalin's repressions": "tens and tens of millions" (why not hundreds?). If something is referred to, then Solzhenitsyn’s GULAG Archipelago. But Solzhenitsyn was a master of legend and the production of "linings". For example, he did not claim in the "Archipelago ..." for tsifirnuyu accuracy; moreover, it was expressed in the sense that this work has an impressionistic character, so to speak. Insured "Winds" - that's what the school means.
But over the last quarter of a century, on the basis of archival data (the archives are open), both our and Western (primarily American) researchers, most of whom are not at all noticed in sympathies with either Stalin or the USSR, or even Russia, have calculated the real number of repressed people. in 1922-53 (recall, by the way, that although the “Stalinist” era formally began in 1929, in fact, only with 1939 can we formally speak of Stalin’s full control over the party and the government, although there were some nuances here), and there are no "tens of millions" or even one "ten millions" there.
In recent years, well-documented works have appeared that show the real mechanism of the 1930-x repressions, which, like the mass ones, were unleashed by the “old guard” and “regional barons” like Khrushchev and Eiche in response to Stalin’s proposal on alternative elections. The leader could not break the resistance of the “old guards”, but a pinpoint (not massive!) Blow to their headquarters was dealt. I leave aside the fight against real conspiracies — the opposition of Stalin to the left globalists of the Comintern, like Trotsky, who believed that Stalin had betrayed the world revolution, etc. Thus, the real picture of the “repressions of 1930's” is much more complicated than Stalin’s detractors try to imagine; This is a multi-layered and multi-vector process of ending the civil war, in which the Stalin segment itself occupies far more than a small part.
Similarly, the second main block of Stalin’s charges fails - in the way the Great Patriotic War took shape in the first months: “missed”, “overslept”, “did not believe Sorge”, “believed Hitler”, “ran away from the Kremlin and for three days was in prostration " etc. All these lies have long been refuted by documents, the researchers are well aware of this - that Stalin didn’t oversleep anything, and that he never really believed Hitler, and that he didn’t believe Sorge correctly, or real guilt. Generals on the eve of June 22. This is not the place to sort out all these questions, but I cannot refrain from a single comment. Oh, how did the anti-Stalinists squirt over the TASS statement from 14 June 1941; the statement said that everything was fine in relations between the USSR and Germany, that the USSR continued to pursue a peace-loving course, etc. “Scavengers” interpret this as “Stalin’s stupidity and weakness”, as “currying favor with Hitler”. It does not occur to them that the addressee of the statement was not Hitler and the Third Reich, but Roosevelt and the USA. In April, 1941 of the United States Congress decided that in the event of a German attack on the USSR, the United States would help the USSR, and in the event of a Soviet attack on Germany, Germany.
The TASS statement recorded the complete absence of aggressive intentions of the USSR towards Germany and demonstrated this absence precisely to the United States, and not to Germany. Stalin was well aware that in the inevitable battle with the Reich his only real ally could be the United States, they would also keep the UK from slipping into the German-British anti-Soviet alliance. And, of course, it was impossible to prevent the careless movement, to which Hitler was pushing the Russians, to provoke the emergence of the North Atlantic (or rather, the world - with the participation of Japan and Turkey) of the anti-Soviet bloc. In this case, the Soviet Union (relative military potential on 1937 g. - 14%) would have to confront the USA (41,7%), Germany (14,4%), Great Britain (10,2% without imperial possessions), France (4,2%), Japan ( 3,5%), Italy (2,5%) plus jackals smaller. By the way, taking into account these figures and the fact of the decision of the US Congress, the entire falsity of the Rezun scheme and others like it about the alleged preparation by Stalin of an attack on Germany in particular and on Europe as a whole is obvious.
There is one purely psychological nuance in the accusations of the scientific and near-scientific brotherhood to Stalin. In everything, more precisely, in everything that is considered negative in Stalin’s rule (the positive is held along the line “against Stalin”) they blame one person as allegedly endowed with absolute power, and therefore omnipotent. But, first, Stalin managed to consolidate his power only by the end of the 1930s; before that - a struggle not for life, but for death, walking along the edge, constant readiness to respond to the joyful cry of the pack: "Akela missed." War is not the best time for sole decisions. Well, the period 1945-1953. - this is a time of constant undercover struggle of various nomenklatura groups with each other - and against Stalin. The post-war 8 anniversary is the story of a gradual obkladyvanie, surrounding the aging leader by the nomenclature (with the participation of certain forces and structures from abroad); Stalin's attempt to strike back at the XIX Congress of the CPSU (b) / CPSU (1952) and immediately after it ended in the death of the leader. Thus, in real, not "professorial" history, about which Goethe noted that it has no relation to the real spirit of the past, it is "... the spirit of the professors and their concepts, / which these gentlemen are out of place / For true antiquity they give out" Stalin was never the absolute ruler - he did not have the Ring of Absolute Power. This does not mean that he does not bear personal responsibility for mistakes, cruelty, etc., he bears - along with a cruel era, according to the laws and the nature of which he should be evaluated.
But it's not only that. The simple truth is this: the one who led the team, at least from 10 people, knows that absolute power is impossible - and the less possible it is, the more subordinates. Most of those who wrote and wrote about Stalin have never been guided by anyone or anything, i.e. in this sense, people are irresponsible. In addition to power, they often project their ambitions, fears, claims, desires, “swaying sleepy thoughts” (N. Zabolotsky) and, not least, the craving for denunciation (it's no secret that most of the Soviet era, Stalin and the KGB hate former informers, informers, because it is easier to hate the system and its leader than to despise one’s own meanness — repression, you know). Absolute power is the dream of the Soviet intelligentsia, which has found one of its reflections in The Master and Margarita; among other things, that is why the novel became cult for sovintelligentsia (and the “Notes of the Dead”, where a mirror was revealed to this layer, did not). To reduce the essence of the system to the identity of one person - this is something from social schizophrenia and from infantilism, not to mention professional insolvency.
It would be possible to point out a lot of other absurdities, mistakes and falsifications of “debris nanos” on Stalin’s grave, but what’s the point of delving into those poisoned with lies and hatred implicated in complexes and phobias and brains? It is more interesting to make out another thing: the reasons for hatred of Stalin, the fear of him of entire layers and groups in our country and abroad, fear and hatred that will not go into the past, but, on the contrary, sometimes seem to grow as they move away from the Stalin era. Who knows, maybe this is the main Military Secret of the Soviet era, which is not given to guess the burzhuinam and which hangs over them like a "Damocles sword"?
They often say: "Tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are." In fact, a person is no less defined by friends, but by enemies: "Tell me who your enemy is, and I will tell you who you are." Let us reflect on Stalin through the prism of hatred towards him and fear of his enemies and their lackeys before him.
Attitude towards leaders: tsars, general secretaries, presidents, is an interesting thing because of its, at least outwardly, paradoxical nature. In Russian history there were three great rulers - Ivan the Terrible, Peter I and Joseph Stalin. The most brutal and destructive was the activity of the second: on its board, the decline in population was about 25% (the people of the city, ran up); at the time of Peter's death, the treasury was practically empty, the farm was ruined, and in a few years three ships remained from the fleet of Peter the Great. And this is a great modernizer? In people's memory, Peter remained the Antichrist - the only Russian tsar-antichrist, and this is very significant. But Ivan IV entered history as the Terrible, and his time in the XVII century. remembered as the last decades of peasant freedom. And they did not remember the oprichnina among the people with an almost unkind word - this is already the “merit” of liberal Romanov historians. Stalin, unlike Peter, left behind a great power, on the material foundation of which, including nuclear, we still live, and the Russian Federation is still considered a serious power (even if regional, but without Stalin’s foundation, Afghans and Libyans, no illusions are needed here).
Paradox, but of the three lords, Peter, despite the extreme personal cruelty and disastrous reign, we love power and a significant part of the intelligentsia. He did not get even a tenth of the criticism that liberal historiography and journalism brought down on the heads of Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin. Grozny Tsar did not have a place on the monument "Millennium of Russia", and Peter - in the foreground. What did Peter do that, which did not do Ivan and Joseph? A very simple thing: allowed the top to steal on a particularly large scale, was liberal to the "pranks" of this particular layer. For this he is kind enough to the authorities (the portrait of Peter I in Chernomyrdin’s office is very symbolic) and reflecting her interests, tastes and preferences to a certain segment of historians and publicists. Ivan the Terrible and Stalin were tough and even cruel towards, above all, the top. "Cursed caste!" - these words were spoken by Stalin when he learned that the nomenclature evacuated to Kuibyshev was trying to organize separate schools for its children.
All his life in power, Stalin opposed the "accursed caste", not allowing it to turn into a class. He understood perfectly well how as this transformation “caste” would resist the construction of socialism - this is exactly what Stalin meant when he spoke about the growth of the class struggle as he advanced during the construction of socialism. As perestroika demonstrated, the leader turned out to be absolutely right: already in 1960-s a quasi-class shadow USSR-2 was formed, which, in alliance with the West, destroyed the USSR-1 with all its achievements. At the same time, real discontent with the population was caused by the USSR-2, i.e. deviations from the model, but the interested layers did a clever propaganda trick: they exposed the population of the USSR-2 with its flaws, growing inequality, artificially created deficits, etc. as the original design model of the USSR-1, which must be urgently "reformed."
In Soviet times, both during Stalin's life and after his death, the leader was hated mainly by two power groups (and, accordingly, the soviet intelligentsia groups associated with them). First, this is the part of the Soviet establishment that was charged to the world revolution and whose representatives considered Stalin a traitor to the cause of the world revolution or, at least, a deviator from it. We are talking about the left-globalists-Comintern, for whom Russia, the USSR was only a springboard for the world revolution. Naturally, they could not like either "socialism in one single country" (ie, the revival of the "empire" in the "red version"), or an appeal to the Russian national traditions, which they used to look down upon, or the abolition of 1936, the celebration of November 7 as the First Day of the World Revolution, neither the appearance of the term "Soviet patriotism" in the same 1936, nor much else. It is significant that already in the middle of the 1920-ies G. Zinoviev, the “third Grishka” of Russian history (those who would have numbered what kind of nonentity the fourth would be even if they knew the third), argued the need for the removal of Stalin from the post of General Secretary. "they dislike the Comintern," and one of the main critics of Stalin in 1930 was the high-ranking Comintern functionary O. Pyatnitsky.
The second group of Stalinheenavistavists can be called the “Soviet liberals”. What is a "liberal Soviet"? Of course, this is not a liberal in the classical sense, nor is it a liberal at all - even Nizhe-e-enko-nise-e-enko is not a liberal. The Soviet nomenklatura liberal is an interesting stamp: it is an official who sought to consume more than he was supposed to by the strict rules of the Soviet-nomenclature ranked hierarchical consumption system, and therefore ready to change power for material goods, which tends to go to the West more often and look through the shadows an economy with which it is increasingly merging in social ecstasy.
Today, this is called corruption, but this term is hardly applicable to the Soviet system: corruption is the use of the public sphere for private purposes and interests. The fact of the matter is, however, that in modernity there was no legally fixed distinction between these spheres, since there was no private sphere - “everything is collective, everything is mine”. Speech instead of corruption should go about undermining the system, which for the time being - until the time (until the middle of the 1970-s, when unaccounted oil dollars poured into the country) was quantitative. Thus, it is more correct to talk about the deformation of the system. It was these deformers who hated Stalin most of all, since the nomenklatura and near-nomenklatura thieves understood that with his or similar orders, retribution could not be avoided; Therefore, it was so feared that neostalinist A. would come to power. Shelepina, put on L. Brezhnev - and not lost. It was under the “hero of the Little Land” that the shadow USSR-2 increased (not the shadow economy, but the shadow USSR connected both with its shadow economy and with Western capital, its supranational structures, Western special services), but the shadow under Brezhnev knew its place , waiting for the time being, and from the middle of the 1970-ies, preparing for the jump, but under Gorbachev she took the place of the owner, destroying the front USSR-1. The real USSR at the beginning of the 1980-s was reminiscent of the galactic empire from the Azimov Academy ("Foundation") - a prosperous facade with corroded guts. Only the USSR, in contrast to the empire, did not have the mathematics of Selden with his plan - we had a "mathematician" - Gesheftmatik B. Berezovsky and that says it all. But back to stalinofobii. It quite clearly correlates with consumer attitudes, with attitudes towards consumption as the meaning of life. It is symbolic that one of the "carpet anti-Stalinists" stated on television: you can keep the national idea for yourself, but let me consume it. Can this type not hate Stalin and Stalinism? Can not. Stalinism is a historical work, setting on creativity as the goal and meaning of life, the USSR was a creative, highly spiritual project that even those who clearly do not sympathize with the Soviet Union recognize. The phrase said by former Minister of Education A. is indicative in this respect. Fursenko that the vice (sic!) Of the Soviet school was that she sought to educate the person-creator, while the task of the Eref school was to educate a qualified consumer.
The following is also symbolic. The same character who demanded for himself a “holiday of consumption” expressed himself in the sense that if the land east of the Urals could be mastered by the world government, then let it take them. Thus, the anti-Stalinist installation of consumption coincides with the globalist one — these are two sides of the same coin. So a line is drawn from anti-Stalinism to Smerdykovschina, i.e. to Russophobia. The social world of anti-Stalinists is a global “cattle yard” whose main goal is to ensure consumption under the direction and supervision of world government. Stalin three times tore the construction of such a world on Russian soil, for which the anti-Stalinists hate him. Everything is prosaic, the talk of freedom, democracy, "Soviet totalitarianism" of former Soviet careerists and snitches cannot deceive anyone.
Paradoxically, they turned out to be part of the left (conditionally: "Trotskyists", left globalists) and part of the right (conventionally: "Bukharinites"). In this regard, it becomes clear that the “Trotsky-Bukharin bloc” is not a violation of common sense, but dialectical logic, which Stalin, answering the question of how the left-right bloc is possible, put it this way: “Go left - come right. Go right - you will come to the left. Dialectics ".
The fear of the late Soviet nomenclature of Stalin is the fear of the "shadow USSR" of the original project, the parasite's fear of a healthy body, of retribution from its side, the fear of the people. After 1991, this fear has acquired a new, frank, not hidden, class dimension, which, as the de-Stalinization campaigns demonstrate from time to time, makes this fear panicky, deadly.
Perestroika marked a new stage in the defamation of Stalin. Here, however, not Stalin was the main target, but Soviet socialism, the Soviet system, Soviet history, and behind them Russian history as a whole. After all, one of the demons of perestroika declared that with perestroika they broke not only the Soviet Union, but the entire paradigm of a thousand-year Russian history. And the fact that Stalin was chosen as the main figure of breakdown once again testifies to the role of this man-phenomenon not only in Soviet, but also in Russian history - Stalinism, among other things, became an active and great-power form of Russian survival in the 20th century. in the conditions of an extremely hostile environment, aiming at the "final solution of the Russian question" - Hitler is not the only one in this regard, he simply - in a plebeian manner - shouted the loudest of all, repeating what the Anglo-Saxons had gathered.
("The USSR collapsed, the Soviet system was destroyed. It would seem that Soviet-style fools can calm down about Stalin and the USSR. But no, it’s bothering about them. True, the current de-Stalinisers are mostly farcical and odd, they look even small compared to the tuning rod. On the screens TVs grimace miserable social types such as the half-educated, bakery-fake publicist, the under-educated academician with snitches of a snitch, an alcoholic with a claim to the role of an international businessman and other meddling. Then you will remember Karel Chapek ("they come as and faceless masks "- about salamanders) and Nikolai Zabolotsky (" Everything is mixed up in the general dance, / And they fly to all ends / Hamadril and the British, / Witches, fleas, dead ... / Candidate of the past centuries, / Commander of new years, / Reason my! These freaks - / Only fiction and nonsense ").
Indeed, it’s not a delusion not to mention what the "carpet anti-Stalinists" serve as "arguments." These are either continuous, on the verge of hysterical emotions in the spirit of amateur club activity with shouts of "nightmare", "horror", "shame", very reminiscent of a jackal Tabaki from Kipling's "Mowgli" with his "Shame on the jungle!" - emotions without any facts and numbers. Or operating with fantastic numbers of victims of "Stalin's repressions": "tens and tens of millions" (why not hundreds?). If something is referred to, then Solzhenitsyn’s GULAG Archipelago. But Solzhenitsyn was a master of legend and the production of "linings". For example, he did not claim in the "Archipelago ..." for tsifirnuyu accuracy; moreover, it was expressed in the sense that this work has an impressionistic character, so to speak. Insured "Winds" - that's what the school means.
But over the last quarter of a century, on the basis of archival data (the archives are open), both our and Western (primarily American) researchers, most of whom are not at all noticed in sympathies with either Stalin or the USSR, or even Russia, have calculated the real number of repressed people. in 1922-53 (recall, by the way, that although the “Stalinist” era formally began in 1929, in fact, only with 1939 can we formally speak of Stalin’s full control over the party and the government, although there were some nuances here), and there are no "tens of millions" or even one "ten millions" there.
In recent years, well-documented works have appeared that show the real mechanism of the 1930-x repressions, which, like the mass ones, were unleashed by the “old guard” and “regional barons” like Khrushchev and Eiche in response to Stalin’s proposal on alternative elections. The leader could not break the resistance of the “old guards”, but a pinpoint (not massive!) Blow to their headquarters was dealt. I leave aside the fight against real conspiracies — the opposition of Stalin to the left globalists of the Comintern, like Trotsky, who believed that Stalin had betrayed the world revolution, etc. Thus, the real picture of the “repressions of 1930's” is much more complicated than Stalin’s detractors try to imagine; This is a multi-layered and multi-vector process of ending the civil war, in which the Stalin segment itself occupies far more than a small part.
Similarly, the second main block of Stalin’s charges fails - in the way the Great Patriotic War took shape in the first months: “missed”, “overslept”, “did not believe Sorge”, “believed Hitler”, “ran away from the Kremlin and for three days was in prostration " etc. All these lies have long been refuted by documents, the researchers are well aware of this - that Stalin didn’t oversleep anything, and that he never really believed Hitler, and that he didn’t believe Sorge correctly, or real guilt. Generals on the eve of June 22. This is not the place to sort out all these questions, but I cannot refrain from a single comment. Oh, how did the anti-Stalinists squirt over the TASS statement from 14 June 1941; the statement said that everything was fine in relations between the USSR and Germany, that the USSR continued to pursue a peace-loving course, etc. “Scavengers” interpret this as “Stalin’s stupidity and weakness”, as “currying favor with Hitler”. It does not occur to them that the addressee of the statement was not Hitler and the Third Reich, but Roosevelt and the USA. In April, 1941 of the United States Congress decided that in the event of a German attack on the USSR, the United States would help the USSR, and in the event of a Soviet attack on Germany, Germany.
The TASS statement recorded the complete absence of aggressive intentions of the USSR towards Germany and demonstrated this absence precisely to the United States, and not to Germany. Stalin was well aware that in the inevitable battle with the Reich his only real ally could be the United States, they would also keep the UK from slipping into the German-British anti-Soviet alliance. And, of course, it was impossible to prevent the careless movement, to which Hitler was pushing the Russians, to provoke the emergence of the North Atlantic (or rather, the world - with the participation of Japan and Turkey) of the anti-Soviet bloc. In this case, the Soviet Union (relative military potential on 1937 g. - 14%) would have to confront the USA (41,7%), Germany (14,4%), Great Britain (10,2% without imperial possessions), France (4,2%), Japan ( 3,5%), Italy (2,5%) plus jackals smaller. By the way, taking into account these figures and the fact of the decision of the US Congress, the entire falsity of the Rezun scheme and others like it about the alleged preparation by Stalin of an attack on Germany in particular and on Europe as a whole is obvious.
There is one purely psychological nuance in the accusations of the scientific and near-scientific brotherhood to Stalin. In everything, more precisely, in everything that is considered negative in Stalin’s rule (the positive is held along the line “against Stalin”) they blame one person as allegedly endowed with absolute power, and therefore omnipotent. But, first, Stalin managed to consolidate his power only by the end of the 1930s; before that - a struggle not for life, but for death, walking along the edge, constant readiness to respond to the joyful cry of the pack: "Akela missed." War is not the best time for sole decisions. Well, the period 1945-1953. - this is a time of constant undercover struggle of various nomenklatura groups with each other - and against Stalin. The post-war 8 anniversary is the story of a gradual obkladyvanie, surrounding the aging leader by the nomenclature (with the participation of certain forces and structures from abroad); Stalin's attempt to strike back at the XIX Congress of the CPSU (b) / CPSU (1952) and immediately after it ended in the death of the leader. Thus, in real, not "professorial" history, about which Goethe noted that it has no relation to the real spirit of the past, it is "... the spirit of the professors and their concepts, / which these gentlemen are out of place / For true antiquity they give out" Stalin was never the absolute ruler - he did not have the Ring of Absolute Power. This does not mean that he does not bear personal responsibility for mistakes, cruelty, etc., he bears - along with a cruel era, according to the laws and the nature of which he should be evaluated.
But it's not only that. The simple truth is this: the one who led the team, at least from 10 people, knows that absolute power is impossible - and the less possible it is, the more subordinates. Most of those who wrote and wrote about Stalin have never been guided by anyone or anything, i.e. in this sense, people are irresponsible. In addition to power, they often project their ambitions, fears, claims, desires, “swaying sleepy thoughts” (N. Zabolotsky) and, not least, the craving for denunciation (it's no secret that most of the Soviet era, Stalin and the KGB hate former informers, informers, because it is easier to hate the system and its leader than to despise one’s own meanness — repression, you know). Absolute power is the dream of the Soviet intelligentsia, which has found one of its reflections in The Master and Margarita; among other things, that is why the novel became cult for sovintelligentsia (and the “Notes of the Dead”, where a mirror was revealed to this layer, did not). To reduce the essence of the system to the identity of one person - this is something from social schizophrenia and from infantilism, not to mention professional insolvency.
It would be possible to point out a lot of other absurdities, mistakes and falsifications of “debris nanos” on Stalin’s grave, but what’s the point of delving into those poisoned with lies and hatred implicated in complexes and phobias and brains? It is more interesting to make out another thing: the reasons for hatred of Stalin, the fear of him of entire layers and groups in our country and abroad, fear and hatred that will not go into the past, but, on the contrary, sometimes seem to grow as they move away from the Stalin era. Who knows, maybe this is the main Military Secret of the Soviet era, which is not given to guess the burzhuinam and which hangs over them like a "Damocles sword"?
They often say: "Tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are." In fact, a person is no less defined by friends, but by enemies: "Tell me who your enemy is, and I will tell you who you are." Let us reflect on Stalin through the prism of hatred towards him and fear of his enemies and their lackeys before him.
Attitude towards leaders: tsars, general secretaries, presidents, is an interesting thing because of its, at least outwardly, paradoxical nature. In Russian history there were three great rulers - Ivan the Terrible, Peter I and Joseph Stalin. The most brutal and destructive was the activity of the second: on its board, the decline in population was about 25% (the people of the city, ran up); at the time of Peter's death, the treasury was practically empty, the farm was ruined, and in a few years three ships remained from the fleet of Peter the Great. And this is a great modernizer? In people's memory, Peter remained the Antichrist - the only Russian tsar-antichrist, and this is very significant. But Ivan IV entered history as the Terrible, and his time in the XVII century. remembered as the last decades of peasant freedom. And they did not remember the oprichnina among the people with an almost unkind word - this is already the “merit” of liberal Romanov historians. Stalin, unlike Peter, left behind a great power, on the material foundation of which, including nuclear, we still live, and the Russian Federation is still considered a serious power (even if regional, but without Stalin’s foundation, Afghans and Libyans, no illusions are needed here).
Paradox, but of the three lords, Peter, despite the extreme personal cruelty and disastrous reign, we love power and a significant part of the intelligentsia. He did not get even a tenth of the criticism that liberal historiography and journalism brought down on the heads of Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin. Grozny Tsar did not have a place on the monument "Millennium of Russia", and Peter - in the foreground. What did Peter do that, which did not do Ivan and Joseph? A very simple thing: allowed the top to steal on a particularly large scale, was liberal to the "pranks" of this particular layer. For this he is kind enough to the authorities (the portrait of Peter I in Chernomyrdin’s office is very symbolic) and reflecting her interests, tastes and preferences to a certain segment of historians and publicists. Ivan the Terrible and Stalin were tough and even cruel towards, above all, the top. "Cursed caste!" - these words were spoken by Stalin when he learned that the nomenclature evacuated to Kuibyshev was trying to organize separate schools for its children.
All his life in power, Stalin opposed the "accursed caste", not allowing it to turn into a class. He understood perfectly well how as this transformation “caste” would resist the construction of socialism - this is exactly what Stalin meant when he spoke about the growth of the class struggle as he advanced during the construction of socialism. As perestroika demonstrated, the leader turned out to be absolutely right: already in 1960-s a quasi-class shadow USSR-2 was formed, which, in alliance with the West, destroyed the USSR-1 with all its achievements. At the same time, real discontent with the population was caused by the USSR-2, i.e. deviations from the model, but the interested layers did a clever propaganda trick: they exposed the population of the USSR-2 with its flaws, growing inequality, artificially created deficits, etc. as the original design model of the USSR-1, which must be urgently "reformed."
In Soviet times, both during Stalin's life and after his death, the leader was hated mainly by two power groups (and, accordingly, the soviet intelligentsia groups associated with them). First, this is the part of the Soviet establishment that was charged to the world revolution and whose representatives considered Stalin a traitor to the cause of the world revolution or, at least, a deviator from it. We are talking about the left-globalists-Comintern, for whom Russia, the USSR was only a springboard for the world revolution. Naturally, they could not like either "socialism in one single country" (ie, the revival of the "empire" in the "red version"), or an appeal to the Russian national traditions, which they used to look down upon, or the abolition of 1936, the celebration of November 7 as the First Day of the World Revolution, neither the appearance of the term "Soviet patriotism" in the same 1936, nor much else. It is significant that already in the middle of the 1920-ies G. Zinoviev, the “third Grishka” of Russian history (those who would have numbered what kind of nonentity the fourth would be even if they knew the third), argued the need for the removal of Stalin from the post of General Secretary. "they dislike the Comintern," and one of the main critics of Stalin in 1930 was the high-ranking Comintern functionary O. Pyatnitsky.
The second group of Stalinheenavistavists can be called the “Soviet liberals”. What is a "liberal Soviet"? Of course, this is not a liberal in the classical sense, nor is it a liberal at all - even Nizhe-e-enko-nise-e-enko is not a liberal. The Soviet nomenklatura liberal is an interesting stamp: it is an official who sought to consume more than he was supposed to by the strict rules of the Soviet-nomenclature ranked hierarchical consumption system, and therefore ready to change power for material goods, which tends to go to the West more often and look through the shadows an economy with which it is increasingly merging in social ecstasy.
Today, this is called corruption, but this term is hardly applicable to the Soviet system: corruption is the use of the public sphere for private purposes and interests. The fact of the matter is, however, that in modernity there was no legally fixed distinction between these spheres, since there was no private sphere - “everything is collective, everything is mine”. Speech instead of corruption should go about undermining the system, which for the time being - until the time (until the middle of the 1970-s, when unaccounted oil dollars poured into the country) was quantitative. Thus, it is more correct to talk about the deformation of the system. It was these deformers who hated Stalin most of all, since the nomenklatura and near-nomenklatura thieves understood that with his or similar orders, retribution could not be avoided; Therefore, it was so feared that neostalinist A. would come to power. Shelepina, put on L. Brezhnev - and not lost. It was under the “hero of the Little Land” that the shadow USSR-2 increased (not the shadow economy, but the shadow USSR connected both with its shadow economy and with Western capital, its supranational structures, Western special services), but the shadow under Brezhnev knew its place , waiting for the time being, and from the middle of the 1970-ies, preparing for the jump, but under Gorbachev she took the place of the owner, destroying the front USSR-1. The real USSR at the beginning of the 1980-s was reminiscent of the galactic empire from the Azimov Academy ("Foundation") - a prosperous facade with corroded guts. Only the USSR, in contrast to the empire, did not have the mathematics of Selden with his plan - we had a "mathematician" - Gesheftmatik B. Berezovsky and that says it all. But back to stalinofobii. It quite clearly correlates with consumer attitudes, with attitudes towards consumption as the meaning of life. It is symbolic that one of the "carpet anti-Stalinists" stated on television: you can keep the national idea for yourself, but let me consume it. Can this type not hate Stalin and Stalinism? Can not. Stalinism is a historical work, setting on creativity as the goal and meaning of life, the USSR was a creative, highly spiritual project that even those who clearly do not sympathize with the Soviet Union recognize. The phrase said by former Minister of Education A. is indicative in this respect. Fursenko that the vice (sic!) Of the Soviet school was that she sought to educate the person-creator, while the task of the Eref school was to educate a qualified consumer.
The following is also symbolic. The same character who demanded for himself a “holiday of consumption” expressed himself in the sense that if the land east of the Urals could be mastered by the world government, then let it take them. Thus, the anti-Stalinist installation of consumption coincides with the globalist one — these are two sides of the same coin. So a line is drawn from anti-Stalinism to Smerdykovschina, i.e. to Russophobia. The social world of anti-Stalinists is a global “cattle yard” whose main goal is to ensure consumption under the direction and supervision of world government. Stalin three times tore the construction of such a world on Russian soil, for which the anti-Stalinists hate him. Everything is prosaic, the talk of freedom, democracy, "Soviet totalitarianism" of former Soviet careerists and snitches cannot deceive anyone.
Paradoxically, they turned out to be part of the left (conditionally: "Trotskyists", left globalists) and part of the right (conventionally: "Bukharinites"). In this regard, it becomes clear that the “Trotsky-Bukharin bloc” is not a violation of common sense, but dialectical logic, which Stalin, answering the question of how the left-right bloc is possible, put it this way: “Go left - come right. Go right - you will come to the left. Dialectics ".
The fear of the late Soviet nomenclature of Stalin is the fear of the "shadow USSR" of the original project, the parasite's fear of a healthy body, of retribution from its side, the fear of the people. After 1991, this fear has acquired a new, frank, not hidden, class dimension, which, as the de-Stalinization campaigns demonstrate from time to time, makes this fear panicky, deadly.
Information