The question itself is a manifestation of the vile philanthropic morality (it's hard to call it moral). After all, it implies something simple, familiar: "its own shirt is closer to the body." Own skin more expensive. Right?
So what do these GOELRO and BAMs, OSOAVIAHIMs and Uralmash have to you, if you yourself and your loved ones are rolled into the asphalt? So what do you think about the fact that your country will be powerful and prosperous? You won't see it yourself. Wood chopping, chips fly. You are a sliver.
Be a sliver who wants to hunt! And its own skin, too, while sitting well. As beaten Ayn Rand - "everyone dies alone."
Only here the important moment is lost. As soon as a single chip begins to worry about his own skin, the whole forest is guaranteed to disappear. If on a ship in distress everyone starts to think only about his own salvation, in the end no one is saved. The philosophy of slivers - the philosophy of the alarmist, egoist, defeatist.
A variety of tools of psychological struggle are aimed at activating such subconscious loneliness today. Execution of LIH - "but imagine yourself with a knife at the throat." GULAG museums - “but imagine yourself in the cellars of Lubyanka”. Fearfully? Of course, scary. Do you have the courage not to renounce your convictions? After all, any commies can be sent by force of thought to the basement and break, humiliate, dehumanize. Make sing "Glory to Ukraine!"
However, this, fortunately, does not change anything. Even if you knock out your teeth and fry Giordano Bruno’s heels, if you force him to choke on blood and abandon all of his heresy, the Sun will not begin to rotate around the Earth.
When we talk about the Soviet experience, the Soviet legacy, we primarily mean the primacy of the interests of society, of the collective over the interests of the individual. That's why the whole fight is going. Our liberal opponents (those who urge to try the GULAG on themselves) are preaching the opposite: they have personal interests, by definition, are higher than public ones. In a critical situation (war, shipwreck) it is just a cry pretending to be ideology: “Save yourself who can!”
However, most subconsciously (any team has some kind of subconscious feeling) understands: sliver ideology will destroy everyone. There will be no gulag, no capitalist paradise. That is why in one form or another collectivist morality will still win once. Just the team has not lost the will to live. Visitors to an abandoned museum at the execution site of Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya are greeted with the words: “This is happiness - to die for your people.” Not so much for oneself, not so much for one’s family, not so much for this village (the prosyvrinin was unhappy - he burned houses, people left homeless for children), as for the people, for the common cause, in which each such feat is an inconspicuous grain of sand.
That is the deep meaning of the Soviet doctrine. How many injustices during the war? How many wrong tribunals? But War is sacred, raising the question of the price of Victory is sacrilege (although prosvirnins are putting it). So why is the great construction of 30-x, the great project on the reorganization of life, on pulling the country out of the abyss of degradation and decay, is estimated by us differently? After all, it was also a war. Only war for the future.
It seems to me that the question “And if you were in the Gulag?” Implies the answer: “Let the Gulag, but then you take the Reichstag.”
When in 90 they kicked Pavlik Morozov (traitor, bastard, geek) with their feet, there was also a special, cunning meaning in this ritual shame. Pavlik passed his native people, who were pushers, bread speculators and sadists. Passed to the state - because not only his own family suffered from these people. Pavlik put the interests of society above the interests of blood. In other circumstances - it is a gesture of childish despair. In others - a real feat. Consonant, for example, with the murder of his son Andriya by Taras Bulba. However, Pavlik’s father and grandfather safely left the gulag. The child was less fortunate.
And what about this stories sees our "detalinizator"? He sees a terrible, unnatural picture. He sees a country where even close people knock at each other, they give each other, renounce each other. The supreme commander, who condemns his son to death in captivity, is simply an idiot from this point of view. After all, he made a choice in favor of the general, sacrificing the private, his, dear, beloved. I betrayed my son. Probably bad and scary. But the “pre-Stalinization” opposite is when everything is sewn-covered, when the hand is washing the hand. Is it possible to imagine that today the mayor’s son, say, Tavda, wrote a complaint against his father to the prosecutor’s office for stealing money for social programs? That's it.
When another liberator howls: “And my great-grandfather was deported,” for some reason, it is no longer accepted to understand why they deported him to where they deported. They shout about the mistakes of the investigation and the excesses on the ground, but they hint at something else: everything is universal, everyone is repressed by mistake, they have suffered for nothing. After all, this is my great-grandfather! He is by definition can not be bad. Because he is mine. I am. My shirt. My body.
All these problems, the correlation of personal and social, family and national, this whole philosophy of splinters, the triumphant tradesman, are very well visualized in the movie “The Cranes Are Flying”. Remember the scene when the rear huckster comes to the hospital hammered by the wounded and asks to give him a car - ride with a woman? Reconsider. The war was won precisely because it was usually shot for in the USSR. The USSR was destroyed precisely because the surviving huckster did get his car. It is painful and difficult to admit, but cranes fly when and only if there are splinters somewhere in the neighborhood.