Military Review

The collapse of the USSR: 25 years later

145
The collapse of the USSR: 25 years laterNo wonder it says that the big is seen in the distance. The time when the need for an objective, unbiased assessment of the experience of building a socialist society in our country began to appear is fitting. An experience that catastrophically failed, thank God, without apocalyptic bloodshed, which are fraught with changes in the socio-economic structure of society.


I remember that in due time, almost through the same 25 years, the Soviet authorities also suddenly began to look at different eyes history Russian Empire. In 1943, we returned to the old officer ranks, shoulder straps, otherwise we began to evaluate the commanders, and indeed the kings themselves; reconciled with the Orthodox Church, etc. Wiser, matured. The Internet publication Centenary did the right thing by initiating a round table on the theme “The USSR: Victory and Defeat”, inviting a wide range of scientists and experts to participate. I also received such an invitation, but since I am temporarily not in Moscow, I will try to present my view of this superteme in writing.

So, to the point: can the Soviet system be considered a dead-end path of social development? To pose the question in this way is incorrect neither in scientific, nor in practical terms. Dead End is a bad propaganda term. He stops the idea of ​​how the brick sign requires pressing the brakes urgently. The socialist model in the USSR is one of the varieties of the teachings of Marxism, with Asian deviations away from democracy. Soon, a hundred years ago, the world here and there encounters variants of social democracy in theory and in the flesh (the dogmas of the Second, Third, and even Fourth Internationals; Austrian, Swedish, and other living models). And do not turn a blind eye to the PRC and other types of this doctrine.

Socialism can not be deleted from the menu of public dishes of mankind. It should be "brought to mind", as engineers do with a good idea, but an imperfect machine.

The key drawback of the Soviet system was the disastrous for it hypertrophy of the role of the party leader in the fate of the country. The secretaries-general possessed such complete power that even the emperors could not even dream of. They could form the socio-economic model of the country. In their hands were the most powerful management tools in the person of the party and power structures, plus various public organizations (they were called “driving belts” from party to people). From war communism to the NEP, from him to the five-year plans, to the "great construction projects of communism" ... What just was not there! There was cost accounting and Kosygin reform projects to which L. Brezhnev responded: “Everything is correct, but it is premature ...”. After all this, talking about a “dead end”, about a “non-reforming system” is taking a big sin for one’s soul. One N. Khrushchev for ten years started so many reforms that it captures the spirit of one of their enumeration. The party-state elite most often simply assented to the “leader” instead of participating in the constructive spirit in making serious decisions. Khrushchev himself said that he sent the idea of ​​dividing the regional party committees into urban and rural in writing, he sent to all members of the Politburo, asking them to honestly express their opinions. All responded in writing in the spirit of “Approve!”, And after removing Nikita Sergeevich they publicly stated that it was “whim and chimera”.

Any system (by the way, not only a socialist one) needs to be improved as the world develops. Monarchies, dictatorial regimes, democratic republics and so on. constantly changing in form and substance. Talented political leaders and sensitive national elites with timely reforms maintained the stability of their systems and ensured their development. In the USSR, alas, this did not happen. With each successive turn of leadership change, the qualities of the first person deteriorated: Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and, finally, Gorbachev. This happened because the real choice of the leader of the country was made by a narrow group of people (the Politburo), whose members were guided by personal interests, and not by the fate of the USSR. We chose not the most talented, but the most comfortable. Veterans of the security service recall that Brezhnev intended to nominate Scherbitsky as his successor, but who arrived first to the deceased Leonid Ilyich D.F. Ustinov took the "atomic suitcase" in his hands, handed it to Andropov, who was standing next to him, and said: "Well, Yura, take things now!". That was all said. Andropov was already fatally ill by that time, but with Ustinov he was linked by a long-term friendship ...

With such a monstrous concentration of power in the hands of one person and such an absurd system of “succession to the throne,” the state and the people could not count on sustainable, prosperous development.
It remained only to hope that, perhaps by chance, according to the law of roulette, we would get a “lucky ticket”, and the country would be headed by a sensible, strong-willed politician who has a clear plan for the development of society.

We, the then intelligence officers, often among themselves discussed whether the difficulties of socialist construction in the USSR stem from objective reasons inherent in the doctrine itself, or are due to subjective factors, i.e. man-made. And each time we came to the conclusion that the human factor was to blame. After all, it was not without reason that even then we gave unflattering names to historical segments associated with specific leaders. The Stalinist "personality cult" replaced Khrushchev's "voluntarism", Brezhnev's "stagnation period" replaced it, then the "five years of the funeral" came and finally, Gorbachev's "perestroika" came, the meaning of which, apparently, the inventor of this word did not understand, and failed to explain it to the people. Remember the phrase of the writer Yuri Bondarev, who said that perestroika is a plane that knows where it came from, but does not know where it will fly and where it will land !. The Communist Party itself at each change of the leader publicly or through clenched teeth condemned its own recent policy, but it did not manage to change the technology of power formation and the decision-making process. This was the root cause of her misfortunes and, eventually, death.

The real political leader is the one who has a complete program of actions in his head and heart, as they would say now, a “road map”, who brought it to the consciousness of the majority of the nation, received democratically approval and then did everything to implement this program. Unfortunately, in the Soviet Union, the last five leaders did not have anything from this set of requirements. Any attempt to upgrade scared the party-state elite.

For many years, its symbol was M. Suslov - “a man in a case”, who invariably walked in galoshes even in sunny weather. Considered to be the ideologist of the CPSU, he froze every living thought, but he did not have his own thoughts.

Socialism - "forever living teaching", in fact, in the USSR turned into a brake of social thought, ossified dogma. I really liked the expression of one authoritative statesman (foreign), who, discussing with me the question of the state of affairs in our country, said: “The USSR resembles a car, the driver of which fell asleep at the wheel, and instead of waking him up, hold your finger to your lips and say "Hush, hush ... and then wake up!". Very often the question arises of how the collapse of the socialist system and the Soviet state began. First, we say that the Soviet Union reached the top of its development, in my opinion, in 1975. Everything looked quite fine. The country was preparing for the meeting of the 60 anniversary of the October Revolution. 69-year-old Brezhnev looked youthful and healthy and was about to adopt a new, more democratic text of the Constitution. Good prices for oil (the result of the Arab-Israeli conflicts) caressed the heart of the Kremlin sitters.

But our permanent political opponents - the United States and NATO, were going badly. In the 1974 year, as a result of the loud "Watergate" scandal, Richard Nixon resigned from his post as US President. The revolution carnations in Portugal in April 1974 caused a crisis in NATO and led to the collapse of the colonial empire in Africa. The United States suffered a defeat in the dirty war in Vietnam in 1975, and were forced to get out of there in disgrace. And ahead of the Americans, even greater troubles awaited in the form of the Khomeinist 1979 revolution of the year in Iran, the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran and the humiliating failure of Operation Eagle's Claw while trying to force American hostages by force.

I wish I could live to be happy! .. But Soviet intelligence knew about the difficulties that had been brewing, which had to be considered. We were helped by all sorts of Sovietological studies conducted by our opponents and the results of which fell into our hands. It was then that two documents were prepared for the Politburo (through Y. Andropov). One warns of the danger of excessive expansion of the geographical zone of influence in the world due to the USSR’s lack of material and human resources. The second is about the expediency of limiting the quantitative production of all types of weapons and the transition to the principle of “reasonable sufficiency”. Information left without feedback. Attempts to make our recommendations more boldly once received the following answer: “Do not teach us to govern the state!”.

Since 1976, the process of decline of the USSR and the socialist system began, turning into degradation, and then - into the stage of disintegration.

Maybe it all started with a serious illness of L. Brezhnev, who suffered even clinical death and could no longer be considered a full-fledged leader of the party and the state. For the next six years (until L. Brezhnev died in 1982), the country lived on “autopilot”.
It was at that time, in 1978, that Moscow was called and received the post of Secretary of the Central Committee, MS. Gorbachev, who soon became the grave-digger of the socialist system in the USSR. Now the state strategy has ceased to exist. Each influential member of the management team resolved issues from the standpoint of departmental interest.

Brezhnev himself understood his position and more than once raised the question of resignation, but instead he was nearly every next year awarded with another Hero star; in violation of status, they twice made a knight of the Order of the October Revolution, presented the Order of Victory (not at all in the case) and awarded the Marshal's title. The entourage held on to their places at all costs, not thinking about the state.

I remember that during one of the visits of Y. Andropov to the intelligence headquarters, we directly told him about the difficult situation in the USSR, and offered to make L. Brezhnev an honorary chairman of the CPSU, to approve a special distinction and to elect a new Secretary General. The answer was sharp: "Do not quarrel with the party!"

With the introduction of the 40 Army in Afghanistan at the end of 1979, the USSR and the CPSU began to slide into the abyss. The absolute secrecy of the preparation of this war, even within the framework of the party-state elite, did not allow to professionally calculate the consequences of this action. The introduction of troops was an obvious intervention in the internal civil conflict, on the side of one of the opposing forces, with which the Soviet leadership was connected with emotional friendship. All other arguments were purely propandistic. Our people and the Armed Forces of the country did not understand the meaning of this suicidal undertaking.

This senseless war lasted ten years, in which we lost 14 thousand dead and more than 400 thousand (!) Disabled as a result of injuries and illnesses. The losses of equipment are also impressive: about 300 aircraft and helicopters, hundreds tanks and armored vehicles, thousands of cars.
No one believed in what a lot of money this war flew into our people. Afghan adventure led to a sharp isolation of the Soviet Union in the world. The very Non-Aligned Movement for those times, which was chaired, on a rotational basis, by Fidel Castro, was stunned by the actions of the Soviet leadership. Before 1979, the members of this movement rather sympathized with the Soviet Union than the USA, and now the situation has changed before our eyes.

The propaganda machine of the West has earned at maximum speed. In the eyes of US public opinion, we became an “evil empire.” In the 1980 election of the year, Ronald Reagan won, distinguished by a highly anti-Soviet attitude. He put forward the idea of ​​creating a strategic defense system for the United States against a threat from space (the so-called Strategic Defense Initiative (SOI) is a strategic defense initiative). The cold war went beyond any reasonable framework. The COCOM system was created, i.e. approved lists of goods prohibited for delivery to the USSR.

For the United States, a convenient situation has been created in which they could exhaust the Soviet Union with someone else’s hands and someone else’s blood, making wide use of the banner of Islam.

Soviet difficulties could be minimized in the eyes of the population through tight control over the media, but they could not be hidden from the foreign public. Finally, the moment came when it became possible to throw the gauntlet to the socialist system as such. This happened a year after the start of the Afghan war, when in Poland, in Gdansk, the independent trade union Solidarity, under the leadership of the electrician Lech Walesa, was formed in 1980. He began to play the role of a political party, which eventually turned into the grave-digger of socialism in Poland.

If the Afghan war can be considered the beginning of a slide into the abyss, then we must agree that its multi-vector destructive effect was multiplied by a factor of ten due to the exhausting arms race, into which we inadvertently got involved with the start of the Cold War. The security of the Fatherland is sacred, but we must reasonably weigh how much and which weapons enough for her guarantee. The USSR squeezed the last out of itself to be on a par with potential adversaries. At the “zenith” of the USSR arms race, there were more than 50 thousand nuclear weapons and more than 10 thousand launches, hundreds of submarines, tens of thousands of aircraft.


Y. Andropov, when he became General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, once said that the USSR should have an arsenal of weapons equal to the combined arsenal of the United States, NATO and the People's Republic of China.
This is the level of paranoid thinking. Western experts believed that 40% of the USSR’s GDP went to an arms race. It is quite obvious that it was beyond the power of our economy. Military expenditures had the most disastrous effect on our civilian industries, on the well-being of the population. They lay heavy on our allies in the Warsaw Pact, creating and strengthening anti-Soviet sentiment.

The saddest thing is that the piles of accumulated weapons turned out to be completely unnecessary, and they had to be destroyed in accordance with the signed agreements. Bearing huge costs, we got rid of chemical, bacteriological, nuclear missile weapons, cut tanks, airplanes, etc. And at the same time they believed that the remaining weapons were quite enough to guarantee the security of the Fatherland. In 1994, Russia sold US 500 tons of Soviet weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, which also turned out to be “redundant”. There was no objective need for this fatal self-torture.

Dozens of times Soviet leaders have declared that we will respond with “asymmetric measures”, but in fact they continued to “rivet” everything, copying our opponents. For some reason, the Chinese, having become an atomic power, did not begin to overtake quantitatively their possible adversaries, and saved money to develop the economy and raise the standard of living of the population.

Fascinated by problems of a politico-military and international character, Soviet leaders stubbornly did not want to see crisis phenomena that were brewing in the economy. Please note that in the Politburo the overwhelming majority of members were not engaged in economics at all. There were always presented the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the KGB, the Ministry of Defense, the CPSU itself, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, i.e. those who knew how to spend the funds of the state. And only one lonely Pre-Council (A. Kosygin) was obliged to earn these funds. Nobody wanted to do agriculture at all. Even Gorbachev, brought specially from Stavropol to revive agriculture, "faded" from this post at the first opportunity. And over the shadow of Khrushchev who just did not mock, calling him "kukuruznik". These curvatures have nothing to do with the objective defects of the Soviet system, which we discussed above.

For many years we have read that, say, the industrial basis of the USSR for 1991 was hopelessly outdated, was technically backward, it was not possible to reform it, and it was subject to breaking. Actually, this is what happened, unfortunately for the state. However, such statements have nothing to do with reality. This is nothing more than propaganda spells for political purposes.


The USSR, for all its shortcomings, was one of the foremost powers of the world, having developed nuclear, aerospace, engineering, chemical and other industries. There was no catastrophic lag behind world progress.
Small percentages of GDP growth are not yet a sign of the economic crisis, although the signal for the authorities is rather serious.

Many states experienced periods of stagnation, especially during periods of major changes in production technology. In the USA, for example, entire regions of previously thriving industries have degraded. Where are now Detroit, Buffalo, Chicago and others? But new technologies gave birth to California, Texas, etc. In Germany, instead of the dilapidated Ruhr, agricultural Bavaria began to grow. Tax policy in the hands of the state is the most effective tool to facilitate the flow of capital in the right direction. Breaking or calling for breaking the country's production base is a crime. At one time, the super-Communists called for the break-up of bourgeois railways, their spiritual followers acted in a different way at another time.

The cold war and sanctions measures against the USSR did not play a decisive role in the death of the socialist Titanic, although American authors often exaggerate the merits of the CIA or the US propaganda agencies in this area. The cold war was fought against the USSR from 1946, from Fulton's speech of W. Churchill, and its effect was insignificant for 40 years. China after the events on Tiananmen Square in 1989 was subjected to sanctions and propaganda storming. For several years, the PRC almost disappeared from the sight of the world, silently doing its work, until all the attacks on it were resolved. Cuba lived for more than half a century in the position of a besieged fortress, under fierce propaganda fire of the United States. The result is in front of everyone.

Sometimes they talk about the "Westernization" of Soviet society as a prerequisite for the collapse of the Soviet system and state. It is unlikely that this argument can be taken seriously. “Westernization” is essentially one of the trends of “globalization”, i.e. universalization of morals, customs, elements of culture, clothing, etc. This is a consequence of a revolution in the media, greater mobility of the population of our planet, the transformation of English into a means of international communication. Globalization has captured the whole world, even such traditionally conservative societies as Japan and China, but to believe that “Westernization” is capable of causing the death of the state and the system, this will be, as they say, “brute force”.

The USSR with its 74-year history will be for the foreseeable times the subject of study of both its achievements and failures. But the study will be fruitful only if its authors are objective and free from any national, social, party or clan preferences. The author is a child of that time and of that state, but he has the right, at least in mean strokes, to give his picture of a bygone era. The main achievement of the USSR was the elimination of not only the estate, but also, most importantly, property inequality of citizens, which automatically created equal starting opportunities for any person born in the USSR. The principle of socialism "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work" is absolutely invulnerable to criticism, because it is fair. The ancestors of the socialist doctrines of the nineteenth century dreamed about it, putting forward the principle of the elimination of property right. A talented person can even drown in luxury, if he earned it (like, say, Bill Gates), but his children must start from the same trait as all his other peers. This will be the triumph of the principle of "equal opportunities". Triumph of justice. Any other interpretation of this formula would be a scam.


In the USSR, the social elevator worked properly, i.e. transfer of a person from one social level to another. Education, attitude to work, public reputation were the wings on which people flew from one position of life to another.
Reception of education was encouraged and supported by the state, which made it possible to quickly restore the intellectual potential that had suffered greatly during the years of the revolution and the Civil War.

The official doctrine of comprehensive equality gradually entered the personality mentality, citizens in everyday life ceased to feel themselves as people of different nationalities, and the atheism that was planted removed religious differences. Multinationality was replaced by the word "Soviet people", the bearer of "Soviet patriotism." It was somewhat similar to the “American cauldron” theory, in which a new nation with its patriotism is digested from the motley immigrants.

On this human foundation, industrialization, victory in the Great Patriotic War, great construction projects, the flourishing of science and much more became available. This should be written in multi-volume works, and not in journalistic articles. The state had the opportunity to mobilize all the resources of the country to solve the tasks that were put forward by life. In the popular song "March of Enthusiasts" it was sung: "We have no barriers either at sea or on land, we are not afraid of ice or clouds ...". This spirit of confidence in the future, to one degree or another, held our hearts almost to the very end of the “period of stagnation,” after which we began to deflate, like a punctured soccer ball.


The history of the Soviet Union radically changed the history of mankind. Its improved edition in the world is the People’s Republic of China, created with the help of the USSR and taking much of the positive from its experience.
Left-wing political scientists and other scientists in the 50 – 60-ies of the last century developed the theory of the so-called “convergence” i.e. building a society based on the best, proven by life, the principles of capitalism and the best features of the socialist system. Now, it seems, the closest thing in practice to this theory is China, which could not have been born without the USSR.

The merits of the USSR are exceptionally great in the evolution of the capitalist system towards its humanization, taking into account the social needs of the working people. Under the pressure of his example, there was a gradual reduction in the length of the working day, paid vacations and many other gains of the working class arose.

The heroism and steadfastness of the peoples of the Soviet Union in the war against German fascism, which the countries of Western Europe could not resist, will forever go down in world history.

Even the self-destruction of the Soviet Union will be a warning to mankind about the inadmissibility of the curvatures and mistakes that ultimately destroyed the socialist experiment in our country.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/territoriya_istorii/raspad_sssr_25_let_spusta_430.htm
145 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aleksander
    Aleksander 22 February 2016 06: 09
    50
    The USSR did not have to be destroyed, but reformed, gradually and with strict observance of existing laws and the Constitution. The same thing with the economy, well, who is against the private trader in the manufacturing, light, construction, etc. areas? But the basic economic values ​​(subsoil, aviation, railway, energy, large enterprises such as Norilsk Nickel, oil refineries) should have remained with the state ...
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 22 February 2016 07: 30
      28
      Quote: Aleksander
      But the basic economic values ​​... should have remained with the state ...


      They remained with the state. Only the Soviet state, with flaws and shortcomings, spoiled the interests of the Soviet people, from small to large, providing the first with pre-school education, free education and treatment, active rest and the right to do what you love (classes) in various circles and sections for free. Hence the increased birth rate in these years, identifying confidence in the future and peace of mind for the fate of children. The adult population in the USSR was given the right to work, to apply their talent and skills in the chosen field without worrying about the lack of a job, and the elderly were provided with a good pension ...
      The Russian state is most concerned about its own salaries, observance of the interests of banking structures and the oligarchy. Neither planning nor economic incentives for people of creative labor are known to them; they do not know:
      As the state grows rich,
      And what lives, and why
      He does not need gold,
      When a simple product has.

      And they connect their idle life and future not with Russia, but with those warm places where neither Russian justice (is it right?), Nor Russian laws (are they so strict that they can’t do anything?) nor the contempt of the Russian people (not because there are few, but because the people cannot express their contempt in the right place and to the proper person who hid in foreign residences behind the walls with security) ...
      request
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 22 February 2016 08: 10
        +9
        Dear Yuri Vasilievich! It is very good that you have brought an excerpt from Eugene Onegin. But there was also about Adam Smith, right? And he wrote that no economic madness committed by a private person harms the state, but any madness of the state in the economy is destructive for him! So neither onyx toilets nor the foreign residences of our rich people will destroy the country - these are private traders, even if they wash their heads in champagne! But the mistakes of the state ... - about this article! They cost us so much!
        1. Dimy4
          Dimy4 22 February 2016 08: 57
          +1
          But the mistakes of the state ... - about this article! They cost us so much!

          In my opinion, the mistakes are not of the state, but of those who controlled this state, and should have been monitoring its state in all areas. And these people, for the most part, did not care about the state because they only cared about their well-being and social status.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr 22 February 2016 09: 29
            +3
            Dmitry, think, what are you writing? What is the social status? They already had it "above the roof"! Well-being ... but the whole USSR was at their service. Brezhnev had a garage of 90 cars. How much more? These people just did not divide the state and themselves, and that is why they are bad.
            1. Villon
              Villon 22 February 2016 11: 42
              -1
              Quote: kalibr
              Well-being ... but the whole USSR was at their service

              What is that supposed to mean?
            2. alicante11
              alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 14
              +4
              but the whole USSR was at their service. Brezhnev won the garage was from 90 cars. Where is more?


              While they are in power. And it is worth moving away from the authorities - a maximum of a couple of bodyguards-drivers and a summer house with a car. But you still want a lot. Yes, and children also want to leave.
              1. Tatyana
                Tatyana 22 February 2016 13: 29
                -2
                Speaking about the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet system and the socialist system, it would be wrong not to take into account or compare the party system of power in general, and in particular in the USSR, with the historical system of power control of the country that existed in the Russian Empire before the socialist revolution of the 1917 year - namely, the Zemstvo . This is the first.
                However, I immediately from myself personally offhand note about a certain negative aspect of the manifestation of the Zemstvo in Russia.
                In zemstvo as a management system, in spite of any arguments of the authors regarding its renewal (in particular, they are now doing this in practice in Ukraine), it was ideally legislatively laid down and again with “the same idealistic rake”, MEN'S CHOVINISM is laid as a relic of the past, which also leads to the historical degradation of society.


                1. Tatyana
                  Tatyana 22 February 2016 13: 35
                  0
                  And the second, speaking about the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, is that in the very Marxist-Leninist doctrine there are fundamental, internally logically contradictory theoretical errors that turned into “scientific” dogmas, the critical disclosure of which was in the party and political circles under an unwritten ban - a taboo . Starting from 1986 year. (This is information for those who did not know about it.) If our country returns to m / l theory unchanged, then it will end up with the fact that the Russians will eventually step on the same rake - the events of 1991 of the year and the collapse of the country. See the article by Zueva T.F. “Errors of Marxist-Leninist theory in the light of the dialectical-materialistic method” in “Tenth Kovalev Readings / Materials of the scientific and practical conference 13 – 15 November 2015. / Ans. Editor: Yu.V. Asochakov. SPb .: Scythia ‐ print, 2015. - 2248 sec. - S. 117-121. - (Electronic resource.) - http://soc.spbu.ru/nauka/publications/Koval_10_2015.pdf
                  1. Mr. Pip
                    Mr. Pip 22 February 2016 14: 20
                    -4
                    Quote: Tatiana
                    that in the very Marxist-Leninist doctrine there are fundamental internally logically contradictory theoretical errors

                    And the main mistake here is not even that the idea of ​​Marxism about forcing the path from capitalism to communism by the "revolution of the proletariat" turned out to be unscientific, the main mistake was that we had neither a proletarian revolution, nor Marxism, nor socialism - but want to look at socialism, go west fellow
                    1. gladcu2
                      gladcu2 22 February 2016 20: 26
                      +8
                      Mr. Pip

                      You expressed an opinion but did not show knowledge.

                      M / L showed a serious classified scientific approach.

                      And the west is just an example of how it shouldn't be. In the west, there is no property in the classical view. You do not own the property until the last payment. You also do not own real estate until you have paid the tax and utility services. Everything that is inside your property is of no real value. From the moment of birth to death, the Western person does not really own the property, since in one way or another this property is subject to confiscation.

                      Not only traveled, but also lived. And so the USSR seems like a magical past.
                      1. Talgat
                        Talgat 22 February 2016 22: 17
                        +7
                        I agree with you - they are like rolling a field - a house on credit, etc.

                        But I do not think this is the most important

                        The most important thing is that the modern world order is rotten - that is, it carries with it decay and instability - as our Nursultan Abishevich said very well - the global financial system is "DEFECTIVE" - with these printing of unsecured dollars and world domination based on them - and so on

                        There are a lot of things to list here - zombieing the western citizen with a cult of consumption - the planet’s resources go to hell — iPhones iPads and the 3 floor when he and the 2 floor house would be enough or a new car - although the old one is still good, while 90% the world is in poverty or starving

                        Instead of the development of mankind and bases on the Moon and the dash to the stars, everything is "wasted" on thoughtless consumption and on the dominance and preservation of power by the "fat" ones. + crises, and so on

                        This is an era of decline and decay - to which the Fed leads us - believe me, this is true

                        And this is the result of the death of the USSR - which offered the world an alternative
                        Despite all the stupidity of the musts and the shortcomings in the form of centralization of power - the USSR was UTOPIA - THE WORLD OF DREAM - justice and equality. And a much more efficient allocation of resources. And maybe people on the entire planet would live better — and you and I — and cities would be on the moon.
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 22 February 2016 14: 14
                -1
                Quote: alicante11
                And it is worth moving away from the authorities - a maximum of a couple of bodyguards-drivers and a summer house with a car.

                Well, comrade Brezhnev after the "departure from power" and it was not needed hi
            3. Villon
              Villon 22 February 2016 17: 10
              -3
              Quote: kalibr
              Brezhnev won a garage of 90 cars. Where is more?

              Are you serious? A personal palace, a yacht, an airplane, land in ownership, stocks, a dollar account in a Swiss bank, a summer house in the Hawaiian Islands, teaching children at Harvard. But you never know what else. There is no limit by definition. A garage of some 90 cars for the head of a huge state is not much. Of course, compared with Stalin, Brezhnev is losing out on modesty. But to imagine it as the limit of corruption of power is absolutely wrong.
            4. gladcu2
              gladcu2 22 February 2016 19: 55
              -1
              Caliber

              Eat a lemon. You will feel the taste of your statement.

              Che Brezhnev inherited his cars?
          2. bodzu
            bodzu 22 February 2016 12: 55
            10
            Quite right. The top of the CPSU Central Committee for the most part such as: Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Shevardnadze were illiterate, vain and greedy. Having in the management of the gigantic Empire recreated by the labor of the peoples of the USSR, they could only destroy everything, having received from Western puppeteers the right to theft and handouts from the "master's" table.
        2. alicante11
          alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 13
          +6
          So neither the onyx toilets, nor the foreign residences of our rich people will destroy the country — these are private traders, even if they wash their heads in champagne!


          The problem is that private owners cannot stop even washing their hair in champagne, even in limousines, villas, and yachts. And, in the end, they are forced to crush the state for themselves by bribing its officials and lobbying for their interests, in order to receive more and more profit. But, since funds are limited, new profits come from robbery. Or foreigners, if the state has such an opportunity, or their fellow citizens.
          The state is governed by private owners!
          1. gladcu2
            gladcu2 22 February 2016 20: 29
            +4
            Alicante

            Capitalism is alive as long as there is someone to rob legally, in accordance with the laws that it creates or by military means with an occasion that he himself will come up with.
        3. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 22 February 2016 13: 17
          0
          Quote: kalibr
          But there was more about Adam Smith, right? And he wrote that no economic madness committed by a private person is harmful to the state, but any madness of the state in the economy is destructive for him!

          And if so, then instead of "Onegin" I will quote Trotsky for you: The main evil of the capitalist system is not the wastefulness of the possessing classes, no matter how disgusting in itself, but that in order to secure the right to wastefulness, the bourgeoisie retains private ownership of the means of production, thereby condemning the economy to anarchy and decay.
          And to argue with this conclusion means to understand absolutely nothing in economics! The era of "market economy" which was Smith's mouthpiece was temporary, by the beginning of the 20th century it came to an end along with the Great Depression and decomposed into anarchy - Now "Keynesianism and government regulation" is at the helm of the world, and Smith's ideas have a place in textbooks and museums hi
        4. IS-80
          IS-80 22 February 2016 15: 40
          +2
          Quote: kalibr
          And he wrote that no economic madness committed by a private person is harmful to the state, but any madness of the state in the economy is destructive for him!

          And what does Comrade Smith say when there are such crazy people? smile
          Quote: kalibr
          So neither the onyx toilets, nor the foreign residences of our rich people will destroy the country — these are private traders, even if they wash their heads in champagne!

          This is not to say the least not quite so.
          Quote: kalibr
          But the mistakes of the state ... - about this article! They cost us so much!

          State mistakes are the totality of the mistakes of private individuals.
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 22 February 2016 09: 43
        0
        Hence the increased birth rate in these years, identifying confidence in the future and peace of mind for the fate of children.

        Dmitriy! Where is it from? Do not confuse the population growth of the USSR at the expense of the Central Asian republics and the center of Russia. On the street where I was born in 1954, there were 11 children out of 8 households, and only one family had 2 children. Where is the confidence in the future? I know the fates of about all these people. No one had more than 1 child. And you need 3 to increase the population. Today, I know many from my circle who have two children. But this is not an increase. This is stabilization. Only one has three children! And this is not a "special case". This was the case in other places as well, it is not difficult to verify. Although, yes, Asians and Caucasians under the USSR bred very well.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 17
          +6
          You do not confuse the population growth of the USSR due to the Central Asian republics and the center of Russia.


          What are you telling stories? And who scored classes from "a" to "z" in schools? Moreover, in the Far East there were no Central Asians in sight. And you can't blame the Chinese either. In our class, I was the only one who did not have siblings.
        2. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 22 February 2016 14: 13
          -1
          Quote: kalibr
          You do not confuse the population growth of the USSR due to the Central Asian republics and the center of Russia.

          And what did you mean by that? What is better living in the Central Asian republics than in the EU and the USA?
          Strangely enough, the decline in the birth rate is a consequence of rising living standards and consumption.
        3. gladcu2
          gladcu2 22 February 2016 20: 32
          +1
          caliber

          I confirm. The population growth was also in the European part of the USSR. My friends were from families in which there were 3 children. And their parents got three-room apartments of the Czech project.
    2. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 22 February 2016 07: 40
      13
      Quote: Aleksander
      The USSR had not to be destroyed, but to reform, gradually and with strict observance of existing laws and the Constitution
      But how could it be reformed if the "leading and guiding force" - the CPSU, instead of the locomotive of the country's development, turned into a brake? An extremely ideologized and bureaucratic brake, I note.
      Quote: Aleksander
      The same with the economy, well, who is against the private trader in the manufacturing, light, construction, etc. areas? But the basic economic values ​​... should have remained with the state ...
      This was in our history, under the Stalinist multistructure economy. Then in the production of certain types of consumer goods, the share of private traders reached 70%. Khrushchev destroyed all this and much more by slandering and perverting the Stalinist model of building the state. Actually, Nikita began the degradation of the party and the very socialist (or, if you like, communist) idea.
      And we do not know (yes, probably, we will never know) about the role of the same Andropov in the destruction of the USSR. What did the most powerful intelligence agency, which he led for 15 years, do if it allowed the outright traitors such as Gorbachev, Yakovlev or Shevarnadze to come to power?
      1. venaya
        venaya 22 February 2016 09: 07
        +4
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        we do not know (yes, probably, we will never know) about the role of the same Andropov in the destruction of the USSR

        It is a pity that we do not know, but after all, whole monographs have already been written on this subject, unfortunately in some incomprehensible way that have not received wide publicity. I mean the book "Yu. Andropov", which describes in detail how the KGB drugs against rather suspicious persons, such as Gorbasev and Yakovlev, whom they had been leading since their studies at Moscow State University, were used by the chairman of the KGB Andropov as a ram to destroy the superpower of the USSR. Yakovlev, being the ambassador to Canada, generally collaborated with American intelligence there and was directly prepared for the destruction of the USSR, etc. Take an interest in more detail.
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 22 February 2016 09: 14
          +5
          Quote: venaya
          Take a closer look.

          The fact of the matter is that I know about all these sources. I meant that archival documents revealing such facts will never be made public. And books, monographs, articles, etc. about the unsightly role of Andropov in the history of the USSR - these are just author's interpretations of events based on assumptions and rumors.
          1. venaya
            venaya 22 February 2016 09: 34
            -2
            What other author's interpretations can there be when there are detailed documents about the beginning of Andropov’s vigorous activity, starting with his activity as an ambassador to Hungary, where he specifically organized and subsequently oversaw the bloody events of 1956 in the Hungarian uprising. Is this really not enough? Of course, it is impossible to find a document in which he reported to his Western masters about his specific activities, but even for ordinary courts there is always enough indirect evidence, especially since there are plenty of them.
    3. Finches
      Finches 22 February 2016 09: 25
      18
      The topic is very painful - the collapse of the USSR for tens of millions of citizens! You can argue for a long time and a lot, but I just want to emphasize that "sliding into the abyss" It began not in 1979, but much earlier, when Khrushchev came to power! That's who finally planted the bomb under the system ... There is another such detail - I don’t want to say anything special, but Khrushchev was a pronounced crest, however, the Stavropol combiner himself and, most importantly, who married the inveterate crest, did not go far from him .. . I am not a nationalist, but then it’s time to think, especially through the prism of current events - you can’t let Ukrainians into the highest echelons of power - there will be ruin! Ukraine now proves this my thesis for 24 years in a row! Such a small personal touch of mine to Gumilyov’s theory of ethnogenesis laughing
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 22 February 2016 09: 53
        +1
        Quote: Finches
        you can not let Ukrainians into the higher echelons of power - there will be a ruin!

        Well, not quite like that. Khrushchev - Russian, a native of the Kursk province. But, subsequently, choked. Apparently, living in Ukraine is harmful to immature peasant minds - with readiness, like a sponge, absorbing Seljuk-nationalist ideology. smile
        Oh, but the current chief diplomat of the country 404 Klimkin is also Kursk. Coincidence?
        But Brezhnev, just an ethnic Ukrainian, but with him there were no special shocks
        1. Finches
          Finches 22 February 2016 10: 21
          +8
          hi I was, after all, not quite serious! Naturally, nationality has its own specific features, but, unfortunately, meanness, betrayal, deceit, cowardice, cynicism, corruption ... are international! And elementary human stupidity - generally has no boundaries of habitat!
          Looking every day at Ukraine or recalling how the head of the Great State pounded his UN Labootens with his louboutins, you completely share the statement of a brilliant Jew:"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the first." laughing
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 22 February 2016 12: 27
            +7
            Quote: Finches
            Naturally, nationality has its own specific features, but, unfortunately, meanness, betrayal, deceit, cowardice, cynicism, venality... are international!

            ... this is the main reason ... it’s worth adding greed to the list ... it’s also international ... like the international desire to stake out a better place in the sun ... for this we have observed 91years when more than 70% They said FOR THE USSR, but EBN and Co. ... absolutely did not care, they needed specific principalities, everyone wanted to become a small general secretary, having their own army, bank, KGB and everything in openwork, and life would be like in the Union, but without the main Secretary General, he alas and ah this is utopia ... hi
            1. Finches
              Finches 22 February 2016 12: 30
              +4
              That's right! I forgot for greed! hi
          2. kalibr
            kalibr 22 February 2016 13: 04
            0
            Eugene! He did not knock! They found out a long time ago, this is one of the myths. This is proven.
            1. Finches
              Finches 22 February 2016 13: 22
              +2
              Vyacheslav, Khrushchev’s Boot in history, more complicated than the Schrödinger Cat in physics! But there is no smoke without fire! hi
              1. Tatyana
                Tatyana 22 February 2016 14: 13
                0
                Indeed, Khrushchev once, during his speech, took off his boots and knocked this boot on the podium several times, proclaiming charismatically and furiously at the same time to the United States: "Sniff it!" and promised the Americans to show "Kuzka's mother". They thought for a long time who the "Kuzkina mother" was. laughing
                It was, in my opinion, when the American reconnaissance aircraft landed in the center of the European part of the USSR.
                This case is absolutely true! Do not even doubt it!
                1. kalibr
                  kalibr 23 February 2016 11: 30
                  +1
                  No Tatyana, alas, this is not true, although the shoe had a place and lay in front of him on the table. But he didn’t knock them on the podium in his speech, he said wrong: "We will bury you!" All this was found and described a long time ago. But the myths are tenacious, as is the case with the drowning of the knights in Lake Peipsi.
    4. 222222
      222222 22 February 2016 10: 03
      +8
      "" Even the self-destruction of the Soviet Union .. "
      .from the film about the scout Stirlitz: "Voice-over: Stirlitz knew that the last phrase is best remembered, .."
      the last phrase in the article "self-destruction of the Soviet Union .."
      ..and everything "down the drain!" "since there was no self-destruction of the USSR. and there was a planned, prepared, creeping counter-revolution of ..external and internal forces (read..bourgeois little people who made their way into the upper ranks of the CPSU and the state)
      .
      1. atos_kin
        atos_kin 22 February 2016 10: 57
        +4
        Quote: 222222
        petty-bourgeois people who made their way to the upper ranks of the CPSU and the state)

        would add: and the KGB of the USSR!
    5. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 February 2016 10: 37
      -7
      It would have collapsed anyway - all peoples simply "boiled over" everyone wanted a different life - a better one, and then an uncontrolled reaction of disintegration followed.
      1. 222222
        222222 22 February 2016 10: 53
        +3
        Vadim237 (1) RU Today, 10:37 ↑
        It would have collapsed anyway - all peoples simply "boiled over" everyone wanted a different life - a better one, .. "Are you SERIOUS?
        Yes, look at the results of the referendum on the preservation of the USSR, especially in the Caucasus, the Asian part of the union .. There was a will of peoples that the then authorities simply ignored
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 22 February 2016 11: 09
          -1
          But why all these people, when they announced the collapse, did not take to the streets to protest against the collapse of the USSR?
          1. 222222
            222222 22 February 2016 11: 16
            +3
            Vadim237 (1) RU Today, 11:09 ↑ New
            But that's why all these people, when they announced the collapse, did not take to the streets to protest against the collapse of the USSR "
            ..you pull the "cat by the tail" .. perfectly understanding it .. you are juggling different criteria ..
            ..such a society was formed .. only by command from the top. yes and now unfortunately. the same..
            ... in Chechnya ... they just touched the Leader ... a million at once on the "We will not give" square ... Unfortunately. there is no such thing in all of Russia .. ..
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 22 February 2016 11: 22
              -2
              "Such a society was formed .. only on command from the top. Yes, and now, unfortunately, the same .." - This is not an answer to the question of why they did not come out.
              1. 222222
                222222 22 February 2016 11: 34
                0
                Vadim237 (1) RU Today, 11:22 ↑ - This is not an answer to the question why they didn’t come out. "
                ..read below - there was explained intelligibly apro (3) SU Today, 07:55 AM
                Russia's problem is .. "
              2. Rastas
                Rastas 22 February 2016 11: 58
                +3
                Yes, because they did not understand anything that happened. The society of heroes of the 30s turned into the society of philistines by the beginning of the 90s. In addition, you, for some reason, forget the events of October 93rd, when part of the society saw and took to the streets, only was shot and betrayed. Yes, we are all to blame for what happened.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 27
                  +1
                  Yes, because they did not understand anything that happened.


                  In addition, they promised that the CIS would be the same as the USSR, only without spratlandia. But in fact ... it turned out a divorce.
              3. alicante11
                alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 26
                +2
                "Such a society was formed .. only on command from the top. Yes, and now, unfortunately, the same .." - This is not an answer to the question of why they did not come out.


                It is always like that. There are no spontaneous revolutions. Burn the manor house - and then the leader is needed. But revolution needs organization.
          2. Rastas
            Rastas 22 February 2016 11: 56
            +6
            Firstly, no one was happy. Secondly, in March of the 91st, the people expressed their opinion about the fate of the Union in a referendum, and no one wanted to fight in the 91st - the people were different, there were no inconsistencies in society that led to a civil war. Thirdly, the collapse of the Union went behind the scenes, as a result, none of the common people understood anything and didn’t really believe what had happened, as they gathered at the top and decided that the Union should not be.
          3. alicante11
            alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 24
            +2
            But why all these people, when they announced the collapse, did not take to the streets to protest against the collapse of the USSR?


            First, going to the streets requires two things - a leader and funding. Considering that the destruction came from above, only the destroyers had funding, and the leader did not appear. Although, of course, this does not justify everyone who allowed the destruction of our country.
      2. Villon
        Villon 22 February 2016 11: 48
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        It would have collapsed anyway - all peoples simply "boiled over" everyone wanted a different life - a better one, and then an uncontrolled reaction of disintegration followed.

        If it boiled over, why did the people vote to preserve the Soviet Union?
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 22 February 2016 15: 59
          0
          Such a life is boiling - deficit.
      3. alicante11
        alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 21
        +2
        It would have collapsed anyway - all peoples simply "boiled over" everyone wanted a different life - a better one, and then an uncontrolled reaction of disintegration followed.


        that is probably why they voted to preserve the USSR.
        Yes, people were not asked at all. They took and tore the country, creatures.
    6. Homo
      Homo 22 February 2016 11: 56
      +4
      Quote: Aleksander
      The USSR did not have to be destroyed, but reformed, gradually and with strict observance of existing laws and the Constitution.

      So those who destroyed the USSR or Russia did not need! Their task would be "... we will destroy to the ground ..." and without "... and then ..".
    7. Omelchuk
      Omelchuk 22 February 2016 12: 47
      -4
      Quote: Aleksander
      The USSR did not have to be destroyed, but reformed, gradually and with strict observance of existing laws and the Constitution.

      1. The comment was deleted.
    8. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 22 February 2016 13: 10
      +3
      Quote: Aleksander
      The Soviet Union did not have to destroy, but to reform

      I support fully, reform is always better than revolution!
      I will only add that I think that it was necessary to reform much earlier, preferably immediately after Stalin - his policy was not only forced, but also had to be temporary - the Moor did his job and the Moor had to leave - "perestroika" was to be led by Beria, not a combiner, and go through the way you wrote and the sooner the better - I think it would be much better - but this is already "alternative" request
    9. IS-80
      IS-80 22 February 2016 15: 33
      +1
      Quote: Aleksander
      But the basic economic values ​​(subsoil, aviation, railway, energy, large enterprises such as Norilsk Nickel, oil refineries) should have remained with the state ...

      Tse zrada some hour you are not from the bloody komunyak? laughing
    10. candidate
      candidate 22 February 2016 20: 15
      -1
      ... no one canceled the dialectic
      Marx's doctrine dragged to a dump
      Just because I adopted the dogma
      The union that was pulled apart to shreds ...
      1. gladcu2
        gladcu2 22 February 2016 20: 41
        +3
        candidate

        There are serious claims to Marx.

        The problem is to read and understand Capital, you must first go through Hegel's work "Science of Logic". And then you have to be a woolerkind who graduated from an emergency university at the age of 16. Live to 44 and read Capital. And before these stages of development, all reading of Capital begins and ends on the first page.

        Frankly, a heavy idiotic language. Perhaps the translator is to blame, perhaps K. Marx himself. It's hard to judge. Everyone knows about Marx only in the opinion of others.
    11. Valiich
      Valiich 24 February 2016 21: 33
      0
      I agree with you Alekcandr, it was necessary to separate the Party from the economy i.e. the economy and ideology in different baskets and the Secretaries of the CPSU under control. And so the USSR was quite a self-sufficient and powerful invincible State. With the main thing - the Literate, Strong, Spiritually and Physically Hardy, Good, Fair People of the Soviet Union. And this People Was and Will Be, while we are alive, we are children of the children of war. And I don’t know happier children who could go to any end of the vast Motherland! And no matter who you are, Russian Kazakh, Ukrainian, Tatar, etc. You are the people of your Country. "I don’t know of any other country, where people breathe so freely." And so the old men, out of fear of losing power, lost EVERYTHING! Can take into account mistakes and gather again in the renewed Union ?! The situation is conducive to this ?! EU corpse ?!
  2. cap
    cap 22 February 2016 06: 31
    +3
    “The USSR worked properly the social lift, that is, the transfer of a person from one social level to another. Education, attitude to work, public reputation were the wings on which people flew from one life position to another.
    Getting an education was encouraged and supported by the state, which made it possible to quickly restore the intellectual potential, which had suffered greatly during the years of the revolution and the Civil War. "

    For starters, you should probably return the wings.
    In order not to crawl in the poets of Eldorado.
  3. Good cat
    Good cat 22 February 2016 06: 39
    +2
    The article is correct, good, but how can you write "then"?
    1. Stanislas
      Stanislas 22 February 2016 09: 52
      +3
      Quote: Good cat
      is it possible to write "then"?
      You can write "yesterday", "today" and "tomorrow" (we live in a free country). "Present" - by special permission of the IRYa them. V.V. Vinogradov (perhaps someone will have to bribe). "Then" can not be written under any pretext! Freedom is not a synonym for lawlessness (see the dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language). smile
    2. 222222
      222222 22 February 2016 14: 12
      +3
      Good cat RU Today, 06:39
      The article is correct, good, but how can you write "then"? "
      ..the articles are all correct ..but the viewpoints are different .. everyone judges from his bell tower .. laughing
      .. the question is different .. more serious .. "who is to blame? and what to do" - as always ..
      Can a country develop further without a legal assessment of the collapse of the union .. at the very top .. in the constitutional court of the Russian Federation. The Duma of the Russian Federation .. or will it still hang in black over Russia ??
      VV Putin repeatedly expressed his opinion on this issue:
      1 MOSCOW, April 25, 2005, In a message to the Federal Assembly
      ... Putin called the collapse of the USSR "the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." Tens of millions of compatriots have found themselves outside the country, which has become a real drama for the Russian people, Putin said.
      "The integrity of the country was violated by the terrorist intervention and the subsequent Khasavyurt surrender," Putin said. "The epidemic of disintegration has spread to Russia itself," Putin said. However, according to him, it is wrong to view all these political and economic cataclysms as the agony of the Soviet system.
      The oligarchic groups that had control over information flows served only their interests, not caring about the interests of the country, the president said, the words of which are transmitted by RTR

      http://regnum.ru/news/polit/444083.html
      September 2.25, 2015, the answer to the journalist
      “I did say that I consider the collapse of the Soviet Union to be a huge tragedy of the 25th century. Do you know why? First of all, because overnight 25 million Russian people found themselves outside the borders of the Russian Federation. They lived in a single country - suddenly they found themselves abroad. Can you imagine how many problems have arisen? Domestic issues, family separation, economic problems, social problems - just do not list everything. Do you think that it is normal that XNUMX million Russian people suddenly found themselves abroad? Russians have proven to be the largest divided nation in the world today. It's not a problem? For you, perhaps not, but for me - a problem, "- said Putin." "" "
  4. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 22 February 2016 07: 02
    +9
    Sometimes I want to in the USSR,
    Because there is youth, strength.
    Although we lived in a world of chimeras,
    But you cannot kill a memory like Bill.

    I do not hold much evil.
    There was also a charm in the past.
    It’s like sometimes I take care of a wound
    Without falling into a true heresy.

    Oh, at least for a day in the USSR.
    Plan-law is there, and quality is conscience.
    And let it steers the hill, not the mayor.
    Not for fear was my work, but for honor.

    In the morning could rise to a hymn
    And the "comrade" to appeal to all.
    I do not like the word I am "lord"
    And I do not want to return to him.

    Would register again in DOSAAF
    And forward I would pay all the fees.
    I would have looked at the telegraph.
    Smoked "Belomor" cigarettes.

    Would queue for sausage
    Voluntarily went to the subbotnik.
    And from happiness a little oblique
    In DND was like a hunter.

    In the department store going into the store,
    I would feel pleasure again.
    Natural buying crepe de chine,
    I would give my wife a birthday.

    I’ll buy hematogen for children,
    And soda with syrup.
    I will take lotteries for exchange
    And I'll be back at a gallop.

    When there is a suitable context,
    To return to youth with a run.
    There is a playful subtext,
    Causing a "love" bliss.

    Abdrakhmanov N.Z.

    Source: http: //www.business-gazeta.ru/user/237/action/comments/
    1. Editor
      Editor 22 February 2016 10: 20
      0
      Well, graphomaniac ... As they say, with such friends and enemies it is not necessary ...
  5. afdjhbn67
    afdjhbn67 22 February 2016 07: 24
    +4
    There are so many analogies and parallels with today's reality .. from the irremovability of top management to the arms race without taking into account reasonable sufficiency, a new ride on patriotism, etc.
    It’s bad that then we were a superpower, and now one of ... on the globe.
    1. Stanislas
      Stanislas 22 February 2016 10: 27
      +1
      Quote: afdjhbn67
      from the irremovability of senior management
      Do you envy the United States or Ukraine? Nothing depends on the top leadership, and the president is a makivara for the canalization of mass discontent and aggression.
      Quote: afdjhbn67
      before the arms race without reasonable sufficiency
      How did you find out about this? They forgot to ask you when to stop, or how? What weapons didn’t you produce today, can you specify? Or is it easier to water with common phrases?
      Quote: afdjhbn67
      then we were a superpower, and now one of ... on the globe
      And then, and today we are one of the superpowers on Earth (and "on the globe"). Tryndite awkwardly, uncle! Your curves are "parallels". There is a president who has begun to do something for the country, let's merge him, otherwise afdjhbn67 is bored, the frequency of new faces in power for him is below critical.
      1. Chisayna
        Chisayna 22 February 2016 10: 36
        -2
        I'm wildly sorry. But this uncle has age-related incontinence of the lacrimal glands. Take this with understanding.
        1. afdjhbn67
          afdjhbn67 22 February 2016 10: 40
          -2
          Quote: Chisain
          I'm wildly sorry.

          Go taiga however, shoot a little little squirrel .. there are many such goblin wandering around, some where mermaids are sitting on branches .. I'm afraid you just won’t understand, it’s frozen in Turukhansk ... wassat
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Stanislas
          Stanislas 22 February 2016 16: 46
          0
          Quote: Chisain
          this uncle is age
          If 67 in a nickname is age, then I apologize to afdjhbn67 for the harsh tone of the statement. If 67 is the year of birth, then no, a goldfinch yet, this year I already learned to smoke.
  6. Leprekon
    Leprekon 22 February 2016 07: 30
    +6
    The history that we studied "live". Let it pass our descendants!
  7. apro
    apro 22 February 2016 07: 55
    +8
    The problem of Russia is its leader, everything is tied to it, the people and society, as it were, lay down their responsibility for making decisions and hang everything on him, as in that rhyme the lord will come to us to judge. And from here the problem arises - they are the authorities, and as a contrast we are the people. For all the good and bad things are coming from the top of the people or accepting or resisting, but we ourselves cannot and do not want to solve our problems. USSR and a better future for the people, but for he must be fought every day and even with himself, he must learn, he must know the reasons for what is happening, he must be responsible and be able to cooperate and achieve his interests.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 22 February 2016 09: 55
      +2
      You told Klyuchevsky in your own words. He wrote that the main trouble of the Russian people is that he only expresses his opinion about power, but he does not want to rule himself and is ready to entrust power over himself to any rogue or temporary worker, as long as he, at least not for a while, saved him from the need to rule. Remember how brilliantly this is described by Pushkin in Boris Godunov: "The people are silent" - that's all! And the judgment and execution are always performed by the boyars!
      1. IS-80
        IS-80 22 February 2016 15: 53
        0
        Quote: kalibr
        You told Klyuchevsky in your own words. He wrote that the main trouble of the Russian people is that he only expresses his opinion about power, but he does not want to rule himself and is ready to entrust power over himself to any rogue or temporary worker, as long as he, at least not for a while, saved him from the need to rule. Remember how brilliantly this is described by Pushkin in Boris Godunov: "The people are silent" - that's all! And the judgment and execution are always performed by the boyars!

        If it were the other way around, we would be Poland. Do you want this? I don’t. smile
    2. Villon
      Villon 22 February 2016 12: 01
      +2
      Quote: apro
      The problem of Russia is its leader, everything is tied to it, the people and society, as it were, lay down their responsibility for making decisions and hang everything on him, as in that rhyme the lord will come to us to judge. And from here the problem arises - they are the authorities, and as a contrast we are the people. For all the good and bad things are coming from the top of the people or accepting or resisting, but we ourselves cannot and do not want to solve our problems. USSR and a better future for the people, but for he must be fought every day and even with himself, he must learn, he must know the reasons for what is happening, he must be responsible and be able to cooperate and achieve his interests.

      I wanted to put a minus, then I thought about it and put a plus. Until a person begins to act on his own, nothing will help. Leo Tolstoy has a parable: Field birds made a nest in an unmown field. A peasant was going to mow and sow it and hired mowers and sowers for this. When the birds found out about this, they did not worry and continued to live in their nest. It turned out that they were right. Nothing was done on the field. But one day they heard the man say. “I will not rely on anyone. I will sow myself.” This instilled such fear in them that they immediately abandoned their nest and flew far, far away.
    3. gladcu2
      gladcu2 22 February 2016 21: 23
      0
      apro

      You correctly noted that all states have a basic foundation, this is a dependence on the human factor, and in particular the leader in power.

      History is a science that studies the present through the prism of the past. Unfortunately, she does not find an answer how to eliminate the influence of the leader in power on the stability and security of the state.

      And everyone would love that.

      By the way. In the USA, a famous example of a cap of a country. The state has a purely police function. Monitors the safety of the internal device. US foreign policy is a consensus of lobbying the interests of different corporations.

      Well, the US army is more like a commercial project of the same merchants. They will send it where someone needs to. Not always in the national interest. National interests appear only in the disputes of politicians to obtain certain preferences.

      This is just an opinion.
  8. Bosk
    Bosk 22 February 2016 08: 11
    0
    And why is Russia not a Union ?, with what kind of "circumcisions" and deletions (sometimes diseased organs have to be removed), but anyway it is SOYUZ !, and the fact that it happened like this is to blame for the top, it is thanks to the local princelings at the head of the EBN from the beginning held a referendum on the preservation of the Union and when the referendum failed miserably (people voted to preserve the Union), they decided to simply rename the USSR in the CIS ... and by the way, this renaming did not even play a small role ... Russia is the legal successor of the Union and therefore the Union is LIVING in its person !, now the main thing is not to repeat past mistakes.
    1. afdjhbn67
      afdjhbn67 22 February 2016 08: 25
      0
      Quote: Bosk
      Now the main thing is not to repeat past mistakes.

      Here they are, sometimes even grotesquely repeated.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 22 February 2016 10: 52
        -1
        For example, what mistakes do they repeat?
  9. onix757
    onix757 22 February 2016 08: 18
    +6
    A key drawback of the Soviet system was its disastrous hypertrophy of the role of party leader in the fate of the country. The secretaries-general possessed such a fullness of power that even emperors did not dream of.

    Now everything is much worse. Then, when building a state, power was guided by the interests of society, today the interests of the oligarchy. The important thing in itself is not the fullness of power, but in the name of whom / what you use it for.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 February 2016 10: 53
      -1
      We must also consider how many people in the country work for the oligarchs.
  10. bistrov.
    bistrov. 22 February 2016 08: 28
    +2
    Well, okay, economic and political problems, who have never had them in the world, and why should they tear them apart? Who organized it and who benefited from it? Certainly not the peoples inhabiting the former USSR, now citizens of the "independent" republics, but our enemies, primarily the USA, Great Britain and others, as well as all sorts of "domestic" crooks who managed to be in the right place in time. For some reason, the author bypasses this question. In my opinion, he somewhat casts a shadow on the fence, deliberately sharpening the topic of the economic component and the advanced age of the top of the party leadership. Although I gave him +, I consider the topic not fully disclosed.
  11. onix757
    onix757 22 February 2016 08: 28
    +6
    Dozens of times Soviet leaders have declared that we will respond with “asymmetric measures”, but in fact they continued to “rivet” everything, copying our opponents. For some reason, the Chinese, having become an atomic power, did not begin to overtake quantitatively their possible adversaries, and saved money to develop the economy and raise the standard of living of the population.

    Nonsense. In Soviet times, I even realized as a child that at the next significant industrial exhibition of the USSR, the whole world could make us talk about myself. What can the Russian Federation boast of? And by no means, they did not learn how to copy, there is nobody and nothing to produce their own, since there is no production of any scientific school. Medium * armored cars have been putting into service for decades, and even half steal.
    AUTHOR: All that is great for the Russian Federation was created in the USSR
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 February 2016 11: 02
      -3
      "What can the Russian Federation boast of? And nothing, they have not learned to copy, there is nobody and nothing to produce their own, since there is no production or scientific school" - Russia produces a lot of things, from pins to fast neutron reactors and factories in Russia full, most of them are in private hands.
  12. sevtrash
    sevtrash 22 February 2016 08: 28
    -6
    Some nonsense as presented by the author. The socialism brought into the Russian Empire led, as a result, to the collapse of the successor - the Soviet Union. We can talk about the successes of industrialization, electrification, about the "successes" of collectivization too. But with what to compare? And what would have happened if the matter had been limited to the February revolution or would have done without them at all, if reforms could have been carried out from above?
    Economic development / welfare of the state on the basis of socialism has shown its failure, the calculation that the public could stay above the personal only on Stalinist repressions, we can’t talk about the quality of governance and the system of government - the top of the development of the party nomenclature, those who stood on the top of the mountain - Gorbachev Yeltsin.
    As a result, the creation and development of the Russian Empire over hundreds of years, through the labor and blood of millions, was brought down by "advanced socialism" in a little over 70 years.
    1. Stanislas
      Stanislas 22 February 2016 11: 35
      +3
      Quote: sevtrash
      Socialism introduced into the Russian Empire ... led to the collapse ... of the Soviet Union
      A more meaningless phrase is hard to find. What you call "socialism" is the plan for the creation of the USSR. Since 1917, it has changed, revised and had different degrees of efficiency at different stages of construction.
      Quote: sevtrash
      the expectation that the public above the personal could rest only on Stalinist repressions
      Of course, you will not believe it, but some people who lived long before the USSR and Stalin did not have such a personal one that would go to the detriment of the public, even today there are such people, they just probably are not in your environment. So - no luck, you could be sorry for this. But it is necessary to stop those who row too much for themselves, and here repressions are often required.
      Quote: sevtrash
      the peak of the development of party nomenclature, those who stood on the top of the mountain - Gorbachev, Yeltsin.
      For you, this may be the peak, but for the country it may be a garbage dump into which the Soviet regime fell after Stalin. But the point is not in the "Stalinist repressions", but in who and against whom they are carried out. If Khrushchev had carried out repressions (as in Novocherkassk) on a regular basis, then the kirdyk of the USSR would have come much earlier, it would not have come to Gorbachev.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 22 February 2016 13: 35
        +1
        Quote: Stanislav
        "socialism" is the plan for the creation of the USSR. Since 1917, it has changed, revised and had varying degrees of efficiency at different stages of construction.

        Have you ever thought about this phrase? Can you read, for starters, the definition of socialism? Of course, you will not believe it, but, imagine, there were other socialist countries except the USSR.
        Quote: Stanislav
        You, of course, will not believe it, but some people who lived long before the USSR and Stalin did not have such a personal one that would go to the detriment of the public, even today there are such people, they just probably are not in your environment.

        Of course, you will not believe it, but both you and the people of your environment have a lot of personal things that you and they will prefer over the public. This is their own and those close to them, well-being and fate, their and their material condition. And it was always, everywhere, in all social formations. It is inherent in human nature. Either you are not able to see / notice, or simply do not want to show it.
        Quote: Stanislav
        For you, this may be the pinnacle.

        The Central Committee of the CPSU was able to consider a fool and an alcoholic the top, appointing them to leading posts. And this is the result of a system of organizing and transferring power to a socialist state — the coming to power of completely unsuitable people.
        1. Stanislas
          Stanislas 22 February 2016 17: 14
          0
          Quote: sevtrash
          Can you read, for starters, the definition of socialism?
          Do not believe it, read it! I heard about other socialist countries, but I have never been there. Did you find a contradiction with the wiki definition? Never mind. I don’t understand how this cancels out the fact that the plans for building communism and socialism were changing and seriously changing? According to the goal, the effectiveness is evaluated, which also changed in history in both quantitative and qualitative terms from the time of the Republic of Ingushetia to the collapse of the USSR. You are not essentially something ...
          Quote: sevtrash
          It is inherent in human nature.
          This is inherent in the animal essence, and a person becomes a person only by overcoming himself, growing from an animal to ... who to where. Not everyone succeeds, especially when the ideology of society does not call for this, or does it hypocritically and insincerely, like the ideology of the late USSR, which is why it disintegrated (it was “decayed” or crucified, I don’t know how to say it correctly).
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 22 February 2016 17: 39
            0
            Quote: Stanislav
            Did you find a contradiction with the wiki definition?

            Even with common sense
            Quote: Stanislav
            This is inherent in the animal essence, and a person becomes a person only by overcoming himself, growing from an animal to ... who to where. Not everyone succeeds, especially when the ideology of society does not call for this, or does it hypocritically and insincerely, like the ideology of the late USSR, which is why it collapsed (it was "decayed" or crucified, I don't know how to say it correctly)

            Turn to common sense, psychology, physiology, history. Man is so arranged, his own is always closer. Whose welfare do you prefer - yours, your relative, friend or an unknown person, ceteris paribus?
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 34
      0
      And what would happen if the matter was limited to the February revolution or would have done without them at all, if the reforms could have been carried out from above?


      Everything would end with parades of fascists in the squares of St. Petersburg and Moscow, gas chambers and slavery for the Russians. With the banners of the Turks on the embankments of Sevatopol and Astrakhan, and a massive head cut-off by katans on the streets of Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. Nafig nafig.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 22 February 2016 13: 49
        +3
        Quote: alicante11
        Everything would end with parades of fascists in the squares of St. Petersburg and Moscow, gas chambers and slavery for the Russians. With the banners of the Turks on the embankments of Sevatopol and Astrakhan, and a massive head cut-off by katans on the streets of Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. Nafig nafig.

        Why so gloomy? You know that Russia was guaranteed by London, with an official note of 1915, the transfer of Constantinople with the adjacent territories, which included the west coast of the Bosphorus and Sea of ​​Marmara, the Gallipoli Peninsula, South Thrace along the Enos-Midia line and also the east coast of the Bosphorus and Sea of ​​Marmara to Ismith Bay , all the islands of the Sea of ​​Marmara, as well as the islands of Imbros and Tenedos in the Aegean?
        In addition, increases were possible due to East Prussia, Slovakia, Galicia. Of course, this had to be fought, captured and held.
        So Russian banners could be just on the embankments of Constantinople and not only.
        1. IS-80
          IS-80 22 February 2016 15: 57
          0
          Quote: sevtrash
          Why so gloomy? You know that Russia was guaranteed by London, with an official note of 1915, the transfer of Constantinople with the adjacent territories, which included the west coast of the Bosphorus and Sea of ​​Marmara, the Gallipoli Peninsula, South Thrace along the Enos-Midia line and also the east coast of the Bosphorus and Sea of ​​Marmara to Ismith Bay , all the islands of the Sea of ​​Marmara, as well as the islands of Imbros and Tenedos in the Aegean?
          In addition, increases were possible due to East Prussia, Slovakia, Galicia. Of course, this had to be fought, captured and held.
          So Russian banners could be just on the embankments of Constantinople and not only.

          Yeah, and the West also dreams of a great strong Russia and is disposed to us extremely benevolently. You yourself are not funny?
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 22 February 2016 17: 04
            0
            Quote: IS-80
            Yeah, and the West also dreams of a great strong Russia and is disposed to us extremely benevolently.

            At least read more closely - "Of course, it had to be fought, grabbed and held." Russia was needed as a belligerent against Germany, for the sake of this they were given what had to be taken. Is this something new and incomprehensible? As in Alexander III's phrase about allies?
            1. IS-80
              IS-80 22 February 2016 18: 03
              0
              Quote: sevtrash
              At least read more closely - "Of course, it had to be fought, grabbed and held." Russia was needed as a belligerent against Germany, for the sake of this they were given what had to be taken. Is this something new and incomprehensible? As in Alexander III's phrase about allies?

              The whole question is that you still look too optimistic about the prospects of the then Russia.
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 22 February 2016 18: 54
                0
                Quote: IS-80
                The whole question is that you still look too optimistic about the prospects of the then Russia.

                I am just talking about a legitimate opportunity - the formal permission of a leading world power - for such an acquisition / conquest. And, it seems, this is not too optimistic - the victory of the Russian army over the Turkish - in history this has happened more than once. Not Germans, nevertheless, although they were beaten.
                And it would be nice - Russian Constantinople, but - alas.
        2. andj61
          andj61 22 February 2016 16: 37
          0
          Quote: sevtrash
          You know that Russia was guaranteed by London, with an official note of 1915, the transfer of Constantinople with surrounding territories, which included the western coast of the Bosphorus and Sea of ​​Marmara, the Gallipoli Peninsula, South Thrace along the Enos-Midia line and also the eastern coast of the Bosphorus and Sea of ​​Marmara to Ismit Bay , all the islands of the Sea of ​​Marmara, as well as the islands of Imbros and Tenedos in the Aegean?

          Do you know that London accepted this note AFTER the actual failure of the Dardanelles operation, when the Turks had already won it, not allowing them to capture the Dardanelles?
          And if they wanted to give the straits to Russia, why did they get there themselves? what
          Russian banners, of course, could have been just on the embankments of Constantinople, if the so-called allies had not staged a revolution in Russia, and in fact had not removed Russia in the participation of the division of acquisitions based on the results of the actually won war. But London could not allow Russia to share the benefits, so it contributed first to the revolution in February, then to the outbreak of the civil war.
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 22 February 2016 17: 29
            +2
            Quote: andj61
            Do you know that London accepted this note AFTER the actual failure of the Dardanelles operation, when the Turks had already won it, not allowing them to capture the Dardanelles?

            The note seems to be dated March 15, 1915, the operation began on February 19, the evacuation was only in December, the hopelessness of the operation became clear in August 1915. So "AFTER the actual failure" - you got excited, even the first general attack had not yet taken place.
            And the fact that Sazonov threatened a separate world - yes, it was, which led to this note. It’s stupid to think that allies will give something out of kindness. They needed Russia's participation against the German military machine, for this some kind of preference, which is unclear. That is, the agreement was, it could be implemented, with teeth, of course, but - if not for the revolution.
            Quote: andj61
            so-called allies wouldn’t make a revolution in Russia

            The allies did not need Russia’s escape from the war at all, the Germans, just that suited that the Bolsheviks provided them. They probably paid for the car.
        3. alicante11
          alicante11 22 February 2016 18: 00
          0
          London with the official note of 1915 of the year, the transfer of Constantinople with surrounding territories, which included


          Honestly, taking into account the number of debts of the Republic of Ingushetia and how arrogant Saxons fulfilled their obligations, I wang that they would find a reason to put this note under the cloth.
          But, actually, it’s about 2MV, which RI would not have survived, given the analogy with the PMV.
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 22 February 2016 19: 16
            0
            Quote: alicante11
            Honestly, taking into account the number of debts of the Republic of Ingushetia and how arrogant Saxons fulfilled their obligations, I wang that they would find a reason to put this note under the cloth.

            It is clear that they would not want this. But, if they had taken Constantinople, and with a formal permission from London, a wangui is a non-vanguard, but it would be possible to cling.
            Quote: alicante11
            But, actually, it’s about 2MV, which RI would not have survived, given the analogy with the PMV.

            Why did you decide that? The potential was - the leading position in the world in agriculture - the first place in the world in the collection and export of grain, the share of industry from the world, of course, was small - 5%, but developed. In terms of the growth rate of national income, it was in the lead, although not per capita. The tax rate was relatively low, so there were prospects.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 23 February 2016 02: 45
              +1
              It is clear that they would not want this. But, if they had taken Constantinople, and with a formal permission from London, a wangui is a non-vanguard, but it would be possible to cling.


              You can cling to it without the English "permission". It would be what. And if there is nothing, then the permission to revoke for nefig to do. "Exchange" for debts, arrange some kind of provocation and "punish".
              In general, do you even see what you are writing? This RUSSIA needed permission to take Constantinople? But how did it fall then, if even now the GDP was chopped off the Crimea without the permission of Fascington? This was, perhaps, not Russia, but a new "sick man of Europe" who would have been razed after the partition of Turkey.


              The potential was - the world's leading position in agriculture


              There was potential, but there was no industry that made it possible to restore the army after the pogroms of 41. And it could not be, just because of the "leading position in the agricultural sector."
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 23 February 2016 10: 53
                0
                Quote: alicante11
                In general, do you even see what you are writing? This RUSSIA needed permission to take Constantinople? But how did it fall then, if even now the GDP was chopped off the Crimea without the permission of Fascington? This was, perhaps, not Russia, but a new "sick man of Europe" who would have been razed after the partition of Turkey.

                Have you even read the story? The closest example is the Crimean War. Is the big news for you that the rules of the game determine the strengths of this world? Now is the USA, before Britain?
                Quote: alicante11
                There was potential, but there was no industry that made it possible to restore the army after the pogroms of 41. And it could not be, just because of the "leading position in the agricultural sector."

                A rather strange idea - if agricultural is developed - industry cannot develop. Where did you get this from? Have you come up with?
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 23 February 2016 15: 18
                  +1
                  Have you even read the story? The closest example is the Crimean War. Is the big news for you that the rules of the game determine the strengths of this world? Now is the USA, before Britain?


                  I confess, I am sinful, I love to read history.
                  The Crimean War - yes, just a good analogue of how we would be "allowed" to take the Straits. The fact that the rules of the game on the political chessboard are determined by the "mighty of this world" I do not deny or dispute. But the problem is that Russia usually enters this circle, which means that it does not need permits. Is that only coordination, so that they don't get confused underfoot. It is clear that Russia, like any other military force, is responsible for its actions, sometimes with very harsh beatings, as in the Crimean War or in the RYA. And during WWI, Russia just fell so low that it was forced to "ask permission" for the straits. Shame.

                  A rather strange idea - if agricultural is developed - industry cannot develop. Where did you get this from? Have you come up with?


                  Trite, where profitable, money goes there. If the main share of profit comes from wheat, then agricultural production is developed, if oil, then wells are drilled and oil pipelines are built. This does not mean that there is no industry at all. But it is much weaker than that of industrial countries. As shown by the Russian industry in the WWI.
                  1. sevtrash
                    sevtrash 23 February 2016 18: 36
                    0
                    Quote: alicante11
                    And during WWI, Russia just fell so low that it was forced to "ask permission" for the straits. Shame.

                    Yes, I didn’t ask at all. And like - if you need it, then we need it. So always, everywhere - you have to negotiate. True, you need to have something to offer in exchange. Like now in Syria, for example.
                    Quote: alicante11
                    This does not mean that there is no industry at all. But it is much weaker than that of industrial countries. As shown by the Russian industry in the WWI.

                    Yes, only 5% of the world's industrial production. But there was metallurgy, steam locomotive building, textile industry. Does this mean that Russia could not accelerate industrialization?
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 24 February 2016 03: 19
                      0
                      Well, that’s your definition. Although I agree with him.
                      It was requested. And Russia could not give anything in exchange. The spheres of influence in Iran were divided by Central Asia during the organization of the Entente. In the east, the Japanese themselves could take whatever they wanted, but the destroyers of the Siberian Flotilla would have prevented them. In Europe from the east, the Angles and Franks did not need anything, well, except for the independence of Poland with Finland, and, better, Ukraine. And this would go to the section of RI itself. So there was nothing to offer Russia for bargaining, except for spilled blood, but no one had ever looked at it, especially since, as a percentage, the Franks lost more in the WWI than we did.

                      Does this mean that Russia could not accelerate industrialization?


                      To be able and want are two different things. Tsarism and the capitalists were quite happy with the situation. And those who did not suit - eliminated (take the same Stolypin). It was a swamp, a real swamp, as it is now. And thank comrade Beria that we have nuclear weapons and the WWII repetition does not threaten us much. But FIG knows what else our sworn partners will come up with.
          2. kalibr
            kalibr 22 February 2016 21: 01
            -1
            If we had won along with everyone in the First, there would have been no Second!
    3. Captain nemo
      Captain nemo 22 February 2016 19: 30
      0
      Quote: sevtrash
      And what would happen if the matter was limited to the February revolution or would have done without them at all, if the reforms could have been carried out from above?

      If you are talking about the February Revolution of 1917, with its reform of the "freedom" of sailors and peasants in the fighting army. That the probability of your being born into the light with those fingerprints and eye color, at the speed of light, would tend to zero.
      And here it is not at all necessary that the Russian Empire would collapse, and there would be no 2nd World War, it is quite possible that it would remain and again fight against Germany. But you would never know about it, in the best case your parents or sisters would be born to your parents, but not you.
      For clarity, what would happen if Russia did not sell Alaska?
      In this case, the likelihood of A Kerensky’s birth would just as well have tended to zero, and with a completely oblique and crooked Russian empire that would have lived to this day, but certainly without you and me.
      And all this as luck would have it, says Quantum Mechanics.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 22 February 2016 22: 25
        0
        Quote: Captain Nemo
        And all this as luck would have it, says Quantum Mechanics.

        What did you mean? The power of your thoughts eludes me. Where is the physical phenomenon of the action of the Planck constant, who / what are non-commuting operators, where are a couple of quantum observables, in which place to stick the uncertainty principle, which object has dualism?
        Maybe it's better to hide a butterfly here?
        1. Captain nemo
          Captain nemo 22 February 2016 23: 23
          +1
          Where is the physical phenomenon of the action of the Planck constant

          Constant Planck, I think there will always be in its place even with Kerensky even without it. Well, you think there some sort of Poland will not win the Soviet-Polish war, well, then Belarusians will get more out of this. Or do you think that from the fact that you do not appear in this world the physical constant will change and the sun will sow with a different radiation spectrum?
          Don't worry, everything will remain in place, the sun will shine as before, the plants will produce oxygen, and someone else with mosquitoes and flies will eat this oxygen and sit on the plants' necks, ranting about the imperfection of the mortal world. The Uncertainty Principle with "Schrödenger's Cat" can be pushed further, if the experimenter is not a flayer and pours milk instead of poison into a test tube. And let's now for half a century discuss the Cat will be cloned in the "parallel universe" or will receive double or eternal life from a portion of milk in this one universe. After all, he will definitely not die from milk.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  13. parusnik
    parusnik 22 February 2016 08: 35
    +4
    The period of the USSR is experience, positive and negative ... But for some reason, our own experience is not applicable, but we are taking over from others and it is not the best ..
  14. Yak28
    Yak28 22 February 2016 08: 47
    +7
    The collapse of the USSR is a well-planned action (and not by states) that began long before the age of 91, at first they drove people into the head, slowly it was not intrusive that abroad it’s better not to stick, so that the people would support a change of power, it should be set up against the leadership of their country. A shortage of food was artificially created, trucks were transporting bread and sausage to landfills. The most powerful propaganda about chic life in the West also did not stop, in the military units there was work with KOM personnel, bribes of special services or were intimidated. As a result the country was betrayed by everything, from the army whose soldiers took the oath of the USSR and ending with the usual fooled people.
    The most interesting thing is that the army betrayed the country for the second time, the first time in 17 when the majority of the army, which swore allegiance to the king, went over to the side of the revolutionaries, and the soldiers in the trenches of the first world refused to obey the orders of the officers. And the second time in 1991, our valiant soldiers gave The oath to the Soviet Union was supported by the anti-people regime of Yeltsin, and did not defend the USSR and communist ideology. It turns out that in less than 100 years our army managed to betray the country twice, it turns out that the Russian army is an unreliable structure capable of violating the oath and bringing to power vague characters, but this is not eat well
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 22 February 2016 09: 34
      -3
      The army comes from the people. So the people had reason to do so!
      1. onix757
        onix757 22 February 2016 10: 35
        +7
        Quote: kalibr
        The army comes from the people.

        It’s true, that’s why it was shy to roll this shoblu with tanks on the cobblestones .. it's a pity. Be calm, today the army is not from the people, and therefore roll out without a twinge of conscience.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 22 February 2016 11: 26
          -2
          Do not judge rashly, says the Gospel and Cardinal Richelieu ... And ... wait, and now the army of whom? From the Martians?
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 22 February 2016 13: 38
        +2
        The army does not reason, but carries out orders. After February of the 17, the army was destroyed by the abolition of unity of command and the election of officers (Order No. 1). And in the 91, they simply did not give an order to protect the country.
  15. Capricorn
    Capricorn 22 February 2016 08: 51
    +4
    Everything is relative. Everything! We exchanged awl for soap. Then - WHY ?! It hurts, bitter and insulting!
    1. Yak28
      Yak28 22 February 2016 08: 59
      +8
      What they said in the USSR about capitalism turned out to be true. wink
  16. sabakina
    sabakina 22 February 2016 09: 48
    +1
    Well then I didn’t find my Zhukov, I just didn’t have him ... And sometimes I feel like wanting to go back to where the soda is 3 kopecks a glass, the fare in the transport is 5 kopecks, lunch is 1 ruble from the belly ...
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 22 February 2016 09: 56
      0
      Watch the movie SAGITTARIUS MAGIC ...
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 22 February 2016 12: 20
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        Watch the movie SAGITTARIUS MAGIC ...

        My favorite movie. But I do not have a key .... and yet ... I SCALE! ...
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 22 February 2016 20: 59
          0
          I am also LIBRA and what? Is it bad? Take and write ... a novel about life in the USSR. As if transported there! At the same time, think a lot. Even if they don’t publish immediately, you can then try, finally, abroad. Such books go well there.
    2. onix757
      onix757 22 February 2016 10: 23
      +1
      The video is certainly good, but what about the wireless Internet on the background of newspapers-noodles. Internet in the USSR appeared in the first half of the 80s (SU domain to help)
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 22 February 2016 12: 29
        +1
        Quote: onix757
        The video is certainly good, but what about the wireless Internet on the background of newspapers-noodles. Internet in the USSR appeared in the first half of the 80s (SU domain to help)

        You don't understand ... Infa from the newspaper spread faster than lightning. Remember the old Komsomolskaya Pravda about the murder of a woman over a handful of cherries ...
  17. Vladimir 23rus
    Vladimir 23rus 22 February 2016 10: 01
    +2
    The key drawback of the Soviet system is bhypertrophy fatal for her the role of the party leader in the fate of the country. The secretaries-general possessed such a fullness of power that even emperors did not dream of. They could arbitrarily shape the socio-economic model of the country.
    It was disastrous that the generals were not the same and went the wrong way. A sound idea was. Stalin could not (did not have time?) Leave a successor who would continue his course. It is not in vain that the USSR (Stalin) is so actively shabby. No one else poured as much slop as on him. Conclusion they are afraid that a person will come at least resembling Stalin. Hence the attack on Putin. Although with all due respect, the GDP is drawn only to the shadow of the (pale) Stalin.
    1. bodzu
      bodzu 22 February 2016 13: 06
      -1
      My colleague absolutely agrees with you. Joseph Vissarionovich was not allowed to complete the transfer of the relay to recreate the great proto empire.
  18. midshipman
    midshipman 22 February 2016 10: 06
    +9
    Two people in the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU instead of Romanov G.V. brought to power Gorbachev (Shevarnadze and Gromyko). This was told to me by my good friend Zaikov L.N. Our way further would be like that of China. 1% of the country's population would not own 90% of the country's values. At that time, I headed the GU of one of the Defense Ministries. On the instructions of the Defense Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, all plans were prepared to create all types of consumer goods with enterprises in France and Germany. It was planned to stop feeding to the Warsaw Pact countries from the USSR budget in such a volume as it was then. Already in 1989, these countries could provide for themselves. But they chose Gorbachev. Which is going to celebrate the anniversary on March 2. For what? What merit? I have the honor.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 February 2016 11: 06
      0
      We have ten percent of the population own 90 percent of the capital.
  19. Vadim237
    Vadim237 22 February 2016 10: 42
    0
    Of course, not everything was told in the film, but the lion's share of what happened with the USSR at the time of the collapse and the collapse itself was shown and the situation in those days was much more complicated than we understand it now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= u0UnSg01Abg
  20. Flinky
    Flinky 22 February 2016 11: 10
    0
    I didn’t understand a damn thing about what this article is about. Thought something new ... Minus.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 22 February 2016 11: 28
      0
      So not ripe yet!
      1. Captain nemo
        Captain nemo 22 February 2016 19: 50
        0
        Quote: kalibr
        So not ripe yet!

        The article is really at odds with the title. It is more about what happened over the past 50 years, and not over 25.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  21. summer
    summer 22 February 2016 12: 12
    0
    90-95% agree with the author, but ..

    The article is based on a large number of facts, some of which are not facts (Bill pederast-TSS as an example) (I liked the censorship of the Spring Exacerbation - it’s real, he-gee-tss smile) etc..

    Emphasis is shifted .. Apparently, Mr. has subscription restrictions ..

    The issue of the littered horizon, boobs and trade in the USSR is not covered in any way ...

    Why there is no analysis of the "owners" of cash turnover in the USSR ..

    Who stood at the head of all the services supplying the MT values ​​of all ... ALL, without exception, enterprises of the USSR NHC complex?

    Was it a secret behind seven seals?

    Why is this practice going on?

    All positive emotions of the author for the USSR belong to the IVS era ..
    Further, the author loses courage ..

    But that’s how it was ..
    Thirty-five years flew by inertia ..

    The conclusions are fair. Generally..

    You can take as a basis ..
  22. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 22 February 2016 12: 13
    +1
    Not prosr .. if not about we ate the USSR. This puzzle of our history, called the USSR, fell into its place in the big picture. And he was not in vain. I believe we will return to this, but at a new level and with renewed vigor. And we will have a state of free and strong-minded people, a state built on the principles of justice and creative work. Life goes on!
  23. summer
    summer 22 February 2016 12: 25
    0
    William Henry Gates III; in English
    Bill pederast-ts - this is translated by VO in Russian
  24. summer
    summer 22 February 2016 12: 37
    0
    Bill pederast-ts smile

    That sounds beautiful!

    But it may cost you a lot of money ..

    Forward the screenshot right now to the respected Bill Pederast ????????
    Or wait ???
  25. engineer
    engineer 22 February 2016 12: 59
    +1
    and under the USSR the bomb was planted initially by Ilyich. change of provincial division into national republics. even dzhugashvili was against it. but the Ulyanovs with the Bronstein pushed such a change. read an article by Ilyich: on the national pride of the Great Russians. so there was no melting pot. like in america. where the state has nothing to do with nationality.
    1. onix757
      onix757 22 February 2016 16: 51
      0
      Quote: engineer
      and under the USSR the bomb was planted initially by Ilyich.

      What's a bomb? What is the problem, let the tsar correct the "mistakes" or is it easier to press Russians to please other peoples?
  26. prishelec
    prishelec 22 February 2016 13: 04
    +3
    "The fact that all this was planned in advance and was known in advance by the elite, who brought Gorby to power in the Kremlin, is confirmed by Aliyev's recent statement that in Azerbaijan they were informed several years in advance about the upcoming collapse of the USSR and were preparing their republic for this event. at a time when Gorby, Shevardnadze and the rest of the "artists" staged performances according to the scenarios given to them, processing their Judas bread and powder for everyone's brains. "

    Can you imagine? Even so!
  27. shonsu
    shonsu 22 February 2016 13: 10
    +1
    would put 10 pluses if I could. ) although I have nothing to do with intelligence, for some reason, this is exactly what I thought about the reasons for the collapse of the USSR. we were catastrophically unlucky with the leaders, but now a real master is at the helm. and I think his main task is to create a system in which the role of one person in government should be minimized. maybe this is the "safety advice"?
  28. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 22 February 2016 13: 24
    +2
    That building collapsed, it is necessary to build a new one without repeating the mistakes of previous architects.
  29. Ilya77
    Ilya77 22 February 2016 13: 32
    +8
    On one site I read this quote:

    19 million members of the CPSU, the 5-million-strong Soviet army, at least millions of internal troops and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, not to mention the powerful KGB with innumerable sexots, in 1991-92. betrayed their beloved nuclear missile USSR without a single shot. Where did the leading Communists and Chekists go, maybe they formed a volunteer army to fight for their beloved Soviet Motherland, for their native Soviet power, for socialism, for a single and indivisible USSR? Not at all, they were engaged in privatization, they moved from district and regional committees to offices. The same applies to the masses of ordinary Soviet patriots who are now pouring crocodile tears over the Greatest Geopolitical Catastrophe ™. Not a single case is known that they went to the Soviet partisans. After the collapse of the USSR, the country did not even know the phenomenon of Soviet (communist) terrorism. And, thank God, of course. But the fact remains, the Soviet patriots committed mass treason. They did not show any resistance to the surrender and collapse of the USSR.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 22 February 2016 14: 25
      +3
      The economy skidded, a deficit of almost everything except cast iron and steel. Changes were brewing, but not the same! The existing system of power has degenerated and turned out to be incapable and unviable. The key point, perhaps, is the delay in reforming the Russian Empire. The car from the Germans, of course, also did not help. Whether it was about not only the USSR, but also what was collected in the Russian Empire.
      And the people, the rank and file - well, this is a herd, always and everywhere they led, they went there.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Lekov L
        Lekov L 22 February 2016 22: 14
        -1
        kalibr!
        Thanks for the truth.
        Sincerely ...
  30. DPN
    DPN 22 February 2016 13: 39
    +2
    It was nice to read the memories of his homeland.
    But it so happened Man - a predator worse than the beast, everyone wanted to become rich, but got a bunch of BOMS, an intimidated population and rich people with dual citizenship.
  31. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 22 February 2016 14: 23
    +1
    I did not understand the author. I absolutely did not understand.
    "... we, intelligence officers ... prepared, offered, handed ...."
    One gets the feeling that the KGB lieutenants were trying to drag in Andropov something .... well, and the result is appropriate.
    At that time, we, the Navy lieutenants, saw all this perfectly ... but we didn’t try to INHIBIT anything to anyone.
    Because they knew that it was a test for lice.
    ....
    For some reason, under Stalin, there was one criterion of validity - did it or not with the case. Fulfilled his duties or failed.
    When did the substitution occur?
    When it became possible to deviate from the "principles of party life" - to discuss - we discuss until we turn blue in the face. As the decision was made - we carry out without even rolling the peephole under the forehead.
    ....
    It is impossible to bring nomenclature out of control. It is impossible.
    In an atmosphere of complete sitting out there should not be people who are OVER the situation. They must be INSIDE. And in the same way - to be responsible for their actions.
    ....
    Gone from the "norms of party life", got - supermen, not controlled by anyone.
    ....
    Control, control, control .... no other is given.
    Not for decommissioned property - but for the result of decisions made.
    A bad decision - be kind to fix ... by striking labor in the faces of Sovetsk .... on Perm sawmills.
    And the whole trick.
  32. pts-m
    pts-m 22 February 2016 14: 45
    +1
    Well, the Soviet Union collapsed, so what has changed. As bureaucrats lived, they live to their taste and color. At least the “true friends” of Russia, such as urine, the Baltic countries, the Asian republics such as buy-stand, etc. I wouldn’t have worn clothes in Russia better than sweatshirts and rubber galoshes of the “Russian Triangle” factory. I myself voted for the SEPARATION from the parasites who are still not turned away from Russia, like leeches and non-repayable loans. Simple people will endure everything, as the people say - drivers of Russia.
  33. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 22 February 2016 15: 55
    0
    The collapse began when Khrushchev and Ignatiev Stalin were poisoned. The same one was going to do the reform, with the removal of Khrushchev from the Central Committee.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 February 2016 16: 41
      +2
      Tales are all about poisoning.
      1. Ze Kot
        Ze Kot 22 February 2016 18: 21
        +1
        Do you have a different version? According to the diaries of Beria, on March 2, a Plenum of the Central Committee was planned, at which Khrushchev removed from all posts and went to Ukraine, to raise S / X.
  34. SIT
    SIT 22 February 2016 17: 06
    +4
    In short, the article and in the comments analyze the aspects of the crisis of the political superstructure of the USSR, but the economic basis is not analyzed at all. But all the changes in the political superstructure described in the article were an inevitable consequence of changes in the economic basis. We call it the Stalinist economy based on the principle of annual planned cost reduction. This led to an increase in wealth due to annual price reductions, rather than higher salaries. The superstructure was imprisoned precisely for such an economic basis. While this system continued to work even without Stalin, the USSR issued indicators of labor productivity growth at the level of Germany and France, second only to Japan. The USA and England were behind. For 5 years, from 1950 to 1955, even according to the CIA, the GDP of the USSR grew 1,3 times. Other Western analysts give 1,5 times. By the end of the 50s, GDP growth in relation to 1950 was 2,42 times. Such rates of economic growth, even now, in a dream, we do not dream of intermittent dreams. This experience was carefully studied and implemented by the Japanese in their own conditions. Why did we break this system? The whole system was based on the principle - each problem has a last name, first name, and middle name. All then would say top management lived to the limit. The higher the position, the higher the responsibility. You could answer with your head. But I wanted to live wider with such opportunities. Beginning around 1960, the system was scrapped. The number of field indicators controlled by the State Planning Commission fell from 4500 to 1700. Control is weakened. Send all sorts of corn experiments are not calculated and illiterate. In particular, to eradicate multistructure in the economy. Indeed, before that, only individuals and artisans, there were more than 1,5 million people. In some sectors of the service sector and the production of consumer goods, they issued up to 70%. This period of confusion ended in 1965 with the beginning of the reform of Eusebius Lieberman, which is called Kosyginsky. The economic basis was changed and the basis was completely capitalistic profit. But such an economic basis requires market relations of production, and not the system that was created in the USSR and was designed to work on other principles. Beginning in 1965, capitalism and the market began to slowly build up with us. Shop guards appeared who began to bring power to the powers that be, and they covered them, and in places themselves led everything like in Uzbekistan and the Krasnodar Territory. By the beginning of perestroika, the party nomenclature, especially the highest, had simply degenerated into the capitalist class, to which the existing production relations were close, because not allowed to put into action accumulated. This is where perestroika began, which should have been and ended with the collapse of the country.
  35. kaschey
    kaschey 22 February 2016 17: 27
    +2
    Most of all I regret that my children did not live in the USSR. But I hope that soon we will all live in a certain likeness of the USSR. The most objective judge in this story. And for that short period of time since the collapse of the USSR, it became clear to many what had been done.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 February 2016 17: 52
      0
      25 years is not so short.
      1. ALEA IACTA EST
        ALEA IACTA EST 22 February 2016 18: 14
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        short period of time

        The Northern War lasted 21 years. Napoleon I reigned 16. The Second World War lasted for some 6 years.
        25 years is not a gap, it is an ADVANCE.
    2. kalibr
      kalibr 22 February 2016 20: 45
      0
      And you know that many people do not want this. And how are you going to force them to do this? It became clear to many ... but ... there is a huge distance from concept to business. Do you know what the Communists of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation called for in their newspaper Pravda in 2001, that is, 15 years ago?
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 22 February 2016 21: 59
        +1
        The Communists are now calling for empty seats.
  36. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 22 February 2016 19: 21
    +3
    "... Most of all I regret that my children did not live in the USSR. But I hope ...."
    I like this comment most of all ....
    BUT....
    BUT...
    The Union is our Homeland.
    Our children ... my daughters are no longer homeland ... memories.
    .
    Literally today, driving through the center of the district town, in the direction of the village where the parents live ... after escaping from publicity from the capital of the East of Tashkent ....
    caught myself thinking ...
    over these 25 years, this regional center ... spit, yes, grind .... suddenly it rang out, expanded .... just like what Wolfschanz nad Main ... became.
    Honestly.
    And I think so to myself .... but under the USSR FIG, he would have acquired at least worthy traffic lights during this time.
    It would have stood with a broken road.
    .
    Why am I doing this?
    .
    Not the USSR was bad.
    Or good.
    A cohort of loafers was brought up!
    Chimes.
    That is where the problem is.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 22 February 2016 20: 31
      0
      Yes, I, too, will not recognize my old street. There used to be shacks, now cozy cottages. Not oligarchs, just people who work!
      1. Lekov L
        Lekov L 22 February 2016 22: 20
        0
        Kalibr, Bashibuzuk!
        Right.
        To live badly is difficult!
        But it became more dependent on you!
        Can get rid of freeloaders?
        Now only with their bastards to cope!
        God forbid!
        Yours!
  37. kalibr
    kalibr 22 February 2016 20: 29
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    The state is governed by private owners!

    Yes and so everywhere! And ... states creak, but ... don't fall! And by the way, no one Adam Smith has yet to refute! As well as the Marquis of Condorcet!
  38. Amper
    Amper 22 February 2016 22: 50
    0
    Quote: Dimy4
    But the mistakes of the state ... - about this article! They cost us so much!

    In my opinion, the mistakes are not of the state, but of those who controlled this state, and should have been monitoring its state in all areas. And these people, for the most part, did not care about the state because they only cared about their well-being and social status.


    Assessing myself and the members of the working wing of the Party, by that time I was only a candidate, I believe that the Leninist principle of joining the Communist Party was perverted for a long time and turned into joining the power elite, or rather, in its support of the Top Power.
    Although comparing with the times of Brezhnev and the time of EBN and GDP, it is like comparing the time of prosperity / stagnation / binge and the complete collapse of Russian civilization. For non-believers - name at least one worthy achievement of EBN or GDP? Crimea would always be ours !!!!!
  39. Bator
    Bator 23 February 2016 09: 53
    0
    We wish Gorbach a long life to live p. Adla to the tribunal!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 23 February 2016 15: 13
      0
      He will leave by his death and there will be no tribunal.
  40. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 23 February 2016 11: 34
    0
    A wonderful and informative article. Written by an intelligent person.
    This is interesting:
    "two documents were prepared.
    1) One hazard warning
    over-expansion of geographic area
    influence in the world due to the lack of material and human resources in the USSR.
    2) The second - on the appropriateness of the restriction
    quantitative production of all kinds of weapons and the transition to the principle of "reasonable sufficiency" "////

    It turned out that intelligence economic experts were sensible.
  41. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 23 February 2016 11: 35
    -1
    "The founders of the socialist doctrines of the nineteenth century dreamed about this, putting forward the principle
    liquidation of the right to inherit property. A talented person can even drown in luxury,
    if he earned it (like, say, Bill Gates), but his children should start with the same
    traits like all his other peers. This will be the triumph of the principle of "equal opportunities". "////

    It is fully embodied in the United States. The inheritance tax is so high that
    leaves virtually children without luxury: villas, palaces, collections. The rich are therefore forced
    transfer them for free to the state for museums (there are so many magnificent museums in the USA).
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 23 February 2016 12: 29
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It is fully embodied in the United States. The inheritance tax is so high that
      leaves virtually children without luxury: villas, palaces, collections. The rich are therefore forced
      give them free to the state for museums

      I doubt it very much. I’m even convinced that long ago they found ways / means of transferring funds to descendants. Assets managed by funds, if you really want to keep the collection, you can sell with the condition of resale to a specific person.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 23 February 2016 17: 46
        0
        The rich, of course, are looking for loopholes, but at the mighty tax office,
        (which the United States fears more than all presidents, the FBI, and officials)
        the same lawyers that these loopholes previously work
        came up with. They are taken there on condition of "exposing the tricks."
        So the struggle is with varying success.
        Dad, of course, can attach his child to work in
        his business with a good salary, open in life for a child
        bank account in his name. But if dad suddenly gave up, then from all that
        at the time of death belonged to the pope, the son will receive crumbs.
        My son will not receive a bill, no villa, no land, no yacht. belay
        They will force everyone to sell and more than 3/4 will capture the state in the budget.
        America is a harsh country. sad
    2. Ostwest
      Ostwest 23 February 2016 14: 22
      0
      Not very clear. Billionaire Gates has a fortune in the form of a Microsoft firm. What is there to transfer to a museum? Which is on the list of other "great museums"? please read the entire list.
  42. Ostwest
    Ostwest 23 February 2016 14: 16
    +1
    Something Leonov says nothing about the country of Stalin, about the higher rise of its intellectual, moral, physical and spiritual forces. Those most important components on which the power of the state is based.
    The CPSU passionately imposed plans for material improvements that are impossible without taking into account the human factor, both the individual and the collective. There was a gradual emasculation of the human component and a mechanical replacement with material well-being, which is impossible without the former. This is sad. Stalin understood and knew that cadres decide everything, and the next generation of managers reacted to this thesis purely mechanically, transferred creativity to the category of oddities, and thereby reduced the advantages of logistics over the elements of the market to zero values, and if we take into account the decision to collapse the finished technical design to better results, complete misunderstanding of the Stalinist mechanism of the state.
    First of all, the main mistake was to deny Stalinism, a series of ill-conceived decisions followed, which ended simply with an unwillingness to change anything, responding to the challenges of the moment, that is, following obsolete dogmas. As 2 Ilyich said about Kosygin reforms: It’s not time yet ... and this is about what had to be done yesterday. So they profiled a new technical revolution, without which there could be no question of increasing labor productivity, and ultimately the loss of the USSR.
    Well, the loss of leadership continuity. Each subsequent boss considered it his duty to criticize the previous one.
    The concentration of fools and traitors at the top of the country's governing extinguished its vitality, which in every possible way resisted the destructive leadership, but they were enough for 38 years. The amazing resilience of the country achieved by Stalin's genius and ruined by several generations of communist managers, who did not understand that the country of residence must be protected and developed, and not follow the Trotskyist slogan: use it "like a bundle of firewood for the world revolution", which they understood like a sheep in oranges.
  43. Tired
    Tired 23 February 2016 16: 35
    +4
    Good article. But it is worth noting that the Soviet Union began to fade almost immediately after its birth. The idea of ​​the Union of Soviets was based on the belief in the need for self-organization of people. People should be taught to govern the country through councils and other similar associations. That is, to teach them self-organization. Collective responsibility then appeared as a result of the exercise of the right to control. But the system never worked as intended. The party has always acted as a source of initiative. The reasons were different: civil war, post-war reconstruction, industrialization, preparation for the World War, World War, another recovery after the war. As a result, ordinary people are used to being led and party officials are used to being leaders. And therefore it was only a matter of time when people used to command begin to consider people whom they command as unequal to themselves. Like masses obedient to their will and useful for their purposes. And from such reasoning to a completely capitalist desire to exploit other people for their own benefit, one step. As a result, the first fiddle in the death of the USSR was played not by economics or even ideology but psychology.
  44. Governor
    Governor 23 February 2016 18: 09
    0
    By the way, the example of Bill Gates is not the most successful. It is no longer a secret that he raised his business with the great help of his parents.
  45. Governor
    Governor 23 February 2016 18: 18
    0
    Quote: Tired
    Good article. But it is worth noting that the Soviet Union began to fade almost immediately after its birth. The idea of ​​the Union of Soviets was based on the belief in the need for self-organization of people. People should be taught to govern the country through councils and other similar associations. That is, to teach them self-organization. Collective responsibility then appeared as a result of the exercise of the right to control. But the system never worked as intended. The party has always acted as a source of initiative. The reasons were different: civil war, post-war reconstruction, industrialization, preparation for the World War, World War, another recovery after the war. As a result, ordinary people are used to being led and party officials are used to being leaders. And therefore it was only a matter of time when people used to command begin to consider people whom they command as unequal to themselves. Like masses obedient to their will and useful for their purposes. And from such reasoning to a completely capitalist desire to exploit other people for their own benefit, one step. As a result, the first fiddle in the death of the USSR was played not by economics or even ideology but psychology.


    In general, I agree. It seems to me lately that to manage a fair society, a computer is best suited ... At the moment, technology can allow this. Let technology at least take part of the authority from the government.
    Machines are impartial, accurate. But here another problem appears in the face of too smart artificial intelligence ...
    This is all fantastic, but such thoughts.
    1. Ostwest
      Ostwest 23 February 2016 20: 30
      0
      Programs for the computer are still written by people, i.e. having a plan, you can install the implementing code. All the same, people somehow need to decide for themselves, and neither capitalism nor socialism has ever created such a hostel. The Communists had meetings, plenums and congresses, which were supposed to solve this issue, but also did not. All hope for a good gentleman, for there will always be some sort of an extraordinary person who can subjugate circumstances, along with people. I wanted it to be the right person, living in conscience, but how to formalize it in laws, conditions and norms? Unclear. For the benefit of the country, Stalin was ideal, but we know that he too stepped on many corns. As a result, a person who is useful to society is rejected by him, and vice versa. Like today Poroshenko.
  46. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 23 February 2016 20: 09
    0
    It is unlikely that we will see something better than the USSR ...
    1. Ostwest
      Ostwest 23 February 2016 20: 48
      +1
      From my TZ The USSR is the future way of human society, which our leaders did not understand. He is able to minimize the loss of society, to establish a fair distribution of benefits and create the necessary control, to maximize the use of human potential, that is, society lives with maximum efficiency, if I may say so, but a higher level of governance is also required, which is what it seems that the last commanders didn’t guess that way, the management was chaotic, inconsistent, without a clearly defined goal and tasks to be solved, and YOBN could not build anything in principle. Nature and the Lord did not mark him in this sense, and when addressing strangers, he ran into inveterate scammers. The result is known. Alcohol intoxication and an honorable funeral. Fortunately managed to transfer power.
  47. vladmort
    vladmort 24 February 2016 15: 11
    0
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    This was in our history, under the Stalinist multistructure economy. Then in the production of certain types of consumer goods, the share of private traders reached 70%. Khrushchev destroyed all this and much more by slandering and perverting the Stalinist model of building the state. Actually, Nikita began the degradation of the party and the very socialist (or, if you like, communist) idea.


    Quite right, the USSR was doomed after the assassination of Stalin, when his attempt to oust the party from power was sabotaged.

    Quote: Ami du peuple
    And we do not know (yes, probably, we will never know) about the role of the same Andropov in the destruction of the USSR. What did the most powerful intelligence agency, which he led for 15 years, do if it allowed the outright traitors such as Gorbachev, Yakovlev or Shevarnadze to come to power?


    We find out. I recommend a very good book: Andropov: 7 secrets of the General Secretary from Lubyanka.
    http://royallib.com/book/semanov_sergey/andropov_7_tayn_genseka_s_lubyanki.html