Military Review

Contradictory NEP

80
Contradictory NEP

Ninety-five years ago, on March 21, 1921, pursuant to the decisions of the 10th Congress of the RCP (B.), The All-Russian Central Executive Committee (All-Russian Central Executive Committee) of the RSFSR adopted the Decree “On the replacement of food and raw materials with natural tax”.

Recall that if before the peasants were forced to give up to the state up to 70% of the produced product, now they only had to give up about 30%. From the cancellation of the additional development, strictly speaking, the beginning of the “New Economic Policy” (NEP), which was a series of reforms aimed at transforming mobilization military communism into market state capitalism, must be counted.

As a result of the reforms, the peasants received the right to choose the form of land use: it was possible to lease the land and hire workers. There was a decentralization of industrial management, enterprises were transferred to the economic calculation. Individuals were allowed to open their production or rent them. Businesses with up to 20 employees have been nationalized. Foreign capital was attracted to the country, a law on concessions was passed, in accordance with which joint-stock (foreign and mixed) enterprises were created. In the course of monetary reform, the ruble was strengthened, helped by the release of the Soviet gold coin, equal to ten gold rubles.

Necessity or error?


Since the NEP meant the rejection of war communism, it is necessary to clarify what this very “communism” was and what it led to. In Soviet times, it was considered to be a certain system of enforced measures. Say, the civil war was raging in the country, and it was necessary to pursue a policy of strict mobilization of all resources. Sometimes such an excuse can be found today. However, the leaders of the Bolshevik Party themselves argued quite the opposite. So, Lenin at the IX Party Congress (March-April 1920 of the year) said that the system of leadership that had developed under military communism should also be applied to the “peaceful tasks of economic construction” for which an “iron system” is needed. And in the 1921 year, already in the period of the NEP, Lenin acknowledged: “We counted on ... the immediate decrees of the proletarian state to organize state production and state distribution of products in a communist-small peasant country. Life showed our mistake ”(“ For the 4 anniversary of the October Revolution ”). As we see, Lenin himself considered military communism to be a mistake, and not a necessity.

At the IX Congress of the RCP (B) (March - April 1920), a bet was made on the final eradication of market relations. The food dictatorship has intensified, and almost all basic foodstuffs, as well as some types of industrial raw materials, have fallen into the sphere of development.

It is characteristic that the tightening continued even after the defeat of P.N. Wrangel, when the immediate threat of Soviet power from the whites was already eliminated. At the end of 1920 - the beginning of 1921, measures were taken to curtail the commodity-money system, which practically meant the abolition of money. The urban population was “exempted” from paying for food and consumer goods supply, use of transport, fuel, medicines and housing. Instead of salary, natural distribution was now introduced. The well-known historian S. Semanov wrote: “In the whole country, natural payouts accounted for the predominant share of the worker’s earnings: in 1919 - 73,3%, and in 1920 - already 92, 6% ... Unhappy Russia returned to barter.

In the markets they no longer traded, but “changed”: bread –– for vodka, nails – for potatoes, frock-coat — on canvas, awl — on soap, and what was the reason that baths became free?
In order to steam up, one had to get a “warrant” in the corresponding office ... the workers at the enterprises also tried, where they could, to pay in kind. At the Triangle rubber enterprise - a couple of other galoshes, at weaving mills - several yards of cloth, etc. And at shipbuilding, metallurgical and military factories - what can we give there? And the factory management looked through their fingers at how hard workers sharpened lighters on machines or dragged tools from the back room to change all this on a flea market for half a loaf of sour bread - something is needed. ” ("The Kronstadt Rebellion").

In addition, the Supreme Council of National Economy (VSNH) nationalized the remnants of small enterprises. It was intended a powerful tightening of surplus. In December, 1920 was decided to supplement it with a new development - seed and seed. For this purpose, even began to create special seeding committee. As a result of all this "communist construction" in the country began the transport and food crisis. Russia was caught up in the fire of numerous peasant uprisings. The most famous of them consider Tambov, but serious resistance was exerted in many other regions. In the rebel detachments of Western Siberia, 100 fought thousands of people. Here the number of rebels even exceeded the number of Red Army men. But there was also the Volga “Red Army of Truth” by A. Sapozhkov (25 of thousands of fighters), there were large rebel groups in the Kuban, in Karelia, etc. That's what brought the country the “forced” policy of war communism. The delegates of the 10th congress were forced to get from Siberia to Moscow with fights - the railway communication was interrupted for several weeks.

Finally, the army rose, an anti-Bolshevik rebellion broke out in Kronstadt — under the red banner and with the slogan: “Soviets without Communists!”.
It is obvious that at a certain stage of the Civil War, the Bolsheviks were tempted to use the mobilization levers of wartime in order to transition to the full-scale construction of the foundations of communism. Certainly, partly military communism was really caused by necessity, but very soon this need was perceived as an opportunity to implement some large-scale transformations.

Criticism of the NEP


The leadership realized the fallacy of the previous course, however, the "mass" of the Communists had already managed to imbue themselves with the spirit of "war communism." Too her accustomed to the hard methods of "communist construction." And the vast majority of a sharp change of course caused a real shock. In 1922, the member of the Politburo of the Central Committee G.Е. Zinoviev admitted that the introduction of the NEP caused almost complete misunderstanding. It resulted in a massive outflow from the RCP (B.). In a number of counties in 1921 - the beginning of 1922, approximately 10% of its composition left the party.

And then it was decided to conduct a large-scale "cleansing of the party ranks." “The 1921 batch cleaning was unprecedented in its performance over the entire history Bolshevism, writes N.N. Maslov. - As a result, the purges were eliminated from the lot and the 159 355 man, or 24,1% of its composition, dropped out; including 83,7% who were expelled from the party constituted a “passive”, that is, people who were in the RCP (b) but did not take any part in party life. The rest were expelled from the party for abusing their position (8,7%), for performing religious rites (3,9%) and as hostile elements who "entered the ranks of the party with counter-revolutionary goals" (3,7%). About 3% of the Communists voluntarily left the ranks of the party, without waiting for verification. " (“RCP (b) - VKP (b) in the years of the NEP (1921 – 1929) //“ Political Parties of Russia: Past and Present ”).

They talked about the "economic Brest" of Bolshevism, and the Smesovekhovets N.I. Ustryalov, who effectively used this metaphor. But they spoke positively about Brest, many believed that there was a temporary retreat, as in the 1918 year, for several months. So, the workers of the People's Commissariat of Food at first almost did not see the difference between the prodifferent and the pretax. They expected the country to return to food dictatorship in the fall.

Mass dissatisfaction with the NEP forced the Central Committee to convene an emergency All-Russian Party Conference in May of 1921. Lenin tried to convince delegates of the need for new relations, explaining the leadership policy. But many party members were irreconcilable; they saw what was happening as a betrayal of the bureaucracy, a logical consequence of the “Soviet” bureaucracy that had developed in the “military communist” era.

Thus, the “workers' opposition” (AG Shlyapnikov, GI Myasnikov, SP Medvedev and others) actively opposed the NEP. They used the mockery of the NEP abbreviation “new exploitation of the proletariat”.
In their opinion, economic reforms led to a “bourgeois rebirth” (which, by the way, Smenovekhovtsev Ustryalov very much hoped for). Here is a sample of the anti-epo "workers" critics: "The free market can not fit into the model of Sov.State. Proponents of the NEP at first spoke about the presence of certain market freedoms, as a temporary concession, as a kind of retreat before a big leap forward, but now it is argued that Sov. the economy is unthinkable without it. I believe that the emerging class of the Nepmen and kulaks is a threat to the power of the Bolsheviks. ” (S.P. Medvedev).

But there were much more radical trends operating underground: “The 1921 year gave birth to several small Bolshevik Kronstadt,” writes M. Magid. - In Siberia and the Urals, where partisan traditions were still alive, the opponents of the bureaucracy began to create secret working alliances. In the spring, the Chekists uncovered on the Anzhero-Sudzhensky mines an underground organization of local Communist workers. She set as her goal the physical destruction of the party bureaucracy, as well as specialists (state economic workers), who, even under Kolchak, had shown themselves to be obvious counter-revolutionaries, and then gained warm places in state institutions. The core of this organization, which consisted of 150 people, was a group of old party members: a people's judge with the party line from 1905, the chairman of a mine mine in a party with 1912, a member of the Soviet executive committee, etc. The organization, which consisted mainly of former anti-Kolchak partisans, was divided into cells. The latter kept records of persons to be destroyed during the action scheduled for 1 May. In August of the same year, the regular report of the VChK reiterates that the most acute form of party opposition to the NEP are groups of party activists in Siberia. There, the opposition assumed the character of “positively dangerous”, and “red banditry” arose. Now, at Kuznetsk mines, a conspiratorial network of communist workers has been opened, which has set as its goal the extermination of responsible workers. Another similar organization has been found somewhere in Eastern Siberia. The traditions of “red banditry” were strong in the Donbas. From the secret report of the secretary of the Provincial Provincial Committee Quiring for July 1922, it follows that the hostile attitude of the workers towards the specialists comes to direct terror. So, for example, an undermining of an engineer in the Dolzhansky district was arranged and the shteiger was killed by two communists. ” (“Workers' Opposition and Workers Rebellion”).

There was a lot of talk about the danger of “capitalist restoration” on the left flank, where in the middle of 1920-s there will be a “new opposition” (GE Zinoviev, LB Kamenev) and a “Trotsky-Zinoviev anti-party bloc”. One of its leaders will be the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars (SNK), E.A. Preobrazhensky, who already in December 1921 raised the alarm over the development of farmer-kulak farms. And in March, 1922, this unusually vigilant comrade presented the theses to the Central Committee, in which he tried to give a thorough analysis of what was happening in the country. The conclusion was made as follows: “The process of smoothing class contradictions in the village ceased ... The process of differentiation resumed with new force, and, most of all, it manifests itself where agricultural recovery is most successful and where the area processed by the plow increases ... In conditions of extreme decline peasant economy in general and the general impoverishment of the countryside, the growth of the rural bourgeoisie continues. ”

Preobrazhensky didn’t limit himself to just one statement and presented his own “anti-crisis” program. He proposed "to develop state farms, support and expand proletarian agriculture in the areas assigned to factories, encourage the development of agricultural collectives and involve them in the orbit of the planned economy as the main form of transformation of the peasant economy into a socialist one."

But the most interesting thing is that, along with all these “ultra-left-wing” proposals, Preobrazhensky called for help in the ... capitalist West. In his opinion, it was necessary to widely lie down in the country foreign capital to create "large agricultural factories."
Sweet pieces for overseas

Not surprisingly, with such a love for foreign capital, Preobrazhensky in 1924, became deputy chairman of the Main Concession Committee (SCC) at SNK of the USSR. And a year later LD became the chairman of this committee. Trotsky, closely associated with the countries of the West. It was during his time that an extraordinary consolidation of this organization took place, although the concessions themselves were allowed at the very beginning of the NEP.

Under Trotsky, the GKK consisted of such prominent leaders as Deputy Commissar for Foreign Affairs M.M. Litvinov, plenipotentiary A.A. Ioffe, deputy chairman of the USSR Supreme Economic Council G.L. Pyatakov, secretary of the All-Union Trade Union Council (AUCCTU) A.I. Dogadov, the largest theorist and propagandist, member of the Central Committee A.I. Stetsky, People's Commissar for Foreign Trade LB Krasin et al. Representative collection, you will not say anything. (It is significant that Krasin put forward a project to create large oil and coal extraction trusts with the participation of foreign capital. He believed that part of the shares of these trusts should be provided to the owners of nationalized enterprises. In general, in his opinion, foreigners had to be actively involved in managing trusts ).

In GKK deals were made with foreigners and quite a few fell by the functionaries themselves. A.V. Boldyrev writes: “When they talk about the NEP, it usually comes to mind“ Nepmen ”or“ Nepachi ”- these characters stood out vividly, but with vulgar luxury against the backdrop of the devastation and poverty of the era of“ war communism ”. However, a small freedom of entrepreneurship and the emergence of a small stratum of private entrepreneurs who had cached chervonets from the hiding places and put them into circulation were only part of what was happening in the country. On orders a lot of money was spinning in concessions. This is about how an entrepreneur 1990-x - the owner of a pair of stalls in a crimson jacket, with a "purse", on a used, but foreign car, imported from Kazakhstan - compare with "Yukos". Small speculation and colossal funds flowing abroad. (“In 1925, did Trotsky change the front?”).

The most ambitious and at the same time strange deal was an agreement with the gold mining company “Lena Goldfields”. She owned the British banking consortium associated with the American banking house "Kun Leeb." By the way, the infamous execution of Lena 1912 workers of the year was largely connected with the activities of Lena Goldfields.
The workers protested against the exploitation by the “domestic” and foreign capitalists, and the majority of the shares of the mines belonged to the owners of “Lena”. And so, in September 1925, the company was transferred to the concession to develop the Lena mines. The GKK was very generous - Western bankers gained territory stretching from Yakutia to the Ural Mountains. The company could mine, in addition to gold, also iron, copper, gold, lead. Many metallurgical enterprises such as the Bisertsky, Seversky, Revdinsky metallurgical plants, Zyuzelsky and Degtyarsky copper deposits, Revdinsky iron mines and others have placed it at their disposal. The USSR share in the mined metals was only 7%.

Foreigners gave the go-ahead, and they began to manage - in the spirit of the "best" of their colonial traditions. “This foreign company, headed by Englishman Herbert Guedemá, behaved in the first socialist state to be extremely cheeky and impudent,” notes N.V. Old men - At the conclusion of the concession agreement, promised "investments", but did not invest in the development of the mines and enterprises a single ruble. On the contrary, it came to the point that Lena Goldfields demanded government subsidies for itself and in every possible way evaded payments of all fees and taxes. ” (“Crisis: how it is done”).

This continued for as long as Trotsky was in the USSR - until 1929. The workers of the mines organized a series of strikes, and the Chekists simultaneously conducted a series of searches. After that, the company was deprived of the concession.

Criminal semi-capitalism


For the peasants, NEP meant almost immediate relief. But for urban workers came even more difficult times. “... Workers from the transition to the market have suffered substantially,” writes VG Sirotkin. - Previously, under “military communism,” they were guaranteed “party maximum” - some bread, cereals, meat, cigarettes, etc. - and everything is free, “distribution”. Now the Bolsheviks offered to buy everything for money. But there was no real money, gold chervonets (it will appear only in 1924), they were still replaced by “Soviet signs”. In October, the 1921 bungles from Narkomfin printed them so much that hyperinflation started - prices by May 1922 increased by 50 times! And no “pay” of workers had time for them, although then the wage growth index had already been introduced, taking into account price increases. This is what caused the workers to strike in 1922 (about 200 thousand people) and in 1923 (about 170 thousand). ” (“Why did Trotsky lose?”).

On the other hand, a prosperous stratum of private entrepreneurs, the "Nepmen", immediately appeared. Not only did they manage to profit, they managed to enter into very profitable, and not always legal, ties with the management apparatus. This was facilitated by the decentralization of industry. Homogeneous and closely related enterprises were united in trusts (only 40% was centrally controlled, the rest were subordinate to local authorities). They were transferred to cost accounting and provided greater autonomy. So, they themselves decided what they produce and where to sell their products. The trust enterprises should have been able to do without state procurement, buying resources from the market. Now they were fully responsible for the results of their activities - they themselves used the revenues from the sale of their products, but they themselves also covered their losses.

It was here that the Nepachi-speculators arrived, who tried in every way to "help" the leadership of the trusts. And from their trade and intermediary services, they had very substantial profits. It is clear that the economic bureaucracy fell under the influence of the “new” bourgeoisie, either because of inexperience or for reasons of a “commercial” nature.

For three years, NEP private traders controlled two thirds of the entire wholesale and retail trade of the country.
Of course, all this was permeated by desperate corruption. Here are two examples of criminal semi-capitalism. In November, 1922 was exposed by the so-called. "Black Trust". It was created by the head Mostabak A.V. Spiridonov and director of the Second State Tobacco Factory Ya.I. Circassian. The sale of tobacco products itself should have been carried out, first of all, to state institutions and cooperatives. However, this trust, which consisted of former tobacco wholesalers, received 90% of the entire production of the tobacco factory. At the same time they were provided with the best assortment, and even 7 – 10-day loan.

In Petrograd, a private entrepreneur, metal dealer S. Plyatsky founded a supply and sales office, which had an annual turnover of three million rubles. As it turned out, such solid revenues were possible as a result of close “cooperation” with 30 state institutions.

Researcher S.V. Bogdanov, referring to these and other facts of “NEP” crime, notes: “Bribery among public servants of the NEP period was a specific form of adaptation to the radically changed social and economic realities of society. The salary of Soviet employees who were not on the nomenclature lists was very low, and, from the point of view of social security, their position was unenviable. There were a lot of temptations to improve their financial situation at the expense of semi-legal deals with nepmen. To this fact, it is necessary to add numerous reorganizations of the state administration apparatus that have been going on permanently throughout the entire period of the NEP existence and, of course, not only brought confusion, but also engendered the desire of individual officials to protect themselves in case of a sudden dismissal. ” (“NEP: criminal entrepreneurship and power” // Rusarticles.Com).

Thus, the reforms led to a revival of the economy and a rise in living standards. However, it happened very difficult and controversial ...
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/territoriya_istorii/protivorechivyj_nep_734.htm
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. crasever
    crasever 26 March 2016 07: 04
    +8
    The liberals argue that the terrible and nightmarish Stalin, the NEP policy, would not have curtailed, then these "effective" NEPmen would have taken, thrown off, but would have carried out bloodless industrialization! Would have showered them with a sudden attack of patriotism ...
    1. Wheel
      Wheel 26 March 2016 08: 42
      +10
      Quote: crasever
      Suddenly an attack of patriotism would embrace them ...

      Well, just like in our time. laughing
      1. tank64rus
        tank64rus 26 March 2016 14: 11
        +4
        I agree. Everything repeats but in the worst case. We are waiting for industrialization.
      2. tank64rus
        tank64rus 26 March 2016 14: 11
        0
        I agree. Everything repeats but in the worst case. We are waiting for industrialization.
        1. andrey-ivanov
          andrey-ivanov 26 March 2016 15: 36
          +4
          I agree. Everything repeats but in the worst case. Waiting for industrialization

          Only before industrialization were: revolution (two), civil war, intervention, surplus appropriation, hunger, etc.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 26 March 2016 07: 43
    +6
    I associate NEP with a phrase from the novel "The Golden Calf" ... Around the state enterprise "Hercules" a lot of joint stock companies were feeding ..
    1. Riv
      Riv 26 March 2016 08: 38
      +12
      Of course it was. The same "small business" with the same problems and corruption as now. People were adapting as best they could and one shouldn't think that everyone in the USSR was crystal honest.

      The important thing here is not what happened during the NEP, but where everything went. Three years of anarchy is the time it took to develop laws and mechanisms for their implementation. As soon as the financial inspectors started working in full force, the NEPmen had to pay taxes. Outbidding and speculation became unprofitable and all these "new Soviet" ones simply disappeared. Someone went to state enterprises, someone slept and sat down. But! Those who really produced the products necessary for the national economy continued to flourish. Cooperatives worked during the war, they even had a reservation for the workers.

      For example: in the Kirov region, 80% of all F-1 grenades were issued during the war, and almost all of them were at corporate enterprises. Well, there was no point in building factories for such things. Literally: a melting furnace was installed, pig-iron and ammonite were brought in, the forest was provided with fuel nearby, trees were thrown down by convicts of politics, without days off. The workshop is ready. Cases are cast in a foundry, next to these blanks (without even cooling off properly!) They are filled with explosives, a tube is inserted under the fuse, the plug is ready. The fuse for it will be done in a normal factory. Mines were also made. Here is the NEP’s legacy ...

      My own grandmother in the same cooperative worked the whole war. Peat was prepared for the CHP. The 41st and 42nd years, she said, were very difficult, then the captured Germans were brought. Their production immediately increased several times. But the Germans, she said, died a lot in the first year. Typhus went, half of the camp in the huts was laid down.
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 26 March 2016 14: 47
        +4
        Quote: Riv
        For example: in the Kirov region, 80% of all F-1 grenades were issued during the war, and almost all of them were at corporate enterprises.

        Stalin did not "close" the NEP, he only gave all this a more civilized framework. The real private sector was covered by Khrushchev.
  3. Izotovp
    Izotovp 26 March 2016 08: 19
    +1
    But Stalin then had to restore order. And very quickly, in just some 10-11 years. And it almost brought !!!!
    1. hard rock
      hard rock 26 March 2016 10: 37
      -11%
      Quote: Izotovp
      But Stalin then had to restore order. And very quickly, in just some 10-11 years. And it almost brought !!!!

      NEP is a harbinger of the "Chinese way". State capitalism. With its development in the country, the USSR would gradually become a completely civilized medium-developed state. It is precisely the kind of state that the USSR has never been in its history, despite its bombs and flights into space, which is mistakenly interpreted by scoops as an alleged sign of a developed state.
      But everything was spoiled by the renegade Bolsheviks (most of them were later repaired by the Stalinists from among these renegades, in the course of the subsequent quarrels between themselves in the 30s) with their creeping coup of the late 20s. It was a disaster for the country, in every sense of the word. As a result of all their collectivizations / industrializations and other "social and economic innovations", the country in its development was thrown back decades. And this is even in comparison with the times of the NEP, which was after the Civil War. We are still trying to clean up the consequences of this catastrophe. And it's not a fact that we will be able to disentangle it to the end.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 26 March 2016 13: 47
        -4
        NEP is a harbinger of the "Chinese way". State capitalism.

        I would say this: this is capitalism under the leadership of the Communist Party. Lenin, despite being a great theoretician, was extremely rational in maintaining his own power. For her sake, he was ready to give half of the country to the Germans, Makhnovists, even to hell with a bald man. And when in the 20 year, against the background of a kind of civil war that ended, peasant uprisings began, he realized that no Bolsheviks and proletarians could cope with the angry and hungry Russian peasant. So the NEP appeared.
        In fact, it was a return to capitalism and Lenin really realized the utopianism of his theory. The whole bloody meat grinder of the civil war, the complete devastation in the country and millions of human lives were the result of this error. But all the same, Lenin was a great man if he could admit his own wrong. To do this, he needed 4 of the year.
        NEP became a brain rupture for the Bolsheviks. Therefore, the party was clearly divided into those who did not give a damn about high-profile ideas and began to build the typical state-thieves capitalism that we know now, led by Trotsky, and those who naively continued to believe in the ideas of the great leader, which they themselves recognized as erroneous. The latter won, led by Stalin. Our country then needed more than 60 years to understand the fallacy of the second attempt to build socialism.
        1. hardroc
          hardroc 27 March 2016 09: 46
          0
          Quote: Nikolai K
          I would say this: this is capitalism under the leadership of the Communist Party.

          Yes, these are different processes. And the final results are ALWAYS different.
          Quote: Nikolai K
          and those who naively continued to believe in the ideas of the great leader

          Do you consider the Stalinist idealists? Don't make me laugh. They had completely different "ideals". Selfish character.
          Quote: Nikolai K
          the fallacy of the second attempt to build socialism.

          Ulyanov and such a term, "socialism", did not know. The founding father of the so-called. "socialism" is Dzhugashvili. And Ulyanov (and Marx and Engels) will be drawn to this process by the ears. For solidity.
          This very "socialism", this is just a pseudo-religious society headed by the head of the "church" of "witnesses of socialism" In those years it was Dzhugashvili, then the "heads of the church" (they liked to call themselves all kinds of secretaries) changed. Those. something like a large pseudo-religious sect. It was not for nothing that Dzhugashvili finished the seminary. The roots of his power system are probably from there.
      3. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 26 March 2016 13: 59
        +1
        Quote: hardrock
        Quote: Izotovp
        But Stalin then had to restore order. And very quickly, in just some 10-11 years. And it almost brought !!!!

        NEP is a harbinger of the "Chinese way". State capitalism. With its development in the country, the USSR would gradually become a completely civilized medium-developed state. It is precisely the kind of state that the USSR has never been in its history, despite its bombs and flights into space, which is mistakenly interpreted by scoops as an alleged sign of a developed state.
        But all ruined the renegade Bolsheviks

        The harbinger of the Chinese path is a mixed economy, i.e. it is the Stalinist model of the economy. NEP - the freedom of hucksters and speculators, who are now tolerantly called businessmen.

        The renegade Bolsheviks were actually inside the party opposition, which had fallen off its view of the country's development path. History has proven that they were wrong.
        1. Rivares
          Rivares 26 March 2016 14: 53
          +5
          Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
          NEP - the freedom of hucksters and speculators, who are now tolerantly called businessmen.

          Yes, it turned out cool with NEP. According to Marx, the measure of class in society is the attitude towards the means of production. So, according to the class theory, all the peasants in Russia were bourgeois bloodsuckers !!! And this is 70% of the Russian population at least. Therefore, at first, the surplus was taken from the peasants during the surplus appropriation. The peasants looked at this and stupidly stopped sowing "surplus" - they will take it away anyway, it is better to have a rest for free than to work for free)) Then the theorists began to take away everything cleaned up, as a result, what was left was collapsed.
          Well, so that after a while they would not be thrown off the theoreticians decided to step (briefly) on the throat of their own theory, so that the peasants would grow "fat" under the NEP, so that later they could be driven into collective farms, to help get rid of their native land (according to the theory of foreigners - a bourgeois curse) and work in communes (collective farms).
          1. Alexey T. (Oper)
            Alexey T. (Oper) 26 March 2016 15: 55
            -1
            Quote: Rivares
            Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
            NEP - the freedom of hucksters and speculators, who are now tolerantly called businessmen.

            Yes, it turned out cool with NEP. According to Marx, the measure of class in society is the attitude towards the means of production. So, according to the class theory, all the peasants in Russia were bourgeois bloodsuckers !!! And this is 70% of the Russian population at least. Therefore, at first, the surplus was taken from the peasants during the surplus appropriation. The peasants looked at this and stupidly stopped sowing "surplus" - they will take it away anyway, it is better to have a rest for free than to work for free)) Then the theorists began to take away everything cleaned up, as a result, what was left was collapsed.
            Well, so that after a while they would not be thrown off the theoreticians decided to step (briefly) on the throat of their own theory, so that the peasants would grow "fat" under the NEP, so that later they could be driven into collective farms, to help get rid of their native land (according to the theory of foreigners - a bourgeois curse) and work in communes (collective farms).

            What is the conclusion that the peasants, in accordance with Marxism, were bourgeois?
            1. Rivares
              Rivares 26 March 2016 16: 39
              +1
              According to the class theory of Marx. Classes were divided based on the attitude to the instruments of production. The peasant, after all, is the owner of the land and single-handedly decides what and how and with the help of whom to raise.
              1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                Alexey T. (Oper) 26 March 2016 17: 08
                0
                Quote: Rivares
                According to the class theory of Marx. Classes were divided based on the attitude to the instruments of production. The peasant, after all, is the owner of the land and single-handedly decides what and how and with the help of whom to raise.

                So before the revolution, the vast majority of peasants were not the owners of the means of production, since they were not the owners of the land. The land belonged to the community and was deployed to each farm according to the number of male workers.
                1. Rivares
                  Rivares 26 March 2016 18: 19
                  0
                  I'm talking about Marxists and you about the times of Monomakh))) (also "before the revolution") As I understand you tend to the fact that the subsequent injustice in relation to the robbed is justified by the previous injustice. By the way, there is a funny pattern that the Romanovs with serfdom came from the west, that the Marxist doctrine and many Marxists are from there ..
                  1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                    Alexey T. (Oper) 26 March 2016 20: 42
                    -3
                    Quote: Rivares
                    I'm talking about Marxists and you about the times of Monomakh))) (also "before the revolution") As I understand you tend to the fact that the subsequent injustice in relation to the robbed is justified by the previous injustice. By the way, there is a funny pattern that the Romanovs with serfdom came from the west, that the Marxist doctrine and many Marxists are from there ..

                    And I'm about the Marxists. Once again: until October 1917, the vast majority of peasants were not the owners of the means of production, since the land did not belong to them, but to the community. Consequently, they could not relate to the bourgeois.
                    1. Rivares
                      Rivares 27 March 2016 16: 55
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      And I'm about the Marxists. Once again: until October 1917, the vast majority of peasants were not the owners of the means of production, since the land did not belong to them, but to the community. Consequently, they could not relate to the bourgeois.

                      Frequent repetition of "sweet to me" will not make your mouth sweeter))
                      In 1905, peasants owned 119 million acres of allotment land (not counting 15 million acres of Cossack lands not affected by agrarian reform). Private owners owned 94 million acres of land, of which 50 million belonged to nobles, 25 million peasants, peasant associations and rural societies, 19 million to other private owners (merchants and bourgeois, foreigners, churches and monasteries, cities). The state owned 154 million acres (including specific and cabinet land). It should be noted that peasant allotment land consisted only of arable land, meadows and pastures (with a clear lack of the latter), with a small amount of uncomfortable land and almost no forest. The noble lands included more forest and inconvenience, and the vast majority of state lands were forest lands.
                      1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                        Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 17: 20
                        -2
                        Quote: Rivares
                        Frequent repetition of "sweet to me" will not make your mouth sweeter))
                        At 1905, the peasants owned 119 million acres of allotment land (not including 15 million acres of Cossack lands not affected by agrarian reform).
                        Once again: the land did not belong to the peasants, but to the community. And periodically, within each community, redistribution of allocated plots took place. The peasants were not the owners of the means of production, respectively, could not belong to the class of the bourgeoisie.

                        This is clear? Or is it necessary to somehow explain specifically for dreamers somehow?
                      2. Rivares
                        Rivares 27 March 2016 20: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Once again: the land did not belong to the peasants, but to the community.

                        Since 1893, redistribution was allowed no more than once every 12 years. Not all peasant societies practiced regular redistribution, and some societies produced them only once upon liberation from serfdom.
                        The second widespread form of land ownership in rural societies was homestead (district) land ownership, in which each peasant farm received a land plot allocated once and for all, inherited.
                        Act June 14, 1910
                        The law proclaimed private ownership of a very significant portion of allotment lands. In the provinces of European Russia, no redistribution has been carried out since land was allocated in 58% of communities and villages, which amounted to 3.716 thousand households with an area of ​​33.7 million dessiatins
                        By the beginning of 1916, out of 119 million acres of allotment land in 47 provinces of European Russia, 25.2 million (21.2%) were delimited (and transferred to the ownership of peasants, partnerships and rural societies), and registration was still not completed by 9.1 million dessiatines (7.6%) documents; apparently, by the time of the February Revolution, land management works were actually carried out on 37-38 million acres (about 31% of allotment land). 6.174 thousand households (45.7% of the total) decided to take advantage of the land management proposed by the state, and the paperwork was completed only for 2.360 thousand (the rest either were waiting for the start of work, or were already managing on the converted land, waiting for the documents to be received). 1.436 thousand households in sole ownership appeared in the country.
                        Well explain sweetie ....
                      3. Alexey T. (Oper)
                        Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 21: 43
                        -1
                        Quote: Rivares
                        Since 1893, redistribution was allowed no more than once in 12 years.

                        What difference does it make? The main thing is that the land did not belong to the peasant, but to the community. And the peasant on it was a temporary user and nothing more. He could neither sell nor bequeath his allotment.

                        Quote: Rivares
                        Well explain sweetie ....

                        What can I explain to you, miserable?
                        Read your own link carefully. The phrase "apparently" clearly indicates that the face is a common attempt to manipulate the mind of an ignorant reader, who will not climb himself to check the content of the law and statistics of land redistribution.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. Rivares
                        Rivares 27 March 2016 22: 32
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        What can I explain to you, miserable?

                        How nice, at first Communard tales, and when tsifirki with Marxist pisyuks do not fit (and Marxist pisyuks only fit with Marxist archives), the tsifiri are somehow wrong, and the one who refers to them is also wrong, and the people are also wrong, ignorant, with their mind cannot understand the advantage of the western - Marxist way)))
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        The main thing is that the land did not belong to the peasant, but to the community.

                        Pvda ???
                        6.174 thousand households decided to take advantage of the land management proposed by the state (45.7% of the total)
                        Those. 60 million owners are not considered? (60 million bourgeois by Marx)
                      6. Alexey T. (Oper)
                        Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 22: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Rivares
                        How nice, at first Communard tales and when tsifirki with Marxist pisyulki do not fit

                        What tsifirki? Once again, for those who have problems understanding what they read: the vast majority of peasant farms did not own land, because the land belonged to communities.

                        On January 1 of 1915, the communities owned 84410878 tithes, in personal property (peasants, Cossacks, colonists, etc.) 16843126 tithes, i.e. five times less.

                        http://istmat.info/node/187


                        Quote: Rivares
                        6.174 thousand households decided to take advantage of the land management proposed by the state (45.7% of the total)
                        Those. 60 million owners are not considered? (60 million bourgeois by Marx)

                        We open the directory "Russia 1913".
                        Section "Agriculture" chapter "Land tenure and land use", table No. 5 "Information on the strengthening of land in personal ownership during the time from the publication of the decree on November 9, 1906 to May 1, 1915"

                        Column No. 2 "The total number of householders who have secured the land as personal property" - 1992387 peasant farms.

                        What 60 millions of peasants who became owners of the land are we talking about? Of even 2's, millions are not recruited.

                        Column No. 6 "The area finally fortified by the peasants in the personal ownership of land allotments in tithes" - 13933134 tithes.

                        Column 7 "% of the ratio of the area of ​​land allotments fortified into personal ownership to the total area of ​​communal allotment land" - 14,0%

                        Total: 14% of allotted arable land was owned by peasant farms.

                        http://istmat.info/node/187

                        Are free. Learn the story ...
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. Rivares
                        Rivares 27 March 2016 23: 34
                        -1
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        What tsifirki? Once again, for those who have problems understanding what they read: the vast majority of peasant farms did not own land, because the land belonged to communities.

                        As I understand it, you tend to the fact that subsequent injustice in relation to the robbed is justified by previous injustice. Those. the fact that every fifth was a bourgeois and every second in the reform intended to become one you do not deny. But according to Marx, they are bourgeois and class enemies!
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        We open the directory "Russia 1913".

                        Close my friend. My numbers are from 1916))) Discover something suitable))
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Are free. Learn the story ...

                        I am free from the Marxist lies, because I know the history of the Motherland more deeply.
                        The points of Marxism-Leninism distort strongly historical processes ...
                      9. Alexey T. (Oper)
                        Alexey T. (Oper) 28 March 2016 08: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: Rivares
                        As I understand it, you tend to the fact that subsequent injustice in relation to the robbed

                        But there was no injustice. During war communism was a forced measure due to martial law. And collectivization is a logical development of the Russian peasant communal system, which in practice has proved its highest efficiency in comparison with sole farms.
                        Quote: Rivares
                        Close my friend. My numbers are from 1916)

                        Give a link to the source. So far these are only unfounded statements.

                        Quote: Rivares
                        I am free from the Marxist lies, because I know the history of the Motherland more deeply.
                        Blessed is he who believes. Since the level of ignorance can only be compared with a funny clown nicknamed hardrock.
                      10. Rivares
                        Rivares 28 March 2016 19: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Give a link to the source. So far these are only unfounded statements.

                        Quote: Rivares
                        By the beginning of 1916, out of 119 million acres of allotment land in 47 provinces

                        On years. Everything is there, we look carefully.

                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Since the level of ignorance can only be compared with a funny clown nicknamed hardrock.

                        How correctly when insulting a person selects those words that are most offensive to him. And the most offensive are those characteristics that most fully relate to the offending. Simplified - as a person insults - that he is.
                      11. hardroc
                        hardroc 28 March 2016 20: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: Rivares
                        How correctly when insulting a person selects those words that are most offensive to him. And the most offensive are those characteristics that most fully relate to the offending. Simplified - as a person insults - that he is.

                        Everything is correct. For a long time already I have not paid attention to this teacher of the sect of "witnesses of socialism". If he disputes even those numbers, the reference to which he himself gave a little earlier, then how can you argue with him? And for what?
                        Unfortunately, there are a lot of such zombies. So, I think it’s only here they have a base, or are they full everywhere? What do you think?
                      12. Rivares
                        Rivares 28 March 2016 22: 54
                        0
                        Quote: hardroc
                        So, I think it’s only here they have a base, or are they full everywhere? What do you think?

                        No, he is exclusive in obstinacy or conviction (which even causes me a special form of respect). Replace Marxism in its information support with, for example, Christianity, and you will get a religious fanatic who recognizes only St. scripture and the words of the saints. But the tactics of discussion, methods (quotes and insults) will be the same only in a different form (for example, a dirty heretic, apostate, etc.) But why argue this individually for everyone who argues, I am interested in his methods, at first it was very annoying, Then it became interesting. He is not able to go beyond Marxism, but where else do you make up a living idea of ​​the moral and intellectual appearance of party workers and fiery communists)))
                    2. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) 28 March 2016 20: 36
                      0
                      Quote: Rivares
                      On years. Everything is there, we look carefully.

                      I requested a link to the source of these numbers. From which statistical compilation are they taken and where can I find it?
                    3. Rivares
                      Rivares 28 March 2016 22: 58
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      I requested a link to the source of these numbers. From which statistical compilation are they taken and where can I find it?

                      Well, it's that simple! Your own stat collections where the number of farmsteads - land owners is indicated. Multiply the number of farmsteads by the average number of people in a peasant family of 15-16 and get an idea of ​​the number of owners.
                    4. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) 28 March 2016 23: 19
                      0
                      Those. You do not have any documentary evidence of the numbers stated above. Did I understand correctly?
                    5. Rivares
                      Rivares 29 March 2016 02: 05
                      0
                      No, not right.
                      http://istmat.info/node/187
                      You can look at the Stolypin reform in the wiki, there are also statistics with sources there (not Marxist, of course). Link unfortunately only breaks here. Do you need a piece of paper for every conclusion? Then many of your judgments are not worth anything, and based on your own positions))
                    6. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) 29 March 2016 22: 03
                      0
                      Quote: Rivares
                      No, not right.
                      http://istmat.info/node/187

                      So in the source cited by me it is indicated that the owners of the land were less than two million peasant farms. Where did the fantastic number of 60 millions of land owners come from?

                      Either you, out of ignorance, or at the hint of a troll named "hard rock", who can only bark from under the bench and openly oppose me in an open dispute (since I have poked him with my nose once), decided that the number of owners is equal to the number of members families? So this is outright nonsense, the owner in this situation was only one - the one to whom the ownership was registered.

                      Where did 60 millions of owners pick from?

                      And one moment. The link indicates the amount of allotment land transferred to private ownership. It amounted to 14% of the total land owned by the peasants.

                      Count how many acres of land each owner would have if there really were 60 millions? And would he be able to feed banally from this land if, according to the most conservative estimates, the minimum size of the land allotment for feeding one peasant was 1,5 tithing?
                    7. Rivares
                      Rivares 30 March 2016 23: 14
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      was 60 million? And would he be able to feed banally from this land if, according to the most conservative estimates, the minimum size of the land allotment for feeding one peasant was 1,5 tithes?

                      Of course they could in RI the population was about 170 million and fed the same))
                      14% is by 1905
                      21.2% already 1916
                      This is peasant in% of the land, and by 16, 2.3 million owners appeared. But the most amazing thing is that you ignored the Cossack land ownership from your link. As many as 4 million bourgeois owners. That is why the Cossacks were actively destroyed after the revolution. So, it turned out more than 6 million households. And if you think that your father’s apartment was taken away and thrown out with his wife and children, then the children and the wife did not suffer because owner father, then I wish the same fate to your children.
                    8. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) April 1 2016 12: 07
                      -1
                      Quote: Rivares
                      This is peasant in% of the land, and by 16 year appeared 2.3 million owners. But the most amazing thing is that you ignored the Cossack land ownership from your link. Already as many as 4 million bourgeois owners.

                      Wonderful. But you never answered where the figure came from in 60 (SIXTY) millions of peasant owners of the land?

                      And again they ignored the answer to the question about the source of information showing the amount of land owned by them for 1916 year. In the directory indicated by me there is no such information.

                      So please, do not find it difficult to throw a link to the source of this information.
                    9. Rivares
                      Rivares April 5 2016 17: 14
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      And again they ignored the answer to the question about the source of information showing the amount of land owned by them for 1916 year. In the directory indicated by me there is no such information.

                      Are you pretending
                      http://istmat.info/node/187
                      8 table. What, in revolutionary schools to add numbers in the 8 table and in the 5 table were not taught)) They only taught to subtract and divide))
                    10. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) April 5 2016 22: 40
                      0
                      Quote: Rivares
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      And again they ignored the answer to the question about the source of information showing the amount of land owned by them for 1916 year. In the directory indicated by me there is no such information.

                      Are you pretending
                      http://istmat.info/node/187
                      8 table. What, in revolutionary schools to add numbers in the 8 table and in the 5 table were not taught)) They only taught to subtract and divide))

                      You are pretending to be trying to get out of a situation into which you yourself have been driven.
                      You wrote about 60 millions of owners, and there are not even five million of them, as follows from the tables 8 and 5.
                    11. Rivares
                      Rivares April 5 2016 22: 46
                      0
                      So, the 2 question answered - yes or no? And then you go around in circles. I will answer the first one.
                    12. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) April 5 2016 23: 35
                      0
                      Quote: Rivares
                      So, the 2 question answered - yes or no? And then you go around in circles. I will answer the first one.

                      No, they didn’t answer. In the presented link, firstly, there is no information about the 1916 year, and secondly, there is not even a close figure for the 60 millions of peasant owners of the land.
                    13. Rivares
                      Rivares April 5 2016 23: 49
                      0
                      about 6 million owners there are no questions from where is the figure?
                    14. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) April 5 2016 23: 57
                      0
                      Quote: Rivares
                      about 6 million owners there are no questions from where is the figure?

                      From the link I previously posted to the source that you tried to criticize.
                    15. Rivares
                      Rivares April 6 2016 00: 07
                      0
                      6 million is indicated there - this is the number of households. So?
                      Now, how many people are on average in a household?
                    16. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) April 6 2016 00: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Rivares
                      6 million is indicated there - this is the number of households. So?
                      Now, how many people are on average in a household?

                      A person there may be at least 100. But there is only one owner - the head of the family. And the rest are his heirs, who may become owners, or may not become.

                      Even when dispossessed, fist family members were given the right to choose: go to the link with ours or stay.
                    17. Rivares
                      Rivares April 6 2016 00: 21
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      A person there may be at least 100. But there is only one owner - the head of the family.

                      But for some reason, the table shows the households. Those. documents recognize ownership and you do not? So also refer to these documents)))
                      Where is it indicated that the owner is only the head of the family? Those. however, you do not have documentary evidence.
                    18. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) April 6 2016 01: 28
                      0
                      Quote: Rivares
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      A person there may be at least 100. But there is only one owner - the head of the family.

                      But for some reason, the table shows the households. Those. documents recognize ownership and you do not? So also refer to these documents)))
                      Where is it indicated that the owner is only the head of the family? Those. however, you do not have documentary evidence.

                      Do not try to pull the owl on the globe.
                      The table 6 indicates the number of householders (not households, namely householders, that is, owners) - 1992387, who by the 1 of January 1915 received personal land. And these are not only peasants, but also petty bourgeois who bought land from peasants who stood out from the community and submitted their allotments.

                      The table 5 shows the growth of the peasant owners for the period from 1905 to 1914 year - in total, there were 764258 peasant owners.

                      The table 8 shows the number of male Cossack population - a little more than 2 million. Not all of them were owners, but I will not trifle, let them all be owners.

                      Total: together with the Cossacks on 1 of January 1915 of the year in Russia, there were approximately 2,8 million peasants who own land.

                      The question remains open: where did you count 60 millions?
                    19. Rivares
                      Rivares April 6 2016 01: 41
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      The table 6 indicates the number of householders (not households, namely householders, that is, owners) - 1992387, who by the 1 of January 1915 received personal land. And these are not only peasants, but also petty bourgeois who bought land from peasants who stood out from the community and submitted their allotments.

                      No. Table 6 is Information about companies in which no redistribution was made from the very endowment of land (that is, from the abolition of crep. Rights), total 3.7 million
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      The table 5 shows the growth of the peasant owners for the period from 1905 to 1914 year - in total, there were 764258 peasant owners.

                      truth? And for some reason 1.9 million owners of growth are indicated there ... Somehow, with an owl and a globe, you did a bad job))
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      The table 8 shows the number of male Cossack population - a little more than 2 million. Not all of them were owners, but I will not trifle, let them all be owners.

                      Oh, what bounty !? In Hebrew ... And why is the table named: Cossack land tenure in Russia on 1 January 1912 g. And 2 mln. number, from 4 million))
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      Total: together with the Cossacks on 1 of January 1915 of the year in Russia, there were approximately 2,8 million peasants who own land.

                      You have outstanding abilities! From your text 1.9 mln + 2 mln = 2.8 mln. Yes, my friend, you only need to cut the budget.
                    20. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) April 6 2016 02: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Rivares
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      The table 6 indicates the number of householders (not households, namely householders, that is, owners) - 1992387, who by the 1 of January 1915 received personal land. And these are not only peasants, but also petty bourgeois who bought land from peasants who stood out from the community and submitted their allotments.

                      No. Table 6 is Information about companies in which no redistribution was made from the very endowment of land (that is, from the abolition of crep. Rights), total 3.7 million
                      Yes, thanks for the amendment, it’s not very convenient to type on the tablet.
                      Quote: Rivares

                      truth? And for some reason 1.9 million owners of growth are indicated there ... Somehow, with an owl and a globe, you did a bad job))
                      Why is it all of a sudden? 1,9 million is the number of householders, among which only 764 thousand of peasants. Look carefully at the 4 table: in 1905, there were 490 thousands, during the period from 1906 to 1914, 422 thousands arrived and at the same time 148 thousands fell.
                      So you have the problem.
                      Quote: Rivares

                      Oh, what bounty !? In Hebrew ... And why is the table named: Cossack land tenure in Russia on 1 January 1912 g. And 2 mln. number, from 4 million))
                      No need to fantasize. 4 million is the total population. Of these, only 2 million of men (including decrepit old people and papillary suckers).
                      Quote: Rivares

                      You have outstanding abilities! From your text 1.9 mln + 2 mln = 2.8 mln. Yes, my friend, you only need to cut the budget.
                      No need to rattle to no avail. You were poked with your nose into obvious stupidity - be able to lose like a man.
                    21. Rivares
                      Rivares April 6 2016 02: 55
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      Why is it all of a sudden? 1,9 million is the number of householders, among which only 764 thousand of peasants. Look carefully at the 4 table: in 1905, there were 490 thousands, during the period from 1906 to 1914, 422 thousands arrived and at the same time 148 thousands fell.
                      So you have the problem.

                      A Statistical Yearbook of Russia. 1915
                      indicates 1.99 million homeowners who strengthened the land in Ch. for 09-14 years. Add 0.5 million for 1905. It turned out))) As I understand it in your calculations, you won’t pull the owl on the globe.
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      No need to fantasize. 4 million is the total population. Of these, only 2 million of men (including decrepit old people and papillary suckers).

                      It is written - the military population - 4053694.
                      Article 415 of the Charter stipulated that Cossacks serve on their own horses and acquire all equipment at their own expense.
                      and fantasies about decrepitude and suckers are for you, they are not in the table.
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      know how to lose like a man

                      Well, we’re not playing a game of checkers here, so you don’t need to lose your ability (and even from me) You can only poke your nonsense at your own, and you are forgivable, except for Marx-Lenin, you know little, though it’s unlikely that you even all of their volumes have been studied. The original subject of the dispute is the falsity (and for you the truth) of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. You could not refute even the intentional stupidity about 60 million, although you can do it in an elementary different way (I hope you will guess)))) But for some reason you do not check the conclusions of Marx with statistics, an amazing credulity to Jewish thinkers!
                    22. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) April 6 2016 11: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: Rivares
                      A Statistical Yearbook of Russia. 1915
                      indicates 1.99 million households fortified the land in h. for 09-14year

                      A householder does not automatically mean a peasant. It could well be a merchant or a bourgeois city dweller, or a rogue officer or just an ordinary official.
                      The peasants from these householders were 764 thousands.

                      Quote: Rivares
                      Article 415 of the Charter stipulated that Cossacks serve on their own horses

                      Yes, even on their own camels. The total male Cossack population (not men of draft age, namely men of all ages belonging to the Cossack class) was slightly more than 2 million people. this is exactly what is written in the indicated table. And if we assume that about 30% are minor children who are not owners, then there were even fewer real owners of land.



                      Quote: Rivares
                      apart from Marx-Lenin, you know little, although it is unlikely that you even studied all of their volumes. The original subject of the dispute is the falsity (and for you the truth) of the Marxist-Leninist ideology.
                      The truth of Marxism-Leninism is proved by the history of the development of society. And no serious researchers are in doubt, even in the West, where Marxism in the modern world is considered the most objective study of the development of capitalist society and its prospects.


                      Quote: Rivares
                      You could not refute even the intentional stupidity about 60 million,
                      Well, why? After all, in the end, under the pressure of the evidence I presented, I admitted that this is stupid. Although before that they insisted on their innocence.

                      Which, in principle, was required to prove.
                      Quote: Rivares
                      But for some reason you do not check the conclusions of Marx with statistics, an amazing credulity to Jewish thinkers!
                      The nationality of the researcher is of interest only to foolish people who consider themselves the pinnacle of creation only because they have a navel that is higher than their neighbor or nose with potatoes, and not plums. :-)
                    23. Rivares
                      Rivares April 6 2016 19: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      A householder does not automatically mean a peasant. It could well be a merchant or a bourgeois city dweller, or a rogue officer or just an ordinary official.
                      The peasants from these householders were 764 thousands.

                      by January 1, 1916% stood out from the community and strengthened the land into personal property of 2,5 million breeders (Dubrovsky S. M. Decree. Op. S. 199.) Have a bite)))
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      And if we assume that about 30% are minor children,

                      Yes, even take on the chest, No in the table of this. There are 4 million troops)))
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      The truth of Marxism-Leninism is proved by the history of the development of society.

                      Maybe, but not ours. Live quietly Marxists in Israel in the Marx))
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      After all, you eventually admitted under the pressure of the evidence I presented

                      They made me laugh. It has not been proven, and how to prove it is not guessed.
                      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                      Researcher's nationality is of interest only to foolish people

                      No one interferes with the life of the Jews to explore ... on their land and on their people)))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • hard rock
    hard rock 26 March 2016 19: 04
    0
    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    mixed economy, i.e. it is the Stalinist model of the economy

    Everyone thinks it's Dieter Bohlen. And this is Alexey T. (Oper) traditionally not in himself. But how can there be a user in himself who writes seriously about the "mixed economy" under Dzhugashvili? People were afraid to sit against the wind, but suddenly it turns out that they were "independent owners". From those very "other ways". PPTs.
    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    The renegade Bolsheviks were actually inside the party opposition, which had fallen off its view of the country's development path. History has proven that they were wrong.

    The renegade Bolsheviks were what you call "Stalinists" today. Because the real Bolsheviks were called "old Bolsheviks." You call them "Trotskyists". Teach materiel, teacher of socialism.
    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    NEP - the freedom of hucksters and speculators, who are now tolerantly called businessmen.

    Huckster, this is a stolen buyer. What are today's businessmen, buyers of stolen goods? Surname, if possible. Boldly.
    A speculator is a type of business. Nothing is better or worse than a manufacturer of space rockets. What do you dislike about the manufacturers of space rockets?
    So let it be speculators, and not an illiterate hamle in red pants with revolvers. Even if only some woodpecker with hooves and a tail, if only not a pockmarked katso. I do not think that the one who with hooves could destroy as many people in the USSR as he did with the "pockmarked" one. And this is only why it is definitely better than the "pockmarked".
    PS. How did I look at you this time? How to ignore not brought? Right, I wonder to myself.
    1. SIT
      SIT 27 March 2016 00: 23
      +1
      Quote: hardrock
      And how can there be a user in himself, who writes seriously about the "mixed economy" under Dzhugashvili? People were afraid to sit against the wind, but suddenly it turns out that they were "independent owners". From those very "other ways". PPTs.

      In 1950 on a patent, i.e. individual entrepreneurs in the USSR worked 1,2mln. person. In some sectors of household services, their share was 70%.
      1. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 00: 46
        -2
        Quote: SIT
        Quote: hardrock
        And how can there be a user in himself, who writes seriously about the "mixed economy" under Dzhugashvili? People were afraid to sit against the wind, but suddenly it turns out that they were "independent owners". From those very "other ways". PPTs.

        In 1950 on a patent, i.e. individual entrepreneurs in the USSR worked 1,2mln. person. In some sectors of household services, their share was 70%.

        It does not know this. It does not even realize that in the Stalinist USSR, 6% of GNP was given by industrial enterprises of the non-state sector of the economy. That about 2 million people worked in this sector, one and a half dozen research institutes worked for its needs, there was its own pension legislation, different from the state one.
        And this is only in industry.

        And if agriculture is added to it, and collective farms were also not part of the public sector, since they belonged not to the state but to collective farmers themselves, the number of workers in the non-state sector of the economy of the Stalinist USSR will increase to several tens of millions of workers.
      2. hardroc
        hardroc 27 March 2016 08: 50
        +2
        Quote: SIT
        In 1950, on a patent, i.e. individual entrepreneurs in the USSR worked 1,2 million. person.

        Of course. And in the USSR there was collective ownership in agriculture. Completely independent from the state and party officials. And also in the USSR ...
        Believe it yourself? Or are you trying to tell me what the training manuals told about the USSR in the centers of friendship at the embassies abroad? I don't need it, I lived in the USSR. And I saw all these "alternative forms of ownership" with my own eyes.
  • SIT
    SIT 27 March 2016 00: 16
    +2
    Quote: hardrock
    State capitalism. With its development in the country, the USSR would gradually become a fully civilized, medium-developed state. It is such a state that the USSR has never been in its history, despite its bombs and flights into space, which scoops are mistakenly interpreted as an alleged sign of a developed state.

    This development path provided for the first rise of the industries of group B (consumer goods), and due to their increased needs, the development of group A (production of means of production). In this situation, by 1941 in the USSR there would have been no industry capable of producing tanks, planes of tens of thousands because Group A would only have begun to develop. Industrialization (i.e., the development of Group A above all) was not a whim of the idealists of the Communists, but a vital necessity of the country, because it was clear that war would come soon.
    1. hardroc
      hardroc 27 March 2016 09: 22
      +1
      Quote: SIT
      In this situation, by 1941 in the USSR there would have been no industry capable of producing tanks, planes of tens of thousands because Group A would only have begun to develop.

      Did someone tell you this or did you come up with it yourself? With such a fright? Something I do not see any radical weakening of China. But economic policy is exactly the same.
      Everything would be, and on a much larger scale. Simply because the capitalist mode of production (albeit a curtailed one, under the Bolshevik supervision) is in any case many times more effective than the slave-owning mode of production (it took place under "Stalinist socialism"). And also many times more effective than the feudal mode of production (it took place under "developed socialism").
      Therefore, all talk about "industrialization" is a lie. There was no industrialization. The grain was taken from the peasants at the root, and thus doomed many of them to starvation. This grain (as well as plundered in churches and from wealthy people) was sold abroad. With this money, we bought machines and equipment. What kind of procurement nomenclature it was is a separate conversation. Because it was also composed by those "great specialists".
      But that's not the point. The fact is that there was no one to use the purchased items. There was no working class in the USSR. Not half-drunk city punks with three lines, but a real skilled working class. Give the laptop to the native of the jungle and make it work on it. It will work for you. That was just this case. Therefore, all Bolshevik industrialization is fiction. And the money was wasted. As for the human sacrifices made by "Stalin's industrialization", it should be recognized as a kind of genocide of the population of the USSR by the Bolsheviks. However, this topic is still ahead.
      But, nevertheless, industrialization in the USSR took place. It began in 1942. and lasted quite a long time. Because at first it was based on purchases of equipment in the United States, and then on captured equipment and technologies. It was not some kind of breakthrough industrialization that would allow the USSR to break out somewhere and in something ahead. No. But as a result of this industrialization, the USSR crawled out of the "Stone Age".
      Quote: SIT
      because it was clear that war would come soon.

      In 1928 (the official start of industrialization) this could only be understood by those who were preparing to attack someone. A completely peaceful life was in Europe in 1928. Without any hint.
      1. SIT
        SIT 27 March 2016 13: 40
        +1
        Quote: hardroc
        Something I do not see any radical weakening of China. But economic policy is exactly the same.

        Reforms in China began at the beginning of 80x and took 30 years. The USSR did not have so much time.
        Quote: hardroc
        Simply because the capitalist mode of production (albeit a curtailed one, under the Bolshevik supervision) is in any case many times more effective than the slave-owning mode of production (took place under "Stalinist socialism")

        The growth of labor productivity in the USSR in the 50 years was higher than in France, Great Britain and approximately equal to German, slightly inferior to Japanese. Moreover, this growth was achieved by updating 70% of production assets, without increasing the number of employees. This is data from the CIA, if anything, which prepared a report expressing concern about such a sharp economic growth in the USSR. It should be borne in mind that the USSR did it ONLY at the expense of internal resources, while Europe and Japan received American assistance according to the Marshall Plan. In 1960, Khrushchev's reforms began the dismantling of this economic system, and the construction of capitalism in the USSR began after the reform of Liberman-Kosygin in 1965. Everything that you saw and call socialism refers precisely to this period, which you call developed socialism. The principle of the Stalinist economy was completely different.
        Quote: hardroc
        There was no industrialization

        Years of construction of DneproGES, GAZ, Kharkov Tractor, Magnitogorsk look before making such statements.
        Quote: hardroc
        Grains were taken from the peasants under the root, and thereby doomed many of them to starvation. This grain (as well as looted in churches and wealthy people) was sold abroad. With this money they bought machines and equipment.

        This was the period of the Great Depression. In the US, farmers dumped grain anywhere because nobody bought it. Prices on the world grain market fell below the plinth. With this money it was NOT possible to do what they did. The grain was sold because the West’s embargo against the USSR allowed only money received for grain and nothing more. The purpose of this embargo is to provoke hunger in the USSR. Learn the question of where did you get the money for industrialization. I guarantee you a stupor when you find out where.
        Quote: hardroc
        In 1928 (the official start of industrialization) this could only be understood by those who were preparing to attack someone. A completely peaceful life was in Europe in 1928. Without any hint.

        This is in Europe. In 1929, a military conflict began on the CER. There was a struggle with Basmachism, armed with English weapons. If you look at the shooting instructions of the 30s, then there all chest targets are the silhouette of a soldier in an English helmet. Prepared to repulse the Entente attack. Or do you think that the USSR was able to attack Britain through the English Channel !?
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 17: 30
          -2
          Quote: SIT

          Reforms in China began at the beginning of 80x and took 30 years. The USSR did not have so much time.
          It is not in the know. It does not understand that already in 1927 the country was on the verge of a great war with the countries of the Little Entente. I suspect that it has not heard about the small Entente ...

          Quote: SIT
          The growth of labor productivity in the USSR in the 50 years was higher than in France, Great Britain and approximately equal to German, slightly inferior to Japanese. Moreover, this growth was achieved by updating 70% of production assets, without increasing the number of employees. This is data from the CIA, if anything, which prepared a report expressing concern about such a sharp economic growth in the USSR. It should be borne in mind that the USSR did it ONLY at the expense of internal resources, while Europe and Japan received American assistance according to the Marshall Plan. In 1960, Khrushchev's reforms began the dismantling of this economic system, and the construction of capitalism in the USSR began after the reform of Liberman-Kosygin in 1965. Everything that you saw and call socialism refers precisely to this period, which you call developed socialism. The principle of the Stalinist economy was completely different.
          The increase in labor productivity and, consequently, the decrease in the cost of production in agriculture in comparison with individual farms, was noted at the very beginning of collectivization, and this was solely due to the introduction of the principle of division of labor, without any additional mechanization. But it didn’t even hear about it, since they did not teach him to use historical sources.

          Quote: SIT
          This was the period of the Great Depression. In the US, farmers dumped grain anywhere because nobody bought it. Prices on the world grain market fell below the plinth. With this money it was NOT possible to do what they did. The grain was sold because the West’s embargo against the USSR allowed only money received for grain and nothing more. The purpose of this embargo is to provoke hunger in the USSR. Learn the question of where did you get the money for industrialization. I guarantee you a stupor when you find out where.

          At the same time, it again does not know (well, these subjects are too lazy to poke into statistical directories and look for relevant documents) that during the period of famine, grain exports from the USSR were sharply reduced, and all the surplus generated was directed to help the starving regions.

          Here you can see scans of relevant documents

          http://www.anti-orange-ua.com.ru...opic.php?p=47649
        2. hardroc
          hardroc 27 March 2016 23: 55
          +1
          Quote: SIT
          Reforms in China began in the early 80s and took 30 years.

          In 1978, to be exact. 38 years have already passed. But the Chinese began to live decently a long time ago. Already in 1983-85, according to many indicators, China reached the level of “above-the-middle-income” countries. Those. it took only 5-7 years to break out of sheer poverty and move on.
          NEP existed in the USSR for 5 years too. And the population during this period managed to really feed itself after the horrors of "war communism". But then it was all over. The USSR was covered with the sheer horror of Stalinism.
          Quote: SIT
          The USSR did not have so much time.

          What is it? Is a new Tunguska meteorite approaching? Or was Comet Halley planning to stick a pockmark Katso in the ass? And if you run ahead, then from 1923 to 1941, as many as 18 years have passed. During this time, with the continuation of the NEP, the USSR would industrialize much more than the real USSR. Remember China in 1996. It was not at all the same China as it was in 1978.
          And the Second World War was due to the frank weakness of the Red Army in Khalkhin Gol, Finland and Poland. Do not worry, the Germans noticed this very well. And they decided that it would be easier for them to secure their rear in the upcoming war with Britain.
          Quote: SIT
          The growth of labor productivity in the USSR in the 50s was higher than in France and Great Britain and approximately equal to German, slightly inferior to Japanese.

          This can be told to psychiatrists. Also, at party meetings. But not to me.
          Quote: SIT
          Moreover, this growth was achieved by updating 70% of production assets, without increasing the number of employees.

          The fund renewal figures are a lime tree. There was no one to work on these "funds". The manufactured products were actually almost 100% defective. If not production, then design. I will not even give examples, everything is so obvious.
          Quote: SIT
          In 1960, Khrushchev's reforms began the dismantling of this economic system.

          Those. the fact that Khrushchev dismantled the slave system and introduced feudal relations, you consider a bad phenomenon. Strange, usually such people are called revolutionaries and are revered by their peoples. Although, which of the scoops is the people. The peoples necessarily have national roots, and scoops, when they enter the sect of "witnesses of socialism", these roots are deliberately chopped off. And for the Russians, Khrushchev is certainly a positive politician.
          Quote: SIT
          In a building of capitalism in the USSR began after the reform of Liberman-Kosygin in 1965.

          I somehow doubted your adequacy. How are you feeling?
          Quote: SIT
          Everything that you saw and call socialism refers precisely to this period, which you call developed socialism. The principle of the Stalinist economy was completely different. .

          And who argues with this? “Developed socialism” was based on feudal TDOs. The usual "socialism" (Stalinist), in the slave TDO. They, of course, are different. And do not tell me that slave TARs are more progressive than feudal ones. Science has precisely and long established that this is not so.
          1. hardroc
            hardroc 28 March 2016 00: 22
            +1
            Quote: hardroc
            Years of construction of DneproGES, GAZ, Kharkov Tractor, Magnitogorsk look before making such statements.

            And what, without pockmarked katso, hunger and slave labor, was it impossible to build them? Why are you making up "facts"?
            Quote: hardroc
            The grain was sold because the West’s embargo against the USSR allowed only money received for grain and nothing more.

            Yes, such nonsense is often found in the agitation of "witnesses of socialism." Of course, these are ordinary shovels.
            Quote: hardroc
            The purpose of this embargo is to provoke hunger in the USSR.

            To begin with, do not invent different "embargoes". And take an interest in how much food the United States brought to the USSR for free in the form of aid during the period of famine. It is clear to you that you were not taken out of the USSR for foreign scrap metal, like your Bolsheviks, but imported into the USSR, and for free. Maybe thanks to their help, you are living today. And wow *** on their head.
            All of you, "witnesses of socialism" are to blame for everything. All did not please you. For some reason, all of you owe you something. You are amazing creatures.
            Quote: hardroc
            Learn the question of where did you get the money for industrialization. I guarantee you a stupor when you find out where.

            Exactly. Examine and fall into a stupor. Enrage such ..., actually.
            Quote: hardroc
            In 1929, a military conflict began on the CER

            Ask who started it and when.
            Quote: hardroc
            There was a struggle with Basmachism

            Basmachism? Oh well. I have no more questions.
            Quote: hardroc
            Prepared to repel the Entente attack

            So the USSR only did all the way that it was preparing to repel someone’s attack. Only armed so that the mind is incomprehensible. The numbers of military equipment are simply impossible to grasp with the mind. At the same time, he managed to attack all his neighbors, except Korea, Turkey and Germany, if I am not mistaken. He even attacked Bulgaria, although he had no common border with it. Yes, and military equipment turned out to be postscript, a good half could not start. And the one that started up was not able to move for long. But the rifles could not shoot for a long time, they had to fight the royal three-rulers. Industrialization, what to say. Cool "industry has risen."
            Quote: hardroc
            Or do you think that the USSR was able to attack Britain through the English Channel !?

            No, well, scoops in their own style. "Arguments" of the traditional level "myself ...".
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 26 March 2016 12: 20
    0
    Lenin admitted: “We hoped ... by the direct orders of the proletarian state to establish state production and state distribution of products communistically in a small-peasant country. Life showed our mistake»


    What a bastard! It was necessary to destroy the country, to unleash a civil one with wild victims, to come to a NATURAL exchange in order to ... return to what was, only in a much more ugly and wildest form, with the Bolshevik commissars in the role of owners of private enterprises, extorting profits from the exploitation of workers . belay And with a goat's face to say: "We did it" ...
    Ninety-five years ago, on March 21, 1921, pursuant to the decisions of the 10th Congress of the RCP (B.), The All-Russian Central Executive Committee (All-Russian Central Executive Committee) of the RSFSR adopted the Decree “On the replacement of food and raw materials with natural tax”.

    This was the victory of the peasantry of Russia in the Small Civil War against the Bolsheviks. True, not for long, before collectivization, for which the Bolsheviks were already much better prepared.
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 26 March 2016 13: 37
      +4
      Well, what to take from them.
      Lenin and the company never worked, had no idea about the functioning of the state mechanism ... how could they even fix something?
      Lenin's work experience - sitting in his pants in a Swiss cafe, education - in absentia behind the ear, the so-called "works" have no practical value, were studied exclusively by the party nomenklatura for promotion up the career ladder.
      It is one thing to scribble leaflets with pamphlets and quite another to ensure the economic functioning of the most complex state apparatus.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 26 March 2016 13: 52
      -2
      What a bastard!

      He is not a bastard. Even great theorists tend to make mistakes. They just want the best in our country, but it turns out as always. And they say that with good intentions the road and hell are lined.
    4. Alexey T. (Oper)
      Alexey T. (Oper) 26 March 2016 14: 11
      -6
      Quote: Aleksander


      What a bastard! It was necessary to destroy the country, unleash a civilian one.

      The Bolsheviks did not destroy the country but tried to save it, putting dozens of the lives of their supporters for reuniting with the breakaway Ukraine under the Provisional Government and for establishing a friendly communist regime in Finland. Much more fault in the collapse of the country lies with the crowned mediocrity - Nikolashka the Bloody. It was under him that in the period after 1905, on the outskirts of the empire, nationalist parties were formed and strengthened, tearing the country apart as soon as the central government weakened.

      As for the civil war, the Bolsheviks have nothing to do with it, since they did not need it. But their political opponents — SRs, Mensheviks, Cadets, and former tsarist generals who joined them — were interested in its beginning.
      1. andrey-ivanov
        andrey-ivanov 26 March 2016 15: 43
        +4
        Yes Yes. But all these Trotsky-Lenin-Bukharin-Zinovievs and others like them were just white and fluffy paws. And there is no fault of theirs in the millions who died in the civil war, the famine of the 20s and the "red terror". It's all just lies ...
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 26 March 2016 16: 12
          -2
          Quote: andrey-ivanov
          Yes Yes. But all these Trotsky-Lenin-Bukharin-Zinovievs and others like them were just white and fluffy paws. And there is no fault of theirs in the millions who died in the civil war, the famine of the 20s and the "red terror". It's all just lies ...

          So let the world know what their fault was? Light the verb.

          Only specifically, without demagoguery and with the presentation of appropriate evidence of everyone’s guilt (orders, orders, appeals, statements, etc.). And without it, all the accusations are the usual talk.
      2. Captain nemo
        Captain nemo 26 March 2016 17: 52
        +2
        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
        Much more fault in the collapse of the country lies with the crowned mediocrity - Nikolashka the Bloody.

        After his abdication, no collapse of the country lies on him. Including the oath of those who swore allegiance to him once.
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 26 March 2016 20: 48
          -4
          Quote: Captain Nemo
          Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
          Much more fault in the collapse of the country lies with the crowned mediocrity - Nikolashka the Bloody.

          After his abdication, no collapse of the country lies on him. Including the oath of those who swore allegiance to him once.

          The prerequisites for the collapse of the country were formed precisely under it. Therefore, just a couple of months after his abdication, the country de facto fell apart - Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Poland (occupied by the Germans), and Finland separated.
      3. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 00: 38
        +2
        Well, well, the Communist comrades compared the economic growth of the state with the 1913 year, the highest level of production of the Empire, achieved precisely under Nicholas II.
        The Bolsheviks provoked the civil war precisely with their criminal reforms.
        For example, the abolition of private trade with the subsequent executions of "bagmen".
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 00: 58
          -2
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          Well, well, the Communist comrades compared the economic growth of the state with the 1913 year, the highest level of production of the Empire, achieved precisely under Nicholas II.
          The Bolsheviks provoked the civil war precisely with their criminal reforms.
          For example, the abolition of private trade with the subsequent executions of "bagmen".

          And what else was there to compare if the 1913 year was the only one when the impoverished, agrarian empire, which was actually a raw material colony of Western countries, managed to achieve at least some indicators?

          Comparison with the period of 1907-1911, when the economy was in stagnation, when dozens of enterprises were closed in the coal mining and metallurgical industries and tens of thousands of workers were thrown out into the street, for those who like to crunch a French roll on the governor’s ball, it would be even more shameful.

          And so - "on bezrybe and the toad labordan-s".

          With regard to the abolition of private trade, you are probably not aware that elements of military communism, such as the distribution of products by cards, were introduced in all countries participating in the WWII. Despite the fact that there were no Bolsheviks in the same England. So, whatever the author of the article would write, but these measures were really forced.
      4. Aleksander
        Aleksander 27 March 2016 01: 17
        0
        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
        The Bolsheviks did not destroy the country but tried to save,

        No one These scoundrels-putschists did not instruct the country to "save", they themselves decided so, seizing power by force. In the only free elections in Russia to the UCH Assembly, they managed . There were NO more elections in Russia during 70 years except Communist and non-partisan bloc lol fool .
        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
        the great fault in the collapse of the country lies with the crowned mediocrity - Nicholas the Bloody

        I will answer in your vein: the complete fault in the collapse of the country lies with a bald burry dwarf: a sadist, syphilitics and a pathological liar and others like him.

        .
        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
        As for the civil war, the Bolsheviks have nothing to do with it, since they did not need it. But their political opponents — the Social Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, the Cadets and those who joined them — were interested in its beginning.


        Black minority captured by force power. Why should the rest agree with them ?! "Because IT is right?" lol Maybe they have a different opinion?
        Don, Ukraine, Kuban, Moscow, Orenburg, and partially Petrograd, Irkutsk, etc. IMMEDIATELY but refused to recognize the October coup, like all parties in Russia, tens of thousands of civil servants went on strike, in the very first days Thousands and thousands of people died - the civil war began and it began precisely on October 25.

        The largest trade union in Russia - Vikzhel ", 30 (!) October): We demand from the government STOP THE CIVIL WAR! "
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 17: 50
          0
          Quote: Aleksander
          Nobody instructed these scoundrels-putschists to "save" the country,

          Well yes, really. The true p. Ozreot will sit and wait until he is called for help. And let the whole world wait...

          It is good that the Bolsheviks were not p.otsreotami and true patriots of Russia and the Russian people. Therefore, they did not start to run and hide from power, like the Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Mensheviks, and wait for everything to fall into tartarra. And they took and made the country the leading power of the world, the second on the list of superpowers.

          Quote: Aleksander
          In the only free elections in Russia at the UCH Assembly, they managed it.
          But it depends on which side to look.
          In Petrograd, about 930 of thousands of people participated in the elections, 45% of the vote was cast for the Bolsheviks. In Moscow, the Bolsheviks received 48%, on the Northern Front - 56%, and on the Western - 67%; in the Baltic Fleet - 58,2%, in 20 districts of the North-West and Central Industrial Areas - a total of 53,1%. Thus, the Bolsheviks gained the largest number of votes in Petrograd, Moscow, large industrial cities, the Northern and Western fronts, as well as the Baltic Fleet.
          And in the end, they got the second largest fraction in the meeting itself, which allowed them to create a coalition with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and ultimately block the work of the meeting itself, since with their departure from the meeting room the meeting lost a quorum, i.e. turned into an ordinary talking room, a haven for hollow breeds.

          At the same time, the Bolsheviks, by issuing decrees legitimizing their power, attracted the overwhelming majority of the country's population, which ultimately ensured them a victory in the Civil War, since they agreed to pay taxes and enabled them to mobilize. As a result, whites, in spite of attempts to mobilize, in the highest period of their rise, could not put more than 1 million supporters under their banner, while the Red Army by the 1919 year totaled about 3-x million people.

          Quote: Aleksander
          I will answer in your vein: the complete fault in the collapse of the country lies with a bald burry dwarf: a sadist, syphilitics and a pathological liar and others like him.
          This is a chatter without any evidence.
          But the wine of Nikolashka the Bloody in the collapse of the country is absolutely proven.


          Quote: Aleksander
          The minority seized power by force.
          A minority may have been captured. I don’t know who they are, so I don’t dare to judge them.

          But the Bolsheviks received the power of their hands II All-Russian Congress of Soviets, instructed them to create the first government - the Council of People's Commissars. At the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets, it was decided to leave SNK to work on an ongoing basis.

          Quote: Aleksander
          Don, Ukraine, Kuban, Moscow, Orenburg, and partially Petrograd, Irkutsk and others. IMMEDIATELY refused to recognize the October coup,
          The period of history known as the "Triumphal Procession of Soviet Power" refutes this statement. By mid-February 1918, Soviet power was established in the overwhelming majority of regions of the Russian Republic.

          http://historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000165/pic/map002.jpg
  • Izotovp
    Izotovp 26 March 2016 12: 42
    0
    What an interesting perception of the story !! Are you directly experts in the field of public administration ?! First: what goals were pursued by Lenin himself? Secondly: what goals did Trotsky pursue and follow? Third: the results of their activities. And fourthly: the goals and results of Stalin’s activities. Read at least a little tsiferki, and then throw slogans.
    1. Mwg
      Mwg 26 March 2016 13: 35
      +5
      For Izotovp. After Lenin's death, millions of savings remained in Swiss banks in foreign currency, but he did not trade or save. Where do you think the money comes from and for what? There is no need to be naive and talk about Lenin's high "thoughts". He was an enemy for Russia, as well as a friend of his childhood - Kerensky. These are two cartridges in one clip, where the third cartridge is Leiba Davidovich Trotsky.
      Tsiferki about Stalin were written by liberals of the time of Khrushchev, who even now are inclined to a one-sided hypertrophied interpretation of events and facts at the expense of an analogistic manner paid for from outside. Either you tend to get emotionally involved, or you are a conscientious follower (for what reasons?) Of knowingly false statements. If you are interested in the figure of L.D. Trotsky, then read about his role in the executions of the Kronstadt sailors, his connection with Zemlyachka, his role in the civil war and his participation in the media during World War I. And also read about how he lived in "revolutionary" Russia, who his relatives were and how miraculously he avoided problems in Britain, the USA, and Europe. All this is in the public domain.
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp 26 March 2016 16: 00
        +2
        But I did not say that Lenin and Trotsky acted for the good of Russia !!! I talked about a more sober approach to this issue. In fact, I agree with you that the policy of Lenin and Trotsky in the field of relations with the peasantry and the intelligentsia was a policy of destroying the country. By the way, Stalin began by pinning his tail to those who uncontrolledly drove icons and other values ​​abroad.
        1. hardroc
          hardroc 27 March 2016 09: 38
          +2
          Quote: Izotovp
          By the way, Stalin began by pinning his tail to those who uncontrolledly drove icons and other values ​​abroad.

          Don't worry about Dzhugashvili. It was with him that the transfer of values ​​and icons really began. Money was needed for "industrialization".
      2. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 26 March 2016 16: 19
        -2
        Quote: MVG
        For Izotovp. After Lenin's death, millions of savings remained in Swiss banks in foreign currency, but he did not trade or save. Where do you think the money comes from and for what? There is no need to be naive and talk about Lenin's high "thoughts". He was an enemy for Russia, as well as a friend of his childhood - Kerensky. These are two cartridges in one clip, where the third cartridge is Leiba Davidovich Trotsky.
        Tsiferki about Stalin were written by liberals of the time of Khrushchev, who even now are inclined to a one-sided hypertrophied interpretation of events and facts at the expense of an analogistic manner paid for from outside. Either you tend to get emotionally involved, or you are a conscientious follower (for what reasons?) Of knowingly false statements. If you are interested in the figure of L.D. Trotsky, then read about his role in the executions of the Kronstadt sailors, his connection with Zemlyachka, his role in the civil war and his participation in the media during World War I. And also read about how he lived in "revolutionary" Russia, who his relatives were and how miraculously he avoided problems in Britain, the USA, and Europe. All this is in the public domain.

        1. There are no millions of Lenin's savings in Swiss banks and never have been.
        2. Kerensky was not Lenin's childhood friend, since he was his younger at 11 years.

        Everything else is the same historical myths.
    2. Captain nemo
      Captain nemo 26 March 2016 18: 34
      +1
      Quote: Izotovp
      First: what goals were pursued by Lenin himself?

      Vladimir Ilyich had only one goal that could change the whole world. Remove from the system of goods-money-goods, the money layer on which the States, bankers, speculators and others parasitized.
      He believed that if all the gold was not melted down into kitchen utensils, but into the toilet bowls, then the masses would not be tempted to enrich themselves and they would think about how to work harder and get less for their work, something in the store according to the system from each abilities to each according to his needs.
      The world was stronger, under the NEP commodity-money relations were again introduced, but there was still no rejection of a world revolution that could help liquidate money. But in the early 30s, upon joining the League of Nations, the idea of ​​the World Revolution was buried.
      But before the Second World War there seemed to be a period when matches and salt were given free of charge in stores, but irresponsible citizens, after some time they were quickly taken to their home.
  • Mwg
    Mwg 26 March 2016 13: 16
    0
    The NEP’s policy was a failed policy of imposing the participation of a foreign capitalist in the privatization (plunder) of national wealth, which succeeded with the advent of Lenin (at the time) and Gorbachev-Yeltsin and stopped with the arrival of Stalin (at the time) and Putin now. Well, who's to say that Putin is evil for Russia and the population of Russia?
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 26 March 2016 13: 28
      +2
      Quote: MVG
      The NEP’s policy was a failed policy of imposing the participation of a foreign capitalist in the privatization (plunder) of national wealth, which succeeded with the advent of Lenin (at the time) and Gorbachev-Yeltsin and stopped with the arrival of Stalin (at the time) and Putin now. Well, who's to say that Putin is evil for Russia and the population of Russia?

      Failed, as it turned out, was not the policy of the NEP, but the policy of state capitalism, which followed in the future.
      She was good in the era of wars but was not suitable for a peaceful existence. As a result, state capitalism still collapsed, and after Yeltsin’s NEP we again returned to the normal line of economic development. That is, one that leads to a calm life and three meals a day.
      1. hardroc
        hardroc 27 March 2016 09: 35
        0
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        As a result, state capitalism still collapsed.

        Calling slave-owning "Stalinist socialism" and feudal "developed socialism" by the term "state capitalism" is fundamentally wrong. There were no elements of the capitalist mode of production at that time.
  • populist
    populist 26 March 2016 13: 44
    +1
    Lenin admitted: “We hoped ... by the direct orders of the proletarian state to establish state production and state distribution of products communistically in a small-peasant country

    It turns out that in addition to the first or only wave of military communism (1918-1921), there was also a second wave (1920-1921), caused by the desire to introduce communist relations. In Soviet historiography, the second wave was not mentioned, nor was it about the party underground of the NEP period.
    The article is interesting.
  • pts-m
    pts-m 26 March 2016 13: 47
    +1
    Everything is known in comparison. That's just taking and changing the existing way of life of the people, for some reason we try to step on the rake of bygone events. A short memory of the people, however.
  • ism_ek
    ism_ek 26 March 2016 14: 42
    +1
    The GKK was very generous - Western bankers received territory stretching from Yakutia to the Ural Mountains. The company could produce, in addition to gold, also iron, copper, gold, lead. Many metallurgical enterprises — Bisert, Seversky, Revdinsky metallurgical plants, Zyuzelskoye and Degtyarskoye deposits of copper, Revdinsky iron mines and others — were given to her at the disposal of the USSR. The share of the USSR in the mined metals was only 7%.
    The result of managing the GKK in Degtyarsk. (Parents of President Nixon worked at this mine)
    At the present moment, so that Yekaterinburg does not choke in acid effluents, a lime wagon is poured daily. Moreover, nothing follows from the mines built under Stalin. Quick conservation was provided during the construction of the mine.
    1. Wheel
      Wheel 26 March 2016 20: 26
      0
      And here is the Vilva River in the Perm Territory.
  • Mestny
    Mestny 26 March 2016 16: 02
    +1
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    As a result, state capitalism still collapsed, and after Yeltsin’s NEP we again returned to the normal line of economic development. That is, one that leads to a calm life and three meals a day.

    Well, those millions who died from drunkenness, hopelessness and lack of money during the time of the Yeltsin NEP - they certainly do not count.
    They did not fit into the market, so to speak.
    Yes?
    1. Denimax
      Denimax 26 March 2016 16: 18
      +1
      You are comparing different eras. Under the NEP there was no such influence of Western culture. A strong influence went into the 90s. You can recall all sorts of blacks Rappers in clips, heaps of dollars, yachts, cars, half-naked girls. Many have seen this, but youth has grown on this.
    2. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 00: 47
      +1
      Quote: Mestny
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      As a result, state capitalism still collapsed, and after Yeltsin’s NEP we again returned to the normal line of economic development. That is, one that leads to a calm life and three meals a day.

      Well, those millions who died from drunkenness, hopelessness and lack of money during the time of the Yeltsin NEP - they certainly do not count.
      They did not fit into the market, so to speak.
      Yes?

      Add them to the millions of dead
      from the same drunkenness under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, when the budget was filled with vodka money (it was no accident that Gorbachev began to fight drunkenness)
      under Stalin, from dispossession, collectivization, squandering, starvation and in camps
      under Lenin, from all the above reasons, plus outright banditry and arbitrariness of commissars
      And you will understand that during the glorious period of the Soviets, as many people perished as 1000 years before.
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp 28 March 2016 20: 56
        0
        That is, under the tsarist regime they did not die from drunkenness both on the way and in hard labor itself? Didn’t die of hunger and exorbitant taxes and just because of the drunken whim of the master? What naivete?