Military Review

Antikolbasnaya train

198
Our train is flying forward
In the commune stop ...


Antikolbasnaya train


Much time has passed since I published articles on the site. about socialism in one individual region. But the cycle has not been completed yet. The problem that remained unresolved is perhaps the cornerstone one. You can offer an ideal model of society and public relations. This has been done more than once. stories, but these samples and experiments are called utopias. Why so? Because any, the most ideal system that a person can invent, will spoil a person. Ruin his peculiar greed, envy, greed, lust for power and laziness. Everything is so, after all, even the most successful utopia at the moment - the Soviet Union was ruined by these vices. The Soviet Union collapsed when the old elite of the USSR rested on its laurels, and the aged party members left political Olympus only with their feet forward, when their offspring — the Komsomol leaders, not wanting to work, betrayed socialist ideals. They surrendered the country to the enemies in order with their consent to secure for themselves the privileges that their predecessors earned by hard work during industrialization and won in the Great Patriotic War. That is why I have not been able to start writing this article for so long. Because an irresistible wall in front of me was a gray-green image of the “sausage train”. Because any socialist slogans and any benefits that socialism can give, fade before the image of this quintessence of the Soviet consumer.

And indeed, now we know how much we have lost with the collapse of the USSR, but many still stubbornly bend their line: socialism is a line, empty counters and an iron curtain. Do you want socialism - go to the DPRK. And that means that we’ll better plow in three shifts and without days off for the businessman Vasya, who is profiting from our work, we’ll rather find fault with the government, which allows price increases, education and health deficiencies, we will go to debtors with bloodsucker-bankers until the end of our days for one-room Khrushchev somewhere on the outskirts. Better we will humiliate ourselves before bureaucrats and rich people, who insolently say that pride is too expensive for the poor. But at the same time, we will stick our teeth into a hamburger or jamon, and we will be a week or ten days a year in the style of "all inclusive" to lick the Turks from head to toe, looking angrily, if we can’t even bring down some of our aircraft ... for our money.

Is this not a complete analogue of how the Soviet people choked in overcrowded stuffy electric trains for the sake of the cherished piece of meat? Complete analogy, however, brought almost to its extreme, almost to the point of absurdity. And recently I asked myself. Could the Komsomol first builders who landed from the ship on the deserted shore of the Amur, so that, wintering in barracks and dugouts, build a garden city, choke on "sausage electric trains"? No, they could not, yes they would smash their heads to the one who would have suggested it. Where is heroism and where is sausage - things are completely incompatible. Then why are their descendants (and many of his contemporaries) capable of it? The point is the idea. In order for a person to give all of himself and, at the same time, he did not think about what he has, and even about what will happen to him, an idea is needed. Because a rational man who can strive for the ideal can always suppress the more base desires of the stomach or the reproductive system.

In the West, the capitalists have a simple idea - you have to plow like dad Carlo in order to eat tasty, in order to multiply with beautiful women, in order to become one step higher than others and be able to break away from them for their humiliations from their superiors. Very good, by the way, is shown in the series "Kitchen". I do not like to watch TV, but sometimes the brain also needs rest. So, there is just such a ladder shown - the hero Nagiyev kowtows before the oligarchs and the wealthy, in turn, coming off on his co-workers. At the same time, workers are willing to endure anything, just to keep their work in Moscow. Is it beautiful? In my opinion, disgusting. But for this idea they, and now we are ready to give all their health and strength. And why did the Soviet people of the Stalin era give their strength, health and even life? No, not for communism, “of which they knew only that then there would be no money,” although, of course, this “freebie” wanted a stratum of surviving unshakable bourgeois dug in the depths of the workers' districts. People had a desire for excellence. Starting from what if TO ME don't like dirt and trash in the wasteland by the house, Я I take a shovel and go to the clean-up day, and drag a log near Ilyich.



And to the extent that TO ME I wonder what's in the depths of space, and Я I am flying to an unknown blackness on a fragile spacecraft, quite surely knowing that even if this is my last flight, those who fly after me will leave their traces "on the dusty paths of distant planets." And then, under Khrushchev, perfection was replaced with the slogan "catch up and surpass America in terms of meat consumption (as well as milk, vodka, etc.)." And in the end, even those people who used to live for the sake of an idea began to live for the sake of consumption.

This is the idea of ​​perfection and we need to interest people in the new socialist society. At first it will be a race with the neighboring Russian capitalist regions, but the race is not for a big piece of meat, but for general economic indicators, for the best roads, more beautiful houses and streets, for the fastest and most powerful cars, etc. Then you need to leave behind the leading capitalist powers. And then continue the race into space stopped by the consumer society - to fulfill the dream of mankind. And such an idea will be enough not for years, not for centuries, and not even for millennia, because we do not even know the boundaries of the universe. And, therefore, the boundaries of knowledge, to which you can strive.
You ask me, but why do I think that the idea of ​​improvement is stronger than the idea of ​​consumption? Everything is simple, the idea of ​​consumption - it is selfish. In order to consume you need to save life and health. Therefore, the consumer is most afraid of losing them, afraid that he will not be able, he will not have time to taste the fruits of his labor and his deprivations. And so he tries to get his faster, and this is only possible through deception and theft. For this man will go over their heads, and crush the weaker. Naturally, only those who steal and lie can profit from theft and deception, and even then, if they don’t, it’s not for the public that such “successful people” are of any use. While a person fighting for an idea is capable of self-sacrifice, which means that society will receive much more benefit from him and less harm.

However, this does not mean at all that I suggest that those who choose socialism live in mud huts and eat water and bread, slaughtering their hunger with the sight of interstellar rockets taking off. We are not North Koreans after all. But the improvement of the welfare of the people should become the idea of ​​the state, and then the people following the idea, not being distracted by base needs, will raise this state to such heights that the capitalist consumer states have not dreamed of. We have already seen it with our own eyes. Hope we can see again.
Author:
Photos used:
http://levoradikal.ru/, http://subscribe.ru
198 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vend
    Vend 12 July 2016 09: 51
    +13
    any, the most ideal system that a person can invent, a person will spoil it. Spoil his characteristic greed, envy, money-grubbing, power lust and laziness. This is so, because even the most successful utopia at the moment - the Soviet Union destroyed these vices.
    I completely agree with this. I’ll add to your list, not the professionalism of the manual.
    1. DMB_95
      DMB_95 12 July 2016 10: 40
      +29
      The union was not a utopia. Utopia could not save the world from destruction. And could not 70 years to keep this world for eggs.
      1. Bumka
        Bumka 12 July 2016 11: 10
        .
        the union was a miserable likeness of the Empire, because it became clear (including to the statesman Stalin) that Russia would not survive in any other form, except in the form of Greatness and within its former borders! Something was saved and augmented, but the copy is always worse than the original! It is necessary to restore the original, and not remember how bright the copy was! The husk flew off, but what remains?
      2. alicante11
        12 July 2016 11: 18
        +9
        The union was not a utopia. Utopia could not save the world from destruction. And could not 70 years to keep this world for eggs.


        The union was a real country. But, unfortunately, he fell very quickly. Of course, not for several years, like the other Utopias, but in the historical perspective it is very, very fast. And he could really become a society close to ideal if he turned off the path that Stalin had set him on.
    2. My doctor
      My doctor 12 July 2016 10: 42
      -5
      You can offer the perfect model of society and public relations. This has been done more than once in history, but these samples and experiments are called utopias. Why so? Because any, the most ideal system that a person can invent, a person will spoil it. Spoil his characteristic greed, envy, money-grubbing, power lust and laziness.

      a very long time ago, before the century before, people still did not understand that society is a very complex system that has developed during evolution, as well as biological species on earth. Just as it is impossible to create a full-fledged living organism in biology, it is also impossible to come up with a society based on which there would be other present industrial relations. I think the author only correctly wrote that any artificial formation is destroyed first of all by ignoring the strengths and weaknesses of an individual.
      1. 34 region
        34 region 12 July 2016 11: 01
        +7
        My Doctor! 10.42. And what does artificial formation mean? Here is capitalism. What is this formation? Natural? And what kind of family relationships should be? Socialist (or is it an artificial formation)? Or capitalist (natural)? If they are capitalist, then parents must keep records of expenses for the child from the moment of birth and earlier, and in old age the child must pay all that they spent on him or on himself for his parents' bills. So it turns out?
        1. My doctor
          My doctor 13 July 2016 14: 05
          0
          Quote: Region 34
          If they are capitalist, then parents must keep records of expenses for the child from the moment of birth and earlier, and in old age the child must pay all that they spent on him or on himself for his parents' bills. So it turns out?

          Again the word should. Thirty-year-old healthy unemployed man sued parents for child support, absurdity? The same as you expressed, but in a different vector. An artificial formation is like a posture that differs from the natural one, it seems to be ideal and beautiful from the present, but to maintain which additional efforts will be spent, moreover, this pose will be harmful in the future.
      2. Ivan Ivanov
        Ivan Ivanov 12 July 2016 11: 14
        +4
        Quote: MyVrach
        there would be other present industrial relations

        Current industrial relations have evolved, why not evolve further?
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 12 July 2016 23: 46
          +1
          Ivan Ivanov

          Capitalism cannot go into the stage of socialism without awareness of the need.

          The financial sector is the root cause of the vitality of capitalism. Even industrial capital is ready to facilitate the transition to a new level of economic interaction. As an example, transnational corporations of their internal economic understanding are socialism in a certain form. In other words, within large monopolies, the economy is approaching socialism. Internal competition is limited, does not have such an aggressive form.

          Financial capital, however, requires maximum fragmentation of economic units. Competition between them. It is in their interests to lower the level of education in society. Weakening state control. The growth of corruption.

          Thus we come to the following conclusion.

          The country consists, or should consist of 3 independent survival systems.

          The state.
          Financial capital.
          The people and medium and small business.

          The approach to socialism is possible, with the merger of the state and the people, with full control of the financial sector.
      3. dauria
        dauria 12 July 2016 15: 17
        +1
        what is a developed society during evolution very complex system


        Well done, My Doctor, without ridicule. That's right, Darwin does not end on the monkey. Then comes the selection and the struggle within the species — the herds of monkeys fight, the herd with a complex interaction, the language-the rudiment of reason, etc., wins. Further, as in biology, structuring and organs. From family to army or parties.
        And the current capitalist structure of the state is the result of selection.

        One big "BUT" and a huge question for you. Cartilaginous fish, shark. A sort of ancient construction. And no further evolution. King in the ocean, and won't let anyone take their place
        . Trigger effect in action. Life had to crawl out to land, (and if there was no land?) Away from sharks to develop to mammals and then return competitive dolphins to the sea.
        Modern capitalism is the same shark. And you need not just an advantage, but a society with a huge leap in the economy to overthrow it. I do not see such a design, although our Marxists tried to shove political economy into my head.
        Whoever clearly and simply explains why, for example, communism will triumph in the USA in the future, I will say thank you.
        1. tilix
          tilix 12 July 2016 15: 38
          +2
          King in the ocean, and will not let anyone take their place
          Well, killer whales beat them, and eat the liver. So it’s not the king.
          1. dauria
            dauria 12 July 2016 15: 44
            +1
            Well, killer whales beat them, and eat the liver. So it’s not the king.


            Explained the same ...

            Life had to crawl out to land, (and if there was no land?) Away from sharks to develop to mammals and then return competitive dolphins to the sea.


            But where should the state get out of the "sharks"? To Mars?
            1. tilix
              tilix 12 July 2016 15: 57
              +2
              Wait, are you talking about the system or about the state? Who needs to survive? Surviving people, and they will choose under what organizational plan it is easier for them to survive. The state itself is not a tenant
              1. dauria
                dauria 12 July 2016 17: 49
                0
                The state itself is not a tenant


                Strange, they talked, they talked about the development, competition and complication of the herd to the state, and you have a tenant.
                Well, it consists of people and their roles in different organs, so what? You are made of cells, each has its own life and role, they die before you (some will still live after your death) - and nothing, no contradiction. The state is exactly the same. Only "heredity" is not in genes, but in laws, customs, and culture. smile
                The herd lives, as long as it lives. And there are "organs", and there are many connections and processes. People, families - "cells". And the selection of states is the most severe. By the way, a man without a herd will grow up into an animal, a sort of Mowgli.
              2. gladcu2
                gladcu2 13 July 2016 00: 05
                0
                tilix

                You have a misunderstanding. Or rather, the world system is not correctly formed.

                Ideally, the state is a tool to protect the country from external and internal enemies.

                In the modern world with its integration, the following survival systems within the country should be considered.

                The state.
                Financial capital.
                The people are both medium and small enterprises.

                If the state is governed by the financial sector, we will get capitalism with all its crises and a decline in production. Financiers own the country.

                If the state is ruled by industrialists, that is actually the people. Then the country goes into a socialist form of government. Evolutionary. Industrialists are interested in the public education system. As the qualifications of a slave of strength grow. They are ready to start financing basic science. Since this will lead to new development projects. Finance is tightly controlled.

                Communism is a highly educated society with a high level of morality with an ideology of self-sufficiency. The first and most important criterion is the lack of money and other units of labor cost. There is no finance.
        2. gladcu2
          gladcu2 12 July 2016 23: 52
          0
          dauria

          You have the wrong analogy. Darwin could not account for highly organized societies. Because the processes inside are subject to other laws of development. Joint survival systems come into force there.
          1. gladcu2
            gladcu2 13 July 2016 00: 27
            0
            Thanks to the author more for the article.

            Pay attention to the following.

            You can create an ideology, an idea and rally society for economic growth and other development. But the question always is how to preserve the COMMON property. Once financiers bought a government, created a market and bought everything they earned. In fact, stopping further development.
            Finance is not a consumer of development.

            Therefore, the question always arises of how to protect yourself from capitalism. After all, ideology is subject to destruction over time.
            1. alicante11
              13 July 2016 03: 41
              0
              Therefore, the question always arises of how to protect yourself from capitalism. After all, ideology is subject to destruction over time.


              I've told. Modernize ideology. First, "factories for workers, land for peasants", then "the most Dnieper hydroelectric power station", then "we are the first in Space", then "on the dusty paths of distant planets", etc.
    3. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 12 July 2016 12: 11
      0
      Quote: Wend
      I’ll add to your list, not the professionalism of the guide.

      And even less professional writing and commenting. How it does not seem strange.
  2. Abbra
    Abbra 12 July 2016 09: 57
    -5
    All is correct, except for one. The author, being a Utopian, dreamer and idealist, offers us a quiet new revolution. Enough, ate !!!! His surname is especially impressive. Would subscribe - IVANOV. bully
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 12 July 2016 10: 04
      +4
      Quote: Abbra
      His surname is especially impressive. Would subscribe - IVANOV.

      You know, somewhere and "IVANOV" surname "not comme il faut" ...
    2. Nekarmadlen
      Nekarmadlen 12 July 2016 10: 12
      .
      No offense, but we will be realistic !!! It’s just these burry Cantors who made up their minds to Russian people in the 1917 year ((((
      1. tatra
        tatra 12 July 2016 10: 17
        +4
        And why would you wish the Soviet people the fate of the Russian people under the Romanovs?
      2. made13
        made13 12 July 2016 10: 43
        +7
        I will not minus, but I disagree with you - there was a "revolutionary situation" in Russia - 1% of the population owned 90% of the country's income. Now the same thing is repeated. With one difference - there are modern mass media that instill an ideology of consumption, instead of an ideology of development. And not only in Russia, but all over the world.
        Modern media are easy to control, easy to track ordinary Internet users and thereby influence the situation in the country.
        But revolutionaries will always be found, whatever you call them - Bolsheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries or Ishil with Jebhat-en-Nusra.
        1. guzik007
          guzik007 12 July 2016 10: 52
          +5
          With one difference - there are modern media that inspire the ideology of consumption, instead of the ideology of development.
          ---------------------------------
          It was very logical to find the main enemy, the media. Just do not forget the media, basically the ideological mouthpiece of the authorities. That's all. And the lack of faith in the idea in people and the pursuit of "sausage" is exactly what the authorities want at this stage. It is convenient for her, it is profitable for her, I will confidentially, she is all like that, only her piece of sausage is much thicker than that of the people.
        2. gladcu2
          gladcu2 13 July 2016 00: 14
          +2
          made13

          The revolutionary situation is also characterized by the weakening of the state. In this case, the seizure of power by the revolutionaries is possible. But no one guarantees that the next economic device will get progress. There may be a brutal regression and a fall into the abyss of the Middle Ages.

          There is currently no revolutionary situation in Russia. The state is strong and in control.
      3. BOB044
        BOB044 12 July 2016 10: 50
        +5
        Nekarmadlen (1) RU Today, 10:12 ↑ New

        No offense, but we will be realistic !!! It’s just these burry Cantors who made up their minds to Russian people in the 1917 year ((((
        They didn’t make a fool, but made them think differently. Peter the first didn’t cause sympathy either, not in Europe, not among the boyars.
      4. 34 region
        34 region 12 July 2016 11: 07
        0
        Uncooked! 10.12. And representatives of other nations did not stir up water in the 17th year in Russia? And who was on the first lists of invitations to the king? Why did the king deign in the first lines to see the foreigners whom he invited first? And then there were Russian surnames. Does the current situation resemble anything? Why do we invite foreign companies to help us, and different NGOs get divorced even without invitations?
      5. Bumka
        Bumka 12 July 2016 11: 11
        0
        Dee and now someone wants to create a fairy tale from reality!
    3. Altona
      Altona 12 July 2016 10: 34
      +9
      Quote: Abbra
      All is correct, except for one. The author, being a utopian, dreamer and idealist, offers us a quiet new revolution. Enough, ate !!!!

      ---------------------
      The revolution has already taken place in the minds of the people. Now elections are coming soon and it is necessary to remove United Russia from the technical majority in a parliamentary, legitimate way. The revolution in October 1917 was incidentally bloodless, and the Bolsheviks had written about an armed uprising almost a month before. And nobody rushed to defend the Provisional Government. After that, the civil war and the intervention were bloody. But the civil war is imposed by the bourgeois themselves, they will not stop at the blood, they only write in the newspapers about the "teardrop of a child", and they have nothing to kill a person. So you like to first study the history, at least in TV shows.
      1. vlad66
        vlad66 12 July 2016 10: 48
        +11
        Quote: Altona
        Elections are coming soon and United Russia should be removed from the technical majority in a parliamentary, legitimate way

        Here is Eugene, you yourself answered the question of your colleague. Remember not 1917, but 1993 with hundreds of dead, with the shooting of the parliament with tanks and remember, colleague 2013-2014, this revolution of "filth", Russia does not need such revolutions, it will be collapse and civil war, so I completely agree with you, only
        Quote: Altona
        it is necessary to remove United Russia from the technical majority in a parliamentary, legitimate way

        Best regards hi
      2. gladcu2
        gladcu2 13 July 2016 00: 35
        0
        Altona

        I support you. It is necessary to choose the forces associated with most of the unified system of survival.

        As far as I understand, GDP will objectively guarantee the will of voters. Do not miss the chance of evolutionary development.
      3. Al1977
        Al1977 13 July 2016 13: 15
        0
        Quote: Altona
        Now elections are coming soon and it is necessary to remove United Russia from the technical majority in a parliamentary, legitimate way.

        Can share a secret how to do this? In other words, are you against the founder of United Russia Putin and his government? This is sooooo interesting. From here in more detail.
    4. DMB_95
      DMB_95 12 July 2016 10: 45
      +2
      The pursuit of excellence, as a national idea, is very beautiful. And practically - unrealizable, unfortunately ..
    5. alicante11
      12 July 2016 11: 22
      +1
      All is correct, except for one. The author, being a Utopian, dreamer and idealist, offers us a quiet new revolution.


      If you read the two previous articles of the cycle, you saw that there was no question of any revolution, it was the notorious coexistence of two capitalist and socialist systems, only now within the framework of one state.
    6. kotvov
      kotvov 12 July 2016 12: 15
      +3
      The author, being a Utopian, dreamer and idealist, offers us a quiet new revolution ,,
      and you don’t even allow evolution? You don’t see the protection of the rights of workers, pensioners, children. It is from this that the new formation of society begins.
      1. alicante11
        12 July 2016 13: 44
        -1
        kotvov

        Where do you see the revolution? It's not for nothing that I gave a link to the beginning of the series. If you allow yourself to read it, you won't write about the "revolution".
    7. Abbra
      Abbra 12 July 2016 14: 42
      -2
      And then I suddenly put two minuses Rosenkreintz and Sidorevich ... drinks
  3. dojjdik
    dojjdik 12 July 2016 09: 59
    +13
    before you hait Lenin, you should look at the same "democratic America" ​​for 20-30 years-cardboard boxes where children lived and benches in parks "for whites" "for blacks" and gangsterism gangsters staged shootouts in broad daylight, at the same time killing innocent people townspeople and reservations-villages of Indians behind barbed wire - against this background, your "sausage trains" don't mean anything - well, the guests of the USSR have taken away nothing, eat soy and starch sausage and feed your children and the eight crustacean will pass by
    1. Tulip
      Tulip 12 July 2016 10: 19
      +3
      Listen, do you have a mum bill? Dad Bill? Why are you so angry?
  4. igorspb
    igorspb 12 July 2016 10: 02
    +2
    Starting from the fact that if I don’t like dirt and rubbish in the wasteland near the house, I take a shovel and go to a community work day, and I drag a log next to Ilyich.

    and then what is so dirty here? Does everyone really like trash? or no one wants to pick up a shovel without money?
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 12 July 2016 10: 10
      +11
      Quote: igorspb
      and then what is so dirty here? Does everyone really like trash? or no one wants to pick up a shovel without money?

      Purely not where they clean, but where they do not litter, but do not litter exactly where they clean it - a vicious circle however.
      This is a matter of education. If you are a normal person, you will take a shovel and remove it for the abnormal, or at least you will respect the work of others and you won’t get anywhere.
      And if you are a cattle in your life, then you will die in a gadyushnik who himself arranged it.
      1. Abbra
        Abbra 12 July 2016 10: 17
        +8
        I’ve been courageously holding a cigarette in my hand for about five years, until I get to the trash can. love
        1. Altona
          Altona 12 July 2016 10: 27
          +8
          Quote: Abbra
          I’ve been courageously holding a cigarette in my hand for about five years, until I get to the trash can.

          ------------------
          In general, it would be better to quit smoking than to smoke the brainchild of the American company Philip Morris or the English Dunhill, who shove instead of tobacco some scraps soaked with nitrate. I quit, and expensive, and asthma from tobacco develops.
          1. guzik007
            guzik007 12 July 2016 10: 54
            +1
            I quit, and expensive, and asthma from tobacco develops.
            ------------------------------------------------
            Man, it's too late to drink Borjomi ...: =)
          2. Yura
            Yura 12 July 2016 11: 53
            +2
            Quote: Altona
            I threw

            And I’ve been trying to do this for the fifth month, smoking has become two times, and sometimes three times less, but in addition to little progress there is no success. If I don’t smoke at all, then by the end of the third day I become a mad dog, a cigarette at that moment over a cup of coffee becomes bliss.
            1. Altona
              Altona 12 July 2016 15: 11
              +2
              Quote: Jura
              If I don’t smoke at all, then by the end of the third day I become a mad dog

              -----------------------
              I sat at a former job next to a friend who smoked two packs a day, Soyuz-Apollo blue. We smoked at the workplace. So here we must also have such a powerful external impact. And I smoked 3-4 cigarettes a day. So then when I left this job I decided that I received my dose of nicotine.
              PS Try to go to "electronic". At least in terms of money, it will be more profitable, there these cartridges cost 300-400 rubles for a month. And this is only 5-6 packs of cigarettes for the money. And so, for 70 rubles a pack, up to 30 days - 2100 comes out.
    2. alicante11
      12 July 2016 11: 25
      0
      and then what is so dirty here? Does everyone really like trash? or no one wants to pick up a shovel without money?


      Because everyone and everyone do not care for others. It’s clean, and all right, but what’s behind the threshold - even though the grass doesn’t grow. Because capitalism and the society of individuals, without attendants or a whip, no one steps a step.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 12 July 2016 12: 17
        +1
        Quote: alicante11
        Because capitalism and the society of individuals, without grandmas or a whip, no one steps a step.

        And under socialism was less srach? Oh yeah, cleanups were organized (try not to get out!) yes
        1. alicante11
          12 July 2016 13: 45
          0
          And under socialism was less srach? Oh yeah, cleanups were organized (try not to get out!)


          I indicated the reason for this - a departure from the idea and a return to the consumer society, only in a socialist economy. On what and burned.
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 12 July 2016 16: 21
            0
            Quote: alicante11
            I indicated the reason for this - a departure from the idea and a return to the consumer society,

            Quote: alicante11
            I indicated the reason for this - a departure from the idea and a return to the consumer society,

            A departure from what idea ??? Why do you think consumerism is an elementary desire to live well? No one is going to have too much, but why is it bad to have beautiful clothes, household appliances, the choice of products in the store? Both the yard dog and the President love to eat tasty food - this is nature and there’s no getting away from it wink Once I heard such a conversation
            - Vasya, let's buy a washing machine (they had an ancient round machine without spin)
            - Anyuta was bourgeois, our mothers washed their hands! I know that Vaska joked like that, but what kind of idea, do you feel?
            Is this an example of NOT consumerism? It's good? And how does "consumerism" affect the maintenance of cleanliness and order - request not at all clear. Maybe it’s better to pick up a broom, do not hover in the clouds with ideas?
            1. Al1977
              Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 33
              -1
              Quote: Bayonet
              Why do you think consumerism is an elementary desire to live well?

              He who cannot afford it, considers it the cause of all his troubles. Psychology.
              Anyone who cannot afford an expensive car tells how much they "eat", what an expensive tax and expensive service. Those who cannot go abroad to rest, about the fact that you have to be a patriot and cooler than Crimea, there is nothing. Who has a push-button phone, says that apple is a complete garbage that only suckers buy. Every day I see this in life and here on the forum. It's just the way a person is made.
              As soon as he reaches the boble, he will immediately become a mega consumer. Look at our rulers, the same Pu ... He lived in a communal apartment, and now you won’t pull yachts, planes, pools and ears.
              1. alicante11
                13 July 2016 03: 45
                +2
                As soon as he reaches the boble, he will immediately become a mega consumer. Look at our rulers, the same Pu ... He lived in a communal apartment, and now you won’t pull yachts, planes, pools and ears.


                What I said. That is why we need an IDEA that would overshadow both Apple and "all inclusive" and "cruiser".
            2. alicante11
              13 July 2016 03: 43
              0
              A departure from what idea ???


              From the idea of ​​a society of service, the pursuit of excellence.

              Why do you think consumerism is an elementary desire to live well?


              Because this is an "elementary desire" - it is infinite. Today your soup is thin, and tomorrow - small pearls and still bad. Remember the tale of the fisherman and the fish.
        2. Altona
          Altona 12 July 2016 15: 07
          +1
          Quote: Bayonet
          And under socialism was less srach? Oh yeah, cleanups were organized (try not to get out!)

          ---------------------------
          We are cleaning the house near the house in spring. Not so much work together to clean the yard. Bags and inventory only needed. This year, the trees were cut down, which we began to obscure the light and lower branches on other trees (not in our jurisdiction, so to speak). In principle, we are not against cleaning up in the yard. They would give us brooms, rakes and paint with brushes, they would do everything themselves.
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 12 July 2016 15: 54
            0
            So this is wonderful, it means the people you have chosen are friendly, and even better, the order is maintained throughout the year. Agree, is it better when the order, cleanliness and beauty is constantly? When a wife’s girlfriend comes to us, she always admires how clean she is in the porch, in the elevator (our house is ordinary, not cool and without concierges), and when we come to them we are horrified! Apparently it all depends on people.hi
          2. Al1977
            Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 35
            0
            Quote: Altona
            We are cleaning the house near the house in spring. Not so much work together to clean the yard.

            Everyone understands everything, but sracha does not become smaller.
  5. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 12 July 2016 10: 03
    -1
    Well, my friend, go ahead, to emigrate! Live in Finland in Lenin’s hut, start printing the newspaper spark-2 you don’t have any work. Ps-just don’t come back in a sealed car when everything is ready — I’ll shoot the car from a grenade launcher.
    1. alicante11
      12 July 2016 11: 27
      0
      Well, my friend, go ahead, to emigrate!


      "My friend", you should have read the previous articles. There is nothing about the "sealed carriage". Once again I am convinced that the Chukchi is not a reader, the Chukchi is a writer.
    2. 34 region
      34 region 12 July 2016 11: 56
      0
      Banishing liberoids! 10.03. The phrase, Lenin is a German spy, sounded back in Soviet feature films. Let's say this is so. Is it only worth financing people who are jail-jailing, living in exile? The revolution of the 90s was not done by criminals, but by high officials. Or Gorbachev or Yeltsin lived in a hut? In Ukraine, Maidan. Poroshenko also lived in a hut? Which car brought the current government in Kiev? And representatives of other parties, too, rode in that car. Why didn’t they take power? After all, they were all in the same boat (one carriage)!
  6. tatra
    tatra 12 July 2016 10: 09
    +10
    When people do something with good goals, they do not lie, do not slander, and do not blame others.
    And the enemies of the communists, starting with Gorbachev, who launched at the end a monstrous slander against the communists, is what the enemies of the communists have been repeating after them for a quarter of a century - when every famine in Soviet Russia / USSR was declared a "Holodomor" specially arranged by the communists, with the aim of destroying more Soviet people , when the false and hypocritical praise of Nicholas II began, the bourgeoisie, whom the enemies of the communists called the "gene pool and the color of the nation", the White Guards, White Cossacks, Vlasov, and much more, and their quarter-century blame for everything that the enemies of the communists did to the republics they had captured The USSR and the peoples in them, against the Communists and their supporters, the enemies of the Communists proved that they captured the USSR for criminal purposes and they need justification for their crimes.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 12 July 2016 12: 20
      0
      Quote: tatra
      When people do something with good goals, they do not lie, do not slander, and do not blame others.

      It was the Communists who blamed all their failures on the machinations of countless enemies!
      1. tatra
        tatra 12 July 2016 12: 30
        +4
        "So the communists blamed all their failures on the machinations of countless enemies!"
        An eternal cowardly answer on the principle of "self" to all accusations to you, the enemies of the communists, and to every comparison of what the communists and their supporters have done in the USSR, and you, enemies of the communists, with your well-paid work and business in the republics of the USSR you have captured for a quarter of a century , you always respond with cowardly criticism of what the communists and their supporters have done.
        You, the enemies of the communists, with your vaunted "freedom" and your work, have proved that you are people of very low quality in mentality, intellect, work, in comparison with the communists and their supporters.
        1. dauria
          dauria 12 July 2016 18: 42
          +1
          you are people of very low quality in mentality, intellect, at work, in comparison with the communists and their supporters.



          smile 19 million "communists", a huge number of ordinary Soviet people, looked at the seizure of power like a performance, were surprised, voted for Yeltsin ...
          Why, I ask you, among the heap of doctors and candidates of philosophical sciences - Marxists there was not a single one who would at least give a hint about the possibility of the collapse of "the best, progressive country", a bright future, etc.?
          The blind? Stupid? Or simply- the system turned rotten ?

          Here it is repeated in the kitchens, but never hinted "at the party level." Why?
          "And neither the church, nor the tavern -
          Nothing is holy!
          No guys it's not like that
          It's not like that guys! "
          1. alicante11
            13 July 2016 03: 50
            -1
            19 million "communists", a huge number of ordinary Soviet people, looked at the seizure of power like a performance, were surprised, voted for Yeltsin ...


            Everything was carefully planned there. We were outplayed. Remember. First, the collapse of the economy and the propaganda of the "American Dream". Moreover, quite officially, even in the movies, remember "from the Urals". What turned people away from socialism. Then there was the State Emergency Committee, the old party members are dragging us back to the "scoop", "ganga" ... And EBN leads to a bright capitalist future, which was symbolized by McDonald's in Moscow. Peremoga, who is not in line at McDonald's - that scoop! And then they said that the CIS is the same USSR, only without the Baltics. And people believed, and when in 93 they realized that they had deceived us, it was already too late to drink Borjomi, the liver had already fallen off.
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 13 July 2016 05: 13
              0
              Quote: alicante11
              Everything was carefully planned there. They beat us.
              It turns out that we are so stupid that we are constantly replayed, deceived, substituted and betrayed? And this is against the backdrop of claims that we are the smartest, most progressive, in general - the most! Something is wrong here ... what
              1. alicante11
                13 July 2016 11: 29
                0
                It turns out that we are so stupid that we are constantly replayed, deceived, substituted and betrayed.


                Why "constantly"? When else?
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 12 July 2016 19: 32
          +1
          Quote: tatra
          You, the enemies of the communists, with your vaunted "freedom" and your work, have proved that you are people of very low quality in mentality, intellect, work, in comparison with the communists and their supporters.

          Tell us how you "highly intellectual communists" brought the unbreakable Union to collapse, how the first rushed to grab everything that the whole people had created, how they tore the party cards of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and together climbed into United Russia. Do you want to lay out a list of Soviet functionaries from the CPSU who are now at the helm of the United Russia? Hypocrites! am
  7. Gurinov Nikolay
    Gurinov Nikolay 12 July 2016 10: 09
    +1
    I agree with the author. I need food to live, and not live for food. It’s impossible to break the system alone. But it sharpens the water and stone. Uncle Vova seems to be working on this, but it’s impossible to do it alone. So you think I should do how did you help your country? but I'm not there.
    1. Al1977
      Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 37
      -2
      Quote: Nikolay Gurinov
      I agree with the author. I need to live, and not live for food.

      Excuse me, do you read sermons on Sundays?
  8. GELEZNII_KAPUT
    GELEZNII_KAPUT 12 July 2016 10: 13
    -4
    All of this requires a clear and brutally repressive mechanism for everyone that will provide artificial intelligence to make decisions impartially. Over time, selection will do its job, and you will be happy, comrades! Do we need such happiness ?!winked bully belay
    1. alicante11
      12 July 2016 11: 29
      +3
      All of this requires a clear and brutally repressive mechanism for everyone that will provide artificial intelligence to make decisions impartially.


      An interested person works much better than from under a stick. This was understood by the capitalists. That's just need to be interested in a lofty idea, and not base instincts. What is the article about.
    2. 34 region
      34 region 12 July 2016 12: 09
      0
      Iron caput! 10.13. Repression speak? winked The question is interesting. In any private company, from IP to TNCs, there is a rigid vertical of power. And it seems there is a very tough selection. Although it seems like they are not being shot there, but the pressure exists and works very clearly. But the pressure from society seems to be no. It seems that business presses society and dictates its own rules. hi In general, there is a selection of effective people. The essence of today's life, efficiency. And how is it (effectiveness) understood? Not learning, not getting sick, working hard and dying too early ?!
      1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT 12 July 2016 17: 37
        0
        People just are different, you need to create rules and conditions for life, and not burden people with ideas when they are fighting for survival. And patriotism itself will appear! hi
        PS: When they write in our city that instead of a stadium they want to build a quarter in the center, where everything is already overloaded, I don’t want ideas, I want no one to have such thoughts!
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 12 July 2016 19: 38
          0
          Quote: GELEZNII_KAPUT
          it is necessary to create rules and conditions for life, and not to burden people with ideas when they fight for survival.

          Survival??? Street damn you will not cross, how many cars! All skinny and in tatters go ??? May be enough to stoop?
        2. alicante11
          13 July 2016 03: 25
          0
          People just are different, you need to create rules and conditions for life


          What am I talking about in the last paragraph? A person has his own idea, and a state has his own - to create conditions for a person to live and work.
  9. Igor V
    Igor V 12 July 2016 10: 14
    +15
    Everything is absolutely true. Without a bright idea in his head, a person drops to instincts, which is what capitalists - employers require. And with a bright idea, the results of the first five-year plans and all that came next are obtained.
    1. tasha
      tasha 12 July 2016 10: 22
      +9
      That is the question. How to determine which idea is bright and which is a shade of gray? wink
      Or one more thing. What if the idea is unattainable?
      1. Igor V
        Igor V 12 July 2016 10: 56
        +1
        Quote: tasha
        That is the question. How to determine which idea is bright and which is a shade of gray? wink
        Or one more thing. What if the idea is unattainable?

        Bull's-eye. Sociologists, in their time, defining the Russian national character, found out that the attainability of the goal is not important to the Russian person, unlike the Western one. This has been worked out over the centuries by religion, where a person could improve endlessly, never reaching the title of saint. Communism is also an unattainable goal, for one generation, anyway. Sociologists also determined that the Russian person is a collectivist. It turns out that the collective construction of an unattainable goal is what is needed for the Russian national character. That is, "to your liking."
        When you learn all this, you are amazed at how everything happened a hundred years ago. Brick to brick.
        1. Igor V
          Igor V 12 July 2016 11: 03
          +2
          I want to add. Victory in 41-42 was also an unattainable goal, but reading the memoirs of veterans now, no one at the front doubted our Victory! This is what they cannot understand in the West.
          1. Al1977
            Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 42
            -2
            I want to add. Victory in 41-42 was also an unattainable goal,

            You do not say to those who fought that they fought for an unattainable idea.
            The people not only believed, but also did a lot. Keyword MADE victory by reality.
            1. Igor V
              Igor V 12 July 2016 18: 48
              0
              Quote: Al1977
              I want to add. Victory in 41-42 was also an unattainable goal,

              You do not say to those who fought that they fought for an unattainable idea.
              The people not only believed, but also did a lot. Keyword MADE victory by reality.

              You need to chew everything right. In 1941, the Victory was physically unattainable, but the people did not doubt it, and this faith gave them strength to achieve Victory. What is incomprehensible here?
              1. Al1977
                Al1977 13 July 2016 14: 13
                0
                Quote: Igor V
                You need to chew everything right. In 1941, the victory was physically unattainable, but the people did not doubt it.

                Victory was an achievable goal from the very beginning; there could be no other. We did not just believe, we brought it closer from the very beginning of the war.
        2. tasha
          tasha 12 July 2016 16: 10
          0
          Well, about the Russian national character - this is not for me hi

          You see, if a person is constantly moving towards an incomprehensible goal, refusing to satisfy his immediate needs, then, in a collision with society with other values, the consequences can be most unpredictable. And it may not necessarily be a society somewhere out there, far away. It could be a society from a neighboring yard ...
          1. Igor V
            Igor V 12 July 2016 18: 54
            0
            Dear Taskha, do not be afraid of the word "Russian", here it is not nationalism, a definition that the overwhelming majority of the people of Russia are Russians. The sociologists I wrote about carried out and published their works even before the word "Russian" became extremism.
      2. Ivan Ivanov
        Ivan Ivanov 12 July 2016 11: 10
        +1
        The attainability of a large goal, as well as its shades, are determined in the process of movement, to begin with, the intuitive consent of the majority is enough, in my opinion so.
      3. alicante11
        12 July 2016 11: 30
        +3
        Or one more thing. What if the idea is unattainable?


        The idea of ​​knowing is unattainable. At least for the foreseeable future. But there are many discoveries along the way, many of which are worth much more than capitalist "values."
      4. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 12 July 2016 17: 16
        0
        Quote: tasha
        What if the idea is unattainable?


        The idea must be realistically achievable. All the achievements of mankind are really achievable ideas at this stage of development.
        1. alicante11
          13 July 2016 03: 26
          0

          The idea must be realistically achievable. All the achievements of mankind are really achievable ideas at this stage of development.


          Have all Americans realized the "American Dream"?
    2. 34 region
      34 region 12 July 2016 12: 22
      +1
      Igor V! 10.14. The concept of an idea can be explained more simply. There is a question of the demand by society for YOU specifically. We often scold the Asians here. He arrived himself, followed by all the relatives. Here is a feeling of collectivism! Which Russian can boast of this? Oligarchs and officials? Settled himself, attached relatives. I am a prosecutor, my wife and children are businessmen, the rest are relatives, either in business or in government. All work on the idea of ​​dough.
      1. Igor V
        Igor V 12 July 2016 18: 28
        +1
        34region, it was just not about individuals, sociologists do not deal with individuals. It was about society. Now, for many years, they have been looking for "spiritual bonds" and "national idea", but they cannot find it. Maybe they are not looking there? Maybe the idea of ​​personal enrichment at the expense of others is not a bright idea that can move mountains? One Russian writer (I don’t remember his last name now) wanted to translate his village in the English manner (19th century). I talked with the headman several times. When I talk to him about how the household will be organized, he listens attentively, when I start talking about how much profit the men will get and what can be done with this, I look, his eyes close and he begins to doze quietly. smile
    3. Al1977
      Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 39
      -1
      Quote: Igor V
      Without a bright idea in his head, a person drops to instincts, which is what capitalists - employers require

      You, I believe, live with a bright idea in your head and have not descended to the capitalists. Do not share the idea? Where can I see the works of your righteous deeds? Did you build a chapel or grow an apple orchard and feed the kids apples? Maybe 10 kids from the orphanage took? Let yourself know, the country must know the heroes !!!
      1. Igor V
        Igor V 12 July 2016 18: 42
        0
        Aluminum 77, I just attended the Komsomol meeting. "What did you personally do?" By the way, I was surprised to find that your questionnaire partially concerns me. But - to the point. If this demagogy is all that you can oppose to a bright idea in your head, then I have nothing to answer here. By the way, I defined Soviet society with this expression, if you don’t understand.
        It's nice to talk with Susuman from Kaliningrad. smile My cousin lived for many years in Susuman, so the name is familiar to me. A brother is three years in Ust Omchug by distribution.
        1. Al1977
          Al1977 13 July 2016 09: 27
          -1
          Quote: Igor V
          I have nothing to answer here

          It was necessary to start and finish with this ... dear opponent "with a bright idea in his head."
  10. Bramb
    Bramb 12 July 2016 10: 21
    +3
    By the way: socialism in a single region already exists. Moreover, a quarter of a century. And quite successfully.
    It is called "State Farm named after VI Lenin", which is near Moscow. I heard about a couple more collective farms, but only heard, I don't know for sure.

    As for green trains: these are the shortcomings of the central distribution. There was the wrong idea of ​​centralizing the distribution of everything and everything. Well, and another ban on private property and production. Why distribute and centrally plan buttons or dresses with shoes? This can and should be left to private owners. But the old people in the Politburo were afraid of this. In vain.
    1. Passer
      Passer 12 July 2016 14: 39
      +4
      Private production (cooperatives) in the USSR existed until about the 60s. The grandfather after the war worked, told. And mother still remembered these times.
      As for planning, the degree of planning in large corporations, or at least in the same EU (the so-called quotas), is such that Gosplan nervously smokes on the sidelines.
    2. Al1977
      Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 43
      -2
      Quote: Bramb
      socialism in a single region already exists. Moreover, a quarter of a century. And quite successfully.
      It is called "State Farm named after VI Lenin", which is near Moscow.

      What is this socialism expressed in?
  11. tatra
    tatra 12 July 2016 10: 22
    -3
    Quote: Igor V
    with a bright idea, we get the results of the first five-year plans and all that came next.

    It is all a matter of the mentality of the Communists and their supporters, and the enemies of the Communists on the territory of the USSR.
    Some creators, hard workers, patriots of their country and people, and other destroyers, cowardly, irresponsible, greedy parasites, consumables, inhuman cosmopolitan egoists.
  12. weksha50
    weksha50 12 July 2016 10: 29
    +4
    “It is this idea of ​​perfection that needs to interest people in the new socialist society. At first it will be a race with neighboring Russian capitalist regions, but race not for a large piece of meat, but for general economic indicators, for better roads, more beautiful houses and streets, for the fastest and most powerful cars, etc. Then you need leave behind the leading capitalist powers. And then continue the race to space, stopped by the consumer society - to fulfill the dream of mankind "...

    Ohoho ... In modern conditions - pure utopia ... Unfortunately, ...
    1. 34 region
      34 region 12 July 2016 12: 43
      +2
      Veksha50! 10.29. Utopia, not utopia, but a good thought. Competition of regions. District competes with district, region with region, country with other countries. Here is how to arrange this mechanism? Enter serfdom? What will be the result? The history of the specific principalities we already had. When was Russia the strongest? When is everything fragmented or when is it single? In my opinion when a single. A strange situation is obtained. Large hulking! Minor effective! But in reality, economic organisms are growing. What is the question and the problem? Maybe in the personal qualities of leaders? For example, Nikolai 2 and Gorbachev. Strong personalities - a strong country? Ivan the Terrible and Stalin. Unimportant rulers? What rulers do we need? Those in which the country is constantly shaking and in which crises suddenly occur? Or those at which the country is developing? Person has nothing to do with it? The main thing is to have the right laws? But today we have the correct, market laws! What then slip? About the lack of investment and technology is not necessary.
      1. weksha50
        weksha50 12 July 2016 21: 41
        0
        Quote: Region 34
        Utopia, not utopia, but a good thought. Competition of regions. District competes with district, region with region, country with other countries. Here is how to arrange this mechanism?



        Well, let's put it this way in the USSR, it was practiced ... Not to say that it was effective, but still existed ...

        But the rest of your questions are not only me, it is unlikely that there will be a person to be able to answer, especially in the bundle proposed by you ...

        That’s why I said that it’s utopia ... At least for today ...
  13. Begemot
    Begemot 12 July 2016 10: 59
    -1
    gave himself up and, at the same time, did not think about what he had, and even what would happen to him, he needed an idea.
    Guano people, we will burn as much as necessary in an ideological fire, so it turns out? But people performed feats not for the sake of an idea, but for the sake of a bright life, ",,, if we do not have time, then at least the children will live like people ,,,", which meant - a clean bright hut, a pot with borscht in the oven, a sundress beautiful, merry round dance. Hierarchy existed in society, but the principle of its organization was different from the current one. Now you need money, a lot to go up, then you needed ideology, abilities,
    partisanship and the ability to fit into the system. So the socialism of the USSR model was ruined by the inconsistency of the 1.0 version of the very idea of ​​Social Society and the nature of human nature. Simply put, sapies in homo were not enough for this particular version. Something like this.
    1. tatra
      tatra 12 July 2016 11: 06
      0
      Quote: Begemot
      So the socialism of the USSR model was ruined by the discrepancy of version 1.0 of the very idea of ​​the Social Society and the nature of human nature

      Those who so stubbornly blame the blame for the capture of the USSR by the enemies of the Communists, on the Communists and their supporters, on what they did in the USSR constantly throw out facts unfavorable to them.
      In 1991, the citizens of the RSFSR voted not for capitalism, not for that Yeltsin, who surrendered Russia to the Americans, and gave it to the enemies of the Communists for plunder and destruction, but for his image of a "fighter with privileges", that is, those who voted for him, voted for the equality of everything people.
      And those who cowardly, stupidly, crucify "the USSR collapsed because it rotted away", throw out the results of the referendum on the preservation of the USSR, in which the majority of the USSR voters voted FOR the preservation of the USSR.
      1. Begemot
        Begemot 12 July 2016 15: 01
        +1
        Do not mix everything into one mess. Yeltsin is a communist, first secretary of the Sverdlovsk and Moscow City Committees of the CPSU, Socialism is not equal to the USSR, in the late USSR it was just a version created by Brezhnev and Suslov with companions, while this version itself was a step backward in relation to Stalin's, which was much closer to the one later proclaimed by Deng Xiao Ping. And the last thing: Socialism in the version of the USSR lost the struggle for the minds and souls of people, when the same communists dismantled it in the nomenklatura pockets, almost no one came out to give his life for the "idea"
    2. alicante11
      12 July 2016 11: 33
      +1
      Guano people, how much will it take, and how much will we burn in an ideological fire, so it turns out?


      You are speaking from the perspective of an individual capitalist. I would rephrase. People are creators, including and your life. And for the sake of the idea they are ready to give as many lives as needed.
      1. Begemot
        Begemot 12 July 2016 14: 43
        0
        That's it, see the root
        They are ready to give as many lives as needed.
        I somehow do not really agree that some stubborn ideological one should give my life for my idea, which may turn out to be completely delusional. I prefer to decide for myself what idea will inspire me so much that I will be ready to sacrifice everything.
  14. Mihalich17
    Mihalich17 12 July 2016 11: 06
    +6
    A couple of Germans are sitting in a tavern, and a couple of Ukrainians are nearby. The Germans looked at them with interest, then decided to roll up.
    - Guys, are you from Russia?
    “No,” they say, “we are from Ukraine.”
    - And what's that?
    - The country is like that. We have our own coat of arms, anthem, flag ...
    “This is understandable,” the Germans say. - And where is such a country?
    - Do you know Sevastopol? - Ukrainians ask.
    “I know,” one says. - my grandfather fought there. But this is Russia.
    - No, this is Ukraine. We have our own coat of arms, anthem, flag. Okay, how else can you explain ... Donbass know?
    - We know. But this is Russia!
    - No, this is Ukraine. We have our own anthem, coat of arms, flag ...
    The Germans see that nothing happens. Thinking:
    - Okay. What is your language? Russian?
    - No, ours, Ukrainian.
    “And what do you think?”
    - Arm.
    - And the leg?
    - Leg.
    - Hmm ... And what the fuck?
    - Fuck.
    “And it was you, because of one fight, who came up with your coat of arms, anthem, flag ??”
  15. imugn
    imugn 12 July 2016 11: 28
    +2
    During perestroika they said: "Only under capitalism the leader (owner) is interested in the efficiency of production ..." Well, where do we have this? They say: socialism is a utopia. And how is socialism fundamentally different from capitalism? The fact that under socialism the resources belong to the state, and under capitalism - to a separate group of people. And everything else - no difference.
    Here are more pluses from the USSR I can remember much more than I have now. And there will be even less.

    And there was more justice.
    1. alicante11
      12 July 2016 11: 37
      +1
      During perestroika they said: "Only under capitalism the leader (owner) is interested in the efficiency of production ..." Well, where do we have it?


      Under market capitalism, this is true. Because you need to beat a competitor. On this (not counting the colonies, which were raw materials) rose England and the United States. But in our time, capitalism has reached a monopolistic stage. And if you are a monopolist, then it makes no sense to strain and make efficient production. The problem with capitalism is that it ALWAYS strives for monopoly.
      1. 34 region
        34 region 12 July 2016 12: 52
        +2
        Alicante11! 11.37. The desire for monopoly is understandable. Although striving for a monopoly under the slogan of small business. Very convenient tactics for knocking out competitors. Bet on personal ambition. And underneath this is the creation of the EU, WTO, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership. And the peak of all will be globalization. Where they indicate your place in the ranks. You grow bananas, you get oil, you have resorts, you have banks, and I command the parade!
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 12 July 2016 12: 14
      0
      Quote: imugn
      only under capitalism, the leader (owner) is interested in the efficiency of production.

      The capitalist is interested in only one thing - in making a profit. And production is forced to develop when simpler ways of making this profit are exhausted. This means that either fierce competition or legislation may prompt it to develop production. In our country, today, the oligarchs who came to power do not have legislative restrictions and are looking for ways not to modernize production, but to eliminate competitors.
      1. Al1977
        Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 51
        0
        Quote: Verdun
        The capitalist is interested in only one thing - in making profit

        Any economy is interested in this. Lying on the stove and receiving money will not work.
        1. alicante11
          13 July 2016 03: 55
          0
          Any economy is interested in this.


          Not really yours. Socialist - not interested. She is interested in development. Otherwise, why from profitable industries transfer profits to unprofitable ones and develop them?
          1. Al1977
            Al1977 13 July 2016 12: 35
            0
            Quote: alicante11
            Socialist - not interested. She is interested in development.

            I did not notice that the socialist countries would have better cars, televisions and other consumer goods than the "capitalist" ones. Or give examples.
            1. alicante11
              13 July 2016 15: 42
              0
              I did not notice that the socialist countries would have better cars, televisions and other consumer goods than the "capitalist" ones. Or give examples.


              You are comparing incomparable. The USSR experienced two devastations - the greatest wars and was forced to restore the economy and industry. Moreover, in the conditions of the arms race imposed on us. HOW in such a situation to allocate enough funds for "the best car bombs and refrigerators"? I am not talking about Cuba and the DPRK at all - they are generally in a blockade and do not even have such resources as the USSR. HOW to make "the best TVs" in such a situation?

              Well, and the second - the BEST cars and TVs are not necessary - they are initially redundant, and, therefore, inefficient. We need just GOOD.
    3. Al1977
      Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 47
      -1
      Quote: imugn
      During perestroika they said: “only under capitalism the leader (owner) is interested in the efficiency of production

      So it is, every boss of his business cares about his brainchild. What's wrong? Or are you about the state as a host?
      1. alicante11
        13 July 2016 03: 57
        0
        So it is, every boss of his business cares about his brainchild.


        But HOW is it baked? You can stupidly raise the price and cut wages - this is the style of "baking" monopoly capitalism. And you can invest ALL of the profit in development and share it among those involved - this is the style of socialism. There is a difference?
        1. Al1977
          Al1977 13 July 2016 09: 34
          0
          Quote: alicante11
          So it is, every boss of his business cares about his brainchild.


          But HOW is it baked? You can stupidly raise the price and cut wages - this is the style of "baking" monopoly capitalism. And you can invest ALL of the profit in development and share it among those involved - this is the style of socialism. There is a difference?

          Who is stopping you from doing this? Oh yes, I forgot, tell me that you yourself cannot do this, because everyone will bother you, you need a lot of money, connections, and you are just a person ... Yes, yes. We heard these ridiculous excuses. An example of a successful, prosperous country in the world, living by your rules in the studio. Otherwise, it is called in Russian .... censorship will not miss .. let's say so a dreamer. If the enterprise does not develop, competitors eat it.
          An example is our AvtoVAZ, soviet, oak and the competitor Koreans.
          Our Tu and American, awesome capitalist Boeing and airbases. Compare and do not carry the BAD.
          1. alicante11
            13 July 2016 11: 35
            -1
            Oh yes, I forgot, tell me that you yourself cannot do this, because everyone will bother you, you need a lot of money, connections, and you are just a person ... Yes, yes. We heard these ridiculous excuses.


            HOW does this cancel what I said? Why I can’t, it’s another question, but after all, "successful" ones act this way.

            An example of a successful, prosperous country in the world, living by your rules in the studio.


            USSR - 70 years, not a single country has survived the betrayal of the elite.

            An example is our AvtoVAZ, soviet, oak and the competitor Koreans.


            And what does socialism have to do with it? We now seem to have quite a capitalism. But AvtoVAZ is the same. So it’s not socialism.

            Our Tu and American, awesome capitalist Boeing and airbases. Compare and do not carry the BAD.


            And why do not you like our Tu? Can you give specifics?
            1. Al1977
              Al1977 13 July 2016 12: 44
              0
              Quote: alicante11
              USSR - 70 years, not a single country has survived the betrayal of the elite.

              The USSR does not exist. The elites come and go, but the people remain. Or is the people a silent herd? Not!!! The elites have already changed 10 times; I still don’t see any USSR.
              USSR - a design doomed to extinction. History has proven this, everything else is a subjunctive mood.
              And what does socialism have to do with it? We now seem to have quite a capitalism. But AvtoVAZ is the same. So socialism is not the issue

              And what happened during the USSR. Were the cars better than German (not GDR) or Japanese? The answer is definitely not. The same VAZ is an Italian model. The minds themselves did not have enough.
              And why do not you like our Tu? Can you give specifics?

              Can. The economic component, fuel consumption, the number of crew, the number of hours for maintenance. You can even compare specific models, the airlines did the following work: http://www.ato.ru/content/sravnenie-ekspluatacionnoy-ekonomiki-il-96-300-i-boein
              g-767-300-na-opyte-aeroflota
              1. alicante11
                13 July 2016 15: 56
                0
                The USSR does not exist. The elites come and go, but the people remain.


                Because the elite surrendered him.

                Or is the people a silent herd?


                Let's just say that the people have a very small degree of influence on the processes taking place in the country. And it can never have power greater than the elite. Because the people are divided. It does not have unity. And the elite is consolidated and has real levers of control and influence in its hands.

                And what happened during the USSR. Were the cars better than German (not GDR) or Japanese? The answer is definitely not. The same VAZ is an Italian model. The minds themselves did not have enough.


                Once again, did our cars suit our customer? Arranged. So they were good enough. Over time, it would be better.

                Economic component


                The latest models, with the exception of fuel consumption, were quite at the level in all respects. And the achievement of low fuel consumption was not a priority due to its low price. It was much more important to transport more goods and passengers with greater reliability. Naturally, in capitalist realities, the economic indicator prevails. And therefore, everyone is switching to a twin-engine scheme. Cheaper to use, but less secure.
        2. Al1977
          Al1977 13 July 2016 09: 35
          0
          Quote: alicante11
          You can stupidly raise the price and reduce salaries

          So do not buy from him and do not work from him. What is the problem.
          1. alicante11
            13 July 2016 11: 36
            -1
            So do not buy from him and do not work from him. What is the problem.


            The problem is that HE is a monopolist. And buy from someone else is problematic.
            1. Al1977
              Al1977 13 July 2016 12: 48
              0
              Quote: alicante11
              The problem is that HE is a monopolist. And buy from someone else is problematic.

              An example in the studio. In which industry is a private monopolist.
              1. Al1977
                Al1977 13 July 2016 15: 19
                0
                Quote: Al1977
                An example in the studio. In which industry is a private monopolist.

                And in response to silence ... That's how we are discussing. Stuffing made and dumped))))
                1. alicante11
                  13 July 2016 16: 00
                  0
                  And in response to silence ... That's how we are discussing. Stuffing made and dumped))))


                  You will not get it :).
                  Electricity, utilities, rail transportation. even the simplest fuel - we have two main sellers, Rosneft and the Alliance. And prices are always rising synchronously. It is clear that there are cheaper gas stations, but there are very few of them and going to the other end of the city to refuel is inconvenient. Are you few? I can add it.
                  1. Al1977
                    Al1977 13 July 2016 17: 34
                    +1
                    Quote: alicante11
                    Electricity, utilities, rail transportation.

                    Sailed ...
                    First of all, housing and communal services is not a monopoly; you can choose a management company and conclude contracts yourself. Secondly, your other example is GOS monopoly. We are talking about a private trader who is a damned capitalist and oppresses prices and reduces salaries, which I suggested not taking from him, but you said that he is a monopolist.
                    This is a question for the President, not for "Uncle Vasya, the capitalist."
                    Let’s finish the argument, you’re trying to pull some facts by your ears, clever at the same time. What is the point, we live in one country, we see everything. I am not a grandfather, a pensioner, I live and work in Moscow in a large business firm, so I do not need to be treated.
                    Is it you all minus me, or some kind of anonymous dr o ch er?
                  2. Al1977
                    Al1977 13 July 2016 17: 37
                    0
                    Quote: alicante11
                    even the simplest fuel - we have two main sellers, Rosneft and the Alliance.

                    "Even when you are eaten, you have two choices."
                  3. tasha
                    tasha 14 July 2016 19: 38
                    0
                    I'll get in here. I'm sorry.
                    You, alicante11, have real mess in your head. You appointed the bourgeois-the bloodsucker and the bureaucrat-bureaucrat the main troubles. So you decide who is to blame. These are completely different, mutually exclusive concepts. Or capitalism, or bureaucracy ...

                    I will share my thoughts with you - what you and I are observing around is absolutely not capitalism ... It’s not clear what. And you know what else? A more or less intelligible model (not always implemented in fact) is China. Those. the main direction is set by the state (ideology, defense industry, heavy engineering, education, natural resources, global projects, etc., etc.). But at the same time, medium and small businesses are very developed ...
    4. Al1977
      Al1977 12 July 2016 17: 50
      -3
      Quote: imugn
      m, that under socialism, resources belong to the state, and under capitalism - to a separate group of people.

      Who owns the resources in our country? What a "group of persons".
      I didn’t hear that our resources would not belong to the state.
      And what is the state? Did you own resources before? Or are you not a state?
      And now you can rent a lake. That is exactly as you wanted.
  16. Verdun
    Verdun 12 July 2016 11: 30
    +1
    For some reason, in the discussions, everyone was mired in particulars. Meanwhile, the article contains a very specific, broad and very important idea. That changes in the structure of society are impossible without changes in a person, in his psychology. It was not for nothing that Anton Pavlovich Chekhov wrote that all his life he squeezed a slave out of himself drop by drop. The bourgeoisie, as a philosophy of life, is able to crush under its soft pillows and stifle the most wonderful ideas. How did Mayakovsky write there? "And the mz got out from behind the back of the USSR the mule of a bourgeois ..." Slave dependence on ham or sausage, on a fashionable gadget or on "all inclusive" is still slavery. And do not assume that you can start building a perfect society by saturating the market with consumer goods. The consumer "I" is bottomless. And, in any case, starting to build a new, more perfect, society, you have to start with yourself.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 12 July 2016 11: 46
      0
      Philistinism, as a philosophy of life, is able to crush under its soft pillows and strangle the most wonderful ideas
      And what is wrong with this very philistinism? you sit on the couch, next to the cat rubs, drink beer, watch football. What else do you need, or (great ideas) to attend to the idea of ​​global disarmament, or world peace. Previously, pillows were cool-downy.
      1. alicante11
        12 July 2016 13: 59
        +4
        And what is wrong with this very philistinism? you sit on the couch, next to the cat rubs, drink beer, watch football.


        Philistinism is bad for several reasons.
        1. The bourgeoisie does not just "sit on the couch", he arranges his life, not taking into account other people's interests. And if it is not beer and a cat in his interests, but beer, a motorcycle and loud loud music, then a night concert from which even closed windows cannot save. From such people inconvenience and litigation constantly go to neighbors and other people. Because the main thing for a tradesman is that HIM is comfortable. And the rest - do not care.
        2. A tradesman will never help either his neighbor or country. No, of course, he can feed a little dog, and even donate something for greenpeace. But it will be those surpluses that he does not need. Or in order to punt in front of other bourgeois. But the tradesman will not go with a grenade under the tank. Because then who will drink beer and stroke a kote?
        3. The bourgeois is aggressive, "for his own." If his "kote" scratches out your daughter's eyes, and you shoot "kote" for this, he will sue you and will not only pay for his daughter's operation, but also the material and "moral" costs of the bastard.

        To summarize, the tradesman is like silt that has fallen to the bottom of the lake; he, it seems, does not bother anyone and even is a breeding ground for plants. But if there is too much silt, can you swim in such a pond? And if the silt is not cleaned, then it can completely tighten - kill the pond.
        1. marlin1203
          marlin1203 12 July 2016 14: 21
          0
          Any philistine music at night, neighbors will quickly and "proletarian" adjust ... angry
          1. alicante11
            12 July 2016 14: 56
            +2
            Any philistine music at night, neighbors will quickly and "proletarian" adjust ...


            Your lips ... unfortunately, from experience it is not so simple.
  17. Kite
    Kite 12 July 2016 11: 57
    +2
    we don’t even know the boundaries of the universe

    -and she (them) is not!
    What conviction does the author call everyone to perfection? The author himself is confused. It remembers enthusiasts, it blames consumers. Who will obsolete whom? At all times coexisted giants of thought, moral authority, lights, and next to them are shadow people, philistines, crooks, and fallen ones.
    Does the author want to infect an idea? What did not offer anything? Is she afraid to confess to herself or is afraid to say directly and loudly about Faith, about the primacy of Consciousness and soul?
    1. tilix
      tilix 12 July 2016 12: 03
      +2
      and she (them) is not!
      And what gives you so much confidence? Can you explain?
      1. Kite
        Kite 12 July 2016 12: 19
        +2
        Start your knowledge of infinity with the simple - with math smile
        1. tilix
          tilix 12 July 2016 13: 33
          +1
          Maybe you wrote it?
          "we do not even know the boundaries of the universe yet" but it (them) does not exist!
          I asked what gives you such confidence that she / they are not? So who / what is not? No borders? Is there no universe?

          Or maybe you were joking, sorry, I didn’t understand your joke, I thought maybe seriously.
          1. Kite
            Kite 12 July 2016 13: 41
            0
            there are no borders. (period) Is there a universe - about it in the last line of my first comment.
            Scientists suggest the existence of other dimensions. Under such assumptions, it’s as if we are imaginary creatures of infinitesimal magnitude, like our Universe.
            1. tilix
              tilix 12 July 2016 14: 19
              +1
              there are no borders. (point)
              According to the theory of the big bang accepted today, there are borders. point.
              Scientists suggest
              Ah, suppose, and scientists, well, I realized thanks for the information. no more questions.
              1. Kite
                Kite 12 July 2016 15: 55
                0
                Quote: tilix
                According to accepted today theories ....

                - The first assumption of a big bang was supplemented by inflation, then coiled measurements .... It’s too early for your point to appear laughing
                1. tilix
                  tilix 12 July 2016 16: 01
                  +1
                  It’s too early for your point to appear
                  So far, there are measurements and confirmations about the big bang and they talk about boundaries.
                  Here I am about measurements and you are about
                  Scientists suggest
                  and gee gee. There you have the difference.
                  1. Kite
                    Kite 12 July 2016 18: 05
                    0
                    for you personally: the boundaries of the bubble from the "big bang" are set. This is what you achieved from me today. Enjoy your little world. laughing
        2. olimpiada15
          olimpiada15 12 July 2016 14: 45
          0
          Quote: Kite
          Start your knowledge of infinity with the simple - with math smile

          You are absolutely right in this.
          The mathematics is perfect, mathematics is needed for the development of the human mind.
          My opinion. The world in which we live is created by the mind (in religion it is God), in every person there is a piece of this mind (God's spark). The human body is also intelligent. When a person turns off his consciousness (sleeps), the mind begins to work correcting the harm caused to the body during the day. How much a person who is born can realize the possibilities laid down by nature (reason) depends on his environment and upbringing.
          Man must be intelligent always and in everything: in relation to himself, other people, nature.
          And in this theory there is no place for consumerism, for the cult of consumerism, the thirst for profit, cruelty are traits of insanity, i.e. lack of mind, defective mind.
          Religion calls people to be reasonable, nothing is impossible for reason and reason is infinite. The first lines of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, the Word was God." As the psychology teacher explained to us, language is an indicator of how the brain works. According to a person's speech, its meaningfulness, doctors diagnose the patient, even before the examination, one can talk about a stroke. We need to combine religion and science. Religion as a teaching about the creation of a rational world, created by reason. And science as an instrument of cognition of truth by reason. Yes, in addition to the fact that a person is able to perceive the world with the help of the senses, scientists have discovered the micro- and macro-world, which is cognized with the help of tools, and this world really exists. And there is still a very important point, to recognize the existence of the mind itself, as a reality perceived only by the mind, i.e. understanding, comprehension. "No one has seen God, never" "Truly I say, the face of God is not partial to persons." These phrases suggest that God exists, but is not perceived by the human senses. Why is the face of God not partiality? Because from the position of reason, the truth is visible, and a person often acts unrighteously, hoping or taking measures to ensure that the truth is not learned, but reason is the world of thoughts, and it is impossible to hide anything in the world of thoughts.
          Both religion and science are facets of the manifestation of reason and should not deny each other. So somehow there is such a world in which we live, which we know, of which our civilization is a part. Humanity must save this world.
          Only human life has a term, and time is not dominant over the mind. When a person makes great discoveries - new generations use discoveries, the person himself no longer lives, but his mind remains. And what will the followers of consumerism leave behind? Who will need the facts about what they ate, how much silicone they had in their skin code. For reason, consumerism is insignificant, they are unnecessary people, and they want to take this world so that the whole world becomes an object of consumption.
          The meaning of the existence of mankind in the development of intelligent life, reason.
          1. tilix
            tilix 12 July 2016 15: 35
            +1
            Math perfect
            Yes? Really?
            Mathematics is the science of structures, order and relations, historically formed on the basis of ...
            So when was she, is or will be perfect?
    2. alicante11
      12 July 2016 14: 01
      0
      At all times, giants of thought, moral authority, lights, and shadow people, ordinary people, crooks, and fallen coexisted.


      But their ratio at different times was different.
      1. Kite
        Kite 12 July 2016 15: 49
        0
        Quote: alicante11
        But their ratio at different times was different.

        - there were periods of prosperity and fading due to ......
        Give yourself an answer, find it!
        1. alicante11
          13 July 2016 03: 28
          0
          - there were periods of prosperity and fading due to ......
          Give yourself an answer, find it!


          Was there really a question about this?
  18. tilix
    tilix 12 July 2016 11: 58
    +3
    I'm so glad that my life confirms someone's theory
    (M. Zhvanetsky)
  19. olimpiada15
    olimpiada15 12 July 2016 12: 24
    +1
    The article is a definite plus.
    Not because the author is completely right, but because he raised the necessary question, which led to the dialogue.
    At the very least, the comments reflect people's concern for the present and the understanding that the direction the country is following is wrong, it is a road to nowhere.
    And a new road is needed.
    We must move away from the ideology of consumerism.
    A person must have everything necessary for life and development. This is a mandatory minimum, but the goal for society must be set correctly, society must develop.
    The propaganda cult of consumerism leads to degradation.
    Even the very exaggeration of the question of "sausage trains" testifies to the propaganda inferiority of those who pound this topic.
    From the point of view of the mind. Yes, there were food stamps. The volume of products in accordance with the physiological norm. Now in stores, shelves are clogged with goods. But I don’t want to buy them. The packaging is beautiful, but we do not eat the packaging, but the product. Before you purchase a product, you need to read and comprehend the entire fine print, if you succeed, then most likely you will leave without a purchase.
    There was once at an event dedicated to quality and the largest producer of meat products in the region posted a booklet, where, in addition to a beautiful image, the composition of sausages was written. Not too lazy to read. Among a large assortment of sausages and sausages, only 1 grade! had no soy supplement.
    Therefore, it is better if there were 2-3 varieties on the counter, but certainly quality products.
    The cult of consumption is imposed by all media, in the form of advertising, in the form of propaganda of the lifestyle of people with high incomes. I stopped buying the program. There was a newspaper, normal, some useful tips, news, puzzles, eventually turned into propaganda by Pugacheva with her insanity and Co., when it came to Chubais with another marriage, she stopped buying a newspaper, and I almost never turn on the TV.
    What this propaganda leads to - people become slaves. For example, a woman 6 years ago took a loan for part of the purchase, today she is all re-credited, in debt, including According to housing and communal services, it’s practically starving. All people mired in loans that they are not able to repay are slaves who long ago returned the borrowed amount, but remain eternal debtors, because periodically they lose their jobs, they delay their salaries, they even deceive and don't pay, and debts for untimelyness are growing and there is no end to it. Today, the number of borrowed people is the number of citizens who have become slaves.
    1. tasha
      tasha 12 July 2016 14: 05
      0
      About physiological norms, it's you in vain. In history, there are many cases where the issuance of food was carried out on the basis of strictly scientific medical calculations. The 2 Imperial Security Directorate particularly succeeded in this.
      1. olimpiada15
        olimpiada15 15 July 2016 06: 18
        0
        Quote: tasha
        About physiological norms, it's you in vain. In history, there are many cases where the issuance of food was carried out on the basis of strictly scientific medical calculations. The 2 Imperial Security Directorate particularly succeeded in this.

        Perhaps the term was incorrectly applied, but I did not mean scientific research, but the usual volume of food consumption. Let's say a working person ate in the dining room, people of physical labor took for lunch 1 ruble (salad, soup, two second, drink, baked goods), my lunch ~ 50 kopecks (salad or soup, second course, tea), the amount of food was different but people did not starve. There have always been and are people who, with a clear lack of mass, ate a double lunch, but on the contrary, the little ones were overweight. By physiological norm, I meant the volume of food that is customary for the individual to be able to work. In the USSR it was available. Now the cult of excessive consumption is enjoying. As an advertisement: for dinner, a fatty fried chicken, if your stomach hurts, eat a Mezim tablet. This is the propaganda of overeating, and the preparation of future consumers of the drug market. You can’t rush from one extreme to another. Equally wild and calculated soldering and the cult of overeating.
        We criticize the time of the USSR for coupons, and not the fate of critics to look at the present and admit that today many people are malnourished, that the salary level does not allow many people to consume the physiologically necessary amount of food, people often can not afford lunch in the dining room, people just take a can of soup, which is heated in a warm place, that a consumer basket is not a physiological norm of consumption, but a bureaucratic sophistication for beating the population. Today in the country the most common salary is in the range of 5-8 thousand, yes, there are 50-100, but these are opportunities for not large groups of the population.
        1. tasha
          tasha 16 July 2016 09: 44
          0
          Thanks for the answer. But how am I tired of explaining to ardent supporters of a bygone era that there is enough to cite the current state of affairs as arguments. This is not an argument. This is demagogy. We all live in this world, everyone seems to be intelligent, everyone sees what is happening around. How to relate to this is a personal matter for everyone.

          But to describe the USSR as a country with milk rivers and jelly banks is wrong.

          Well, just to not be too hard. We urgently need to return to the primitive system. Life in nature, air is the purest. Products are all natural. There are no taxes. Everything is common. Beauty... wink
  20. potapych
    potapych 12 July 2016 12: 25
    +1
    from the point of view of dialectics and socialist criticism, the article is weak, but how to indulge laughing
  21. tatra
    tatra 12 July 2016 12: 37
    +3
    Quote: olimpiada15
    The packaging is beautiful, but we do not eat the packaging, but the product.

    Here I am surprised by the amazing disrespect of the enemies of the Communists for YOURSELF.
    Not only did they prove that they have a low-grade parasitic petty bourgeois consumerly mentality, they also proved that they are ready to eat whatever they eat - sausage without meat, dairy and confectionery products from soy, palm oil, non-natural vegetables and fruits without vitamins, odor and taste, meat with hormones, and so on, if only there were a lot and without queues.
    1. 34 region
      34 region 12 July 2016 13: 10
      +2
      Tatra! 12.37. Tatra! What are you hinting at? Like magpie attracts brilliant, but by this analogy it turns out that the brains of some birds? Pork appetite (they’ll eat everything in a row). Oh, they’re throwing you cons!
  22. Al1977
    Al1977 12 July 2016 13: 27
    -2
    And, therefore, it’s better we will plow in three shifts and seven days a week for businessman Vasya, profiting from our work

    Who prevents to work for themselves? Laziness and not the desire to take responsibility.
    So go work for the state. It will employ you, give a decent salary and pension.
    What is Uncle Vasya to blame for creating a workplace? Or should he give you 50% of the business?
    Delirium of old communism, in short. Who sits on the stove and waits for a "freebie".
    1. alicante11
      12 July 2016 14: 08
      0
      Who prevents to work for themselves? Laziness and not the desire to take responsibility.


      Worked for 8 years. BUT the problem is that "buy and sell" does not suit, it is not a job. And in order to break through the competition, you need to have either big money or big connections. I have neither one nor the other.

      So go work for the state. It will employ you, give a decent salary and pension.


      And what is the "effective manager" of a state enterprise under capitalism better than the "entrepreneur" Vasya? After all, they are twin brothers, all "before sebe".

      What is Uncle Vasya to blame for creating a job?


      Better we will humiliate ourselves before the bureaucrats and the rich, who impudently say that for the poor pride is too expensive a pleasure.


      Actually - this. And if THIS will not happen, then 50% of the business will not have to be given back, it will stupidly throw profit at all, because it will squeeze workers.
      1. tasha
        tasha 12 July 2016 14: 39
        0
        And what is the "effective manager" of a state enterprise under capitalism.


        Well, you have porridge.
        1. alicante11
          12 July 2016 14: 57
          +1
          Well, you have porridge.


          This is not porridge. it is a life experience.
          1. tasha
            tasha 12 July 2016 15: 10
            -2
            I explain
            And what is the "effective manager" of a state enterprise under capitalism better than the "entrepreneur" Vasya? After all, they are twin brothers, all "before sebe".


            An "effective manager" in this case is a person appointed by the state. Under capitalism, he works for a salary comparable to the salary of an employee of the same level in a private company (a retreat - here, in Russia, the salary is set commensurate with the income of a similar employee abroad). With a different system, he works for a special ration, for example. If you are interested, you can look for thoughts on the problems of motivating such workers among my not very old comments.

            As for the "entrepreneur Vasya" - this same Vasya is the owner of his business. A factory there, a hotel, a shop or a workshop. He has hired workers, whom Vasya should also think about. He has a business reputation, an honest name. He must think about what he will leave behind ...
            1. alicante11
              12 July 2016 15: 45
              +1
              As for the "entrepreneur Vasya" - this same Vasya is the owner of his business. A factory there, a hotel, a shop or a workshop. He has hired workers, whom Vasya should also think about. He has a business reputation, an honest name. He must think about what he will leave behind ...


              This is all MORE LESS and that does not fully work under market capitalism. With a monopolistic one, no. What is the difference, is there a reputation or not, if you still no longer have anyone else to buy the product from? What does Vasya care about the employee’s family if the employee has nowhere to go? Well, about what leaves behind - these are emotions that do not take root in business.
              1. tasha
                tasha 12 July 2016 15: 56
                0
                This is the great and unresolved question. How is a private corporation that has covered a huge share of the state market different from a state-owned monopolist? And would such a corporation not itself become a state?
                But here in Russia, the largest companies are somehow connected with the state, as it seems to me. What does capitalism have to do with it? That seems to be spinning in the head of Russian Railways, but now the idea of ​​expanding is a bit busy. The correct example will be, what do you think?
                1. alicante11
                  13 July 2016 03: 30
                  0
                  This is the great and unresolved question.


                  I don’t see a question. Under monopoly capitalism, the private trader and effective manager are twin brothers, as I said.
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 13 July 2016 16: 08
                    0
                    You write
                    This is all MORE LESS and that does not fully work under market capitalism. With a monopolistic one, no.


                    I agree with you. But what does Vasya-entrepreneurs have to do with it? Do they have a monopoly?
                    Here is the task for you - who is the greatest patriot of your country - an official-public servant or an entrepreneur-owner of his own business?
      2. Al1977
        Al1977 12 July 2016 15: 42
        0
        Quote: alicante11
        Worked for 8 years. BUT the problem is that "buy and sell" does not suit, it is not a job. And in order to break through the competition, you need to have either big money or big connections. I have neither one nor the other.

        Is this "Uncle Vasya's" problem? Should he give you his business? What is the shade to businessmen, I do not understand. I work for "uncle". And I receive several times more than in the civil service (we do not take a state corporation). At the same time, my salary depends entirely on sales, how much I earned and received so much. No budget money. It all depends entirely on me. I can't go on vacation for 4 weeks and smoke bamboo, I can't get sick for weeks. And I don’t whine that “what can I do .. we have everything for pull and for money”. This is the position of a loser, to look for someone in everything. Now the liberals prevent us from living, then Obama, then Uncle Vasya. He took his ass in hand and went. And there is no such thing "and I don't like this job." Two children are waiting for gifts from dad and sweets, and dad is not up to "like it or not like it." I will bend if necessary, but I will earn. CAM. And not to wait from the state, and not to scold the "liberals".
        1. Igor V
          Igor V 12 July 2016 19: 11
          +1
          So still buy and sell, with a deflection. And before, people were creators. (Do not be offended, I am in a global sense).
  23. Al1977
    Al1977 12 July 2016 13: 30
    +1
    People suffered from the desire for excellence. Starting from the fact that if I don’t like dirt and rubbish in the wasteland near the house, I take a shovel and go to a community work day, and I drag a log next to Ilyich.

    To carry a log next to our "Ilyich", you have to be a very difficult person)))
    1. alicante11
      12 July 2016 14: 18
      0
      To carry a log next to our "Ilyich", you have to be a very difficult person)))


      Joke appreciated :), your truth. But this is just an image. I liked the image.
  24. Aleksander
    Aleksander 12 July 2016 13: 33
    -2
    Could the Komsomol first-builders, who had landed from the steamboat on the deserted coast of the Amur, so that, hibernating in huts and dugouts, to build a garden city, choke on “sausage trains”? No, they could not, but they would face

    Of course, they couldn't: because the "Trans-Baikal Komsomol members" Dallagh, who built the garden city, mocked their faces and for much more innocent requests.
    And why did the Soviet people of the Stalin era give their strength, health, and even life? No, not for communism

    Certainly not for communism: people gave their strength and health so that SURVIVE: have time to leave for the city from dispossession-collectivization, the city does not fall as an asocial element on Soviet island of cannibals NAZINObreak out destroyed by hunger 1932-33 provinces, do not fall under Great Terror 1937-38, start a family in a dugout-barrack, and just EAT: for eating like you ate meat, milk and bread in 1913 year, the Russian people could only 1950-m.
    In order for a person to give all of himself and, at the same time, not to think about what he has, and even what will happen to him, need an idea. Because in a rational person, the mind, which can strive for ideal, can always suppress the lower urge of the stomach or reproductive system.

    Remind Alikam Kantorthat in 1917 they promised not idea (they would just be sent to yesyes, yes), namely what is needed to satisfy "base urges of the stomach ": land, factories, peace.
    Then, when the hypocrites like the author got stronger and gained strength, then yes, they began to work just for .... an idea.
    Of course, a person needs an idea (like all earthly blessings) but an idea moral life and non-possessiveness: then the person will be well (financially and spiritually) and the state will reach the heights
    Hope we can see again

    Hope NEVER. Yes, and I’m sure of this, you can’t do it twice in ... etc.
    1. alicante11
      12 July 2016 14: 16
      +1
      Of course, they could not: because the "Trans-Baikal Komsomol members" of DALLAG, who were building the garden city, were smashed in the face for much more innocent requests.


      If the prisoners built something, this does not mean that there were no ascetic first-builders. Learn the history of Komsomolsk.

      Of course, not for communism: people gave their strength and health to survive:


      And with a grenade under the tank, too, to survive? Maybe enough capitalist cliches? Want to be a slave to the capitalists - your business.

      Let me remind the author that in 1917 he did not promise an idea (he would simply be sent to yes), but exactly what is needed to satisfy the "base urge of the stomach": land, factories, peace.


      JAV 17 th IVS did not promise ANYTHING. And what else could Lenin promise to an illiterate peasant and drunk day laborer? Space? Of course they would. But when people were educated, they showed perspective, then it was necessary to lead them to the stars, and they were returned to the trough with slops.

      Hope NEVER. Yes, and I’m sure of this, you can’t do it twice in ... etc.


      I can say only one thing about your anger, you are a slave to capitalism. And the slave of capitalists and officials. Moreover, the slave is not only in fact, like all of us, but a slave in the soul. And you like this slavery. Well, to do it, but I hope that it’s not us, so our children will still see freedom. There was a precedent, so it’s not a fact that the second time will fail.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander 12 July 2016 14: 54
        -1
        Quote: alicante11
        Learn the history of Komsomolsk.

        Studied. And not only Komsomolsk and everywhere: BAMLAGI, Vorkutalagi, SakhalinLAGI and dozens of other lags on all construction sites and everywhere - "enthusiasts".
        Quote: alicante11
        And with a grenade under the tank, too, to survive? Maybe enough capitalist cliches?

        With a grenade to survive children, family and, accordingly, the country. Love for the family, for the motherland, patriotism-not aware of such concepts?
        Quote: alicante11
        . And what else could Lenin promise to an illiterate peasant and drunk day laborer? Space?

        The truth. And not the lie with which it began and because of which everything collapsed.
        Quote: alicante11
        I can say only one thing about your anger, you are a slave to capitalism. And the slave of capitalists and officials. Moreover, the slave is not only in fact, like all of us, but a slave in the soul. And you like this slavery. Well, to do it, but I hope that it’s not us, so our children will still see freedom. There was a precedent, so it’s not a fact that the second time will fail.

        I am a free person, much more free than the "enthusiast" of the 30s, who had no right to speak, know, choose, read (what he wants), live in my apartment, make money on it, or leave countries, neither join the scouts, nor the AKP, nor go on strike and a bunch of others NO. That is, this RAB could do nothing. True, they promised far ahead (to be patient, however, it takes a hundred years) "stars"- like a carrot .. um ...
        1. alicante11
          12 July 2016 16: 07
          0
          Studied. And not only in Komsomolsk and everywhere: BAMLAGI, VorkutaLAGI, SakhalinLAGI and dozens of other Lags at all construction sites and everywhere - "enthusiasts".


          Now there are fewer lags? Unless the beacons sit and eat taxpayers, that is, me and you.

          With a grenade, to survive children, family and, accordingly, the country. Love for the family, for the homeland, patriotism, not in the know about such concepts?


          Uh, no, I can still believe about the family. But everything is simple here. I sat in the cellar until the Germans come and the family is safe and you continue to consume yourself. And at the expense of the country - do not "la-la". The one who, in your opinion, escaped from the village from collectivization, which is necessary for the country, because the cow was taken away, he will also escape from the front. This is not about a cow, but about life.

          The truth. And not the lie with which it began and because of which everything collapsed.


          So it was true - at that moment. It was just necessary to continue, develop the idea.

          I am a free man, much more free than the "enthusiast" of the 30s,


          You? Come on :).

          who had no right to speak


          Saying that, go to the square and send the maternal GDP to the megaphone, I think they will put you in prison. So in the 30's planted. And if the case, then no one bothered to speak.

          to know


          It’s you who are already in the wrong steppe. It was then that illiteracy was eliminated. It was then that the workers' faculties were created. So no need to talk about "knowledge", probably the "victim of the exam" told you this.
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 12 July 2016 23: 33
            0
            For all your demagogy I will answer one: the enthusiast of the "30s had no right to speak, nor know, nor choose, nor read (what he wanted), nor live in his apartment, nor make money on it, nor leave the country, nor join the scouts, nor the AKP, nor strike. It was disenfranchised and wordless slave.
            And I WANT and HAVE it all. And in normal countries it was in the same 30's and in normal Russia before the arrival of the communist beast, they also had it.
            И all people want it.
            And that's it.
        2. alicante11
          12 July 2016 16: 07
          0
          nor choose


          Can you choose? Yeah, especially when EDR wins the election, I am absolutely sure of this.

          nor read (what he wants)


          Well, excuse me, the majority did not have such a need then. Only learned to read and write. And there wasn’t even a blessed West. But even now you don’t particularly read books - they bite.

          nor live in YOUR apartment


          Dear, 90% live in the apartments that they or their parents were given back in the "damned" scoop. And the rest do not live in their own - but in mortgages, which actually belong to the bank, and not to them. And until they become theirs, another ten years or more will pass. So there is no need to compare the incomparable.

          nor leave the country


          And WHERE could a Soviet person leave the country in 30's? Did he have money for expensive resorts? Did a lot of people in the West have that kind of money? And now I also can’t go abroad. Because it is expensive with a wife and three children. And in this situation, many of our fellow citizens, and not only those with many children.

          neither join scouts


          And what did you dislike about the pioneers, what is the difference?

          no strike


          Can you go on strike? I'm happy for you. You are probably a very indispensable person at work. Because under capitalism, everything is simple. If you don’t want to work, there are 7-10% who want to - bye. And on the shopping mall they spat.

          That is, this slave could not


          The Soviet man 30's had the confidence that tomorrow would be better than today. That he will receive housing, even a room in a communal apartment, that he has a job with which he will not be thrown out and which is paid no worse than others, that his children can get a good education, and that means they will live better than him. And it was justified. Because in 60-80's you could already be sure that you would not get a room in a communal apartment, but a separate apartment, first Khrushchev, then Brezhnevka, then an improved layout. And so it was everywhere, in all areas. Until Humpback came.
  25. Fitter65
    Fitter65 12 July 2016 13: 49
    +2
    Could the Komsomol first-builders, who had landed from the steamboat on the deserted coast of the Amur, so that, hibernating in huts and dugouts, to build a garden city, choke on “sausage trains”? Well, firstly, they landed not quite on the deserted shore, they landed in the vicinity of the village of Perm. And this is a slightly different story. Which does not detract from the feat of the First Builders of our city. Among them was my mother-in-law's father, my wife’s grandfather, he really didn’t land in the summer, and walked in the famous winter ski transition. But we don’t have any sausages or just no trains. hi drinks
    1. alicante11
      12 July 2016 15: 05
      +1
      Well, in the first place, they landed not quite on the deserted shore, they landed in the vicinity of the village of Perm.


      Thanks for the clarification. As far as I remember, there was also a Mylka camp. But, nevertheless, for some reason it seems to me that they were not provided with a cottage for everyone in Perm and there was no supermarket and McDonald's nearby :).

      But we don’t have any sausages or just no trains. hi drinks


      Do you need them? As far as I remember, all the time along the railway outside the city there is a road with bus stops. At the cottages - the norm. And where else to go by train from Komsomolsk? In Khabarovsk, there are several of them in all. And, they say, unprofitable. Although, effective managers are all unprofitable.
  26. grandfather Mih
    grandfather Mih 12 July 2016 14: 14
    +2
    Quote: Al1977
    Who prevents to work for themselves? Laziness and not a desire to take responsibility

    "Labor for the good of me" unites the team. There are risks too. But the press of a ruble commitment to an employee who has a family behind is not given to everyone. Don't break down.
    1. tasha
      tasha 12 July 2016 14: 55
      0
      "Commitment Press" is you to the point. Especially if you have to fire.
  27. tasha
    tasha 12 July 2016 14: 31
    +1
    In angry discussions about the essence of capitalism, there is one significant minus. When a certain threshold is reached, the creative role of the owner disappears.
  28. nnz226
    nnz226 12 July 2016 15: 09
    +2
    Born and raised in the USSR. It is difficult to respect the country for which you work with full dedication (in the defense industry), and the country, in response to your earned money, cannot provide you with normal food, nor decent shoes and other goods (only Moscow, Leningrad and the capitals of the Union republics were supplied with more less, but there was a "starving Volga region", where there was nothing in the stores, I say responsibly, as I grew up in Rybinsk. If in 1964 (1st grade) he could choose from 4 varieties of butter in the store: butter: 3-60 rubles , salty butter6 3-50 rubles, Vologda: 3-80 rubles, chocolate: 3-40 rubles, then in 1974 (10th grade) there was no butter in the store from the word "ALL"! About meat, sausage, cheese, even did not remember!) So about the "golden age" of socialism - no need !!! Due to the lack of food, coupons for everything, the USSR collapsed. The common people did not know about the "Komsomol businessmen", but somehow they did not want to defend the empty store shelves ("back to the USSR"!) ...
    1. tasha
      tasha 12 July 2016 15: 13
      +1
      What are you all about food wink ... Now those who "had everything" will attack you.
      Only they do not understand that everything was bad and good. They act like idolaters of some kind.

      Especially for such - I do not think that everything is wonderful now ... Do you understand?
      1. alicante11
        12 July 2016 16: 20
        0
        What are you all about food wink. Now those who "had everything" will attack you.


        Not "everything was." But "everything was getting better." I've already cited the example of chicken in Khabarovsk and Petropavlovsk more than once. There was a problem, once and no. It's just that everything was done gradually, according to plan. Because they did it so that there was enough for everyone, not just the elite and the "middle class".
        1. tasha
          tasha 12 July 2016 16: 26
          +1
          "Everything was getting better" - you mean butter, you mean chicken. Whose swivel is longer? wink
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 12 July 2016 19: 47
          +1
          Quote: alicante11
          Because they did it so that there was enough for everyone, not just the elite and the "middle class".
          1. alicante11
            13 July 2016 03: 36
            0
            Bayonet

            And what did you want to say with this picture? That Gorby ruined the economy of the USSR, so we are in the know. And what does socialism have to do with it? And what does my article have to do with it, which states that a socialist state should have the idea of ​​improving the lives of citizens?
    2. alicante11
      12 July 2016 16: 18
      -1
      It is difficult to respect the country for which you work with full dedication (in the defense industry) and the country, in response to your earned money, cannot provide you with normal food or decent shoes and other goods


      You are not telling the truth. Those who worked in the defense industry could least of all complain about the "response" of the country. The defense industry had its own "distributors" and they received apartments first of all, so there is no need to tell fairy tales. After all, you are not the only one who was "born and raised in the USSR."

      If in 1964 (1st grade) he could choose from 4 types of butter in the store: butter: 3-60 rubles, butter salted6 3-50 rubles, Vologda: 3-80 rubles, chocolate: 3-40 rubles, then in 1974 (10th grade) there was no oil in the store from the word "AT ALL"!


      So in the 60's, too, there was socialism, which means it was not socialism, but something else.
      And, if we talk about butter, I didn’t live in Moscow, but in Khabarovsk, but I remember chocolate butter very well, sausage (served or smoked) and cheese were always on the festive table. And there was also caviar and red fish, from Amur. And now we live on the Amur River and we don’t see the fish. The caviar bites so that you can afford it once a year.

      Due to lack of food, coupons for everything the USSR collapsed.


      It was at the end of the 80's, from year to 2-3 years, we had less than a year. And even then the cards were almost not sold. About 6 years ago, when moving, they threw it away.
      1. tasha
        tasha 12 July 2016 16: 28
        0
        I almost agree about the thesis about working in the defense industry. Do you think this is good?
        1. alicante11
          13 July 2016 03: 37
          0
          I almost agree about the thesis about working in the defense industry. Do you think this is good?


          I will not get into the jungle, I will answer with a question, is Abramovich’s yacht good?
          1. tasha
            tasha 13 July 2016 16: 17
            0
            As soon as it comes to a discussion of the problems that really existed in the USSR, the most ardent supporters turn a special bolt in their heads. I have that feeling. wink And it begins ... Abramovichi, housing and communal services tariffs, soy sausage ...

            Only they do not understand that everything was bad and good. They act like idolaters of some kind.

            Especially for such - I do not think that everything is wonderful now ... Do you understand?
  29. AlexSam
    AlexSam 12 July 2016 15: 28
    0
    interestingly, those who have written the article are those same Vasya who got out of the mud and thinking cattle categories, because even having changed clothes in suits, having bought elite housing and expensive cars, they remained cattle, measuring all their standards and judging everyone by themselves, considering that those who work for them, are real bydlo and slaves ... and the changed system gave them the opportunity to become the first after God ... or minus - office plankton, digesting hamburgers and belching beer during working hours, vilifying the first person state for the fact that ... I don’t even know why ... just because geeks who believe that the whole world owes them the grave of life ...
    yes, these will always spit on the great history of a great country, created by the hands of a great people, because the limit of their dreams is the x-sixth, a new iphon, a long-legged brainless chicken with botx lips ala Jimi Hendrix, a gum called "Struggle of Thrones" ... where are they comprehend "They fought for the Motherland" by Bondarchuk ...
  30. pts-m
    pts-m 12 July 2016 15: 33
    +3
    In the existing world there is nothing ETERNAL. So it is with the USSR. And everyone represents socialism as he understands it. Why stir up the past. There is a saying among the people ... They don’t enter the same river twice ...
    1. tasha
      tasha 12 July 2016 15: 38
      +1
      It’s probably necessary to stir up the past. Just to understand what the failure occurred, find out the reasons and strive for the best based on the knowledge gained.
    2. alicante11
      12 July 2016 16: 21
      0
      There is a saying among the people ... They don’t enter the same river twice ...


      And morning comes after every night.
  31. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 12 July 2016 16: 41
    +1
    I'm sorry. I regret that the author, as is now customary, does not know the question about which he undertakes to judge. Therefore, his speeches, in many respects quite sound, are generally pathetic and rather stupid. Dear author, did the "sausage train" in which people "choke for sausage" obscured your eyes? So, such trains did not exist. Never. They were NOT AT ALL.
    You took a stamp for consideration, and it’s very stupid. Unacceptable to the thinker. I myself went to Moscow for sausage, and also by train. Do you know how it was? Quite cultural (much smarter, brighter and more cultured than now) people dutifully drove for food. Cars in private ownership were then immeasurably less, so they traveled in public transport - an electric train. We went to a food distribution hub - to Moscow. No stampede. No hysteria. Without materialism and philistinism, we simply went to buy food stock, as now for wholesale.
    Far from Moscow, food needs were met differently, but also in full, only it was necessary to "get it", that is, to act openly against the Soviet idea. Which frankly strained and saddened most people. And so it was. Some who loved to dodge, but the majority were sad and longing for the need to somehow get out.
    The spiritual message of the future communism, respected by you, was. Moreover, it was many times more than you imagine. Yes, you are right, our commanders have betrayed us. But people, ordinary Russian people, did not "choke" to the last. I really had to gag, but all ... they began to gag for vodka on coupons. I really wanted to get drunk from what was happening through no fault of ours ...
    1. Igor V
      Igor V 12 July 2016 19: 24
      -1
      I agree with you, Mikhail. We didn't have such electric trains. But there was a network of stores "Cooperator", where there was always the notorious sausage of all kinds. Of course, meat is more expensive, I remember, at 4 rubles per kilo. If you really got it, then they took it there. And in general, they did not make a cult out of food, there were some other interests.
    2. alicante11
      13 July 2016 04: 01
      0
      I myself went to Moscow for sausage, and also by train. Do you know how it was? Quite cultural (much smarter, brighter and more cultured than now) people dutifully drove for food


      What's the REAL difference? Is it that everything is decorous and noble, and the electric trains are not gray-green, but light and spacious? After all, we still went to the "hub" for consumption.