Chronicle of diving country

47
From February to August 1991, Lieutenant-General Nikolai Leonov headed the Analytical Department of the KGB of the USSR, and before that he was deputy chief of foreign intelligence. Hardly anyone more than him owns information about how the degradation of power occurred in the USSR, which eventually led to the Emergency Committee and the collapse of the Union.

- Were there any other options for the USSR, except for perestroika and subsequent collapse?

- There are always options, in any crisis situation. History Russia, like any other state, clearly shows this. Experience has been accumulated, but do not be lazy to study. The trouble is when the country's leadership does not want to turn to this experience.

The crisis situation in the USSR began to be felt from the beginning of 80's: the last year of Brezhnev’s life, a leapfrog with the appointment of general secretaries. By the time Gorbachev arrived, it was almost impossible to stop sliding down — the CPSU simply wouldn’t have enough strength for that. The party has lost faith in itself, in its ideology, and in essence in the people. The last five years of Soviet rule have been agony. There was already no choice, the situation was getting worse every day.

At that time I was working as a deputy chief of foreign intelligence, and for the last six months I was the head of the Analytical Department of the KGB, so that all the information was in our hands. And we felt like a nurse sitting at the bedside of a hopelessly ill patient. None of our recommendations to the top leadership of the country, who decided his fate, were accepted. Gorbachev did not hear either intelligence or the State Security Committee, acted essentially on autopilot, and only two people played a significant role with him - Yakovlev and Shevardnadze.

- They are also included in your analysis?

- I suppose, in the archives even now there are kept secret memoranda, which I wrote on behalf of the management. For example, the political characteristics of Yakovlev and Shevardnadze were written on a typewriter with one finger. These were absolutely secret documents intended only for a single person - Gorbachev. From the characteristics it followed that these people have nothing to do with either the party they are in, or the country they live in, and will go away from there and from here at the first opportunity. We could not call them traitors, but the wording like “work is treacherous” sounded. There were a lot of textures. For example, Eduard Shevardnadze always tried to talk with the Americans not in the territory of the USSR, but in the USA and not at the Soviet embassy, ​​but somewhere on the ranch, using only American translators. What was it for? So that none of ours could hear what was being said.

Chronicle of diving countryShevardnadze and Yakovlev were the first to break the law, which demanded to make transcripts of all the conversations that were conducted with foreigners by officials of the party and the state. Records were provided to Politburo members so that everyone would know who negotiated what. And, of course, all this later went to the archive - only in our archives there are no records of Shevardnadze's talks with the Americans. Yes, but somewhere there, not with us.

We said that no major transformations in the country are possible without a decision of the highest party organs — industrialization, collectivization, some significant ideological decisions and other large-scale issues were discussed and adopted at the plenary sessions of the Central Committee, at party congresses. But perestroika turned out to be just a verbal formula that has never been discussed by anyone. At the party conference in 1989, the talk was about restructuring, but no further talk of sarcasm went. Then the phrase was heard that the restructuring is like a plane that took off, and no one knows where to fly and how to land. We paid attention to the current processes in society, that the party did not participate in the restructuring, no one thought about what its ultimate goal and what means are there to achieve it. No, there was a solid improvisation, which could not help but become fatal.

Intelligence in an attempt to convey to the top leadership this kind of information had to be resorted to, let's say, to some kind of fraud: we presented our thoughts as words spoken by our influential agents in the West. In essence, Western experts gave their opinions on how they see what is happening in the USSR.

- Nevertheless, the population of the Union was partly ready for radical changes, at least mentally ...

- I see the military-industrial complex as one of the main destroyers of the USSR. He devoured so many resources that could more than compensate for all our shortcomings in civilian life. If investments in civilian industry, in agriculture are the same as in the military-industrial complex, the level of well-being of the population simply would not allow such an unfavorable situation to emerge as the 80-s ended. A lot of things were simply not enough, not just sausages, the queues were behind everything. But what could have been expected when 30 – 35 percent of the budget went only to the armament, and the senseless, obviously excessive. This is a consequence of the fact that the state did not have a normal head. I remember with horror Andropov’s public statement, when he, barely becoming the Secretary General, dropped the phrase that the USSR should have an arsenal equal to NATO and Chinese combined. I can explain such statements only with one thing - he wanted to enlist the support of the military-industrial complex and specifically Ustinov in the event that the throne staggers under him. The Soviet economy was simply not able to withstand such a load.

“But at the same time, the military industrial complex in the USSR was also the focus of high technologies: almost all Soviet achievements began in secret research institutes, design bureaus ...

- MIC was, is and will be the core of scientific and technological progress. But we talked about something else - there is qualitative work and quantitative. As for the quality - there are no questions. But to make hundreds of nuclear submarines is nonsense. Creating 15 thousands of launches for strategic missiles is nonsense. We still do not know how to get rid of such a quantity of weapons, the amounts spent for its liquidation are hardly less than the creation. Under the treaties, medium and shorter range missiles were destroyed, but we did create them! Experts said that on one SS-20 rocket only gold of the order of 16 kilograms, it was not extracted. And all this is a huge number of destroyed missiles - our missed chances to be at least on a par with the West in terms of life.

After all, China did not go this route. They created an order of 600 – 700 launches for strategic missiles and stopped. Next went the investment in the civilian sector. And we did not stop. This was also beneficial for the defense industry - factories were loaded, funds were being allocated.

- What did your studies of those years talk about moods among the masses? Was the situation fraught with a social explosion, as in Poland, for example?

- Andropov had a meeting devoted to Poland, and then I had to report. I reported that the unrest was caused by a sharp decline in the standard of living of the people. The reason was the increase in the price of meat in Gdansk. It was a special city - huge shipyards, which employ a lot of people from all over the country. Most of them are men, they live in hostels, coming exclusively for work. Because the situation is obviously explosive, with such a crowd of people, the slightest discontent can instantly turn into riots. Not only the rise in price of meat was the reason - there were a lot of questions to housing conditions, health care, social policy, but it became a catalyst for mass protests. Andropov asks: what is the consumption of meat in Poland? I answer - about fifty kilograms. He: “And we have 36 kilograms per capita - why don't we rebel?”. Therefore, I answer, that each nation’s patience threshold is different. At the same meeting they remembered that when Richard Nixon came to the USSR in the rank of US Vice President, Khrushchev asked him in jest: when will you have a revolution? Nixon replied that when we have queues like yours. It seems like they were joking, but the main reason for any revolution was named: all the unrest from the social discontent of the population. And the French, and our February. Lenin, speaking in Switzerland to the young socialists, complained that he would not live to see the revolution in Russia, the situation was not yet ripe. A month and a half later, the revolution took place.

- So you would not have taken Lenin in your analytical management?

- It is necessary to speak about the perspicacity of the leaders with great caution, social discontent flares up suddenly.

- So Russian long-suffering is a plus or a minus?

- Even Stalin said that any other people would send us to hell, and the Russians, having a goal, are ready to endure a lot. So with smart rulers such a high threshold of patience is rather a plus. Our people are silently and patiently ready to do heroic things. Petersburg was built, not bathing in prosperity, they laid out bones. And railways, remember Nekrasov ...

It so happens that all the time we have to catch up with the West, catch up with heroic efforts. How many years have we lived under the Mongol yoke. When Europe was already building major cities, we lived essentially in semi-wildness. Yes, our civilization is ancient, but we all took over from there. And our first ideology, Christianity, is also borrowed.

Alexey Mikhailovich began to build the Russian army on the Western model. Peter was a purely pro-Western - went, looked and began to build a fleet, a fortress. That is something that has existed and developed in Europe for three hundred years. I really like the idea that the only ones who decided not to copy Western values ​​in Russia, but to force it to go its own way, were Bolsheviks. They created a completely new socio-economic model that turned everything upside down. At the XIV Congress of the CPSU (b), the course was set for industrialization, at the same time the slogan about building socialism in a single country sounded. It is now the West is trying to isolate us, but then we ourselves sent him away and decided to live with our mind. And the world accepted it, we were respected. All established diplomatic relations with us, began to trade. When Trotsky was expelled from the country, no one wanted to accept him. I went to Turkey - we clicked on the Turks, they sent him to Norway, the Norwegians also didn’t need them - they sent him to Mexico ... No one needed the enemies of the Soviet government.

“But we sort of decided to abandon all of this — perestroika again turned Russia in the direction of“ doing what they do. ” How predetermined was such a finale of the Soviet Union?

- The trouble is that the CPSU, after decades of cooking in its own juice, is so weakened, the politicians of the Politburo are so outdated that all perceptions about reality have been lost. They changed Marxism at a key moment, because Marxism must be a living doctrine and respond to all changes in life. They followed completely different recipes, and no other final could be expected. The most tragic moment when Gorbachev was elected general secretary. There were other candidates - Romanov from Leningrad, Scherbitsky from Ukraine - heads of large industrial and scientific centers. But they chose a man from the village, whose merit was exhausted by the fact that he could well host the distinguished guests from Moscow. He was not familiar with modern industry or science ... He was brought to Moscow as an agricultural manager. And the lingering politburo led to the fact that they chose not the most capable, but the most convenient. The party, brought up in the silent submission of the Politburo, accepted this choice. And when Gorbachev’s criticism began at the party plenum, he said he was ready to leave. Immediately all opponents were blown away: that you, Mikhail Sergeyevich, stay. It was already a complete paralysis of the party. The situation in which we found ourselves in 1991 became inevitable - the country had an incompetent leader and a rotten ruling party. It is about leadership, and not about twenty millions of communists - they were not asked about anything, mobilized anywhere and did not call for anything.

- But the population perceived the arrival of Gorbachev almost with enthusiasm. Not at all old, unlike its predecessors, speaks well, again, publicity ...

“From the moment when Gorbachev again turned the country towards Western ideals, he received tremendous support, everyone whom the Interregional deputy group united. They began to inflate the idea of ​​following Western models in politics, economics, and social issues. As secretary of the Central Committee on ideology, Yakovlev managed to transfer almost all the media to the interregional areas. By the time of the State Committee on Emergency Situations, the Communist Party had only one newspaper - Soviet Russia. All former chief editors of television stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines have been cleaned. And the Communists press chikhvostil in the tail and mane. Therefore, to preserve the Soviet power was already impossible. Now, comparing the events of August 1991 and the Ukrainian Maidan of the 2013 model of the year, I come to the conclusion that the USSR had the same "color revolution" - a mad orientation to the West like those crowds that gathered at Manezhnaya and that burned tires, the rejection of its own history. All one to one. And the result - the collapse of the country. We left the republic, they have the Crimea and the Donbass. The same collapse of the economy, the impoverishment of the population. And just as Yanukovych’s government was afraid to use force to end the unrest, Gorbachev quietly kept his tail between us, hoping that the USSR would continue somehow. Two years earlier, there was another Maidan, on Tiananmen Square in Beijing. And Gorbachev was at that time in China on a state visit. He began to advise the Chinese to use "new thinking", but they cut the visit schedule, sent him home and decided to do their own thing. Deng Xiaoping was there, but we haven't. Yes, it was not without blood, but it seems very insignificant in comparison with what China expected with a different course of events. 27 years have passed - and compare where we are and where they are. Here is the role of personality in history. They still have leaders, the party has survived, and this is a lever for the reorganization of society.

I have just been to Cuba. Raul Castro speaks at a party congress: “Our task is to raise the country's economic potential to the level of its political prestige.” It is, of course, difficult to talk about prestige, when the whole world accuses us of one, the other, and the third, but it is necessary to formulate some of the main goals that the country should strive for. Otherwise, we will wander in the thicket, being interested only in the price of oil and the dollar rate.

- I, working in “Evening Moscow” and like being an informed person, did not suspect, either in a dream or in spirit, that I would wake up one morning under “Swan Lake” ...

- The habit of all Russian authorities is to pursue a policy secretly, secretly from the people. And the Emergency Committee was a typical example. I was then a lieutenant general of state security and a member of the KGB board, but I learned about the Emergency Committee a little earlier than yours - the night before. As the KGB chairman Kryuchkov said in a narrow circle, the military decided to declare a state of emergency in some cities. Being the head of the Analytical Department, where six months before these events had been transferred from the Foreign Intelligence Service, I really did not know anything about preparing for a change of power. I was transferred with the purpose - suddenly our management will offer some kind of panacea for the healing of the state. But there is no panacea when state leaders have no political will for any actions. After 8 December 1991, when the Belovezhskaya Agreement was already signed, Gorbachev sat limply 17 days in his office in the Kremlin and thought that suddenly someone would come forward in his defense. That is, he turned out to be a rag, and not the president of the USSR, who is obliged to defend his state. It’s useless to work with such people and it’s just a shame to be a cog in the administration.

As for the State Emergency Committee, there is only one thing to remember - this committee had no relation to the country's internal political and socio-economic structure. All basic decisions on the future state structure have already been taken before - the CPSU rejected the 6 paragraph of the Constitution, that is, its leadership role, a multiparty system already existed, abolished state monopoly on the means of production, removed censorship - absolute publicity reigned, free elections reigned. Therefore, all the talk about the fascist coup, “the junta on trial!” Is nonsense. It was only one question - to exclude the possibility of signing the Union Treaty, which was appointed for 20 August, which put an end to the USSR. The people did not know what was being prepared in Novo-Ogarevo, where Gorbachev invited the heads of the republics, the majority of the population spoke in a referendum precisely for the preservation of the USSR. It was expected that Gorbachev would sign the treaty of union immediately after returning from Foros - and the country would cease to exist in a legal manner. He himself experienced serious pressure from Yeltsin, realizing that this treaty makes his post essentially decorative. But he did not want to be responsible for the failure of the signing, fearing to drop himself in the eyes of Western leaders. After returning after the events of August to Moscow, he said that no one would ever know the whole truth about what happened. I can only guess that, being aware of the upcoming events, he simply washed his hands, leaving him to do the dirty work of his immediate environment - those who called themselves members of the Emergency Committee. Gorbachev didn’t have enough strength against Yeltsin, but those whom he ordered to defend his interests also didn’t have the strength, nor, more importantly, the will. Yeltsin could easily be neutralized, he had no national support. No matter how much his supporters called 1991 in August for strikes, not a single enterprise fell. So it was not a coup, but the Maidan in its purest form. On the other hand were lack of will, lethargy and cowardice. And no concern about the fate of the state and the people.

After all, the Union was created in 1922 at the Congress of Soviets, at which there were more than three thousand delegates from all over the country. They discussed the Constitution for a long time, took into account all the nuances. That is, the USSR was created solidly and legitimately. As a result, three drunkards in Belovezhskaya Pushcha were able to dissolve it. Who did they ask? Yes, no one. What kind of democracy are we talking about? Everything was done to please the West, who understood that the collapse of the USSR was an unconditional victory in the Cold War. So the 19 – 21 standoff in August in Moscow was the standoff of unionists and separatists, with Yeltsin being the main separatist.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. cap
    +1
    August 20 2016
    "- Were there any other options for the USSR, besides perestroika and subsequent disintegration?

    - There are always options, in any crisis situation. The history of Russia, like that of any other state, clearly shows this. Huge experience has been accumulated, just do not be lazy to study. The trouble is when the country's leadership does not want to use this experience. "



    In the USSR, before the collapse, "there is nothing on the shelves, there is a lot of money on hand," Russia today has everything, "...there is a desire, but there is no possibility. *."(from).
    Again the same rake, just the opposite. It is not known which is better.
    "...so that our desires coincide with our capabilities ... *. ":)

    * "Prisoner of the Caucasus"
  2. +8
    August 20 2016
    There are always options, in any crisis situation. The history of Russia, like that of any other state, clearly shows this. Huge experience has been accumulated, just do not be lazy to study. The trouble is when the country's leadership does not want to use this experience. "
    There were no people needed at the right time, about this article
    1. +2
      August 20 2016
      This is already a question of cadres promotion! Negative "natural" selection began long before Gorbachev, in this sense he is more of a victim of circumstances, under normal personnel policy he should not have climbed above the party organizer of the state farm ...
      IMHO
      1. +1
        August 20 2016
        Since the time of Stalin's death, the "purges" of the party ranks, the leadership of the party have ceased, and as a result, by the beginning of the 90s, the country had the same leadership that had
  3. +3
    August 20 2016
    An interview with such an "analyst" confirms the conclusion that the KGB is the gravedigger of the USSR. They do not deserve a pension: no USSR, no pension.
    1. +1
      August 20 2016
      Did they, the KGB, have had to arrange a coup d'etat and eliminate the country's political leadership back in the 80s? KGB veterans do not deserve a pension, and party veterans deserve?
      1. 0
        August 21 2016
        Yes, it would not hurt someone to sew from the party leadership to carry out the main task: to preserve the country. The KGB did not fulfill its task as a Yanukovosch on the Outskirts.
  4. Riv
    +2
    August 20 2016
    Sadly, the KGB general is naive and understands the economy a little less than nothing. I will explain what the matter is.

    Any state lives on the surplus value created by its citizens. Socialist, capitalist, slaveholding - any. The difference is only in the forms of ownership of the means of production. Slavery is not necessarily less economically advantageous than classical communism. It is only a matter of labor productivity, and it, in turn, depends on the perfection of the means of production.

    The simplest economic chain looks like this: a worker extracts raw materials (e.g. iron ore), other workers process raw materials (make steel), still others make parts (trucks, a tower, a hull), fourth assemble the final product (tank), the tank is sold. PROFIT. And the state at each stage has its own share, value added tax (under socialism, the tax is replaced by a planned system and virtual, non-cash money). And if in the end it can buy this tank from its own manufacturer for the amount of taxes received, while the workers get paid and the means of production are updated, then the economy is self-sufficient. If the manufacturer made two tanks, and the state bought one from him, then the second requires an external market. If there is no sales, production will be forced to lower investment.

    So the economy of the USSR was exactly balanced. The state took away from the producers everything they produced, providing workers with wages and means of production. Then with tanks and airplanes you could do anything, even give them. They were given as a gift, "on credit". Now Putin forgives these loans to everyone.

    But in this balance - one of the weaknesses of the socialist system. In order to plan the release of some new products, you need to do a titanic work. Suppose you need to build several schools instead of tanks. We need a brick, and its production is planned for five years in advance. So you need to transfer workers from ore mining to brick factories, train builders and so on. And all this is at the state level. Somewhere a dam will not be built, somewhere a plane will not be embodied in metal ... Something always has to be sacrificed. The market economy does not have this drawback in principle. Does the capitalist need a dam? Let him build, for his money, or for a loan from the state. Does the state need a bridge to the Crimea? We find a suitable capitalist, give money, he builds. Please note: the USSR was not able to overpower the construction of a normal bridge to the Crimea in history. But in the USSR, such a construction was in any case planned for the next five-year period.

    This developmental inhibition eventually became critical, leading to the collapse of the Soviet socialist system. However, the story is cyclical. The control of the oligarch by the state cannot but lead to a return to socialist methods. Just planning will not go at the level of the five-year plan, but less globally. And not virtual money will be distributed by the state, but normal. In fact, this has already come to this and the stability of the state now depends only on the responsibility of performers, the very oligarchs and officials, as it once depended on the responsibility of the employees of the people's commissariats. What is characteristic: then the officials were called responsible employees.
    1. +5
      August 20 2016
      Now Putin forgives these loans to everyone.
      Yes, because this loan will not be repaid once
    2. +1
      August 20 2016
      Despite the inertia of a balanced economy, it made it possible to plan. Not only to the state, but also to a specific individual. Fertility was known, population growth was planned. Under this laid schools, hospitals, gardens, houses of culture. Now the market reigns. Houses, for example, are being built, and social and cultural life is left for later.
      And the bridge to the Crimea is a strategic object. With such a layout, they would have built it in the USSR.
      1. 0
        August 20 2016
        Quote: ImPerts
        Despite the inertia of a balanced economy, it made it possible to plan

        Well, what were you planning?
        Quote: ImPerts
        Not only to the state, but also to a specific individual.

        and what could you plan, you?
        Salary? - not
        Improving housing conditions - no (it did not depend on you)
        1. +2
          August 20 2016
          Well, what were you planning?


          Of course, the country was also destroyed according to plan. The main thing is to prevent such a "plan".

          and what could you plan, you?
          Salary? - not


          I mean, no? Payday was known to everyone. This is now even at state-owned enterprises +/- for several days. The increase in discharge in the ETS was also regulated, so it is quite possible to calculate everything for 10-15 years in advance.

          Improving housing conditions - no (it did not depend on you)


          It depended on different enterprises that it was possible to obtain housing space earlier or later. My father-in-law worked on a collective farm exclusively before receiving an apartment, then he immediately went to the place where they paid more, but it was more difficult to get housing. The timing could also be completely determined, because housing construction was proceeding according to plans and the distribution line was also known.
    3. +6
      August 20 2016
      So the economy of the USSR was precisely balanced. The state took everything they had produced from the producers, providing workers with wages and means of production.

      Do not tell my slippers. The economy of the USSR was not balanced, but isolated, producing everything from ships to nails, and mainly for military purposes. There were problems with planning
      The workers were given a salary, but they did not think at all about filling the consumer basket, not before that. You can’t pull a turbine instead of pants on your butt and you won’t be able to bite a battleship instead of meat.
      1. Riv
        0
        August 20 2016
        As far as I remember - no one walked the streets with a bare ass (and now they walk, and even in feathers) and there were no dystrophics in the life of a man who did not see meat. However, would you like to say that under Stalin life was more satisfying than under Brezhnev?
        1. +4
          August 20 2016
          And you do not compare the times of Stalin with the times of Brezhnev, Stalin needed to carry out industrialization, reform agriculture, raise education and science in 10 years, and all this in a not-so-advanced country, and even with an economy torn by 1 MV, civil war and foreign intervention 18 -21 years, and then the hardest war with the EU of 41-45 years, then rebuilding the country from ruins, and Brezhnev needed only to solve the problems of further development of the country, using the foundation previously created by Stalin, and unfortunately, he did not solve it very much, which first led to stagnation, and then complete degradation and destruction in the year 91.
          1. Riv
            0
            August 21 2016
            In fact, it was precisely the point that the problems of any economic system under this system cannot be solved in principle.
            1. 0
              August 21 2016
              You’re stupid. Even hunting is not an argument, it’s visible, stupidity.
    4. 0
      August 20 2016
      Riv
      But this balance is one of the weaknesses of the socialist system. To plan the release of some kind of new product, you need to do a titanic job. Let's say you need to build several schools instead of tanks. We need a brick, and its production is planned for five years ahead. That means you need to transfer workers from ore mining to brick factories, train builders, and so on. And all this is at the state level. Somewhere a dam will not be built, somewhere an airplane will not be embodied in metal ... You always have to sacrifice something. The market economy does not have this disadvantage in principle. The capitalist needs a dam? Let him build, for his own money, or for a loan from the state. Does the state need a bridge to Crimea? We find a suitable capitalist, give money, he builds. Please note: the USSR was unable to master the construction of a normal bridge to the Crimea in its entire history. But in the USSR, such a construction was planned for the next five-year plan anyway. "

      Exceptional rubbish.
      "The USSR was unable to master the construction of a normal bridge to Crimea in the entire history." - even more rubbish - why was the bridge needed if they were completely free to travel through Taganrog and further to Armyansk in Crimea?
      Where do the crises in the capitalist economy come from, which are not resolved but only deepen until they are resolved by the war?
      1. Riv
        0
        August 20 2016
        And why then was such a bridge built under Stalin? Nowhere to do building materials after the war? However, the bridge did not last long.
        And who told you that war serves as a solution to the economic crisis? This is not true. Wars provoke social crises, and social and economic crises are always connected. Now you know that.
        1. 0
          August 20 2016
          Due to the complexity of the geological structure of the bottom of the strait and soft soils, a bull was built before the project was approved - one of dozens of intermediate bridge supports. Its construction took a huge amount. In conversations, a billion rubles was called on the scale of post-war prices, ”recalled war and labor veteran Grigory Sirota, who was a Komsomol member in the“ 40 K ”team in the late 2s (the so-called construction of a bridge across the strait).

          But after the erection of the first support, the matter stalled. The construction of the bridge was too expensive for the treasury of the USSR devastated by the war. The question of continuing construction was discussed at the Politburo. It was necessary to decide: to build a bridge in Crimea or to get by with a much cheaper option - a ferry crossing. They say that the engineers tried to advertise their brainchild to Stalin:

          “It will be Tsar Bridge!”

          "The leader of the peoples" did not succumb to advertising, responding:

          "Well, in 1917, we overthrew the king."

          Learn CAPITAL. THE WEST has already learned it while you believed the Yeltsinoids.
          And so, kpaytalizm comes out of the crisis only through the war, so do not invent what has already been thought out for you long ago, and how it turns out to be foreseen.
          1. Riv
            0
            August 21 2016
            Well, come on, quote to us this passage in Capital, where capitalism comes out of the crisis through war, you are our room Marxist.
            Through which war did the States emerge, for example, from the Great Depression?
            1. 0
              August 21 2016
              The key to the shed with gold, do not give?
              Work, sir, not with tongue and clave, but with material.
    5. 0
      August 20 2016
      Riv
      But this balance is one of the weaknesses of the socialist system. To plan the release of some kind of new product, you need to do a titanic job. Let's say you need to build several schools instead of tanks. We need a brick, and its production is planned for five years ahead. That means you need to transfer workers from ore mining to brick factories, train builders, and so on. And all this is at the state level. Somewhere a dam will not be built, somewhere an airplane will not be embodied in metal ... You always have to sacrifice something. The market economy does not have this disadvantage in principle. The capitalist needs a dam? Let him build, for his own money, or for a loan from the state. Does the state need a bridge to Crimea? We find a suitable capitalist, give money, he builds. Please note: the USSR was unable to master the construction of a normal bridge to the Crimea in its entire history. But in the USSR, such a construction was planned for the next five-year plan anyway. "

      Exceptional rubbish.
      "The USSR was unable to master the construction of a normal bridge to Crimea in the entire history." - even more rubbish - why was the bridge needed if they were completely free to travel through Taganrog and further to Armyansk in Crimea?
      Where do the crises in the capitalist economy come from, which are not resolved but only deepen until they are resolved by the war?
    6. +1
      August 20 2016
      The bridge was not built in Crimea, not because there was a socialist model of the economy, but because in the 30-50s more pressing problems had to be solved - preparation for war, war, and the restoration of the country from the ruins, and all this with very limited resources, in addition, during the Soviet era, the absence of a bridge was not so critical for a UNITED country. Well, later, the general correctly said, the leadership of the country and the party "went crazy," including in such an issue as defense, the principle of "guns instead of butter" in our difficult world has the right to exist, but up to a certain reasonable limit, and with such a leadership, of course, even with a more efficient planned economy, the result could only be what we had in the 80s. It is not the planned model of the economy that is flawed, but the system of selecting personnel for power was flawed.
      1. Riv
        0
        August 21 2016
        Just a minute ... But then the bridge was built. He only stood for a very short time. What, after the war, was there an excess of building materials?
  5. +3
    August 20 2016
    They changed Marxism... That's for sure ... you read materials from the Meetings of Workers and Communist Parties .. some common words .. no more ...
  6. +1
    August 20 2016
    But making hundreds of nuclear submarines is nonsense.

    When did we have hundreds of atomic submarines?)
    1. +3
      August 20 2016
      Quote: Munchhausen
      But making hundreds of nuclear submarines is nonsense.

      When did we have hundreds of atomic submarines?)

      Well, in Ukraine it wasn’t, but in the USSR more than a hundred were built.
      1. +2
        August 20 2016
        Well, in Ukraine it wasn’t, but in the USSR more than a hundred were built.
        There were about 200 submarines in the USSR now in Russia 50, in the USA-60, and in China-70

      2. +1
        August 20 2016
        Well, in Ukraine it wasn’t, but in the USSR more than a hundred were built.
        There were about 200 submarines in the USSR now in Russia 50, in the USA-60, and in China-70

  7. +1
    August 20 2016
    The names of the traitors who have disorganized the Union will forever remain in history on a par with other great traitors.
    1. 0
      August 20 2016
      Quote: avia12005
      The names of the traitors who have disorganized the Union will forever remain in history on a par with other great traitors.

      Forget them.
      And not so sunk in the summer.
      1. +1
        August 20 2016
        Is Gorbachev in a row, is Judas still the same, although I think it’s not his fault at all, Raisa ruled the ball there, and he is an ordinary henpecked man.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. +1
        August 20 2016
        Forget them.
        And not so sunk in the summer.


        But you yourself will not let you forget. They are your heroes.
      4. 0
        August 20 2016
        They did not forget the fool of Herostratus. Flavius, in Mossad, who cunningly killed his friends, and after serving Rome, did not forget.
        Yes, to hell with them Herostratus only burned the library, to hell with him and Flavius, you think 2000 compatriots cut themselves, for the first time or something, but these millions killed, the country banged, and Judas compared to them is an angel.
        1. 0
          August 20 2016
          Over the past 25 years, many judgments have been published about the events of the State Emergency Committee and participants in the events, and witnesses, many monographs have been published, documentaries and feature films have been made. But documents have never been cited, in particular, the Treaty on the Creation of the Economic Union of Independent States executed by Gorbachev, which provides for the division of the USSR into "sovereign states", which led to the creation of the State Emergency Committee. However, the essence and content of the Economic Union is still unknown to the public. And today, the population of Russia lives in a world of myths and illusions formed by the media. The situation in the country is still worsening, economic damage and human losses are multiplying rapidly, have already exceeded the losses from the bloody war of 1941–45. Therefore, the relevance of documentary analysis and, on this basis, an objective assessment of events related to the State Emergency Committee, is increasing every year.
          Naturally, questions arise. What is the essence and content of the Treaty on the establishment of the Economic Union of Independent States, where did it come from, who is the author of this document? To answer these questions, we will open the documents and see what they provide for and what is actually implemented.

          Treaty establishing the Economic Union of Independent States

          We note right away that the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union is provided for by the Transition to Market program, the US Harvard Project, and the Economic Union of Sovereign Republics section (pp. 16–26). We will also reveal the program “Transition to the market” and see what is actually provided for by the Economic Union (p. 17):

          “The following principles are laid in the foundation of the Economic Union:
          1. The Economic Union is based on the principles of equality of members of the Union - sovereign states that have voluntarily joined it.
          2. The basis of the economy is an entrepreneur, an enterprise, increasing their property and thereby national wealth ... (for example, Abramovich. - Yu.K.). The main role of the state in the economy is to pursue a macroeconomic policy, form a market infrastructure and ensure social protection of citizens.
          3. All sovereign states joining the Economic Union create a single economic space ... .....
          Naturally, the question further arises. Who developed the program "Transition to the market", which provides for the division of the USSR into independent sovereign states, and is it practically implemented? To do this, look at the next document, the Houston project of the United States.
          1. 0
            August 20 2016
            Houston project USA

            We will reveal the “Report of the Four” (IMF, IBRD, EBRD, OECD) - US Houston Project - “USSR Economy. Conclusions and recommendations. ” The authors of the Four Report report (p. 6): “At a summit in Houston in July 1990, the heads of state and government of seven leading industrialized countries called on the IMF, IBRD, OECD, and EBRD to conduct close collaboration with The Commission of the European Communities will conduct a detailed study of the Soviet economy, make recommendations ... in transferring the economy to market principles and establish criteria on the basis of which economic assistance from the West could provide effective support to such reforms ...

            http://www.sovross.ru/articles/1444/25813
            Did not know?
            Well, you can recall the plan LIOTE from 1947, the same there are many interesting things ..
            In 2012, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted the Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 121-FZ on NPOs that perform the functions of a “foreign agent” and implement foreign programs on a corruption basis.
            President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, commenting on the adoption of law No. 121-FZ, noted that the fifth column of “foreign agents” executing foreign programs on a corruption basis has been formed in the authorities. Their criminal activity of corruption has acquired a large-scale character, destabilizes the socio-economic situation in the country, has become not only the basis of enormous damage and loss of life, but also a threat to the national security of the country. The above analysis of the documents confirms that the fifth column of “foreign agents” executing foreign programs on a corruption basis has indeed been formed in the country's authorities.
            1. Riv
              0
              August 21 2016
              Ek is flattering you ...
  8. 0
    August 20 2016
    I wonder why in the United States such traitors as Gorbachev, Yeltsin and the like do not come to power.
  9. 0
    August 20 2016
    You can add a lot. But in general, everything is true, there is nothing to remove. ANALYST!
  10. +1
    August 20 2016
    You read such an "analyst" at the City Clinical Hospital and it becomes clear why Gorbachev came and Shevornadze was negotiating without a transcript.

    The party has lost faith in the people - this is the pearl of our liberal clowns in power%)
  11. +1
    August 20 2016
    Now, comparing the events of August 1991 and the Ukrainian Maidan of the 2013 model, I come to the conclusion that the same “color revolution” took place in the USSR — a frantic orientation towards the West both among the crowds that gathered at Manezhnaya and those that they burned tires in Kiev, giving up their own history. All one to one. And the result is the collapse of the country. Our republics left, they have the Crimea and the Donbass \\\\\\

    Deng Xiaoping was there, but not ours. Yes, it could not do without blood, but it seems very insignificant in comparison with what China expected with a different turn of events. 27 years have passed - and compare where we are and where they are. Here is the role of personality in history. \\\\\\\\

    What kind of democracy are we talking about? Everything was done to please the West, which understood that the collapse of the USSR was an unqualified victory in the Cold War \\\\\\

    I disagree with many in this article.
    Well, I agree with these and a few more wordings by 250%

    .
  12. 0
    August 20 2016
    Quote: atalef
    Quote: Munchhausen
    But making hundreds of nuclear submarines is nonsense.

    When did we have hundreds of atomic submarines?)

    Well, in Ukraine it wasn’t, but in the USSR more than a hundred were built.

    1.Ukraine is not the USSR?
    2. More than a hundred, this is not "hundreds")
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. Riv
    0
    August 21 2016
    Bloodsucker,
    That is, you have not read Marx (not to mention Engels) - that is why you are reluctant to argue.
    The drain is counted. :)
  15. +3
    August 21 2016
    You can argue until you turn blue, what’s how. You can quote smart people, compare economic models, what's the point? We have what we have ... The people lived poorly under the USSR .... Yeah, of course! Apparently, now this very people go nuts like thriving! All 25 years of capitalism. And as if all sorts of liberal-economic comrades like Riv weren't pouring quotes from Marx, you won’t throw words out of the song - yes, the planned economy of the USSR is bullshit, and the economists were stupid. And now - wow, what are the lights of the economy! Such smart people no longer knows where else to tighten and hold the belt!
  16. +1
    August 22 2016
    A plus!
    I fully support!
  17. 0
    July 28 2017
    The main reason for the collapse of the USSR was that the top of the CPSU and the Komsomol wanted more, i.e. life, as in the west. These traitors-shifters from the CPSU and the Komsomol, who have ruled us at various levels since 1991, are the bearers of this criminal ideology of profit, while at the same time they are staring the population that it’s not good to steal. Where are their party and Komsomol tickets? Probably able to get on occasion and change shoes in the air.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"