Has any of the theorists of communism spoken about the need for terror against their own citizens, about the need for zombification? Forgive me, this is more characteristic of bourgeois countries such as Germany in the 1930s, the United States in the late 1940s, France and Italy in the 1920s. Here they are - the bastions of terrible communism!

The fact that none of the theorists of communism spoke about the need for terror does not mean that the construction of communism will not involve it. And the theorists knew this perfectly well. After all, no sane person would give up their property, their wife, for public use without a fight.

Added 8 minutes ago

In the Russian Empire, expansion was much less bloody. Take, for example, the fact that the number of "indigenous people" increased after joining Russia, which cannot be said about the Indians. And Belarus is actually an artificial state, a mixture of Poles, Lithuanians and Slavs. Will you remind me how the Poles "loved" Belarusians and Ukrainians, they "loved" them so much that they asked Russia for help.

Firstly, Belarus is no more of an artificial state than Russia. And also, I didn't understand from your words who asked for help from Russia: Belarusians and Ukrainians together, or only Ukrainians?

Added 16 minutes ago
Added 31 minutes ago
[/U]
Why even aim for the presidency, try to get into MGIMO at least...on a merit basis. Or, to save time, find out whose children study there - this is no secret, our elite does not hide the fact that they provide well for their children. But, of course, because of the children of politicians and officials, there are no places left for ordinary victims of democracy, unfortunately.
You know, we are all equally starting...but "some are more equal than others." (c)

It's strange, but developed European countries don't think so.
They, for example, support a significant increase in the birth rate with very generous benefits. They encourage successful students and schoolchildren (not with a meager scholarship that a student spends on beer, but by placing them in the best educational institutions, offering free education in the most prestigious universities or colleges, conducting training programs with them, etc.).
They help not only the disabled, that is, people who are useless to the state, but also, on the contrary, the most useful, which is quite logical. In our country, they conduct a kind of Darwinian natural selection: sharpen your teeth - and go ahead, break through! But why should a talented mathematician, physicist, programmer necessarily be a battering ram? As a result, we get "winners" who are not the most capable, but the most cunning, who have managed to undermine, adapt, use something "on the sly"... And as a result - our science and industry. It's inevitable.
But in the USSR, my grandfather, being from a family of absolutely ordinary people, not even from the intelligentsia - from workers, entered a university, studied excellently, brilliantly completed graduate school and became a professor at the age of 37, as far as I remember. If someone doesn't know - this is very early, most people reach the professorship after 40, or even 50. He was a man of incredible erudition and intelligence, but at the same time, he probably would not have been able to break through in the current system into the ranks of highly paid careerists - he was very intelligent, tactful and absolutely not arrogant.
By the way, then only his salary (without many allowances) amounted to 500 rubles (those who lived in the 70s and 80s know that this was a lot of money), and now a professor in our country will not be able to afford even quality treatment on his salary (as far as I know, he receives less than $500, and significantly less).
Yes, in the USSR, science and industry were at a decent level. Now our country produces only one thing - money. 90% of my circle are managers, marketers, financial analysts, etc. - people who only make money circulate and do not create anything.