Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Let's just not treat history textbooks as the ultimate truth. Only our press is worse than our history textbooks.
Arguments against the idea that the USSR had communism:
1. Under communism, the state withers away (I hope no one denies the fact that the state existed in the USSR).
2. Communism and the market cannot coexist (but the market did exist in the USSR).
3. Money also withers away under communism (this was only the case in 1917. And also in the early 90s, when salaries were not paid for months).
I can provide other arguments, but these are enough.
Now about the Native Americans. Do you think the colonists in the USA peacefully herded the Native Americans into reservations? The foundation of the USA's prosperity during its formative period was a lot of land. And they took that land from the Native Americans, killing those who resisted. How many Native Americans are there in the USA now? All the lands west of the border established by the English Parliament in the 18th century were Native American territories. Do you think that if the USA only included the lands of the 13 founding states, it would have become such a power?
And there's really no need to argue. Although discussions can be held. I apologize for getting carried away; the accusation of betrayal really bothered me.
Khrushchev N.S. "The Construction of Communism in the USSR and the Development of Agriculture", 1963.
There are a hundred scientific articles on the internet about communism and its construction in the USSR. Alexei, you are not a History teacher, and that is a fact :)
Here is the beginning of an interesting source:
G.P. KHOMIZURI
CHRONOLOGY OF TERROR
(An Experience in the Construction of Communism in the USSR. 1917-1930) Moscow - 2006
[A part of the research, which the author continues to work on, is presented for the readers' attention]
PREFACE
The collapse of the communist regime in the USSR and in the countries of Eastern Europe initially instilled hope that communism would soon be finished once and for all. But the euphoria quickly passed. Communist regimes continue to live and thrive in China, North Korea, and Cuba. The Libyan and Syrian regimes (by the way, all building socialism) are, in essence, no different from the North Korean one. Communist parties exist in practically every country in the world. In the elections for the president of Russia, the leader of the communists, Zyuganov, received 30 and more than 20 million votes, respectively. No, the idea of communism is not finished. And, probably, it will never be finished. It will never be finished because a communist (as well as any other totalitarian) regime suits not only people striving for unlimited power over their fellow beings, but also huge masses of people with primitive thinking: two times two is four, a triangle has 3 angles. It suits those who are too lazy to think and figure out all these "intellectualisms": pre-impressionism, impressionism, post-impressionism, surrealism; isn't primitive realism simpler—everything is clear there: this is a cow, this is a birch tree, this is a tractor. And the simplest of all, of course, is two times two is four: "No hesitation, no delusion. Truth is one, and the true path is one; and this truth is two times two, and this true path is four" (Zamyatin. We). A communist regime suits people with a primitive social orientation more than any other system: "All people are equal." Knowing their own deficiency, they try to bring those who are clearly above them down to their own level, to "equalize" them with themselves. Such individuals have always existed. Recall Heraclitus: "The Ephesians deserved it, that all their adults should perish and leave the city to the adolescents, for they drove out Hermodorus, the best among them, with these words: 'None among us shall be the best, and if there is such a one, let him be in a foreign land and with strangers'." Such "morality" is skillfully used by those who have seized power, replacing the idea of equality in rights with the idea of equality in behavior with a clear hierarchy: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." And this is the cherished dream of the lower classes: to rise to a level, and perhaps several levels higher, and become "even more equal." A communist regime is sweeter than any other totalitarian one in that other regimes require some kind of morality (the commandments of Christ, Muhammad, a national idea)—the communist regime frees one from any remnants of morality and requires only one thing—"devotion to the idea of communism," but in reality—devotion to the leader or the party oligarchy. No, the communist regime will always have numerous supporters. So, perhaps the common saying is true, that "history teaches that it teaches nothing"? No, of course not. It is true only for those who do not study it. Since the so-called "glasnost and perestroika" and the partial opening of archives in Russia and the former republics of the USSR, a mass of publications about the terror of the communists in the USSR has appeared. However, it should be kept in mind that the largest number of publications belongs to the pens of those who for decades sang the praises of the communist regime, and now have allegedly "seen the light."
This is the first time I've seen a person say that it wasn't communism in the USSR, but socialism. I repeat, communism is a form of socialism, according to my information. Maybe I am mistaken, but you certainly are :)
Added after 3 minutes Alexei, you shouldn't have started talking about the Indians. Russia also squeezed all countries under itself and suppressed culture and language. If not for you, there would be one language in Belarus, not two, with the native one being recessive. And how did Russia acquire territories? The same way as America.
Socialism is a transitional stage from capitalism to communism. Just because a regime is called communist doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Our regime is also called democratic and capitalist, but that doesn't make it any more democratic or capitalist. So, let's refer to facts rather than statements. And the facts show that the USSR had state capitalism with social guarantees. Not socialism. Not communism. Facts are stubborn things. Believe less in words and more in facts.
In the Russian Empire, expansion was far less bloody. Consider the fact that the number of "foreigners" increased after joining Russia, which cannot be said about the Native Americans. And Belarus is essentially an artificial state, a mixture of Poles, Lithuanians, and Slavs. Can you remind me how the Poles "loved" Belarusians and Ukrainians, they "loved" them so much that they asked Russia for help.
Facts? Let me ask you this: if all historians agree that communism existed, even if not in the fully developed form envisioned in the party program, but it did exist, and absolute communism couldn't exist because it's a utopia, isn't that the case? And you're clinging to concepts that everyone uses and that are 90% similar. :)
Added 5 minutes ago
I know one historical fact, and it's true. Any country that achieves power begins to conquer other countries and interfere in their affairs. That's a fact. But I'm not talking about conquest, but about the destruction of culture, language, traditions, and faith. (The Union existed, there was peace between Orthodoxy and Catholicism), but after the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the territory of Belarus ended up in Russia, which meant Russification and other things began. But let's not touch on that; ANY country, having the opportunity and strength, will pursue such a policy. I just can't stand it when people criticize America, while the heroic Suvorov sent hundreds of thousands of victims on bloody campaigns, and that's okay. Did the Caucasus come to peace peacefully? The mountaineers were exterminated, and they were fighting for their families and their homeland. Let's not, Alexey, you're an educated person and you understand historical processes.
Added 3 minutes ago
Regarding the Poles. They don't speak Belarusian. :) And we don't have their territories. And they only asked for help once; in all other cases, they were the aggressors. Remember the conditions under which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania entered into an alliance with Poland? Either they attack, or they form an alliance. A good choice. :)
Added 2 minutes ago
...Along with them, the opportunity for publication arose (although to a much lesser extent due to financial capabilities), and real historians, but most of these publications are devoted to one or another period in the history of the USSR, to one or another Republic or region of the former USSR. There is still no systematic analysis of terror, and this study is the first attempt. When collecting material, all types of terror were recorded: murders, imprisonment in prisons and camps, violations of civil and political rights, destruction of cultural values, censorship. Facts of deliberate stupefaction of the population were also recorded, for example, the publication in 1964 by the "Prosveshchenie" publishing house (!) of a book by some Ermakov "Atheistic Education in Teaching Arithmetic." Information was collected on facts of atrocities, terrorist decrees and resolutions, in general, everything that was directed against a person in one way or another...
There's a whole book with purely SCIENTIFIC FACTS, Alexey, and the details are shocking. Communism is not the Matrix; it's a reality.
Regarding all historians: have you considered alternative viewpoints? For example, there's a good book by a historian from Ukraine, Zdorova, called "State Capitalism and Modernization in the USSR." It analyzes the actual system that existed, based on factual evidence. As Kozma Prutkov said: "If 'buffalo' is written on the elephant's cage, don't trust your eyes." So, don't believe what you're told without referencing facts. Take the precise, Marxist definition of communism and compare it to what existed in the USSR. And there's also the communism of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Blanqui, Proudhon, and others. Everything is different there. If I call Hitler's regime the pinnacle of democracy, it won't become more democratic because of it. The same applies to the USSR. No matter how many times you repeat that it was communism, it won't become communism. And, by the way, most of Belarus's territory was transferred to Russia not after the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (of which there were three, as is known), but much earlier, in the 17th century, under Alexei Mikhailovich. When Russian troops liberated parts of Ukraine and Belarus from the Poles. The final borders of Belarus were established in 1939. If you are such a champion of justice, immediately return the Grodno region to Poland! It was Russian occupiers who took it from the Poles.
Did any of the theorists of communism talk about the need for terror against their own citizens, about the need for brainwashing? Come now, this is more characteristic of bourgeois countries such as Germany in the 1930s, the United States in the late 1940s, and France and Italy in the 1920s. These are the strongholds of terrible communism!
Khrushchev N.S. "The Construction of Communism in the USSR and the Development of Agriculture," 1963.
My dear Neo... I mean, Berserk, sorry... Have you tried opening this book? It specifically states that communism in the USSR is being built, understand? It's only being built, and the existing system is characterized as developed socialism. Interestingly, everyone who lived in the USSR (I'm talking about people who remember the USSR and weren't infants at the time) knew this, but you Berserk;85440
I'm seeing for the first time someone who says that it wasn't communism in the USSR, but socialism.
Added 31 minutes ago Gur;85310
The main goal of most modern democracies is to create a society with equal STARTING opportunities, i.e., a society where everyone can become a janitor or a president.
Why even president? Try to get into MGIMO, for example... on a merit basis. Or, to save time, find out whose children study there – it's no secret, our elite doesn't 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 all start equally... but "some are more equal than others." (c) Gur;85310
The state should only take care of (in the sense of providing benefits) those who, for example, are limited in their ability to realize their potential due to disability.
That'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 stipend that a student spends on beer, but by admitting them to the best educational institutions, offering free education in prestigious universities or colleges, conducting professional development 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 case, they conduct a kind of Darwinian natural selection: sharpen your teeth – and go ahead, fight your way through! But why should a talented mathematician, physicist, or programmer necessarily be a heavily armored tank? As a result, we get "winners" who are not the most capable, but the most cunning, who have managed to undermine, adapt, and use someone's "paw." And as a result – our science and industry. It's inevitable. But in the USSR, my grandfather, who came 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 intellect, but at the same time, he probably would not have been able to break through into the ranks of highly paid careerists in the current system – he was very intelligent, tactful, and absolutely not aggressive. By the way, at that time, his salary alone (without many allowances) was 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 cannot afford even quality treatment on his salary (as far as I know, he earns 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 don't create anything.
That's absolutely true. Modern Russia is a complete paradox. Nothing is produced, but everything is sold. In a poor country, the number of billionaires is among the highest in the world. Behind the financial schemes, there is nothing but deception. At least in the USSR, they sold only what was produced, not thin air. And they produced no worse than in the West; take, for example, the "Vega" computer.
And regarding "The Dog's Heart." Remember who wrote it and what the author wrote about, or rather, what he meant.
The point is that a film like this was made and released. And this somewhat contradicts the image of a country where people were imprisoned for "two words written in a toilet." Listen less to the horrors of the "terrible totalitarian state." By the way, regarding repressions and Stalin – he didn't necessarily have to be the leader of a socialist state; tyrants existed under any system. Do you think that such a person (and the scoundrels surrounding him) would have been gentle and kind under capitalism or some kind of democracy?
Alexey, I won't argue with you about the types of communism, because communism of any type is still communism! Let's stick to our opinions, and as for our countries, it's not relevant to the topic.
My dear Neo... I mean Berserk, sorry...
Nice introduction :)
Have you tried opening this book?
I've already read half of it.
It says that communism is being built in the USSR, you see...
It doesn't say that. The book is about the terror of communism and consists of numbers, facts, and sources. And it's written in the past tense (the book is from 2006).
It's interesting that everyone who lived in the USSR (I'm talking about people who remember the USSR, not as infants) knew this, but you...
I don't know if everyone knew, but I even wrote about it. The victory of socialism, developed socialism, etc. - all are stages of communism. And how they called it from time to time in different constitutions doesn't matter. You're dodging the issue, dear Slonysh. Communism brought cruelty, terror, and ultimately, ruin. Yes, the USSR was a strong country for some time, but you can't build a castle on sand. Let's rephrase the question of the topic like this: Is it worth building a new USSR? Is it worth returning to communism? Then everything will become crystal clear, otherwise, I don't fully understand your positions, gentlemen. Please excuse me.
And as for the films, it's just funny. Science fiction in the USSR wasn't just bad, it was simply "nonsense." In one of the films, they call a plumber to install a protective field on a wooden house of the future. :):):) When did the first color film appear in the USSR? And in 1974-4 (I don't remember), Star Wars 4 was released, and the entire Soviet film industry could only dream of something like that. It's like comparing apples and oranges! And that was back then!
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 AlexeyPank;85443
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.
This isn't mentioned there. The book is about the terror of communism and consists of numbers, facts, and sources. And it's written in the past tense (the book is from 2006).
I apologize, I didn't understand. :smile07: Are we talking about Nikita Sergeevich's book "The Construction of Communism in the USSR and the Development of Agriculture," which I mentioned in my post? Berserk;85485
Let's rephrase the topic's question like this: Is it worth building a new USSR? Is it worth returning to communism? Then everything will become crystal clear, otherwise I don't fully understand your positions, gentlemen. Please excuse me.
Funny. It's impossible to build such a strange state as the USSR in any case. The building materials are not right. Who would go, say, to Siberia now to build industrial cities there? The fact that the country survived the civil war and developed its industry was possible primarily due to the absolutely incredible enthusiasm of young "builders of communism" at that time. No matter how you look at it, it's a fact: young people massively left for Siberia, the Far East, etc., and stayed there to live and work. And there you have it – the result of blind faith in the "beautiful future." For the sake of an idea, a person will always do more than for the sake of money... but now no one believes in ANY idea. Including the idea of equal opportunities in a democratic state.
Added 1 minute ago Berserk;85485
A nice introduction :)
Yes, it's a perfectly adequate response to the phrase: "Return to the Matrix, Slonysh." :smile38:
The thread about Yeltsin was closed, but I can’t help but comment on this. Yes, Yeltsin was an alcoholic, he stole, and he made many mistakes, but he gets a pass for taking the country out of the dying Soviet system. He was the first president of Russia and left his mark on history. And here are a few facts, you can take them however you want: I have a friend who is obsessed with Diablo; he recently finished it and said: “Today, two great people died – Baal and Yeltsin.” While they were showing the live broadcast of Yeltsin’s funeral on Russian television, the reality show “Dom2” was airing calmly on TNT.
I was disgusted by the way people talk about the death of Yeltsin. If he were a hero, that would be one thing, but he was a great provocateur. Let's go to the funeral of Hitler, Göring, and Goebbels, who led Germany out of the crisis of the Weimar Republic. And then immediately to the funeral of Pinochet, who saved Chile from a "possible communist dictatorship," and, of course, we can't miss the funeral of Franco, who brilliantly defeated the Republicans and established a dictatorship! Let's all go to the funeral of scoundrels and provocateurs! Let's immediately excommunicate Pushkin, Tolstoy, and Dostoevsky; they didn't fight against communism. Eternal shame to Mayakovsky and Blok!
Doesn't this bother you yet?
Now about communism. At least read the "Communist Manifesto," written by Marx and Engels, and then we can speak the same language. Communism is an economic concept, not a political one. If you say that communism equals dictatorship, then the most ardent communists are Franco, Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini, Bush, Senator McCarthy, and Oliver Cromwell. Do you even understand the absurdity of this statement? To talk about communism as totalitarianism is the same as measuring weight in degrees or distance in Newtons. When talking about economics, use economic concepts; when talking about politics, use political concepts.
If we talk about the system in the USSR, it was state capitalism with social guarantees and bureaucratic centralism. That's it. And not communism = totalitarianism = "Evil Empire."
AlexeyPank
