- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The appeal to the image of Stalin has two main reasons. A certain category of people are not able to make their own decisions and turn to their Father, who “will do everything right” Such infantilism was brought up by the people for a long time in the Soviet era, when an illusory picture of wisdom based on “scientific knowledge”was created.
Another reason is the need to maintain authoritarianism in governance, hinting at some kind of continuity. There is victory in the war, here getting up from your knees as an achievement.
Primitive, of course, but it works.
People are ready to be deceived, just not to move their brains, learn to analyze and act responsibly.
The first line of my answer is designed to overcome the minimum of 140 characters and convey the main idea for you. If the leaders in your country speak well of Stalin, it can only mean one thing:
Run, son, run! Roads, trails, and stitches. Wherever you want. Save your family.
In general, most likely, the topics about Stalin that pop up on the agenda are a kind of heat traps thrown by the authorities in order to confuse the people and move the discussion from really significant and relevant topics to safe but hot ones. Examples of other such traps are the legalization of firearms, allowing the death penalty, euthanasia, and homosexuality creeping in from the West.�
The art of throwing these topics into the information space has reached unprecedented heights. Well, tell me, what is more important for a person, what is really worth discussing? Freezing his pension or “canonization” of Stalin? Paradoxically, the discussion takes place at the level of some abstract topics that are completely irrelevant to society.
The sooner the discussion of Stalinism ends, the more useful it will be. Any normal person already knows what happened there and why. And while this topic is being promoted, the image of the leader in a French jacket is rising more and more powerfully and confidently over the country. Fueled by a fierce debate about his identity, he grows denser and is almost ready to go from a ghost to a real person.
This is how media technologies approach the art of creating reality from images. And our attempts to counter this with verbal means only work to strengthen the cult of personality.
And this post, too. It's time to finish.
This legislation was approved by an absolute majority of the people, it was publicly available, that is, everyone knew what to do and what not to do, and everyone had a choice – to do it or not to do it.
There was the so-called principle of legal certainty.
In general, the usual practice of any state from ancient times to the present day.
It is also important to remember about the number of acquittals, which was incomparably more than in today's Russia.
And this is at a much lower crime rate.
What does this have to do with any “repressions”, and even “Stalinist”ones?
The fact that in 1937 the number of prisoners in the USSR was lower than in the United States is a well-known and accessible fact.
But it is interesting that the number of prisoners in the USSR in the 30s was lower than in the current States.
In general, prison statistics from the United States are extremely confusing and closed. Human rights activists estimate the number of prisoners in the United States at two and a half million, and even 5 million, because there are many unaccounted prisons and there is no clarity with the status of the prisoner.
According to official and open data, according to Wikipedia, in 2011 there were 2,266,800 prisoners in the United States, or 716 per 100,000 people. And this number is growing every year.
In the USSR in 1937, there were 1,194,400 prisoners, or 583 per 100,000 people.
I will not be original, remembering the contest “Name of Russia” – in the open part of it, Stalin won by a wide margin. I am sure that Stalin's victory would have been even more convincing now.
But because, despite all the propaganda, the name of Stalin is firmly and inextricably linked with the Victory. And not only with the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, which is, of course, recognized by all the greatest achievement in the history of mankind.
Yes, yes, gentlemen “de-Stalinizers” and other Americanophiles.
Not the terminators and other favorite heroes of American films, but Stalin saved modern European and human civilization in general from destruction in the darkness of fascism. And unlike your favorite Americans, I did it for real.
But apart from the most important Victory, the entire history of the Stalinist leadership is a chain of victories and achievements.
Never in the history of Russia have we and our affairs been characterized as in the Stalinist era by the word “the most” – the fastest, the strongest, the most correct, the healthiest, the most active, the most progressive and, what is important not to forget, the kindest.
Just watch the movies and cartoons of those years – our own and American.
There can be no two opinions about who is good and who is evil.
Gagarin's flight was also laid down in the time of Stalin.
Moreover, I was born much later than the Stalin era, but I remember from my childhood this amazing, delightful feeling that your country, your Homeland, is at the head of all progressive humanity, brings good and development to the world, and you are a part of this country and this common cause.
In modern propaganda, it is customary to associate any protest in the USSR with “dissidents” – people who were one and a half people in the USSR and who saw the United States and the West in general as their ideal.
But in the Brezhnev years, there was another, less pronounced protest-the “Stalinist”protest.
I'm sure everyone who is older will remember how truck drivers in the early eighties had a fashion to put a portrait of Stalin on the windshield, because Stalin was perceived as an honest and selfless defender of the people.
The peculiarity of Russia and our people is that the state is the basis of our survival.
Somewhere the weather, somewhere nature, somewhere wealth, somewhere the opportunity to move to another country, and we have the state.
Perhaps because no country in the history of mankind has been subjected to so many attacks as Russia.
Some will say that we lived behind the Iron Curtain.
But I like it better when they talk about the real father, the head of the family: “We're behind him like a stone wall.”
No nation is so absorbed in the flesh and blood that without a strong state, we will simply all be slaughtered.
And the current events in the country and in the world are another clear proof of this. As soon as we, the Soviet people, relaxed, our native state was invaded, eaten, launched on the stream and plundered.
Why are Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and most of all Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin so respected and loved in our country?
But because each of them did not think about wealth, not about how to put their children on a bread place, but about how to strengthen the State.
And strengthened! And each of them did not squander our land, but increased it!
And the common people did not give offense. And for this, people could forgive the ruler a lot.
Periods of denigration of Stalin, “de-Stalinization”, always coincided with the weakening of the state, with the activation of dark forces.
De-Stalinization is the destruction of the Soviet Union, and in fact of a large, historical Russia, these are wars in Transdniestria, Karabakh, Abkhazia, Ferghana and many other parts of our divided Homeland, this is torn to pieces Yugoslavia, these are hundreds of thousands of our dead comrades and simply innocent people since the beginning of “perestroika” in Russia and in the countries that are our allies.
De-Stalinization means rockets falling on Donetsk and Luhansk, and burning alive in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa.
Now our country is once again facing serious challenges, perhaps the most serious since 1941.
In such times, the people always rallied around their state and sooner or later won. An honest, incorruptible, popular, sovereign image of Stalin can become exactly what will unite and already unites all patriots.
And Stalin was right!”
I am not aware of any facts that the country's leaders have said anything about Stalin. I think they don't know what kind of character he is, or they don't think he deserves attention.
If you read the Internet, you would know that the country's leaders never said anything about Stalin from 1954 to 1991 and from 2000 to today. All information comes from social networks. Stalin was returned to infopole for a short time in the post-Soviet era, but by the time Putin was banned again.
It is believed that during the time of Medvedev, some kind of “de-Stalinization”was launched. However, this is again a fake. You will not find any documents, decrees or orders on this subject.
I think this is due to the fact that the big picture is seen from a distance – and after a certain shock of rejection of Stalinism, today more and more sane people come to a fair assessment of that historical period and see what development the Country actually received then – in a simple factual comparison with what happened after Stalin. Those who have not yet rethought the role of Stalin in our history-they just have it ahead of them.
One of the liberals ' favorite methods is to extract a particular episode from the history of a country or the activities of its leader and present it as a characteristic of the era.Peter 1 had only victories,the greatest of which was the creation of the northern capital.Stalin has only repressions for which he must be anathematized.Nevertheless, under Peter the Great, a lot was lost to the people in the implementation of his plans to transform Russia, but it is somehow not customary to talk about this.And the creation of a country with a powerful economy in the conditions of a complete blockade for some incomplete 20 years, however, at the cost of very large sacrifices, it is not necessary to remember this? Remember that thanks to such activities of Stalin, the country won in 45m.That this victory saved the lives of the ancestors of modern critics and they, having grown beards, as an indicator of their coolness, do not stop screaming about Stalin's crimes.Yes, for one parade on October 71941.We need to put up a monument to Stalin for all time, because this parade. it was a real turning point during the entire Second World War.Stalingrad and Kursk were just proof of that.
Russia now has an outstanding president, a friend who is not yet visible on the political horizon of the world.And the economy has been stagnating in quantitative terms for the same 20 years, yielding to the pace of development of many countries.Not without the help of suffering liberals.Is that better?
Now there is a wonderful president in Russia,and there are no others like him on the political horizon of the world yet.And the economy has been stagnating for 20 years in quantitative terms, on the following issues:
Most likely, this is an indicator of the INABILITY of the country's leaders to solve internal problems,so for them, as a way out of this situation, it is the use of Stalinist repression and the desire of some groups to restore the communist system.
IF they really “talked more and more often” like this, it would mean two things:
However, I personally do not observe anything like this. If you have a source, please drop the link ))
There are only two possible reasons.
The executor of these socialist ideas was an excellent administrative leader, Lenin's friend and successor, Stalin, who carried out industrialization after Lenin's assassination.
Now the authorities are trying to discredit their main enemy V. Lenin with the help of one Soviet leader – Stalin.
Our agitprop opposes them frankly and very clumsily to each other.
They say that Lenin is a traitor and a German spy from a sealed car, and Stalin built the state and industry.
Not saying that Stalin was building a socialist state with the Communist Party at its head. And if he deviated from Lenin's plans, it was only with regard to the” excesses ” of collectivization in the countryside, repression and the GULAG.
2. The authorities are already very much in need of political repression against the current opposition in the spirit of Yezhov, Yagoda and Beria.
And the former “satrap and tyrant” as if by magic suddenly became a wise great political figure.
At the same time, the President of the country personally joined in the propaganda of denigrating Lenin.
If you threw your party card in the trash, you need to prove that both the party and your homeland were an “evil empire”. And you did not betray, but fought against evil. But Stalin was rehabilitated from this “evil empire”.
The old principle is divide and conquer.
Recently, our country's leaders have been experiencing an acute shortage of attractive ideas about the future. The situation is so hopeless that they find nothing but memories of the past as a perspective. And in these memories, the human mass (in Arendt and Ortega's terminology, that is , a contingent that has fundamentally refused to think) finds solace.
In terms of outlook, modern leaders of the state have not gone far from Stalin. If some of them still understand that the methods that Stalin directed are criminal and incompatible with state activities, they prefer to keep quiet, since the majority of the Russian population has a distorted idea of a full-fledged life. It cannot distinguish between a criminal and a stupid dictator and a normal statesman and politician. “Since these” people “have an idol of Stalin, let's praise Stalin” – this is what people in power think, especially since the first person of Russia did not go far from his fellow citizens according to an objective assessment of the Stalinist and the entire so-called socialist era…
The leaders of our country tried to scold Stalin, to portray him as some kind of evil monster, but gradually they began to understand: it's like spitting into the wind. After all, you become one of such dubious personalities as Hitler, Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Penkovsky and Vlasov, etc. Still, it is more profitable to join his fame.
A very good answer from Dmitry Agranovsky.
I remember his articles-analysis of the film “The Matrix”.
I would like to read his opinion on the upcoming digitalization and artificial intelligence.
I will immediately say that I am not a Stalinist, although I hold left-wing views. But it is impossible not to notice that just the opposite is true. The country's leadership generally avoids mentioning Stalin. In general, to associate with Stalin at a minimum, even in those things where there is nothing wrong with it. An example that everyone can see. Why is the mausoleum always draped during parades on Red Square? Although the rest of the time he stands quietly. Including large-scale concerts and celebrations on Red Square on other occasions. Why such selectivity, only during parades? I can offer only one explanation: it's not Lenin, but the fact that in two of the most famous parades, the shots from which went around the whole world: on November 7, 1941 and June 24, 1945, Stalin stood on his podium and the whole world remembered it.
The answer is as simple as two pennies.
The country's leadership, no matter what those who disagree may shout or say, is still adequate and competent. And they certainly read the work of experts, archivists and, of course, statistics.
And what do they see? Since 1929, under I. Stalin, rapid economic growth of up to 25% per year has begun in almost all industries!
25% growth for each year! I will not touch on the war period, these are colossal losses and colossal efforts to return to the pre-war level.
But since 1947, there has been a rise again, not as fast as before the war, but the pace is impressive, and every 2-3 years prices for dozens of types of products and products decrease by 10%. I think this is quite enough to give a correct assessment of the success of an outstanding statesman and soberly assess the achievements of the past.
Those who don't learn from the past learn the hard way.
But because they did not do anything that could surpass Iosif Vissarionovich, only the wretchedness of deeds, thoughts, decisions.I went to the first grade in 1950 and didn't have to pay anything for me or my sisters. I even got the books for free, but not the new ones, and I was very offended that I got the old ones. I've already had enough of this discussion of the past, stop we've lived our lives and it's not for you to judge how we lived, look at yourself as you live on ready-made grub from the USSR, everything is ruined, cars from Japan, tractors from America, all imported road equipment, Boeing planes, even kitchen utensils and then everything is not from us, we develop our opponents and
This is an ideological preparation for removing liberals from power. Currently, there is a total irresponsibility of the bureaucracy in Russia, which arose just as a result of the liberal Gaidar team coming to power. In contrast, the image of Stalin is put forward, in which the official was responsible with his head for the work entrusted to him.
Of course, this is due to the desire to strengthen power in the country.
At one time, Stalin called Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great “progressive” out of all the tsars. Famous films about their reign were made. However, S. Enzenstein was convicted for the second series of “Ivan the Terrible” – about the Oprichnina. And this is again understandable.
Stalin's groaning failed. The facts were not allowed to lie. Our current leaders are a pathetic semblance of Stalin's, so they decided to get involved. Stupid comparisons begin, and this is joined, in social networks, by a pack of weeping lackeys who talk nonsense, but sometimes have some success. Arguments don't work on them, just a strong word. In addition, Stalin can be used against Lenin if their relationship is distorted. The main goal is Lenin.
The country's leaders don't talk about Stalin at all. This is a very painful topic. He was a truly outstanding statesman, if we evaluate the results of the economic growth of the country of the Soviets. They defeated famine through the development of collective farms and private owners, and gained the development of light industry through artels. The industry was raised, thanks to which we won the war. But what forces and resources it required. What a strain. It was very hard and tough. There were a lot of mistakes. Literacy and professionalism were lame on both legs along the entire vertical. Repression, fighting with the fists – very cruel, many innocent victims. A complex tangle of good and bad. But the result is a strong state, a happy people (except for the intelligentsia). I think that if you yourself read books about that era, for example, “Our Youth flight”, you will make your own conclusion.
It's hard to say. It looks like a very unhealthy phenomenon, unfortunately. Recently, many reproaches have been received from Ukrainians for Stalinist lawlessness. But since these Ukrainian brothers behaved very aggressively, some kind of justice was needed for them… probably. And probably the mind with imagination was not enough. And Stalin is not a bad scarecrow for the people. In addition, for those in love with power, this is a real idol and idol-the embodiment and guru of infinite power. Probably only some Tupac Amaru-the last Inca emperor – is cooler, but he is not a local, unfortunately.
Looking at the system of modern state power, those who are at the top in it, next to them, their actions and motivation… Give me the will and the opportunity, I would have organized repressions on a much larger scale than 37 years ago. And from this point of view, you fully understand Stalin and begin to respect him. At least the result of its activities. And it seems to me that with such people it is impossible to be friends.
Because the entire post-Soviet space retains the power of the bureaucracy as a class, which was initiated by Stalin, as the new Leader of the then party bureaucracy.
Because there is no Stalin, and the party-nomenclature system of governing the country created by Stalin under the all-powerful control of police structures is the blue dream of thieves of officials.
In our country, they admire not Stalin, not the real one, under which there was Terror, the Gulag and the rastreli, but a certain mythologeme. That is, the Stalin under which industrialization took place, under which we won the war and made the atomic bomb, the price at which it was acquired is forgotten. This is the specificity of our memory – we try to forget all the bad things, and leave all the good ones. So it turned out with Stalin: in the eyes of the people-he is a legendary figure, a strong hand, shot officials-embezzlers. Well, the fact that they shot not only wrecking officials, but often more often ordinary people-is forgotten, because it is easier to live like this, this is a passed stage. However, few of those who admire Stalin would like to live with him, so, in my opinion, this admiration is not entirely sincere, but more ostentatious, a game for the public
And under Stalin, Ivan the Terrible was actively glorified.
In my opinion, this is due to the fact that under Stalin, life in the country was not very good, but Stalin was great, powerful and sacrificed it for the good of Russia (more precisely, now they officially draw the line that all these repressions, camps and other problems were necessary in order to defeat Hitler in the end), and as if unobtrusively remind that Russia single-handedly destroyed Hitler,
Now in Russia, things are also not very good, the standard of living is falling, and the media broadcast around the clock that the country is surrounded by enemies. And now, for all these sacrifices with a drop in the standard of living, a great leader goes for the sake of a great victory in the future. In general, the message is: As bad as it was under Stalin, he saved the country. So unobtrusively draw a parallel with the current leadership.