Lenin's mistake, Stalin's omission and Gorbachev's betrayal - could the USSR be saved?


This year marks exactly 30 years since another sad moment in national history - the holding of a plebiscite, which today everyone for some reason calls a "referendum on the preservation of the USSR." Objectively speaking, this does not fully correspond to reality - the tricks, in fact, depriving the referendum of any meaning, were laid both in the very mechanism of its holding and in the questions raised at it.


However, let's not get ahead of ourselves, but rather try to understand the question that haunts millions of people to this day - could it have been possible to save our Motherland, the Soviet Union, using that very "popular will" of thirty years ago?

Lenin's mistake, Stalin's omission, Gorbachev's betrayal


Starting, as it should be, from the origins and roots of the issue, it is worth mentioning the following: the Soviet Union could initially avoid that “time bomb” laid under its very foundation, which was the “equality” of the republics written down in its first Constitution, adopted in 1924 and their "right to self-determination," which extended up to the possibility of secession from the USSR. And all Ilyich with his ideas about "proletarian internationalism", thanks to which this particular formulation was adopted during the formation of the USSR. Well, of course - after all, the Russian Empire was a "prison of peoples", and the first state of workers and peasants in the world that emerged on its ruins is a completely different matter! In this case, the justification for the leader of the world proletariat can serve as the fact that he piously believed in the "world revolution", which will soon follow our country to cover the entire globe, or at least most of it. Do not include, in fact, the entire territory of the planet in the RSFSR ?! Well, Ilyich thought so ...

Comrade Stalin's People's Commissar for Nationalities Affairs had a completely different opinion on this matter. It was he who advocated that Ukraine, Belarus, Transcaucasia, and Turkestan should become part of the new, Soviet Russia. Yes, with the rights of "broad autonomy", as fraternal peoples having equal rights with the Russians and not at all discriminated against, but without any nonsense about "self-determination" and secession from the state of their own free will. Joseph Vissarionovich at that moment was still very far from the leadership of the great power that was being created, including by him, but even then his genius was fully manifested. At least - the ability to accurately calculate options for many years and "moves" in advance.

Another thing is surprising - why did not Stalin change the status of the USSR afterwards, when he possessed full power in it? After all, there were opportunities - at least at the time of the adoption of the famous "Stalinist" Constitution of 1936. Either the power of the Leader was not so absolute, as is commonly believed, or the realities of life forced him to somewhat correct his position. It can be assumed that already seeing the return of the Baltics, Western Ukraine and Belarus on the horizon, Iosif Vissarionovich was well aware that in the eyes of the “world community”, if it were three times wrong, their inclusion in Russia and in the “fraternal family would look completely different. union republics ". One way or another, Stalin did not correct Lenin's mistake - and this became one of his few, but very serious omissions. Great people have great victories and failures ...

Well, the last of the general secretaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the first and the presidents of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, who, I remember, babbled about how by holding a referendum, which we, in fact, are talking about, he "was desperately trying to save the USSR," lying, as usual, like a gray gelding. In his performance, it looks something like the behavior of a subject who generously poured cyanide into seagulls, and then rushed to give the poor man artificial respiration ... Gorbachev, who initially did everything to destroy the Soviet Union as a state, and started voting solely for to "move" Yeltsin, who began to rapidly gain strength and weight. Intuitively feeling that this nominee of his would ultimately devour his benefactor, Mikhail Sergeevich was spinning a snake in a hot frying pan, not wanting to understand the obvious. The West, which was behind the special operation for the collapse of the USSR, had already bet not on him, but on Boris Nikolaevich, as the more promising of the two Judas ...

A referendum with a flaw and a catch


In principle, no plebiscites would have had to be held if Moscow had initially reacted to the very first manifestations of separatism in the Baltics, the Caucasus, Ukraine and Belarus. But Gorbachev, instead of once and for all putting an end to the "parade of sovereignty" unfolding before his eyes, by military force if necessary, hesitated, shook, mumbled, staggered, hid his head in the sand. Or...? Or was he fulfilling a clearly outlined program, within the framework of which everything went exactly as it should be? The second seems to me much more likely. In 1990, in addition to the “proud Balts,” Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan managed to declare their “independence”. By the time Gorbachev climbed onto the rostrum of the VI Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR with his "draft of an updated union treaty," this, in fact, was already a comedy of the purest water. There was no question of preserving the USSR in its pure and original form, which was laid in 1924. It is not without reason that the deputies of the congress initially wanted to put not one, but as many as five questions to the referendum.

Citizens were asked to ask: do they see the future "union state": a) united; b) socialist; c) with the Soviet regime; d) a federation of completely sovereign states. Well, and at the same time, to find out whether he wants that in this "new union" the rights and freedoms of all nationalities are unambiguously observed. Complete absurdity, don't you think? What kind of freak would have to be born as a result? Either a non-Soviet union, or a union of non-Soviet and non-socialist ... No, not republics, but "sovereign states." Incidentally, Gorbachev, along with all this heresy, was eager to hold a plebiscite on the introduction of private ownership of land. True, he realized in time that he was already completely "going too far" and even then backed up.

In the end, one question was nevertheless submitted to the referendum: "Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?" However, what was missed in the "center" was made up by local "self-styled" members. Six republics of the USSR (in fact, already former) - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Armenia, Moldova, Georgia refused to hold a referendum at all. On their territory, it took place in certain localities and settlements, on the territory of military units. Even then, future "hot spots" were clearly identified, the flames in which flared up after the collapse of the USSR. Residents of Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia were categorically against its collapse. However, nobody in Tbilisi or Chisinau worried about this. In Ukraine, for example, they added their own, "self-made" question to the main question: "Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of the Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?" According to a long-standing Ukrainian tradition: "Like people, that trosh is better ..."

However, there was a very big catch in this nuance: the inhabitants of the country voted, as it were, for the Union and, at the same time, for "sovereign sovereignty." Treat it as you like. Well, they did it in Kiev ... However, one should not write off all the blame for the death of the Soviet Union only on the "national outskirts", which were seized by the frenzy of separatism. In fact, the main separatists were in Moscow at that moment, paradoxical as it may sound. The question of introducing the presidency in the republic, put to a referendum for the citizens of the RSFSR, in fact, put the final end to any chances of preserving the "Unbreakable Union" in one form or another. For Yeltsin, of course, personal power was more important than "some kind" of the USSR, for the collapse of which he was initially disposed.

What if?


The citizens of the Soviet Union clearly wanted it to be preserved. Let me once again recall the figures that have already become textbooks - more than 113 million Soviet people voted for this, that is, 76.4% of the country's citizens. So why did the USSR fall ?! Because the carte blanche for its restoration ended up in the hands of those traitors and traitors to the Motherland who categorically did not want to preserve it! Despite the fact that the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, following the results of the referendum and taking into account the completely obvious result of the expression of the will of the inhabitants of the country, made a number of decisions that gave the Union leadership the opportunity to establish constitutional order in the state, Gorbachev and his clique started a senseless and unpromising "Novoogarevsky process", which lasted until the very death of the USSR. In fact, this was not the creation of the Union of Sovereign Republics, as Gorbachev announced, but the most empty talking shop, held in his worst traditions and serving only one purpose - to stretch out time. Everything ended with what is known - the State Emergency Committee and the Belovezhskaya betrayal. Could it be otherwise? Of course it could! Anyone who asserts that "the Soviet Union was doomed by history itself" are lying either deliberately or out of thoughtlessness. In reality, there were no "insurmountable prerequisites" for the disappearance from the map of the world of the greatest power, which occupied 1/6 of the earthly firmament. "The most brutal economic the crisis "in the country, as it has already been proven a thousand times, was created artificially - traitors and amateurs entrenched in its top leadership. The “separatism of the outskirts” was also, in principle, surmountable. Yes, the union republics could have been given more economic independence and made some other concessions. But do not destroy the country to the ground!

This is all the more obvious that, for example, in the same Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan they perfectly understood the harmful consequences in the field of economics, they realized that the collapse of the carefully balanced and deeply integrated national economy of the USSR would not lead to anything good for the "independent states". At least - at the initial stages of their existence. Yes, from the "new Union" it is possible and even most likely it was necessary to cut off the "lost shores" of the Baltic states. It would be nice, by the way, to send after her and Western Ukraine, whose inhabitants jumped out of their pants in anticipation of "nezalezhnost". Better to lose a part than to lose everything ... In 1917, the Bolsheviks "let go" of Finland and Poland, realizing that they could not be kept, and there was no need to do it. However, then at the helm were true leaders and true patriots of their homeland. Yes, yes, yes - for all their internationalism and dreams of a "zemschal Republic of Soviets", it was the Bolsheviks who were the people who managed to stop and then turn back the process of complete disintegration of the Russian Empire with an iron hand. And this process was launched not by them, but by those who arranged the February Revolution, and then the most dull profits of everything possible by the gentlemen liberals and democrats. These are historical facts and it is pointless to argue with them. Alas, in 1991, around the same "helm" was crowded with a miserable bunch of people who, being, as it were, the ideological followers of the titans who created and defended the USSR, in fact were only able to repeat their quotes by rote, not believing in the declared principles and slogans.

What could the leaders who were completely dependent on the West and who prayed for it “save”? Those who questioned the possibility of maintaining the socialist system and Soviet power in the country? "There was no other way ?!" And you tell this to the Chinese, who have managed not only to transfer their own national economy to completely market-oriented rails, but also to create the strongest economy in the world, while not abandoning the communist ideology, without betraying their history, without spitting on their country and their own great leaders. It was quite possible to save the Soviet Union - it, in fact, did not need any salvation. It was simply necessary to prevent all those processes that led to its destruction. However, this should have been done not in 1991, but much earlier.
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 20 March 2021 10: 30
    -10%
    Saturday morning, A. Neukropny sings odes to Stalin again and cries about what disappeared 30 years ago.

    But this is just delicious:

    Joseph Vissarionovich was at that moment still very far from the leadership of the great power that was being created, including by him, but even then his genius was fully manifested
  2. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 20 March 2021 11: 09
    -2
    At the end of 1991, the same thing happened as at the end of 1917 - In fact, the March 1991 referendum was the Constituent Assembly of the Peoples of the USSR that decided the question of the country's future. And as earlier, in 1917, the Bolsheviks, and in 1991, the liberal-democratic-separatists did not give a damn about the choice of the people and the decision of the Constituent Assembly of the Peoples of the USSR. What are they unhappy with now?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 20 March 2021 11: 12
      -5
      By the way, yes. Well, the communists who have profiled everything have no choice but to cry.
      1. BMP-2 Offline BMP-2
        BMP-2 (Vladimir V.) 20 March 2021 11: 59
        +2
        Quote: Cyril
        Well, the communists who have profiled everything have no choice but to cry.

        And this depends on who is considered communists: if such as the former Bandera and part-time second secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine Kravchuk, they did not waste anything: the feeding trough is still close to them, and crocodile tears are just an acting game. After Stalin, in the upper echelons of power, in fact, the communists were very quickly eliminated by opportunists - a sort of Moses from the evil one. And it took them another 38 years to finally destroy what they could really be proud of ...
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 20 March 2021 12: 03
          -5
          After Stalin, in the upper echelons of power, in fact, the communists were very quickly eliminated by opportunists - a sort of Moses from the evil one.

          I'll tell you a secret. - long before them, Stalin himself eliminated the communists with youthful enthusiasm :)
          1. BMP-2 Offline BMP-2
            BMP-2 (Vladimir V.) 20 March 2021 12: 15
            +3
            A funny secret. Well, then a little more unclassified information: Hitler eliminated Roma, Bandera - the entire OUN elite ... The question is not who eliminated whom, the question is why.
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 20 March 2021 12: 25
              -9
              A funny secret. Well, then some more unclassified information: Hitler eliminated Roma, Bandera - the entire OUN elite ...

              So no one argues with this :) By the way, illustrative analogies with Stalin were drawn.

              The question is not who eliminated whom.

              Oh really? I quote you:

              After Stalin, in the upper echelons of power, in fact, the communists were very quickly eliminated by opportunists - a sort of Moses from the evil one.

              That is, when the communists were eliminated under Stalin - it was done by ideological, correct communists, and when after Stalin - it was done by opportunists, "Moses from the evil one"?

              Sometimes the logic of the Stalinists amazes me :)

              the question is for what.

              Indeed, why did the communists eliminate the communists under Stalin?
              1. BMP-2 Offline BMP-2
                BMP-2 (Vladimir V.) 20 March 2021 16: 34
                +6
                We constantly have to make sure that the anti-Stalinists have no logic at all! laughing
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 20 March 2021 16: 46
                  -7
                  Constantly have to make sure

                  So who makes you convinced of something invented by you?
          2. Tramp1812 Offline Tramp1812
            Tramp1812 (Tramp 1812) 20 March 2021 16: 37
            -2
            Quote: Cyril
            After Stalin, in the upper echelons of power, in fact, the communists were very quickly eliminated by opportunists - a sort of Moses from the evil one.

            I'll tell you a secret. - long before them, Stalin himself eliminated the communists with youthful enthusiasm :)

            Many hundreds of thousands. Vasily Blokhin personally shot 200 people a day. And how brilliant Comrade. Stalin, who saw many moves ahead, missed Hitler's attack, as he brilliantly destroyed agriculture. And what repressions were. Massive. To the envy of the faithful Maoist - the communist Pol Pot. And about the possibility of rebuilding the union, the GDP was very specific: "Those who want the restoration of the USSR have no head."
    2. Xuli (o) Tebenado 20 March 2021 16: 26
      +3
      In fact, the March 1991 referendum was the Constituent Assembly of the Peoples of the USSR

      A very strange comparison, incompatible with the real state of affairs.
  3. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 20 March 2021 11: 50
    -2
    And what did they think: wherever you look, the authorities spit on the opinion of the people.

    Even now, the Kremlin promised not to raise the retirement age, but did when it stole money from the Pension Fund.
    He ordered not to raise food prices - prices are going up.
    He called Endogan a terrorist and a murderer - now he's a friend.
    Etc.
  4. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 20 March 2021 13: 40
    +3
    could the USSR be saved?

    Most understand that the USSR did not collapse, but that it was destroyed by the traitorous rulers themselves. Until the enemies of the USSR and pests were destroyed everywhere, the USSR existed. Stalin gave up slack and decided to re-educate enemies and pests, after the Second World War, starting with Benderism. This is the beginning of the end of the USSR.
    And now, Russia can comprehend the fate of the USSR? When deputies and members of the government have citizenship of NATO countries.

    Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak holds a Swiss Residence Permit
    Vice Prime Minister Olga Golodets has a residence permit in Italy
    Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov has permanent residence in Spain
    Minister of Labor and Social Protection Maxim Topilin has a residence permit in Bulgaria
    Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade George Kalamanov has a residence permit in the UK
    Deputy Minister of Economic Development Azerbaijani Talibov has a residence permit in France
    Deputy Minister of Finance Alexey Lavrov has permanent residence in Italy
    Murad Kerimov, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Ecology, has permanent residence in France and Cyprus residence permit
    Deputy Minister of Culture Nikolay Ovsienko has a residence permit in Bulgaria
    Administration of the President of the Russian Federation

    First Deputy Head of Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko has a daughter who has French citizenship.
    https://rusmonitor.com/spisok-deputatov-senatorov-ministrov-rf-s-grazhdanstvom-stran-nato.html Полный список сами смотрите и делайте выводы, кому они служат!
  5. Xuli (o) Tebenado 20 March 2021 15: 06
    +2
    In 1990, in addition to the “proud Balts,” Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan managed to declare their “independence”

    June 12, 1990 - Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR.

    August 24, 1991 - the act of proclaiming the independence of Ukraine.
    August 25, 1991 - Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Byelorussian SSR.
    August 23, 1990 - the proclamation of the independence of Armenia.
    October 27, 1991 - the proclamation of the independence of Turkmenistan.
    September 9, 1991 - the announcement of the independence of Tajikistan from the USSR.
    December 16, 1991 - the proclamation of Kazakhstan's independence from the USSR.
    August 31, 1991 - declaration of independence from the USSR.
    1. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 20 March 2021 19: 41
      -1
      June 12, 1990 - Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR.

      So what? We did it right. Previously, the people were simple, naive, poorly informed. There was no internet. It is now possible to open a search engine and score "who fed whom in the USSR." And everything will immediately become clear. The donor was only the RSFSR and, in some years, Belarus. The rest were freeloaders. Of course, Georgia was the record holder. It is clear from the tables "who fed whom" that Georgia was eating 4 times more than it was producing. But the rest tried to the best of their ability and capabilities. And in life in the republics it was considered good form to speak of Russians as stupid idlers and drunkards, unable to establish a normal life. But the leaders already knew who was worth what. In the country since 1919. and, practically, until the end of Soviet power (and, most likely, much later) the Ukrainian group ruled, which pumped resources to Ukraine, but did not forget about other republics either. At our expense. So Yeltsin decided to put an end to this. There was only one lever left. Communist Party.
      When the time came to destroy the USSR, in 1991. Gorbachev started a reform of the CPSU. Since July 14, the PB has been elected, consisting of 24 people. Of these, 15 people were from the republics, 2 from Ukraine and one from the rest. From the RSFSR it turned out 9 (including Gorbachev). In the RSFSR there were 150 million people, in Estonia 1,5 million the difference is not at all 9 times. But this also did not work according to the proportions in the PB. When voting for the selfish interests of any republic (and all together), the republics voted in unison for their own. Russians are in the minority. This is about how in the EU now, some parasite, such as Estonia, takes out the brains of Germany and France. Only in PB it was even worse. At the XXVIII Congress of the CPSU, which elected an expanded composition of the Central Committee (and that, in turn, the PB), Yeltsin saw where things were going. As an experienced apparatchik, he knew perfectly well how it would end. Therefore, he left the CPSU right at the congress.
      These steps were completely justified and adequate.
      1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 20 March 2021 20: 46
        +2
        Are you here on your own?
        In my opinion, I did not ask you about anything. Strange people here :(
        1. boriz Offline boriz
          boriz (boriz) 20 March 2021 21: 02
          -1
          I didn’t know that you are writing comments for yourself.
          1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 20 March 2021 21: 04
            +1
            There is a text, in this case Necropny.
            I made a comment about the text. You make a remark about the remark, although I did not ask you about anything. Therefore, there is a feeling that you are here by yourself,
            for a little bit ...
  6. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 20 March 2021 17: 38
    +2
    "Time mines", which was the "equality" of the republics and their "right to self-determination" recorded in its first Constitution, adopted in 1924

    What is the meaning of the equality of nations and peoples?
    The state is a political organization of the ruling class, the purpose of which is to preserve its domination and external conquests - territorial, economic, political, technological, cultural, linguistic.
    1. Capitalist equality declares the equality of all before the law, preserving the exploitation of some people by others. This leads to inequality of property, and it directly affects everything, including responsibility before the law, no matter how the propaganda industry “blurts it out”.
    2. The Marxist understanding of equality was given by J.V. Stalin, which consists in the destruction of classes and the exploitation of people by people. At the same time, the views of people cannot be the same for everyone in case of inequality of property, which predetermines the need for the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the state as its instrument in building socialism under the leadership of the party of the proletariat.
    3. The different level of social, social, economic and other development of states of nations and peoples predetermines the impossibility of the simultaneous victory of the proletariat in all countries.
    4. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution prompted the overthrow of the oppressors throughout the Russian Empire, and this predetermined the formation of the Union of Socialist States - the republics of the USSR while preserving their differences and equal rights. The essence of equality and therefore the constitution provided for the right to secede from the USSR. No other country in the world has ever had and does not have such a right.

    In principle, no plebiscites would have to be held if Moscow had initially reacted to the very first manifestations of separatism

    Karl Marx gave an exhaustive scientific study of capitalism, but did not say a word about the ways and methods of building socialism - a society of a new type.
    Lenin filled this gap and wrote a "road map" in the form of a new economic policy, which in just a couple of years of application showed brilliant results, but was curtailed under the threat of external factors.
    After the death of J.V. Stalin, the leadership of the party and the state had party careerists, a class of the so-called. untouchables, the upper echelons of the party actives separated from the people and the formal socialization of labor, which inevitably led to the decay and complete decomposition of the state about the danger of which Lenin warned, saying that economic defeat is the most terrible and dangerous.
    And that is exactly what happened, all the signs of a revolutionary situation were created, when the upper classes were not able to maintain their power unchanged, and the population began to show massive widespread discontent due to the aggravation of needs.
    Vladimir Putin once said about that time - they did not know what to do.
    Against this background, confusion and vacillation in the party ranks began, a struggle for power in the regions and national contradictions unfolded, and Yeltsin's betrayal put an end to the USSR.

    What if?

    If Yeltsyn had rallied the party and led the Leninist course of Deng Xiaoping, everything could have been different.
    Instead, the party was disbanded, public property was transferred to private ownership and a class of large capitalist oligarchs was created, the proletariat was declassified, and its leaders were subjected to obstruction in which all class hatred for the teachings of Marx-Lenin was manifested.
    1. UrraletZ Offline UrraletZ
      UrraletZ (Andrei) 2 May 2021 12: 05
      0
      An anti-Soviet traitor is incapable of rallying anyone. Such a puppet as Yeltsin is special.
  7. Yuri Bryanskiy Offline Yuri Bryanskiy
    Yuri Bryanskiy (Yuri Bryansky) 20 March 2021 20: 18
    -1
    Well done. Thank. It should only be noted that Blank cut Russia at the direction of his Western patrons.
  8. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 21 March 2021 01: 20
    -2
    And you tell this to the Chinese, who have managed not only to transfer their own national economy to a completely market-oriented track, but also to create the world's strongest economy, while not abandoning the communist ideology, without betraying their history, without spitting on their country and their own great leaders. It was quite possible to save the Soviet Union - it, in fact, did not need any salvation. It was simply necessary to prevent all those processes that led to its destruction. However, this should have been done not in 1991, but much earlier.

    You can't argue with that. It should have been much earlier, somewhere in the late 20s, when the NEP was turned off.
  9. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 March 2021 16: 45
    +1
    Quote: Rogue1812
    And how brilliant Comrade. Stalin, who saw many moves ahead, missed Hitler's attack, as he brilliantly destroyed agriculture.

    Hmm, and the brilliant Americans, too, missed Pearl Harbor. Why would you?
    By the way, Pol Pot was not a communist, he was only called one.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 25 March 2021 23: 19
      -1
      Hmm, and the brilliant Americans, too, missed Pearl Harbor. Why would you?

      Nobody calls the Americans genius.

      By the way, Pol Pot was not a communist, he was only called one.

      A very strange argument. Pol Pot was a Maoist, and in the worst form. Maoism is a kind of communist ideology like Leninism, Marxism, Stalinism, etc.

      Who, then, is the "true communist"?
  10. Anton Sibiryak Offline Anton Sibiryak
    Anton Sibiryak (Anton Sibiryak) 28 March 2021 10: 23
    0
    The mistake was made at the very beginning of the building of Socialism, and it consisted in the fact that the people, as before, remained powerless, like the Soviets, which found themselves under the "heel" of the dictatorship of the CPSU.
    In a socialist society, politics should not be and will not be necessary at all, it is necessary only in the bourgeois state system.
    1. UrraletZ Offline UrraletZ
      UrraletZ (Andrei) 2 May 2021 12: 04
      -1
      Well, yes - the dictatorship of the Golden Calf is "the very thing"))
  11. Anton Sibiryak Offline Anton Sibiryak
    Anton Sibiryak (Anton Sibiryak) April 24 2021 13: 09
    -2
    Is it possible to save a dead child?
  12. Gerome Offline Gerome
    Gerome (George) April 29 2021 13: 30
    -1
    We must start with the fact that communism is a utopia, which no one has succeeded in building. Well, we will not call China with its billionaires and rights to the means of production the country that built communism.
    The maximum that could be squeezed out in the 80s is to turn to the experience of China, bringing elements of capitalism to the USSR. Alya the politician of the new NEP. But our leaders from the sakhi did not come out with their minds for such revisions of the foundations and flexibility in solving real problems. But they were of correct, proletarian origin.
    1. UrraletZ Offline UrraletZ
      UrraletZ (Andrei) 2 May 2021 12: 03
      -1
      Seventy years was not a utopia, but now it is. Curb your wretched whiteness, fan of "Russia-for-Russians" ...
  13. UrraletZ Offline UrraletZ
    UrraletZ (Andrei) 2 May 2021 12: 02
    0
    Again the howls of the Bulkokhrustas about the "bloody Bolsheviks" with "Lenin-laid-the-nuclear". It is not Lenin's fault with Stalin that the descendants will turn out to be mediocre idiots who have lost everything that the Bolsheviks defended for seventy years in a row.
    There is no need to blame the mirror if the face is crooked, admirers of whitewater ...