VTsIOM reports that 21% of Russians associate the era of the USSR with faith in a bright future, calmness and confidence in the future, 10% - with the brotherhood of peoples, 8% each - with a good education, a happier life and great leaders (Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev ) and only 1% - with repression and gulag.
It is even difficult to imagine how many creative forces, crisp dollars, oligarchic and budgetary rubles have been spent over the past 30-40 years on the ideological indoctrination of our people in order to instill in them hatred of the Soviet regime, of its own Soviet past. Liberals of all stripes are biting their elbows again: no matter how many articles and books, films and TV series, performances and exhibitions about the horrors of the USSR are created, this “stupid people” still remembers, loves, honors the Soviet past. Truly impenetrable people, nothing takes them.
Propagandists and agitators, liars and falsifiers do not take into account such an extremely stable phenomenon as popular memory. It is sometimes said that history is written by the winners. And this is partly true: you can write, shoot, tell, clearly show anything you want. Paper, film, museum hall and theater stages will hold up. Those who control the information space in society as winners do just that. But not all of that written history finds a response in the public consciousness. Generations have changed, but it has not been possible to wipe out the Soviet period from the soul of our people.
It is in vain that some people think that in Ukraine or in the Baltic states, the peoples without exception share the official position of their governments regarding the Soviet period, they simply do not allow such polls there. The past, all the more covered with heroism, true nationality, cannot be erased from the people's memory, no matter how strong and domineering "winner" you are.
In the early years of Soviet power, there were also people who wanted to "throw Pushkin off the steamer of our time," and with him forever turn the heroic pages of the past. However, contrary to popular misconceptions that the Bolsheviks considered “history policiesoverturned into the past ”, this political line was never the official position of the Soviet state. On the contrary, the Soviet government beat on the hands of those who, under the guise of political expediency, encroached on historical truth and people's memory. Soviet power in this aspect can only be imputed to the struggle against semi-feudal traditions and religion.
Our anti-Soviet liberals, both in power and in deep opposition, just like the Trotskyists of the 1920s-1930s, believe that history is politics overturned into the past. They are convinced that in order to strengthen the current market system, it is necessary to make the people hate the USSR. To do this, they create an image of a country immersed in terror, totalitarianism, queues, dullness and wretchedness. However, VTsIOM states that the pressure of anti-Sovietism not only does not give the desired result, but causes a backlash among the people.
Modern Russia, under the strict guidance of Western forces, was created as an anti-Soviet state. But by the mid-1990s, it became obvious that the historical and spiritual continuity of anti-Soviet Russia was somehow not enviable. The royal power that led the country from catastrophe to catastrophe. An impotent interim government, white-collar losers, bankrupt left-wing democratic opposition and collaborators. The ideologues of anti-Sovietism were never able to make a definite choice between these historical "vectors", therefore they are still rushing about, either praising the tsar or whitewashing Kolchak and Vlasov.
It is amazing that people who accuse the Bolsheviks of financing by the Kaiser are trying to grope for the continuity of modern power in political forces that were not just anti-people, but to one degree or another controlled by Western countries, which at every historical period only wanted Russia to be destroyed.
Scientifically, in the early 1990s, we destroyed the socialist social system and built a capitalist one. This was the second experience of capitalism in our land. Tsarist Russia, remaining politically a feudal country, in terms of economics, starting in 1861, also switched to a liberal model, both in industry and in agriculture. Just as the young Russian capitalism of the early XNUMXth century possessed the originality and specificity of "feudal remnants", so the young Russian capitalism of the XNUMXst century possesses the originality and specificity of "socialist remnants". The objectivity of this moment cannot be understood in any way by our anti-Soviet liberals, who everywhere in Russia see the despicable "scoop". The people are not like that, the officials are not like that, the Chekists are everywhere, the deputies are not the same, and even our businessmen are wrong. Everything here is crooked and oblique, not like in textbooks and manuals on building "normal democracy".
Moreover, no matter how anyone relates to socialism, no matter what controversy this system may cause, scientific and not very, the fact remains that it was under socialism that our people reached the highest point of development. Based on this, the course towards anti-Soviet ideology is deliberately doomed, and not only in Russia, but also in Ukraine, the Baltic states and other former republics of the USSR.
Sovietism of the people
Many people notice that the more time has passed since the collapse of the USSR, the stronger, deeper and more pronounced the realization comes, even to our government, that certain elements of socialism need to be revived. Either Putin will declare that our "welfare state" is almost socialism, then Bastrykin will call for the abolition of the USE and the return of the Soviet education system, then even the patented liberals from the Higher School of Economics remember the Semashko system with a kind word.
It is difficult for young Russian capitalism to get along with the people, who, each poll, are increasingly expressing their desire to return the USSR. Therefore, you have to adapt to the demands of the public. That is why a demand has arisen in society for a strong state and a leader who, at least in part, will put him at the service not of bankers, businessmen and oligarchs, but of ordinary people. And Vladimir Vladimirovich satisfies this request relatively successfully. This is the specificity of our model of capitalism, conditioned by the objective historical conditions of its formation.
Another thing is that there is nothing wise in comparing different social systems and different historical eras from the point of view of the question “where is it better to live”. First, you can't bring back the past. Secondly, our person needs to think not about where and how best to settle down, but about what specifically to do here and now. Thirdly, the question is not where, to whom and how it is better and more comfortable to live, but what criteria are to be understood as economic and social efficiency. We need a strong socialist power with a powerful industry, or we don’t want to plow, but dream of being speculators, bloggers, rentiers, we appreciate the opportunity to “get out” from the army, “jump off” with traffic cops, travel across Europe, and so on. Now, if the question was posed to the respondents with such an edge, it seems that the results could be different. That is why our popular Sovietism is like this, somewhat elven.