When creating the Union State, you will have to choose between the “Leninist” and “Stalinist” models


reasoning about the possibility of building the "USSR-2" in our troubled times, it would be strange not to recall how the Soviet Union itself was created, what form of government was chosen for this, why, and whether this was the main reason for the subsequent year in 1991 collapse of the first USSR?


Who planted the atomic bomb


The question of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union is very complex and debatable; there is still no consensus on this issue. However, a new word in historical discourse was personally introduced by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who told the general public about who, in his opinion, “planted the atomic bomb” under the USSR:

It is only important that this thought lead to the desired result, and not like Vladimir Ilyich's. And the idea itself is correct. Ultimately, this thought led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, that's what. There were many such thoughts there: autonomization and so on - they planted an atomic bomb under the building that is called Russia, and then it exploded. And we did not need a world revolution.

The catchphrase about the "atomic bomb", which immediately became a catchphrase, flew to the masses. The rest needs to be discussed in more detail.

As you know, the agreement on the formation of the USSR was signed on December 29, 1922, and the very next day the First All-Union Congress of Soviets approved it. This marked the unification into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the rights of the sovereign states of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR (Ukrainian SSR), the Byelorussian SSR (BSSR) and the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (ZSFSR) that had previously separated from it. In 1936, the latter was dissolved and the Azerbaijan SSR, Armenian SSR and Georgian SSR separated from it became separate subjects of the USSR. In addition, the following were formed as part of the Soviet Union: the Uzbek SSR and the Turkmen SSR - in 1924, the Tajik SSR - in 1929, the Kazakh SSR and the Kirghiz SSR - in 1936. In 1940, the Estonian SSR, the Latvian SSR, and the Lithuanian SSR were incorporated into the USSR, and the Moldavian SSR and the Karelo-Finnish SSR were formed (abolished in 1956).

All this existed together as part of a single federal state until 1990-1991, when the union republics one after another proclaimed sovereignty, taking advantage of the right to secede from its composition. On December 8, 1991, "three drunken men" in Belovezhskaya Pushcha declared the end of the existence of the USSR, and on December 21 an agreement was signed on the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). What went wrong, who is to blame, and could things have turned out differently?

Listening to stories from Vladimir Putin, professional historians probably only shrug their shoulders in bewilderment. The fact is that there were at least two competing projects for the creation of the USSR, conditionally, Lenin and Stalin, and the first one won.

Vladimir Ilyich had different attitudes towards the idea of ​​federalism at different stages. Back in 1913, he spoke of her very critically:

We are against federation. We are for the Jacobins against the Girondins ... We are in principle against the federation - it weakens economic connection, she is an unsuitable type for one state.

However, at the same time, Lenin recognized that a federal form could be the salvation of a large and complex state from collapse. Moreover, after the events of 1917, Vladimir Ilyich became an active supporter of the ideas of federalism. Why this is so is not difficult to guess. After the victory of the Socialist Revolution in Russia, hope arose for the World Socialist Revolution and the creation of the United States, not even Europe, but the World, which was dreamed of back in 1915 in the article “On the slogan of the United States of Europe”:

The United States of the world (and not Europe) is that state form of association and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism until the complete victory of communism leads to the final disappearance of every state, including a democratic one.

Lenin's integration project swung at other industrialized countries of the Old World, for which he "tipped wedges" against the European Social Democrats. It was unrealistic to include any Germany or France in the Russian state, so Vladimir Ilyich staked on a supranational union of sovereign states.

Comrade Stalin took a different view of the problem. Iosif Vissarionovich was the People's Commissar for Nationalities and understood what the "sovereignization" of the national republics could lead to. As an alternative, he proposed a project of so-called autonomization, under which all national republics that had declared independence were to return to the RSFSR as autonomy without the possibility of their withdrawal. The Stalinist approach received wide support from members of the same party, however, it came into direct conflict with Lenin's "red globalism".

As you can see, Comrade Stalin turned out to be right in the end. The World Socialist Revolution, alas, did not happen. After his death, part of the party nomenklatura headed for the restoration of capitalism, and in the national republics, local elites came to power, not so much by merit as by right of origin, which led to nepotism and corruption. By 1990-1991, the “tops” both in Moscow and in the national outskirts were already ready to kill and tear apart a great country in order to feast on its corpse, which happened. We are now reaping the grave consequences of that crime all over the periphery - in Ukraine, Georgia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Baltic states, etc.

Whose approach is more applicable to our current realities?

The question is ambiguous. It is possible, of course, to annex Ukraine, Belarus and other former Soviet republics to the Russian Federation "in the Stalinist way." It will be strong and secure. But for this you need to have like-minded people in power in potential union republics and be Comrade Stalin, and not someone who takes a step forward and is always ready to take two steps back later, and not get confused in theory.

Somewhat more realistic is the "Leninist model" of creating a confederate/federal state on the ruins of the USSR. It is possible to solve the problem of the possibility of an exit of a union republic in an original way. This right can be left, however, to make its implementation a non-unilateral process. In addition to the desire to leave the “USSR-2” through a referendum, it is necessary to provide for the obligatory approval of this decision at popular referendums in other union republics and to conduct this process through the supranational Constitutional Court with convincing arguments why, in fact, they were going to leave.

Slamming the door without explanation is ugly.
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Yuri Bryanskiy Offline Yuri Bryanskiy
    Yuri Bryanskiy (Yuri Bryansky) 16 August 2022 13: 18
    +4
    Putin should erect a monument for these words. It was Blank (Lenin), on the instructions of the representatives of Schiff and company, who cut Russia into pieces. Stalin persistently recommended not allied, but autonomous formations. And we lived in a fair USSR, not Leninist, but Stalinist. But it was worth the IVS in December 1945 to denounce the Bretton Woods agreements, and in early 1950 to prepare a new world financial system, as he was poisoned.
    1. Moray Boreas Offline Moray Boreas
      Moray Boreas (Morey Borey) 16 August 2022 14: 32
      -2
      I agree. But perhaps there was no poisoning, just a coincidence.
    2. zenion Offline zenion
      zenion (zinovy) 16 August 2022 15: 04
      +2
      Or maybe the one who detonated this bomb is still to blame? There are bombs under every state, but in order for it to explode, a terrorist is needed. The next government must prove that this was not done intentionally, but only for those who wanted to be rich and a slave owner. We need to build a terrorist museum. Made!
  2. Vox Populi Offline Vox Populi
    Vox Populi (vox populi) 16 August 2022 13: 25
    0
    It is possible, of course, to annex Ukraine, Belarus and other former Soviet republics to the Russian Federation "in Stalin's way". It will be strong and secure. But for this you need to have like-minded people in power in potential union republics and be Comrade Stalin, and not someone who takes a step forward and is always ready to take two steps back later, and not get confused in theory.
    The “Leninist model” of creating a confederate / federal state on the ruins of the USSR seems to be somewhat more realistic. It is possible to solve the problem of the possibility of an exit of a union republic in an original way. This right can be left, however, to make its implementation a non-unilateral process. In addition to the desire to withdraw from the "USSR-2" through a referendum, it is necessary to provide for the obligatory approval of this decision at popular referendums in other union republics and to conduct this process through the supranational Constitutional Court with convincing arguments why, in fact, they were going to leave.

    Obviously, the "Leninist model" of the union is more realistic, but there are serious doubts about the way to "exit" that everyone will agree with it when "entering" and this puts the creation of the union into question (in general and in particular) ...
    1. skeptic Offline skeptic
      skeptic 19 August 2022 20: 51
      0
      Quote from Vox Populi
      there are serious doubts about the way out

      The best bond, I decided to leave - return everything that the Union invested. Naturally, Russia should develop, as a priority, vital industry on its territory. This will eliminate the possibility of blackmail, one or another "renegade", to create critical problems for the state. The clearest example is Ukraine in the USSR.
  3. Michael L. Offline Michael L.
    Michael L. 16 August 2022 13: 51
    +1
    First of all, it is necessary to understand the reasons for the collapse of the USSR.
    At present, there are centrifugal forces, and socialism in the current oligarchic Russian Federation is somehow far away.
    In the absence of candidates (with the appropriate criteria) who want to unite in the Union State, it is idealism to discuss the forms of association "USSR-2"!
    1. skeptic Offline skeptic
      skeptic 19 August 2022 21: 05
      0
      Quote from Mikhail L.
      In the absence of candidates (with the appropriate criteria) who want to unite in the Union State, it is idealism to discuss the forms of association "USSR-2"!

      And here, the developing crisis can inspire many to unite, but for this Russia must become a real flagship, including the level of income of the population. The only capitalism that can raise Russia is only state capitalism. Private capitalism can only be services, with transparent, economic development. The Code of a civil servant is needed, with lifelong deprivation of the right to hold public office himself and his relatives, in case of violation of official powers, with complete confiscation of unconfirmed income. They must work in the public service, not out of fear, but out of conscience.
  4. 1_2 Offline 1_2
    1_2 (Ducks are flying) 16 August 2022 14: 25
    +1
    Putin's attack on the communists is understandable - he is wildly afraid of their return to power, he knows very well that he will not only lose everything "over-earned", but will also thunder at best in the "Black Dolphin". and so that the "red ghouls", who hunt and eat exclusively capitalists (serving only their mammon), do not receive power directly from the hands of the people (by directly bringing them into the Kremlin at the hands of a multimillion-dollar crowd that has come from all the destitute Russian Federation to Moscow), for a long time decided to water them with slops. it is precisely for this that he maintains a huge staff of anti-Soviet liberals, ranging from Venediktov-Svanidze to Urgant Ernst and other Makarevichs, bulls (Silbertrudes). but these guys (on whom he leaned) are not only anti-Soviet (like personally Putin, Zakharova, Peskov, etc.), but also haters of everything Russian and Russia as a whole. but we must give them their due, they opened their Russophobic cards, dumping from the Russian Federation. but many (including those surrounded by Putin) have retained their incognito Russophobes and enemies of the Russian Federation. and while they are (Grefs, Nabiullina, Kudrins, Silulanovs and other "children of Israel") there remains the danger of disarming and disintegrating Russia, in any form of device (imperial, Leninist, Stalinist, cap federation), the collapse of the USSR is proof of this
  5. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 16 August 2022 15: 33
    +1
    The answer to the question about the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was given by V.I. Lenin when he said that the defeat on the economic front was more serious and dangerous than anything else.
    It was the economic defeat and the total deficit that gave rise to an unprecedented scale of widespread corruption, a total shortage of everything and everything, clannishness and nationalism, when all the republics suddenly began to believe that they were “feeding” the Russian Federation and that they would be better off separating and creating Paradise and prosperity at home.
    The question is not the reason for the collapse of the USSR, but how the party and state leadership brought the country to this point.
    And V.I. Lenin answered this question when he said that economic policy turned out to be divorced from the needs and concerns of the population, the formal socialization of the productive forces and the separation of the party from the people, which led to a revolutionary situation when the party and economic leadership of the country could not rule in the old way. , and the population did not want to live in the old way.
    Yeltsin's hypocrisy and betrayal is that, being the head of the Sverdlovsk region, instead of possible assistance to the party and the state, he took the side of the enemies and finally put an end to the USSR. Not only did he destroy the USSR, he also robbed the population and restored capitalism in its worst form, endowing his courtiers with the largest enterprises and entire sectors of the former public property.
    Attributing the collapse of the Soviet Union to the wisdom and foresight of Reagan, Kissinger, Brzezinski and other apologists for capitalism means moving away from the real reasons.
    A person in history can both accelerate development and slow it down, but cannot change its progressive development.
    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the banner of socialism was picked up by the Communist Party of China, studied the mistakes of the USSR and, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, returned to the Leninist principles of building socialism as a compromise between public property and capitalist property, under the control and leadership of the proletariat party.
    With all due respect to V.V. Putin, he is not the ultimate truth, which was clearly shown by the discussion with Medvedchuk about the unity of the population of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
    V.V. Putin is also wrong in that “autonomization and so on - they planted an atomic bomb under the building that is called Russia”
    I.V. Stalin wrote about this:

    The USSR is a voluntary union of equal republic-states. To exclude from the Constitution an article on the right to freely secede from the USSR means to violate the voluntary nature of this union.

    This is if we talk about a socialist state, but if V.V. Putin means the capitalist RF, then it, like any capitalist state formation, must perform two main functions of the state - internal and external. Internal in suppressing the resistance of class opponents, protecting the existing political and economic order, and external in protecting one's own and seizing other people's property and territories.
  6. Stalnov I.P. Offline Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. (Stalnov Ivan Petrovich) 16 August 2022 16: 15
    +3
    The best option is STALIN, and the current and so beloved animal grin of capitalism, the leaders should sink into summer, the slogan should be one EVERYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE, EVERYTHING IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE. And not for a handful of all kinds of runaway sycophants such as Chubais and friends and officials close to the body whose mothers somehow quickly became billionaires?
  7. vlad127490 Offline vlad127490
    vlad127490 (Vlad Gor) 16 August 2022 16: 19
    0
    Author. The topic of creating the USSR-2 is not realistic, especially the creation of a confederate state. The "elite" is against the creation of any Union State, the memory of how this "elite" killed the Soviet Union and robbed the people is still fresh. By creating the USSR-2, you are calling for the recognition of the legitimate state. coup in 1991, privatization, robbery of the people by the "elite". Before developing the theme of the future of Russia, it is necessary to give a legal assessment of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    The trouble is that during Putin's rule, the legal issue of ownership of the territories of the former republics of the Soviet Union has not been resolved. Putin and all his entourage have a very negative attitude towards the USSR, sometimes saying that the collapse of the USSR is a tragedy of the peoples.
    For example, the territory of Ukraine is whose property? Who gave the right to dispose of this property? Show documents? "Elite" is afraid to answer these questions. Hence the superficial solutions that bring troubles and problems to all peoples living in the territory of the former USSR. NATO from within, with the help of traitors, killed the USSR, but could not kill all the Russians. At the committed coup d'état in 1991. no statute of limitations.
    In 1936, a new Constitution of the USSR was adopted, with the entry into force of which the Constitution of the USSR of 1924, including the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR of 1922, ceased to operate. The Treaty on the Formation of the USSR of 1922 did not exist as an independent legal document. The Treaty on the Formation of the USSR of 1922 ceased to be valid in 1936.
    The last, the Constitution of the USSR of 1977, was adopted by all the peoples of the USSR. Article 72 of the Constitution "Each union republic retains the right to freely secede from the USSR", the right to secede from the USSR could only be given by the entire people of the USSR in a referendum. Withdrawal of the Union Republic of the USSR without a nationwide referendum in the USSR and non-fulfillment
    The USSR Law of April 3, 1990 No. 1409-I “On the Procedure for Resolving Issues Related to the Secession of a Union Republic from the USSR” is a criminal offense that does not have a statute of limitations.
    How to build a new Russia? Look at China and Vietnam.
    1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
      Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 16 August 2022 17: 25
      +1
      To look at the PRC and Vietnam, one must answer the main question - whom, what class, the United Russia party and all others represent. This is really an atomic time bomb under a building called Russia
      1. vlad127490 Offline vlad127490
        vlad127490 (Vlad Gor) 17 August 2022 13: 52
        0
        The parties "United Russia", "New People" are the parties of one leader, there will be a leader, these parties will be, there will be a new leader, there will be new parties. There is no ideology, as in the USSR now, there is a hidden ideology of the oligarchs, where all citizens of the Russian Federation are thieves, a thief stole a loaf of bread, stole one billion dollars, also a thief, equality. The capitalists of the Russian Federation will not destroy the Russian Federation, because. if they destroy the Russian Federation, they will cease to be capitalists, they will become nothing. No one will get away from nationality, it is from God. The device of statehood on a national basis showed its inconsistency, the example of the USSR. There are 56 nationalities in the PRC, 190 nationalities in the Russian Federation, 82% Russians. Imagine a state in which there are 190 national formations, where each national formation drags a blanket over itself. It should be in the state, the ideology is socialism, the economy is public-private.
  8. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 16 August 2022 18: 41
    0
    Everything is a little more complicated. The exit from the USSR of the republics was possible, after local plebiscites, only by decision and agreement with the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. But the USSR began to fall apart under L. Brezhnev, when the union republics were left to themselves. The management of the republics was transferred to "national cadres" after 1968, because of the fear of the "Prague Spring" in the USSR Politics: "national in form, socialist in content." Over the decades, nationalism has grown in the republics (each claimed that it was feeding the USSR). It remains to dissolve the general centric supervision from the CPSU (Gorbachevshchina) and the process of the collapse of the USSR became like an avalanche pushed by enemies from NATO. After the nationalization of the administration of the republics since 1970, the fate of the USSR was sealed. Today, there are already other conditions and other bases of connections. Conclusion: Gathering into a single state of the republics is possible on the basis of ideological foundations, economic foundations and national foundations. Ideology is prohibited in the Russian Federation. The economy of the Russian Federation in its modern form does not attract anyone. Remains according to the national, - the Russian-speaking population. We see it - Crimea, Donbass. But to enter the Russian Federation you need an effort, often a military one. In Ukraine and some other neighboring republics where the Russian-speaking population predominates in the regions, it is possible to start annexing Russian-speaking regions under the pretext of Kosovo. There are no other possibilities yet. There is another redistribution of states and the migration of peoples along national lines, and to Western countries along economic lines ... Attempts to unite along ideological lines (Islamic) are very turbulent for many reasons ...
  9. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 16 August 2022 21: 55
    +1
    All this is nonsense.
    Lenin died at the age of 24, for the last 2 years he was very ill.
    Those. The republics were united by Stalin. And having proclaimed the right of nations to self-determination, it was impossible to drive all these SSRs that had just been independent into the provinces, ala the tsarist empire.
    And despite the crises, wars, as long as the power of the workers, peasants, communists was there, the USSR did not collapse.

    And it fell apart when the reincarnations came - former communists, idolizing Red, keeping their former party cards at home ... just in case. Neither the "rights of nations to self-determination" nor the "power of the workers and peasants" have long been gone. Communists in the pen (they were immediately disposed of in the LDNR, for example)
    Recently, the next title of the post "president of the republic" seems to have been eliminated.

    So the power is now according to Kadyrovski. "There is only one power - I, Kadyrov" (literally, from a video of some meeting). You can declare a "special operation" - jihad at any time, appoint / cancel the pension reform, write off your own debts for gas, impose sanctions, everything is possible.
    Judicial, legislative? - No, they didn't.

    Example: EdRO has already thrown everyone from the "Russian Spring" from the LDNR, long before recognition by Russia.

    So the model will be, not Lenin's, not Stalin's, but, conditionally called, Kadyrov's.
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 16 August 2022 22: 19
      -2
      (Serge) Primitive, caricature, for the illiterate, excuse me...
  10. Grei grin Offline Grei grin
    Grei grin (Gray Grin) 22 August 2022 17: 15
    0
    The fish rotted from the head, the USSR was destroyed by the central government under the leadership of the KGB, without which no collapse would have happened! Who watched the film "Chapaev" remember how the peasants came to him and one asks: who are you for Vasil Ivanovich, for the Bolsheviks or for the Communists? Chapaev at first hesitated, and then he says: I am for those for whom Lenin is also, for the third international! What am I, but to the fact that the Communists were not loved even then, as the Communists looked into the water, they quickly turned into partycrats and careerists, and betrayed Lenin, Stalin and ordinary party members!