Bulgaria. Communist regimes of Asia

Senior government officials feared the possible collapse of the communist regime. The top of the CPSU split. A. Gromyko and M. Gorbachev advocated for the renewal of socialism, V. Grishin and G. Romanov were afraid of any changes. The first group won. As a result, at the April 1985 plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, the young and energetic Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev was elected General Secretary. Under K. Chernenko, Gorbachev became second secretary and led Politburo meetings. Gorbachev was unusually young for the owner of the Kremlin, only 54 years old. A native of Stavropol, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University and the local agricultural institute. As Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, M. Gorbachev oversaw agriculture and promoted the Food Program, which promised an abundance of food 262. The coming to power of a young, energetic leader inspired not only the communists, but also the majority of Russian citizens. Society was filled with hope for change for the better.

Participants in the April (1985) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee spoke about the need for profound changes in all spheres of life. Great hopes were placed on accelerating the country's socio-economic development. Priority attention was paid to the engineering industries. The chairman of the USSR State Planning Committee, the heads of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of most union republics were replaced. In September 1985, N. Ryzhkov was appointed Chairman of the Council of Ministers. E. Shevardnadze became Minister of Foreign Affairs. By the beginning of 1987, 70% of the Politburo members and 60% of the secretaries of regional party organizations had been replaced. In February 1986, the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU V. Grishin was removed from his post. In his place, B. Yeltsin, secretary of the Sverdlovsk city committee of the CPSU, was appointed. The Politburo included associates of the General Secretary of the Central Committee: E. Ligachev 263, M. Chebrikov 264, E. Shevardnadze 265. B. Yeltsin and A. Yakovlev became the secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee. Reshuffles of top government leaders were not accompanied by stabilization of the economy. The state budget deficit in 1985 amounted to 18 billion rubles, and in 1986 it tripled.

Having become the General Secretary of the Central Committee, M. Gorbachev allowed criticism of previous rulers. He did not have a clear program, or the Secretary General was afraid to put it forward right away 266. The reformer’s first slogans looked very vague: “Perestroika,” “Acceleration,” “Glasnost.” “Perestroika” of what, on what basis? “Acceleration” evoked associations with a big leap. The older generation remembered Stalin's five-year plans and Khrushchev's seven-year plans. The new leader put forward ambitious goals: to double national income and labor productivity by 2000. By 2000, every citizen of the USSR was promised a separate apartment or house.

Perestroika did not change the country's economic course. M. Gorbachev became interested in the creation of regional agro-industrial associations, the development of collective contracting in agriculture, and attempts to control product quality. In 1986, rental collectives produced twice as much output per worker, but their earnings were the same as other enterprises. In May 1985, M. Gorbachev and E. Ligachev initiated the “prohibition law”, ignoring domestic and foreign experience. Speculation in alcohol has become widespread. The state has lost monopoly control over the production and sale of wine and vodka products. Moonshining flourished. The budget lost significant amounts. In September 1988, a partial repeal of Prohibition followed.

M. Gorbachev's policy in the field of glasnost had much more success. The media played a decisive role in its implementation. The magazines “Ogonyok” headed by V. Korotich, “New World” by S. Zalygin, and “Znamya” by G. Baklanov became a mirror of the socio-political life of those years. The circulation of the newspapers “Arguments and Facts” and “Moscow News” has significantly increased. Somewhat later, television and radio joined this process. Sharp programs such as “Vzglyad”, “Before and After Midnight”, “Spotlight of Perestroika” and a number of others were at the epicenter of socio-political sentiments and touched people to the quick. A flood of letters poured into the media of those years. Many journalists later became famous politicians. Thus, the “Morals and Letters” department of the Ogonyok magazine in those years was headed by V. Yumashev, the future son-in-law of B. Yeltsin and the head of his administration. M. Gorbachev allowed the publication of previously banned novels. The books of Rybakov, Dudintsev, Grossman changed the mentality of the reading public and showed that communism and humanism are fundamentally incompatible. From March 1987 to October 1988 7930 publications were returned to the general library collections. In other words, the works of Bukharin, Trotsky and other oppositionists became available to ordinary readers. Previously, special permission from the KGB was required to read these books. However, in 1988, 462 publications of an anti-Soviet nature remained inaccessible to readers in special repositories. In 1989, the New World magazine published Harvest of Sorrow by R. Conquest. Estimates of collectivization and data on the victims of the 1932/1933 famine have a shocking effect on society. In the same October issue of Novy Mir, two landmark works for the debunking of socialism are published - “The Gulag Archipelago” by A. I. Solzhenitsyn and “1984” by J. Orwell 267 .

During perestroika, criticism of communism went further than under N. Khrushchev. In 1989, the first articles by domestic publicists (V. Soloukhin, G. Nilov) appeared in which an attempt was made to debunk V. Lenin. The founder of the Soviet state appeared before the participants of perestroika no longer as “the most humane person,” but as a bloody tyrant, a principled opponent of humanism, unencumbered by respect for the Russian people and their culture.

M. Gorbachev's glasnost was not supported by rational economic policy. The deepening criticism of the communist regime took place against the backdrop of empty grocery store shelves. Under these conditions, the policy of perestroika began to be perceived as false. Quite strong nostalgic moods for a past, stable life arose. Many people again gained respect for the communists and began to ardently defend Lenin.

M. Gorbachev tried to renew the CPSU, to revive the mass party. At the 27th Congress of the CPSU (1986), delegates unanimously condemned the “stagnation” of the previous leadership. The program and charter of the CPSU were slightly corrected, leaving the main Marxist-Leninist dogmas intact. M. Gorbachev learned “three lessons” from the past: 1) the lesson of truth, 2) determination, 3) support of the masses. The scholasticism of the top official testified to the absence of a real program for overcoming the crisis and the fear of serious reforms.

Each year of perestroika added to the disappointment of the people. 1987 marked the 70th anniversary of the October Revolution (communist takeover). Glasnost helped spread anti-communist ideas. It became clear to many that for 70 years we had been moving towards a “dead end”. The state media did not dare to openly declare this opposition liberal and anti-communist. The press began to call the opposition members an “interregional deputy group.” Thus, its ideological orientation was denied, and emphasis was placed on uniting deputies from various regions. The opposition proposed equality of all forms of property, a market economy, depoliticization of the army and the state, reduction of military spending, and allocation of land to farmers. The liberal opposition was led by talented scientists and publicists A. Sakharov 268 , G. Popov, Yu. Afanasyev and others. There was a revival of Russian liberalism, destroyed by V. Lenin. The head of the Moscow party organization B. Yeltsin joined the liberals. E. Ligachev and M. Gorbachev criticized B. Yeltsin. Boris Nikolaevich's criticism only added to his popularity. Boris Yeltsin's rating as a disgraced and persecuted person increased many times over, especially after the publication of the book “Confession on a Given Topic.” Not surprisingly, the book exposed the privileges of the nomenclature hated by the people. As a result, former Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and candidate member of the Politburo B. Yeltsin began to be perceived by the public consciousness as a consistent democrat and liberal.

The 19th Party Conference (June 1988) demonstrated the desire of M. S. Gorbachev’s team to talk a lot and loudly about past shortcomings, about the need for new thinking and radical reforms. It is significant that the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee avoided the term “crisis” and used another, softer concept – “braking mechanism” 269. M. Gorbachev never explained to the delegates why this notorious slowdown began. He only pointed out that “inhibition” appeared already in the thirties.

B. Yeltsin skillfully took advantage of M. Gorbachev’s miscalculations. Being the youngest in the Politburo, he accused the entire old leadership of “stagnation.” As a result, B. Yeltsin proposed to remove the guilty old men from the Politburo and thereby open the way for him to supreme power.

Taking advantage of glasnost, the democratic intelligentsia deepened its criticism of the Soviet system and advocated more radical reforms 270 . For example, the famous sociologist T. Zaslavskaya noted that perestroika is proceeding with difficulty. Ministries sought to retain full power over enterprises in their hands. The Supreme Council was regarded by the population not as a real institution of power, but as a decorative one. The most important decisions were made by the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. Academician A. Sakharov spoke sharply against bureaucracy: “Bureaucracy is far from selfless. Hiding behind demagogic phraseology, it tramples social justice in all spheres of material life - such as the problem of housing, the quality of healthcare (the majority of the population, in particular, is deprived of the opportunity to purchase modern medicines) and quality education. The wages of a significant part of workers are artificially low... At the same time, there are elite groups of the population that have enormous socially unfair privileges” 271.

According to A. Sakharov, the country’s agriculture was in a state of permanent crisis, which resulted in low quality of food for the population, a scarcity of assortment in food stores, and the need to purchase grain and other agricultural products abroad. According to the publicist L. Batkin, due to low life expectancy, high infant mortality, accidents, injuries, untreated wastewater, production of unnecessary goods, barbaric consumption of electricity, metal, wood, due to that we don’t know how to work, teach, store - “maybe Chernobyl explodes quietly and almost imperceptibly every month? Or every week? 272

The murmur of the population forced Gorbachev to do something. The team of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee decided to revive the Leninist idea of ​​​​the Soviets. At the 19th Party Conference, contrary to historical facts, the country's main communist praised socialist democracy. In 1988, they returned to the 1917 slogan “All power to the Soviets!” The euphoria of the election campaign was fueled by the illusion of the enormous, supposedly unrealized potential of the Soviet system. In the minds of many people, brought up by communist propaganda, the conviction remained that the party bureaucrats did not allow the soviets to competently lead the country. A congress of people's deputies consisting of 2,250 people was elected. A third of the deputies were not elected at all, but were appointed from public organizations. For example, 100 people from the Communist Party were appointed by the CPSU Central Committee. All the media worked for the communists.

In May-June 1989, the first Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR opened. Most of the deputies were communists. For the day-to-day management of state affairs, the congress elected the Supreme Council, which also turned out to be very conservative. The congress elected M. Gorbachev Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. At the 1st Congress of People's Deputies, the first secretary of the Cherkassy city committee of the Komsomol of Ukraine, Komsomol deputy Sergei Chervonopisky sharply criticized A. Sakharov for allegedly insulting the army. An outstanding scientist tried to make excuses for a man who lost both legs in Afghanistan. A. Sakharov reminded the congress delegates that he opposed the introduction of troops into Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the delegates drove A. Sakharov from the podium with insulting shouts and whistles. Teacher Kazakova from the Tashkent region said: “Comrade academician! With one action you have canceled out your entire activity. You brought an insult to our entire army, to all our people, to all the fallen who gave their lives. And I express my general contempt for you" 273.

The experience of the First Congress of People's Deputies convinced A. Sakharov of the need to change the fundamental law of the country. The academician developed a new draft constitution. M. Gorbachev and B. Yeltsin did not support A. Sakharov’s project and did not submit it for discussion at the next Congress of Soviets. At the end of 1989, wages for party apparatus workers were significantly increased. Party functionaries began to create banks, firms, and take party and state money into their own hands. In May 1990, at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, Boris Yeltsin became Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.

Shortages of food and consumer goods convinced government leaders of the need to develop market relations. The 1st Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR decided to begin the transition to a new model of economic development. It was planned to reduce government intervention in the management of the national economy, update property relations and establish a market. The 28th Congress of the CPSU (June 1990) supported the course towards the development of a market economy. The congress adopted a programmatic statement “towards humane democratic socialism.” Back in 1968, a document with the same name was adopted by the Communists of Czechoslovakia. This was followed by armed intervention of the USSR in the affairs of the Czechs. Twenty years later, the leaders of the CPSU, adapting to the sentiments of ordinary communists, themselves started talking about humane socialism. However, their understanding of the problem was much narrower than that of the Czechs. The statement of the 28th Congress of the CPSU contained the most general phrases about the renewal of Lenin's party, which were significantly inferior even to the proposals of N. Khrushchev in 1956-1961. Communist leaders did not want to share power with anyone. The decision of the highest forum of the CPSU states: “The Congress does not consider it right to deprive communists in the army, the KGB, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the rights to party membership...” 274 . At the 28th Congress, Boris Yeltsin announced his withdrawal from the CPSU. He proposed transforming the CPSU into a party of democratic socialism and nationalizing its property.

On March 15, 1990, the Third Congress of People's Deputies elected M. Gorbachev as President of the USSR. The President of the country remained the General Secretary of the Communist Party. The Supreme Council carried out decisions approved by the CPSU Central Committee. Soon the structure of presidential power began to take shape. One of its links was the Presidential Council, which was later transformed into the Federation Council, and then into the State Council. The transition to a presidential system of power in the USSR meant the curtailment and liquidation of Soviet power.

The collapse of the CPSU was the first step towards the creation of a multi-party system. Since 1990, the transition to a multi-party system has become an issue that requires immediate resolution. The III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR changed the wording of Article 6 of the 1977 USSR Constitution, removing from it the provision on the CPSU as the leading and guiding force of Soviet society and the core of the political system. However, the communist dictatorship continued to rule on behalf of the Soviets. People's deputies turned into assistants to officials. The new dictatorship blocked the actions of the anti-communist opposition in Moscow and St. Petersburg. For example, M. Gorbachev allowed the mayor of Moscow G. Popov to sell small stalls to private owners, but prohibited large department stores from being put up for auction.

Regardless of political reforms, the economic situation of Russians worsened. Wage delays, high inflation, high prices - all this undermined people's confidence in the reforms. The reduction in agricultural production had a negative impact on the food supply of cities. Industrial production growth rates continued to decline and reached zero in 1989. In December 1990, head of government N. Ryzhkov noted the collapse of the economy and resigned. The next head of government, V. Pavlov, decided in 1991 to exchange money and raise prices. The inflation rate jumped up sharply. If at the beginning of 1991 they gave 10 rubles for one American dollar, then at the end - 110 rubles. In 1990, the first McDonald's restaurant opened in Moscow. The law of March 6, 1990 allowed Russians to own several apartments.

At the end of 1991, due to the collapse of the CPSU and the USSR, M. Gorbachev lost power and finally left the Kremlin. The policy of perestroika is over. Another attempt to renew the CPSU and socialism has failed. The majority of social groups were disappointed in the good undertakings of M. Gorbachev. The top leadership set a course for the privatization of state property and the establishment of an authoritarian government appealing to national patriotism. They were actively supported by the military. Thousands of workers and employees turned into “shuttle workers”. Many pensioners and so-called “state employees” rallied under the banner of the new communist leader G. Zyuganov and began to call perestroika “betrayal.” Young people received long-awaited freedom from any upbringing and several entertainment channels on television. The intelligentsia lost faith in the possibility of improving their financial situation. In the early 1990s, the majority of the Russian population pinned their hopes not on attempts to improve socialism, but on the market economy. The Russians turned 180 degrees and rushed for a new guiding star.

Communism(from Latin commūnis - “common”) - in Marxism, the organization of society in which the economy is based on public ownership of the means of production.

After the 19th century, the term is often used to refer to the socio-economic formation predicted in the theoretical works of Marxists, based on public ownership of the means of production. Such a formation, according to the works of the founders of Marxism, assumed the presence of highly developed productive forces, the absence of division into social classes, the abolition of the state, a change in functions and the gradual withering away of money. According to the classics of Marxism, in a communist society the principle “To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” is implemented!

Various definitions of communism

Friedrich Engels in the draft program of the Union of Communists “Principles of Communism” (late October 1847): “Communism is the doctrine of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.<…>Question 14: What should this new social order be like? Answer: First of all, the management of industry and all branches of production in general will be taken out of the hands of individual individuals competing with each other. Instead, all branches of production will be under the control of the whole society, that is, they will be carried out in the public interest, according to a public plan and with the participation of all members of society. Thus, this new social order will destroy competition and put association in its place.<…>Private property is inseparable from the individual conduct of industry and from competition. Consequently, private property must also be abolished, and its place will be taken by the common use of all instruments of production and the distribution of products by general agreement, or the so-called community of property.”

Karl Marx (1844): «<…>communism is the positive expression of the abolition of private property; at first it appears as universal private property.” “Communism as the positive abolition of private property - this self-alienation of man -<…>there is a real resolution of the contradiction between man and nature, man and man, a true resolution of the dispute between existence and essence, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the race. He is the solution to the riddle of history, and he knows that he is the solution.”

Dictionary Vl. Dahl(1881, original spelling): “Communism, the political doctrine of equality of fortune, community of possessions, and the rights of everyone to other people’s property.”

Philosophical Dictionary(1911): “Communism is a doctrine that rejects private property in the name of human welfare.
All evil in social and state relations stems from the unequal distribution of goods.
To eliminate this evil, communism advises that property rights be reserved only for the state, and not for private individuals. The first to recommend the communist ideal was Plato (cf. his “Polity”).”

Handbook for priests and clergy(1913): “Communism preaches the forced communication of property, denying all types of private property. By extending the principle of collectivism, that is, community, not only to production and distribution, but also to the very use of manufactured products, or to their consumption, and subordinating all this to public control, communism thereby destroys individual freedom even in the little things of everyday life.<…>The communication of property preached by communism leads to the overthrow of all justice and to the complete destruction of the well-being and order of the family and society.”

Errico Malatesta in the book “A Brief System of Anarchism in 10 Conversations” (1917): “Communism is a form of social organization in which<…>people will unite and enter into a mutual agreement, with the goal of ensuring for everyone the greatest possible well-being. Based on the principle that land, mines and all natural forces, as well as accumulated wealth and everything created by the labor of past generations, belongs to everyone, people under a communist system will agree to work together in order to produce everything necessary for everyone.”

V. I. Lenin(December 1919): “Communism is the highest stage of development of socialism, when people work out of consciousness of the need to work for the common benefit.”

Philosophical Dictionary. edited by I. T. Frolova (1987): communism is “a socio-economic formation, the features of which are determined by public ownership of the means of production, corresponding to highly developed social productive forces; the highest phase of the communist formation (full communism), the ultimate goal of the communist movement."

Dictionary of foreign words(1988): “1) a socio-economic formation replacing capitalism, based on public ownership of the means of production; 2) the second, highest phase of the communist social formation, the first phase of which is socialism.”

Merriam-Webster English Dictionary(one of several meanings): “a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls the publicly owned means of production.” Since the 1990s, the term has also been used in this meaning in Russian-language literature in Russia and other countries of the former USSR.

Sociological Dictionary N. Abercrombie, S. Hill and B. S. Turner (2004): “Communism is understood not as an actual practice, but as a certain doctrine. This concept refers to societies in which there is no private property, social classes and division of labor.”

Etymology

In its modern form, the word was borrowed in the 40s of the 19th century from the French language, where communisme is a derivative of commun - “common, public.” The word was finally formed into a term after the publication of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848). Before this, the word “commune” was used, but it did not characterize the entire society, but a part of it, a group whose members used common property and the common labor of all its members.

History of communist ideas

In the early stages of development, primitive communism based on community of property was the only form of human society. As a result of the property and social stratification of the primitive communal system and the emergence of a class society, communism moved from a really existing practice into the category of a dream existing in culture about a just society, a Golden Age and the like.

Communist views at their inception were based on the requirement of social equality based on common property. Some of the first formulations of communism in medieval Europe were attempts to modernize Christian theology and politics in the form of a philosophy of poverty (not to be confused with misery). In the XIII-XIV centuries, representatives of the radical wing of the Franciscans developed it and tried to put it into practice. They were equally opposed to mystical or monastic asceticism and the absolutization of private property. In poverty they saw the conditions for justice in the world and the salvation of society. It was not so much about common property as about a common renunciation of property. At the same time, the ideology of communism was Christian-religious.

Slogans of the revolutionary struggle for radical participants in the Hussite movement in the Czech Republic in the 15th century. (Jan Hus), Peasant War in Germany in the 16th century. (T. Münzer) there were calls for the overthrow of the power of things and money, for the construction of a fair society based on the equality of people, including with common property. These ideas can well be considered communist, although their basis was purely religious - everyone is equal before God and the possession or non-possession of property should not violate this; equality in religious rituals was required. Several centuries later, egalitarian communism appeared - the main component of the “bourgeois revolutions” of the 17th-18th centuries, in particular in England in the 17th century. (J. Winstanley) and France at the end of the 18th century. (G. Babeuf). The secular ideology of communism emerges. The idea of ​​creating a community is being developed in which the freedom and equality of people before each other is realized through common communal ownership of property (or by resolving the conflict between individual and collective property in an egalitarian way). Property is no longer denied, but an attempt is made to subjugate it for the benefit of the entire community.

The theoretical development of the first systematized ideas about the communist way of life was based on the ideology of humanism of the 16th-17th centuries. (T. More, T. Campanella) and the French Enlightenment of the 18th century. (Morelli, G. Mably). Early communist literature was characterized by the preaching of general asceticism and egalitarianism, which made it aimed at counteracting progress in the field of material production. The main problem of society was seen not in economics, but in politics and morality.

The next concept of communism appeared in the context of workers' socialism - from C. Fourier to K. Marx and F. Engels. There is an awareness of the economic contradictions of society. Labor and its subordination to capital are placed at the center of the problems of society.

In the first half of the 19th century. the works of A. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, R. Owen and a number of other utopian socialists appeared. In accordance with their ideas, in a fair social order, ideas about work as pleasure, the flourishing of human abilities, the desire to provide for all his needs, centralized planning, and distribution in proportion to work should play an important role. Robert Owen not only worked on developing a theoretical model of a socialist society, but also in practice carried out a number of social experiments to implement such ideas in life. In the early 1800s, in the mill town of New Lenark (Scotland), serving a paper mill where Owen was director, he carried out a number of successful measures to technically reorganize production and provide social guarantees to workers. In 1825, in Indiana (USA), Owen founded the New Harmony labor commune, whose activities ended in failure.

The early utopian socialists saw the need to introduce into communist society a developed apparatus for suppressing individual freedom in relation to those who, in one sense or another, show a desire to rise above the general level or take initiative that violates the order established from above, and therefore the communist state must necessarily be founded on the principles of totalitarianism, including autocracy (T. Campanella).

These and other utopian socialists enriched the idea of ​​a just social order with ideas about work as pleasure, the flourishing of human abilities, the desire to provide for all his needs, centralized planning, and distribution in proportion to work. At the same time, in a utopian society, the preservation of private property and property inequality was allowed. In Russia, the most prominent representatives of utopian socialism were A. I. Herzen and N. G. Chernyshevsky.

In the 40s of the 19th century, the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie came to the fore in the most developed countries of Europe (the uprisings of the Lyon weavers in 1831 and 1834, the rise of the English Chartist movement in the mid-30s - early 50s, the weavers' revolt in Silesia in 1844).

During this period, the German thinkers K. Marx and F. Engels in the spring of 1847 joined the secret propaganda society “Communist League”, organized by German emigrants whom Marx met in London. On behalf of the society, they compiled the famous “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” published on February 21, 1848. In it, they proclaimed the inevitability of the death of capitalism at the hands of the proletariat and presented a brief program for the transition from a capitalist social formation to a communist one:
The proletariat uses its political dominance in order to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie step by step, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, that is, the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the sum of the productive forces as quickly as possible.

This can, of course, happen at first only with the help of despotic interference in the right of property and in bourgeois relations of production, that is, with the help of measures that economically seem insufficient and untenable, but which in the course of the movement outgrow themselves and are inevitable as a means for a revolution throughout the entire production process.

The program itself contains 10 points:
These arrangements will, of course, vary from country to country.

However, in the most advanced countries the following measures can be applied almost universally:
1. Expropriation of land property and conversion of land rent to cover government expenses.
2. High progressive tax.
3. Cancellation of the right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of all transport in the hands of the state.
7. Increasing the number of state factories, production tools, clearing for arable land and improving land according to a general plan.
8. Equal compulsory labor for everyone, the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Connecting agriculture with industry, promoting the gradual elimination of the distinction between city and countryside.
10. Public and free education of all children. Elimination of factory labor of children in its modern form. Connecting education with material production, etc.

This is how Marxism arose. Karl Marx, however, harshly criticized the utopian "crude and ill-conceived communism" of those who simply extended the principle of private property to everyone ("common private property"). Crude communism, according to Marx, is the product of “worldwide envy.”

Many of Marx's anarchist contemporaries also advocated communal ownership (Peter Kropotkin called his system "anarcho-communism"), but they rejected the centralization advocated in Marxism because of its restrictions on individual freedom. In turn, anarcho-communism leans towards individualism in matters of freedom.

In 1864 the Marxist First International was created. Marxists founded social democratic parties, in which both a radical, revolutionary direction and a moderate, reformist one emerged. The ideologist of the latter was the German Social Democrat E. Bernstein. Created in 1889, the Second International was dominated by a revolutionary point of view until the early 1900s. At the congresses, decisions were made on the impossibility of an alliance with the bourgeoisie, the inadmissibility of joining bourgeois governments, protests against militarism and war, etc. Later, however, reformists began to play a more significant role in the International, which led to accusations from radicals of opportunism.

In the first half of the 20th century, communist parties emerged from the most radical wing of social democracy. Social Democrats have traditionally advocated the expansion of democracy and political freedoms, and the communists, who came to power first in Russia in 1917 (Bolsheviks), and then in a number of other countries, were opponents of democracy and political freedoms (despite the fact that formally declared their support) and supporters of state intervention in all spheres of society.

Therefore, already in 1918, Luxemburgism arose, opposing on the one hand the pro-bourgeois policy of revisionist social democracy, and on the other, Bolshevism. Its founder was the German radical social democrat Rosa Luxemburg.

On March 4, 1919, on the initiative of the RCP (b) and personally its leader V. Lenin, the Communist International was created to develop and disseminate the ideas of revolutionary international socialism, as a counterweight to the reformist socialism of the Second International.

The views of a number of theoreticians of communism, who recognized the progressive significance of the October Revolution in Russia, but criticized its development, and some even rejected the socialist character of Bolshevism, seeing in it state capitalism, began to be called left communism. The left opposition in the RCP(b) and the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in the 1920s advocated inner-party democracy, against the “NEPman, kulak and bureaucrat.”
The “Left Opposition” in the USSR ceased to exist as a result of repression, but the ideology of its leader Leonid Trotsky, who was expelled from the country, (Trotskyism) became quite popular abroad.

Communist ideology in the form in which it became dominant in the USSR in the 1920s was called “Marxism-Leninism.”

The revelations of Stalinism at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the Soviet course towards economic development under the policy of “Peaceful Coexistence” displeased the leader of the Chinese communists, Mao Zedong. He was supported by the leader of the Albanian Labor Party, Enver Hoxha. The policy of Soviet leader N.S. Khrushchev was called revisionist. Many communist parties in Europe and Latin America, following the Soviet-Chinese conflict, split into groups oriented towards the USSR, etc. "anti-revisionist" groups focused on China and Albania. During the 1960s and 1970s, Maoism enjoyed considerable popularity among leftist intellectuals in the West. The leader of the DPRK Kim Il Sung, maneuvering between the USSR and China, in 1955 proclaimed the Juche ideology, which is presented as a harmonious transformation of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism based on ancient Korean philosophical thought.

The policy and theoretical basis for the activities of a number of communist parties in Western Europe, which in the 1970s and 1980s criticized the leadership of the CPSU in the world communist movement, the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the lack of political freedoms in countries that adopted the Soviet model of socialism, was called “Eurocommunism.”

"Scientific communism"

A concept introduced in the USSR in the 1960s, which designated “one of the three components of Marxism-Leninism, revealing the general patterns, paths and forms of the class struggle of the proletariat, the socialist revolution, the construction of socialism and communism. The term “scientific communism” (“scientific socialism”) is also used in a broad sense to designate Marxism-Leninism as a whole.”

Also the name of an academic subject in USSR universities since 1963. It was compulsory for students of all universities along with “history of the CPSU” and “Marxist-Leninist philosophy” until June 1990.

Within the framework of scientific communism, the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat to achieve communism was argued, although the idea of ​​communism as a society based on common property does not indicate the political structure of such a society.

The term "Scientific Communism" appeared at the end of the 19th century to distinguish Marxist communist ideas from others. The addition of “scientific” arose because K. Marx and F. Engels substantiated the need for changes in the social structure by changes in methods of production. They emphasized the objective nature of the historical movement towards communism. G.V. Plekhanov wrote that scientific communism does not invent a new society; he studies the trends of the present in order to understand their development in the future.

Friedrich Engels predicted a number of basic features of a communist society: anarchy in production is replaced by a planned organization of production on the scale of the entire society, the accelerating development of productive forces begins, the division of labor disappears, the opposition between mental and physical labor disappears, labor turns from a heavy burden into a vital need - self-realization, class differences are destroyed and the state itself dies away, instead of managing people, production processes will be managed, the family will radically change, religion disappears, people become masters of nature, humanity becomes free. Engels foresaw unprecedented scientific, technical and social progress in the future. He predicts that in the new historical era “people, and with them all branches of their activity, will make such progress that they will eclipse everything that has been done so far.”
Concepts formed using the term “communism”

Primitive communism

According to Engels, the most ancient human societies of hunter-gatherers, which existed before the emergence of classes, can be called “primitive communism.” Primitive, or primitive, communism is characteristic of all peoples at the early stages of development (the so-called primitive communal system, which according to archaeological periodization coincides mainly with the Stone Age). Primitive communism is characterized by the same attitude of all members of society to the means of production, and, accordingly, the same way for everyone to receive a share of the social product. There is no private property, classes or state.
In such societies, the food obtained is distributed among the members of the society in accordance with the need for the survival of the society, that is, according to the needs of the members for individual survival. Things produced by each person for himself were in the public domain - public property. In the early stages, there was no individual marriage: group marriage was not just the main, but the only form of regulation of relations between the sexes. The development of tools led to the division of labor, which caused the emergence of individual property and the emergence of some property inequality between people.

Utopian communism

The classic expression of this type of communism is Thomas More's Utopia (1516), which paints an idyllic picture of primitive communism contrasted with feudalism. By the 17th century, new, more developed versions of utopian communism were being formed, expressed in the views of Meslier, Morelli, Babeuf, and Winstanley. Utopian communism reached its apogee in the 19th century in the concepts of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, and Chernyshevsky.

War communism

The official name of economic practice in Russia during the Civil War on the territory of Soviet Russia in 1918-1921. Elements of war communism were introduced by most countries participating in World Wars 1 and 2. The main goal was to provide the population of industrial cities and the Army with weapons, food and other necessary resources in conditions when all previously existing economic mechanisms and relations were destroyed by the war. The main measures of war communism were: the nationalization of banks and industry, the introduction of labor conscription, a food dictatorship based on surplus appropriation and the introduction of a ration system, and a monopoly on foreign trade. The decision to end war communism was made on March 21, 1921, when the NEP was introduced at the X Congress of the RCP(b).

Eurocommunism

Eurocommunism is the conventional name for the policy of some communist parties in Western Europe (such as French, Italian, Spanish), which criticized the lack of political freedoms and the alienation of the party and authorities, in their opinion, existing in countries that adopted the Soviet model of socialism. The transition to socialism, according to supporters of Eurocommunism, should be carried out in a “democratic, multi-party, parliamentary” way. In its rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Eurocommunism was close to social democracy (although the Eurocommunists did not identify themselves with them). Russian followers of Eurocommunism, or non-authoritarian communism, are often mistakenly called Trotskyists, despite the authoritarianism of Trotsky himself and the absence in the ideology of the non-authoritarian left of any traces of preference for the Trotskyist branch of Marxism.

Anarcho-communism

Socio-economic and political doctrine about the establishment of a stateless society based on the principles of decentralization, freedom, equality and mutual assistance. The ideological foundations of anarcho-communism were laid by the famous scientist and revolutionary Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin. The most famous milestones in the history of the anarcho-communist movement were the insurgency of Nestor Makhno during the Russian Civil War, as well as the actions of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939. In addition, it should be noted that anarcho-communism is the ideological basis of the anarcho-syndicalist International that exists to this day, founded in the winter of 1922-1923.

Projected dates of transition to a communist form of society

2009 May Day demonstration in Severodvinsk

V.I. Lenin in 1920 attributed the building of communism to the 30s - 40s of the 20th century:
The First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee N.S. Khrushchev announced in October 1961 at the XXII Congress of the CPSU that by 1980 the material base of communism would be created in the USSR - “The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism!”

Full communism as the highest phase of the communist formation

According to Marxism, the “communist socio-economic formation”, or, briefly, “communism” consists of two phases: the lower - which in Marxism is called socialism and the highest - the so-called “full communism”. Under socialism there is a state, and state power is stronger than under other formations, elements of bourgeois law and other remnants of the capitalist formation. Also, under socialism there is personal property, there is small private production (garden plots) and small private trade (markets). However, large private property is also absent under socialism. Since the means of production become common property, the word “communism” is already applicable to this phase.

According to Marx,

…In the highest phase of communist society, after the subordination of man to the division of labor that enslaves him has disappeared; when the opposition between mental and physical labor disappears along with it; when work will cease to be only a means of living, but will itself become the first need of life; when, along with the all-round development of individuals, the productive forces also grow and all sources of social wealth flow in full flow, only then will it be possible to completely overcome the narrow horizon of bourgeois law, and society will be able to write on its banner: “To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”.

Anarcho-communists do not agree with the concept of two phases and believe that for the onset of complete communism and the elimination of the state, a preliminary stage of strengthening the state is not necessary.

Many authors have repeatedly noted that human needs are limitless, therefore, even the highest labor productivity requires distribution mechanisms and restrictions, for example, money. To this the Marxists responded as follows:
The state will be able to die out completely when society implements the rule: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” that is, when people are so accustomed to observing the basic rules of community life and when their work is so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their abilities. The “narrow horizon of bourgeois law”, which forces one to calculate, with the callousness of Shylock, not to work an extra half hour against another, not to receive less pay than another - this narrow horizon will then be crossed. The distribution of products will then not require rationing on the part of society of the amount of products received by each person; everyone will freely take “according to need.”

From a bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare such a social system a “pure utopia” and scoff at the fact that socialists promise everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the work of an individual citizen, any number of truffles, cars, pianos, etc....
...to “promise” that the highest phase of the development of communism would come did not occur to any socialist, and the prediction of the great socialists that it would come does not presuppose the current productivity of labor and not the current average person who is capable “in vain” - sort of like the students in Pomyalovsky - spoil the warehouses of public wealth and demand the impossible.

In fiction

The communists are paving the way to the stars. Postal block USSR 1964

In the Soviet Union, communist motifs in science fiction were of paramount importance from the very beginning of the genre in the country.

Our job is to turn Soviet science fiction into a weapon in the fight for communism and for the spread of communist ideas throughout the world by increasing the artistry and ideological content of the works.

However, from the 1930s to the 1950s, it was mostly “short-range science fiction,” describing the transition to a communist society, but not the society itself.

I. A. Efremov vividly and positively described the humane communist society of the future in his famous novel “The Andromeda Nebula,” on which the film of the same name was based. The development of this author’s ideas about people of the communist future is given in the story The Heart of the Snake and the novel The Hour of the Ox.

A. Bogdanov (“Red Star”), the Strugatsky brothers (“World of Noon”), G. Martynov (“Gianea”, “Guest from the Abyss”), G. Altov (“Scorching Mind”), V. . Savchenko (“Beyond the Pass”), V. Nazarov (“Green Doors of the Earth”) V. Voinovich (“Moscow 2042”).

The description of communist society in Western fiction is presented in the Star Trek series. In addition, the communist society of the future was described by H. Wells (“Men Like Gods”, “The Time Machine”, W. Le Guin “The Dispossessed”, T. Sturgeon (“The Artificers of the Planet Xanadu”).

Historians are preoccupied with the search for truth, putting together the details of a single three-dimensional picture of the past, conducting complex debates, relying on sources and clear logical rules. But publicists and politicians are of little interest in this work. They are not interested in the truth. Their weapon is myths. They have already made the generalizations they need, needed for the political game. There are no halftones in the history of Soviet society. Only a one-color myth, suitable for brainwashing.

* * *

On January 25, 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) condemned communism. Formally, we are talking about “totalitarian communism,” but from the resolution it follows that every communist regime is totalitarian. Thus, the McCarthyite campaign, which unfolded in the 21st century, reached its peak. Why did it happen? It seems that the time of revelations and convictions occurred in the 90s, and in the 21st century it is possible to turn to historical events without prosecutorial rhetoric.

I had the opportunity to observe in close proximity the formation of the official European standard of historical mythology. So I’ll start this series of essays with personal impressions.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is accustomed to exposing Russia for human rights violations. Timid attempts by Russian diplomacy to also criticize Western states for human rights violations (for example, in the Baltic states or Kosovo) cause noble anger in PACE. Well, who are these Russian barbarians to teach enlightened Europe democratic standards?

In order to wean us once and for all from the intention of reminding the West of “double standards,” it was decided to flog Russia thoroughly - to the fullest extent of the Court of History. To be brought to justice for communism - just as Germany was once brought to justice for Nazism in Nuremberg. The idea of ​​a “new Nuremberg” is not new, but it is characteristic that it was revived in the 21st century, when communist regimes in Europe had long since become a thing of history.

In 1996, when Russia began to show timid dissatisfaction with the behavior of NATO states in the Balkans, PACE heard a report exposing communist totalitarian systems and adopted resolution No. 1096, which recognized the topic as worthy of in-depth study and preparation of a full-fledged PACE decision.

The car was launched and eight years later it “reached” the finish line. It was then that they decided to hear the “main accused.” After all, “totalitarian communism” came from Moscow...

In December 2004, PACE scheduled official hearings on the topic of condemning “totalitarianism.” Why not condemn, although all this resembles waving your fists after a fight. A Russian parliamentary delegation went to the hearings, which included me as an expert as a specialist in the history of the 20th century.

On the eve of the hearings, we were “delighted” with a behind-the-scenes move - they changed the topic. They were going to condemn totalitarianism (who would argue), and now - communism. Feel the difference. Communism is a social theory that has been used by some totalitarian regimes. But it was and is shared not only by the organizers of mass repressions. There were no supporters of communism in our delegation, but, as they say, truth is more valuable. And the substitution of the topic, which resembled the move of a sharper, raised fears that there might be a political trick here. And there was a catch.

On December 14, 2004, PACE hearings were held on the issue of condemning communism. They were led by the Portuguese deputy Aguier, who was clearly burdened by her McCarthyite mission. But work is work. But the experts “from the other side” were ready to fight not for fear, but for conscience. “Heavy Artillery” - editor of the magazine “Communism” and co-author of the acclaimed “Black Book of Communism” S. Courtois and Polish professor D. Stola. “The highlight of the program” is the former dissident V. Bukovsky. Actually - special thanks to him. What was on the minds of Western European deputies was on his tongue. From Bukovsky's speech we learned that the purpose of “condemning communism” is to hold the “guilty party” accountable for all the outrages of the modern world. Because communism is to blame for them, and Russia is the legal successor of the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union - from the beginning to the very end - is a totalitarian communist state. So all of you Russians (except for heroic dissidents) have come out of the totalitarian overcoat, and all your life you will have to learn democracy from the West, and not lecture it about human rights.

Courtois and Bukovsky attacked tirelessly: communism is as criminal an ideology as fascism, and therefore must be condemned in the same way. Although 90% of the arguments of the “prosecutors” related to the Stalinist period, it was necessary to condemn all communism from Marx to Gorbachev inclusive. The spirit of American Senator McCarthy, who organized the event in the 50s, was in the room. “witch hunt” in the USA, directed against the “left”. McCarthy denounced Stalin and artificially linked everyone who does not like capitalism with his crimes. Experts from the “prosecution” also acted at the PACE hearings.

S. Courtois promised to tear off the “veil of silence” from the crimes of communism. I prepared to listen to some sensational news, hidden until now by the “veil of silence.” But they didn’t tell us anything new. S. Courtois began by saying that the Bolsheviks arrested 20 workers. It’s not good, of course, but most European regimes can be condemned on this principle, since they probably arrested more protesters for their own. In one pile, the speakers lumped together Lenin’s mysterious pre-revolutionary plans to resort to ethnic cleansing (when asked to say where the speaker read this, Courtois remained silent), and expulsions, and the actual mass murders of the Stalin period, and the “subversive” activities of Luis Corvalan against the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile (Bukovsky, who is still grateful to Pinochet for his release from prison in exchange for the leader of the Chilean communists, spoke about this). Bukovsky enriched our conversation with the image of “moral schizophrenia,” in which they still pursue Nazi criminals who committed crimes 60 years ago and leave the communists alone. True, he immediately started talking about crimes that happened 70 years ago, so Bukovsky himself had to be saved from “moral schizophrenia.”

To understand this whole heap of historical phenomena of different orders, I invited the deputies to honestly answer two simple questions. Firstly, are the listed atrocities an exclusive consequence of the communist regime, or is similar behavior also inherent in other regimes and caused not by the communist ideology as such, but by deeper social reasons? Secondly, is mass terror and total repression a constant companion of the communist regime? If not, then it is not communist ideology that is subject to condemnation, but specific phenomena in Soviet (and not only Soviet) history that caused massacres and repressions.

We can easily find almost everything that the “accusers” talked about in European history without any connection with communism. The word "terror" had gained European prominence since the French Revolution, but Robespierre was not a communist. In modern terms, he was a socially oriented liberal. A good half of the Bolshevik concepts came from a French source, from commissars to the term “enemy of the people” (the Jacobins borrowed it from such a source of European legal culture as Ancient Rome). So communism, both in its atrocities and in its achievements, is closely connected with European culture.

Where did the concentration camps come from? They were “invented” by the British colonial administration during the wars in Africa at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. This same administration is responsible for the mass extinction of peasants in India due to famine. Stories of expulsions remind us of the exile of opponents of Republican France to New Caledonia already in the 19th century. Thousands of exiles died from hunger and disease. Against the backdrop of these crimes, Marx looked like a human rights activist.

His follower Lenin unleashed the Red Terror, but this bloody act unfolded simultaneously with the White Terror, and is also not an exclusive consequence of the communist regime. Denikin and Kolchak were representatives of liberal and conservative ideologies, but their army carried out mass terror and committed atrocities, which were only covered by the army of Japanese interventionists - also far from the fight for communist ideals.

The brutality of the Civil War in Russia is quite comparable to the brutality in Spain, where the Francoists were no less fierce than the communists.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which Courtois spoke about, immediately refreshes the memory of the Munich Pact on the division of Czechoslovakia, which the “liberals” Chamberlain and Daladier concluded with the fascists Hitler and Mussolini. Isn't it moral schizophrenia to condemn one pact and not condemn another?

The scale of the destruction of people by Stalin is colossal. But Bukovsky’s attempt to attribute to him the record for the speed of extermination of people was easily refuted by us. This dubious honor belongs not to Stalin, or even Hitler, but to American President Harry Truman, who in two days (or rather, two seconds) in 1945 killed more than 200 thousand Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the vast majority of them were civilians.

Reports of torture in the dungeons of the NKVD are terrible. But how can one not recall the latest color photographs of torture carried out by the “liberal-democratic” occupiers in Iraq?

Wherever you throw it, there is a wedge everywhere. The crimes of Stalin and his collaborators, as is known, were condemned by the 20th Party Congress. This condemnation was inconsistent, but during the period of Perestroika, before the collapse of the USSR and even before the communists lost their monopoly on power, this issue was returned to and carried out a much deeper, both legal and historical condemnation. What else?

Like what! - the “prosecutors” exclaim. You yourself are not able to condemn Stalinism properly, and do not want to consistently condemn all communism (subtext: which means carrying out lustration, dismissing all former communists from government). In general, when Stalinism was exposed, there were few reprisals against the organizers of the terror.

And who else needs to be arrested today? Yagoda, Yezhova, Beria and Abakumov? No, they were already shot. Now we need to torture the old men who once served in the NKVD-KGB?

Before organizing a new “hunt for the old guys,” it is necessary to punish the organizers of the bombing of Yugoslavia and the war in Iraq. They pose a social threat, but the old men do not. Western liberals become more bloodthirsty the lower the rank of the switchman who needs to be punished. An American sergeant or a Soviet guard - at him! But God forbid the general or Salan (I’m not talking about the Soviet organizers of terror - they were either shot or died). This is a litmus test of attitude towards crimes against humanity. Under the pretext of hunting for switchmen, a witch hunt begins, under the guise of condemning communist regimes that are indiscriminately declared totalitarian - a hunt for communist ideas and the theory of class struggle. If we condemn crimes against humanity, then it does not matter who committed them - communists, liberals or nationalists. Communism in this regard is fundamentally no worse or better than others.

* * *

It is especially important for “prosecutors” to prove that the communist regime after Stalin was as monstrous as Nazism. According to Bukovsky, Gorbachev is a war criminal. After all, the war in Afghanistan continued under him. Gorbachev - to Nuremberg. But not the American generals who acted in Iraq, not the Western politicians who organized the bombing of Vietnam, Yugoslavia and the same Iraq. Again double standards, or, in Bukovsky’s words, “moral schizophrenia.”

Her attacks every now and then forced Bukovsky to return to his beloved Pinochet. They were going to try him in Chile, poor fellow. Under him, about 30 thousand citizens were killed for political reasons. Even if not all cases can be proven, we are still talking about mass murders. Bukovsky comes to the dictator’s defense: after all, ten years after Pinochet’s coup, Corvalan made his way to Chile with the aim of carrying out terrorist operations. This is the source of world terrorism!

I had to ask Bukovsky: who did Corvalan blow up? Bukovsky is silent. But it is not difficult to name the victims of international terrorism carried out by Pinochet - in 1974 in Argentina, Chilean special services blew up K. Prats, and in 1976 in the United States - O. Letelier. And in general, it’s somehow inconvenient to talk about communism as the root of international terrorism when it turned out that Bin Laden was nurtured by American intelligence services during the war in Afghanistan.

Trying to somehow save Bukovsky from complete defeat, D. Stola adopted his theory of “moral schizophrenia,” and with the same suicidal effect. Now, you’re all about Pinochet and Stalin. What about Jaruzelski, who suppressed the Solidarity movement in 1981? Speaking about the weakening of the dictatorial character of communism after Stalin, aren’t you introducing double standards - after all, there was no democracy in the communist bloc! Stole's question: How many Solidarity leaders were executed? Not at all.

Communist regimes have changed qualitatively over time, as have anti-communist regimes. The whole point is that the “prosecutors of communism” do not understand the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. But this is the basics of political terminology. A totalitarian regime strives for complete (that is, total - hence the term) control over the life of society and destroys uncontrollable elements with the help of terror. An authoritarian regime does not allow democracy, carries out selective repressions against its open opponents, but does not claim complete control over society and does not carry out mass terror against all the dissatisfied and uncontrollable. It is quite obvious that after the mid-50s. The Soviet regime acquired an authoritarian character. But authoritarian regimes existed throughout Europe. Moreover, almost all European regimes were authoritarian until the end of the 19th century.

If we begin to condemn authoritarianism, we can start from the west of Europe - from the Portuguese anti-communist regime of Salazar, and we will not reach the USSR soon. At the mention of Salazar, Aguiera, the moderator of the meeting, tensed - she, too, lived under authoritarianism. No, she is not ready to look at this issue so broadly - there are too many “skeletons in the closet” of the West. But why is a “broad interpretation” allowed in relation to communism? After all, the mass extermination of people in the USSR occurred only during specific periods of its history (as well as during certain periods of the history of Western Europe), and in the 60-70s. the situation in the USSR was different. No mass terror, no total unanimity.

The very existence of the dissident movement proves that the regime was not totalitarian. Otherwise, we wouldn’t even have talked to V. Bukovsky, but erected a posthumous monument to him. In the USSR in the 60-80s. There were mass movements from environmental to song movements, which were not controlled by the Communist Party, there were discussions between “liberals” and “soilists”, jokes about Brezhnev and other General Secretaries were spread. And let's not forget that in 1990 the CPSU lost its monopoly on power, and the Soviet Union became a pluralistic society with a multi-party system. So Russia, which became the successor of the USSR, is the successor of the totalitarian regime to a lesser extent than modern Spain, the heir of Francoist Spain.

Thus, the attempt to condemn communism based on the events of the Civil War and Stalinism looks no more convincing than the desire to declare the Catholic faith criminal based on the crimes of the Inquisition. This remark of ours caused the indignation of one of the “deputies-prosecutors”: “How can you compare communism and the Inquisition when the crimes of communism were committed in the last century!” It's funny, but just a few years ago the same could be said about the Inquisition - the last auto-da-fé was committed in Spain in the 19th century. The indignation of these deputies is typical - they are still living with the problems of the mid-twentieth century and cannot in any way learn to live in the 21st century with its new challenges and threats. Including totalitarian ones. After all, manipulation of mass consciousness, the instrument of which is a simplified view of the division into black and white, is also a sign of authoritarianism, and in the future, totalitarianism.

The arguments we presented obviously turned the tide of the discussion, and a number of deputies, both in their speeches and then in private conversations, supported a balanced position - it is necessary and useful to argue with the communists, no one is going to hush up the crimes of the communist era, as well as the achievements of this era. But all this is a matter for historians, not judges. Realizing where things were heading, the Polish expert of the “prosecution” D. Stola spoke with indignation about the intention of his Russian colleagues to “send the ball to the Academy.” Well, he is right to fear that in the 21st century, the topic of the crimes of communism has a place at conferences of historians. In the new century we are faced with the crimes of other forces.

After the hearing, the conversation continued on the sidelines. Here Aguiera was more compliant, and what could she oppose to the arguments of a professional historian? Yes, of course, she does not want her report to be used in the interests of the new McCarthyites. Of course, after the hearing, she will formulate it more carefully than she intended, with many reservations...

However, MP Agier was not elected for the next term; the banner was taken up by Swedish MP Goran Lindblad. He even slightly edited the theses discussed in December - including the need to condemn the Franco regime as well. But then - after the communists. The formula “totalitarian communist regimes” has returned. It seems good - we are not talking about any communist regimes, but only about totalitarian ones, and not about any communist regimes. But no. Lindblad's report suggests that he never understood the difference.

Otherwise, Lindblad's memorandum was as absurd as the December theses. As soon as we talk about the period after 1956, it becomes clear that the authors of the memorandum are absolutely illiterate (in relation to other periods of Soviet history, they are illiterate). Thus, as examples of genocide and the use of slave labor, the introduction of troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the suppression of unrest in Poland in 1968 and in 1980-1981 are cited. I wonder if Deputy Lindblad knows what genocide is?

In June 2005, Lindblad spoke to a group of Russian scientists who hold a variety of views, including opponents of communist ideas. They easily demolished the memorandum proposed by the Swede and pointed out his student mistakes, for which he would have been given a bad mark in school (at least in a Russian school - I can’t judge the quality of knowledge of Russian history in a Swedish school).

It was clear that the Swede felt uncomfortable in the role of a schoolchild who had learned his lesson poorly. He referred to the shortcomings of his predecessor and promised to improve. I even met with representatives of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. But soon a report was published, which once again proved: the voice of science is of little interest to not only the Russian political elites, but also the Western ones.

Lindblad's project, which was later adopted by PACE, said a lot of interesting things.

“The totalitarian communist regimes that ruled Central and Eastern Europe in the last century, and which are still in power in some countries, are without exception characterized by massive violations of human rights.” In principle, regimes of all colors are characterized by numerous violations of human rights. “Bourgeois” regimes are no exception. So communist regimes should be accused of something more specific: “They include individual and collective murder, executions, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labor and other forms of mass physical terror.” And again the question arises - is this always the case with the communists or during certain periods? What deportations and mass physical terror took place in the USSR under Brezhnev? If we are not talking about the entire history of Soviet society, but only about the totalitarian Stalinist period, then the main idea of ​​the McCarthyists is lost - communism is to blame for everything. After all, in the history of the United States there were deportations, slavery, genocide, and executions for political reasons...

But Lindblad insists that communist regimes are “characterized” by the crimes in question. That is, this is their characteristic. Why don’t the organizers of the hearings consider that, for example, “the United States is characterized by the massive use of slave labor, deportations, genocide of the local Indian population and the use of atomic weapons against civilians,” although all this took place in the history of the North American regime. The same formula can be created for half of the European countries using the “expansion characteristics” technique invented by the Euro-McCarthyites.

But maybe the report does not expose communist ideology, but only practice? No really. Lindblad and the European McCarthyite party behind him are categorical: “The justification for committing the crimes was the theory of class struggle and the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

The true goal of the campaign, therefore, is the ideology of communism itself. What about communism - and the sociological theory of class struggle becomes criminal, because it “justified” crimes.

Of course, there are other theories that justify crimes. For example, the idea of ​​sacred private property justified slavery in the United States, and the idea of ​​the American nation justified the genocide of Indians. But Indians or Japanese are strangers. But “in countries with communist regimes, a huge number of people of their own nationality were killed.” Destroying other nations is not so scary. The Japanese there in Hiroshima, the Arabs in Algeria, the Serbs in Yugoslavia in 1999. You never know the examples. And the communists - their own...

It is curious that the McCarthyist logic here is suspiciously close to the Nazi one. As if sensing this, the authors of the report seek to draw a direct parallel between Nazism and communism, so that the conviction follows the example of Nuremberg: “In addition, the authors of these crimes were not brought to justice by the international community, as was the case with the horrific crimes committed in the name of National Socialism (Nazism)".

* * *

This is such a political mine. We must pay tribute to the European public - the McCarthyites came under fire from criticism. Ultimately, we managed to tip the scales. Having adopted the resolution, the deputies rejected the recommendations of the McCarthyites. The resolution had its teeth pulled out. And there were interesting proposals: “to launch a campaign aimed at national awareness of the crimes committed in the name of the communist regime, including the revision of school textbooks...”. Still not enough - and the textbooks will have to be rewritten. The outline of future European textbooks is given in Lindblad’s “Explanatory Note”.

He insists that communist ideology itself "was the root cause of widespread terror, massive violations of human rights, the death of many millions of people, and the plight of entire nations." To be honest, I am not a communist supporter. And I’m ready to discuss its negative aspects. But as a historian, I can’t help but see that the horrors that the McCarthyites talk about are not only the result, and they may well manifest themselves under conditions of completely different ideologies. It seems that, on the one hand, they are trying to distract us from the root of the problems, and on the other, under the guise of fighting left-wing totalitarianism, they are trying to impose a new right-wing manipulative totalitarianism with a liberal package. After all, communist ideology is interpreted by the McCarthyists in an extremely broad way, and in the witch hunt they are preparing, supporters of any leftist ideas will inevitably suffer - not only Marxist-Leninist ones: “various elements of communistism, such as equality and social justice, still captivate many politicians”... That’s how it is! Equality and social justice must be eradicated. And denouncing totalitarianism is just a pretext for this.

Next, Lindblad tries to count the number of victims of communism using the principle of an auction: “Who is more?!” In the USSR, he had 20 million victims, of which, “6 million Ukrainians died of hunger in the course of a well-thought-out state policy in 1932-1933.” Here's how. Stalin and his comrades sat and thought about how to kill 6 million Ukrainians. It’s even strange why Lindblad didn’t mention the figure of 10 million. And then, lo and behold, another Ukrainian nationalist will criticize the PACE rapporteur for concealing the true number of victims of the Holodomor.

Fearing criticism from even more rabid McCarthyists, Lindblad asserts: “The figures given above are documented. They are rough estimates and there is good reason to suspect that they should be much higher." I would like to ask Lindblad to publish materials “documenting” the death of 6 million Ukrainians.

But he has no time for that. He is busy realizing the communist diabolical design: "it becomes clear that the criminal side of communist regimes is not the result of circumstances, but rather the consequence of well-thought-out policies carefully designed by the founders of such regimes, even before they took power into their own hands."

It was Lenin who invented the famine of 1932-1933. Or Marx? Not the point. Since supporters of social justice plan all their atrocities in advance, so that they can then maniacally carry them out regardless of the circumstances. So the left must be nipped in the bud. These are the natural conclusions from Lindblad's report. After all, “in the name of , communist regimes killed tens of millions of rich peasants, kulaks, nobles, bourgeoisie, Cossacks, Ukrainians and other groups. It is completely unclear what communist ideology had against Ukrainians. However, if Lindblad had read Marxist-Leninist literature, he would have discovered to his surprise that the ideologists of communism did not envisage the physical destruction of representatives of these social groups. It was about the liquidation of social relations. So the phrase “These crimes are a direct result of the theory of class struggle, the need to destroy people who were considered useless for building a new society” is nothing more than an invention of the McCarthyites. And they want to include this nonsense in textbooks.

* * *

As one would expect, Lindblad's main complaints about the communist regime relate to the period before 1953. But it is necessary to somehow prove that Russia and the left social movements are the successors of totalitarianism. So it needs to be extended until 1991. Hence the mysterious formulation: “Since the mid-1950s, terror in European communist countries has decreased significantly, but the selective persecution of various groups and individuals has continued. It included police surveillance, arrests, imprisonment, fines, forced psychiatric treatment, various restrictions on freedom of movement, discrimination at work, which often led to poverty and loss of professionalism, public humiliation and slander.” Bah, this is still going on. And all over the world. Especially punishment with fines and slander... Here it is, communism, how it spread. Where there is prison and forced hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital - according to Lindblad - there are clear signs of communist totalitarianism.

For all the absurdity of Lindblad's reasoning, in the end he refuted himself. Pointing out that human rights violations were different in different periods makes the idea meaningless. We can say that in the history of all societies, including capitalist ones, there have been various violations of human rights. Therefore, all societies must be condemned.

By piling up such mountains, McCarthyites claim to teach others history: “Consequently, the public has little knowledge of the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes.” If anyone knows a little about this, then perhaps Lindblad and his consultants. But they are not interested in historical reality, but in political conclusions and sanctions: “Communist parties are active and exist legally in some countries, even if they have not separated themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes in the past.”

Not only parties, but also countries owe a great debt to the world: “The debates and condemnations that have so far taken place at the national level in some member states of the Council of Europe cannot free the international community from the obligation to take a clear position in relation to the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes " Admit that your state was criminal. And we will draw the legal consequences from this for you.

The times of political order for “right ideas” are returning. The scope of pluralism in the new Roman Empire is narrowing. Isn’t the attempt to condemn one of the social ideologies at the PACE level a touchstone for turning “European standards” of political correctness into an ideological Procrustean bed?

Soviet history does not fit into the dogmas of the “European standard”. Soviet society never became completely totalitarian because the regime never controlled all aspects of the lives of the Soviet people. Under the official Marcrist-Leninist regime, for example, Orthodox consciousness was preserved, and the Church continued to operate (and not alone). Writers continued to work whose views did not at all fit into the official ones (classic examples are Bulgakov, Akhmatova, Zoshchenko, etc.). And this is in the most “harsh” years, when we can talk about the totalitarian nature of the regime. And in the 60-80s. Soviet society is full of diversity of ideas, social movements, and cultural movements.

The history of Soviet society is modernization carried out by cruel totalitarian means, and the authoritarian framework of the regime, and the ideas of social justice that cause such horror in PACE, and the greatest advances in science and culture that were ahead of their time, and the defeat of Nazism, and opposition to the imperialism of Western states, and the hope that the world of inequality, domination, and mass poverty is not forever. Modern McCarthyists hope to drive a stake into this. Vain hope. Soviet culture, the Soviet worldview, the left alternative to capitalist globalism are not only not buried - they did not die at all.

A.V. Shubin. Myths of the Soviet country

The red star is a symbol of communist power on the five continents of the globe. The hammer and sickle is a symbol of power of the Union of Workers and Peasants (from Lat. Communis– general, general) – since the 19th century. the idea of ​​a utopian society of universal equality and freedom, as well as the doctrine of such a society.

From the point of view of apologetics, communism is a socio-economic formation based on the socialization of the means of production; this is a scientific and philosophical teaching about the future classless society and the practice of translating this teaching into practice.
From a critical point of view, communism is a utopian ideology of a totalitarian society based on a camp economy; This is one of the extreme forms of collectivism, which leads to oppression and degradation of the social subject - the human person.

In social relations, communist teaching emphasizes the superiority of the interests of the collective over the interests of the individual, on absolute dominance, the subjugation of the human personality to the interests of the community. The alienation of private human interests in communism begins with the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, its expropriation.
The transfer of communist ideas into the sphere of politics, the adoption of communist doctrine - as a rule, leads to the establishment of a totalitarian type of government in the country. After the destruction of the political system of the USSR and the world system of socialism at the end of the 20th century, communist state political practice was condemned in most European countries where communist political regimes previously existed.
Various forms of communism are conventionally bullied into:

Socio-political teachings and philosophy (cm.: Marxism)
political ideology and doctrine (cm.:"scientific communism", "real socialism")
political movements, parties, state entities and interstate groups (blocs) that identified themselves as “communist” (see CPSU, CPC, etc.)

History of communist ideas
Communism, as a practical doctrine and philosophy, has manifested itself at least three times in the history of Europe (not to be confused with the modern concept of “Eurocommunism”). The first expression of communism, as is often thought [Source?], Not Plato at all. Rather, it belongs to medieval thought, probably the first modernization of Christian theology and politics: it is the philosophy of poverty (not to be confused with misery) as a condition of righteousness in the world and the salvation of the community, as it was developed (and tried to be put into practice) in XIII-XIV centuries the radical wing of Franciscanism was equally opposed to mystical or monastic asceticism and the absolutization of private property.
The second expression - several centuries later - is egalitarian communism, the main component of the “bourgeois revolutions” of the 17th-18th centuries, in particular in England and France, of which Winstanley and Babeuf were great theorists: this time it is an essentially secular ideology, designed to build a society by realizing freedom and equality not through the denial of property, but by subordinating it to equality (or resolving the conflict between individual and collective property in an egalitarian manner). This second form of communist thought is based on the representation of the proletariat as the embodiment of the true reality of the people, contrary to the “bourgeois” egoism that was picked up throughout the 19th century.
But then a third concept of communism arose, no less closely connected with the general history of European society: history is created in the context of workers' socialism, i.e. in connection with the representation of the economic contradictions of society and with the anthropology of labor - from Fourier to Marx and Engels. It will place - at the center of the problematic of community - the struggle against the subordination of labor to industrial and financial capital, the hidden conflict within the modern organization of production between two types of productivity or human "development of the forces of production": one on the fragmentation of tasks, the second on cooperation and the unification of the physical and mental abilities.
Karl Marx harshly criticized the utopian “crude and ill-conceived communism” of those who, like Cabet, simply extended the principle of private property to everyone (“common private property”). Crude communism, according to Marx, is the product of “worldwide envy.” But true communism is a positive abolition of the principle of private property, aims to end the exploitation of man by man and the alienation of man and create real moral bonds between individuals and between people and nature. Communist production is a cooperative activity and here, finally, there is no distinction between physical and mental labor. Many anarchists of Marx's contemporaries also defended communal property (Peter Kropotkin called his system "anarcho-communism"), but they feared the centralization that Marxist communism seemed to perpetuate, which could threaten individual freedom. In turn, anarcho-communism leans towards an individualistic worldview in matters of freedom. Communism is characterized by its keywords “freedom”, “equality” and “brotherhood”. Freedom under communism is inherent in the entire society, as well as in each individual member. Therefore, communists cannot imagine the principle of “freedom” without the principle of “equality.” Also, anarchists, following Bakunin, believe that “freedom for everyone is necessary for my freedom.”
Communism as an ideology
Communism as a social idea gained popularity first in Western European countries (especially in France) in the mid-19th century in the circles of the intelligentsia and the urban poor during the so-called “bourgeois revolutions.” The idea of ​​communism as a political movement was formulated by K. Marx and F. Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” in 1848 and in later works. In the forecast component of the “Theory of Communism”, communism is understood as such ideal condition“society of the future”, when all people, members of society will put public interests above their own, understanding the decisive role of society in their lives. In this aspect, communist teaching is also a separate form of utopian worldview [Source?].

A classless state of society (see primitive communism, pre-class or pre-class social system)
The order of social organization of a society in which the society is the owner of all property. In reality, the state is the owner of all property. The state also plans and controls the economy under the structure of a one-party political government. (For example, the policy of "War Communism" during the Civil War 1918-1921)
Theoretical concept of a future classless society, without state public organization (Marxism,"scientific communism"), based on the joint ownership of the means of production and can be considered as an offshoot of socialism. It proceeds from the principle:
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
The political utopian doctrine and program of political parties and movements directly stems from this concept.

Communism as a political doctrine
Communist “iconostasis”: leaders of world communism Communism also denotes a variety of political movements fighting for the establishment, on the one hand, of a classless and stateless society, and on the other, fighting against capitalist exploitation and against the economic alienation of the proletariat class.
There are a significant number of interpretations among communists, the two main ones being Marxism and anarchism. The first division in the communist movement occurred between Marxism and anarchism during the First International (1864-1876). Then the ideas of communism began to be inextricably linked with the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. During the First, Second, and Third Internationals, the prevailing belief was that communism is a socio-economic formation replacing capitalism. The first lower phase of communism is socialism. At the stage of socio-economic maturity of a socialist society, a gradual transition to communism occurs. This theory of transitional “stages” later showed its inadequacy.
In the twentieth century, in particular after the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, Marxists have more influence on the world political order (directly through the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” or indirectly through Marxism-Leninism) than anarchists. Together with the establishment of the USSR and the so-called. The “socialist camp,” and especially along with the victory of Stalinism, is establishing the regime of state communism, which contradicts the principles and objectives of communism (see Stalinism, state capitalism). Stalin's “Thermidor,” which denies the principles of “permanent revolution” in favor of “socialism in a single country,” is systematically criticized by revolutionary Marxists (Trotskyism). Class struggle plays a central role in Marxism. According to this theory, the establishment of communism corresponds to the end of any class struggle, and the class division of people disappears. This did not happen in the USSR, which is why the Soviet regime is called “communist” for ideological reasons (see Cold War).
Communism and terror

See also: red terror

In countries where communists were in power, the method of terror was used. In Soviet Russia in 1918, the “Decree on Red Terror” was adopted, in which the path of terror was declared a “direct necessity.” The Red Terror also spread to other Soviet republics. The continuation of the Red Terror in the USSR was the Stalinist repressions, as well as a series of artificially created famines, which claimed the lives of millions of people.
The communist authorities of other countries also resorted to methods of terror. In particular, the communists of Hungary resorted to terror (in March-July 1919), the communist military junta of Ethiopia (1977-79), and the red army repeatedly suppressed anti-communist uprisings (in particular in 1956 in Hungary, in 1968 in Czechoslovakia).
According to rough estimates by the special rapporteur of the Council of Europe, Geran Lindblad, the largest number of victims of communist power are in China (65 million) and the USSR (20 million).
Criticism of communism
http://site/uploads/posts/2011-01/1295077866_4комунофаС?РеР·РјСѓ.jpeg Monument to "fighters for the freedom of Ukraine, victims of the communist-fascist terror of 1939-54." In Yaremche Monument to the "Victims of Communism" in Krakow, Poland Since the encyclical of Pope Benedict XV in 1920 Bonum Sana and a number of subsequent official documents issued by the heads of the Catholic Church, communism was condemned by the popes for atheism, the desire to destroy the social order in society and undermine the foundations of Christian civilization.
Condemnation in legislative acts of post-communist countries
After the collapse of the USSR, the post-communist countries of Western Europe condemned the communist regime at the official level. In the Czech Republic, the 1993 Law on the Unlawfulness of the Communist Regime and Resistance Against It was passed, in which, in particular, the communist regime was called “criminal, illegitimate and unacceptable.” The Slovak Parliament adopted a similar law in 1996.
The Polish Constitution of 1997 contains an article prohibiting the existence of organizations that preach “totalitarian methods and practices of Nazism, fascism and communism.” And communist crimes appear as a legislative term.
On May 12, 2005, the Seimas of Latvia adopted a “Declaration of Condemnation of the totalitarian communist occupation regime of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was carried out in Latvia. In the same year, the Seimas of Latvia adopted a special law prohibiting the public use of Soviet and fascist symbols. Latvia banned the hammer and sickle. Similar laws were adopted in January 2007 in Estonia, and in June 2008 in Lithuania
Condemnation in speeches of heads of state
The equality between communism and Nazism was also expressed in the official statement of US President George W. Bush, who said the following:

President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko at the opening of the Memorial to the victims of the Holodomor in the Kharkov region said:

Council of Europe resolution
In 2006, a Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was adopted, which unequivocally condemned the crimes of communist totalitarian regimes. In particular, the resolution states:
The resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly also focused on the fact that
In a number of European countries, including Ukraine, there are monuments and memorial complexes in memory of the victims of communist regimes, or some of their crimes. In total, activists count 1,213 monuments and memorial plaques on the territory of the former USSR. Several such monuments exist in Russia.
At the same time, on the territory of the former USSR there are monuments to ideologists and figures of communism. In particular, in Ukraine, as of 2009, there are more than 2 thousand monuments to figures of the totalitarian period.
Communism as a religion
There is also a theory of perception of the phenomenon of communism as a kind of religion. According to the theory, when studying a person who grew up surrounded by communist ideology, many parallels are found between how this person perceives the very idea of ​​communism and other people who are very strongly attached to, for example, Islam, Christianity, etc. All these people are united by the same aggressive attractions towards people who do not agree with their idea; often these people lose the opportunity to analyze their global ideologies and do not tolerate any criticism from people who think differently, although this does not specifically affect them at all. The idea of ​​communism for them turns into truth, is not subject to any doubts, you just need to believe in it and not ask any questions. Since communism does not tolerate the very thought of foreign thinking, it creates a vacuum of faith in a person, filling it itself. This is how communism turns from a form of government into a religion. Particulars regarding this fact indicate that the communists (using the example of the USSR) actually had holy relics - the mummified body of V.I. Lenin, writings - works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, a sanctuary - Lenin's mausoleum, the shape of which was taken from the models of Mesopotamian temples, namely the room was also used as a stand.
Political and ideological trends of the 20th century

Marxism
Anarcho-communism
Leninism
Trotskyism
Stalinism
Maoism
Eurocommunism

Communism as politics
Interstate communist blocs

Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) 1949-1991
Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO) 1955-1991

Attempts at political-state implementation in practice

See also: Real socialism

USSR
Cuba
China
DPRK
Cambodia
Vietnam
Ethiopia

Negative consequences of implementation in practice in the USSR

Civil War 1917-1921
Holodomor in Ukraine 1932-1933
Collectivization and dispossession
Consequences of Communist Party rule in China

The map shows the "people's democracies" of Eastern Europe: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania and East Germany.

Communist regimes are advancing in Europe and Asia

Under Soviet pressure, communist influence in Eastern Europe increased. Countries of “people's democracy” arose, in which a multi-party system and various types of property were initially allowed.

Gradually, the communist and socialist parties began to unite and seize power. Then in 1947-1948. According to very similar schemes, “conspiracies” were uncovered in a number of countries, and opposition parties were defeated. Now communist regimes were established in the countries. In our newspapers we read about the victory of the Communists in the elections in Eastern Europe, as well as about the offensive of the Chinese liberation army.

It was natural for me (and I felt satisfaction) that the peoples of the liberated countries were “taking the path of socialism” (this is a common newspaper cliche of that time). I was only surprised that these countries did not join the Soviet Union. After all, I remembered Stalin’s words:

“When Comrade Lenin left us, he bequeathed to us to strengthen and expand the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We swear to you, Comrade Lenin, that we will fulfill this commandment of yours with honor.”

It now seems to me that Stalin, not yet having an atomic bomb, was cautious, afraid of giving the United States and England a reason to carry out atomic bombings of Soviet cities. However, nothing prevented him from consolidating the gains he had achieved, acting with extreme caution and observing the “legality.”

In Eastern Europe, Stalin pursued precisely this policy, consistently “consolidating” the territorial gains achieved during the war. Having liberated the Eastern European countries from German occupation, Soviet troops remained on the territory of these countries for a long time, introducing a temporary military administration regime. This made it possible to suppress dissent in the parties and bring pro-communist groups and parties to power, although outwardly this was presented as the result of the people's will.

Communist regimes advanced throughout the world after World War II. All events in Eastern European countries, as well as the victory of the communists in China, Korea and North Vietnam, were presented in the Soviet press as successful democratic transformations of countries that rejected capitalism and the exploitation of man by man and embarked on the socialist path of development.

I rejoiced at the successes of these countries, the victories of the communists, the expansion of the socialist camp, the peace camp, which opposed the capitalist camp, the camp of warmongers.

In the previous phrase, I deliberately cited the terminology (the next cliches of Soviet propaganda) used at that time by Soviet propaganda.

But that’s exactly what I thought then and I thought in exactly those clichés. These words were drilled into me.

Reviews

The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.