Under the statue of Christ in Spain appeared a giant poster with the faces of Stalin and Lenin.

The word "Kulak" of pre-revolutionary origin - means "rural usurer". Once again - Kulak, this is not a rich peasant, but a rural usurer.
Maybe it's time for you to study the real facts, but not anti-Soviet propaganda?
By the way, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha .... the teachings of almost all religions of the world directly prohibit usury.
And I don’t understand, you don’t like the fact that Comrade Stalin, like Christ, forbade usury?

 

What is kulak in Russian?
kulak, (Russian: “fist”), in Russian and Soviet history, a wealthy or prosperous peasant, generally
characterized as one who owned a relatively large farm and several head of cattle and horses and
ho was financially capable of employing hired labour and leasing land.

kulak | Russian peasant class | Britannica

SEVERAL head of cattle meant 'more than one.'
Two cows and you were dead.
And yes, a petrol engine defined you as a kulak.

You forced me to look this up - never check before.

Usury was an issue in the Old Testament, particularly with the 'poor.' But not in Christianity - and by
Christianity I don't mean the wolves who usurped the name from the Second Century onwards.
Parable of the talents shows the lord wanted a return on this money, and if not, then put his money
into the bank so he could at least have got interest.

There are most likely many people more wicked than Stalin, but in terms of what he actually DID he
has to be amongst the most wicked people who ever lived (Mao and Ghengis Khan come to mind too)

 

I am ready and I am interested in communicating on these topics, but I beg you not to slip into tabloid communication, like some forum participants.

1) I will start from afar. Most archival sources are already open for study today. The only problem is that they need to come and study. But why do this if Solzhenitsyn's readings work anyway?

There is a wonderful (but strange) poet in Russia - Vladimir Mayakovsky. He has a poem "Listen!" which begins with the lines - "If the stars are lit, then someone needs it." I am sure that you will agree with me that every action has a motive.

Also, in our discussion, I will say another interesting phrase that will be very important in the context of our dialogue. This is a quote from Joseph Goebbels. "Take away the history of the people — and in a generation they will turn into a crowd, and in another generation they can be controlled like a herd" (c)

I will immediately make a reservation that I agree that from 1917 to 1945 there were excesses in the field of human rights, as it is fashionable to call them now. But what was Russia before the Socialist Revolution? (By the way, there is also an interesting point here - today's generation of young people born in the 00s believe that the Communists overthrew Tsar Nicholas II). Today, in some circles of society and increasingly in the press, Russia before the Revolution is called "the Russia we lost." If you look at the statements of Putin's press secretary, then you can find that the very same Russia is an example for "them".

To explain to you the essence of dispossession, it must be said that formally, serfdom was abolished in 1861. But only formally, when the serfs got free, they became free, but without any means of livelihood. People got used to working on the land, and worked there for food. Since they had no way out, they went back to their masters for hire and continued to work for the same masters with whom they were serfs under the same conditions as before. It turns out that they remained the same serfs, only with the opportunity to go to another master. They didn't have much different conditions there, so there was no point in going either.

If you look at Lenin's first Decrees, you will see the following:
A) "About Peace" - Russia withdrew from the First World War unilaterally. However, with the condition that he will not pay a contribution, and the land will not be annexed.
I would like to note that the Russians are tired of the War. Firstly, ordinary soldiers called up for service did not understand at all what they were fighting for. For the Tsar and the Fatherland? Nonsense. For Constantinople? Yes, the Tsar needed the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, he needed Constantinople. But where is Constantinople, and where is Ryazan? Ordinary people don't give a **** about Constantinople, they were more interested in how to find something to eat.
Especially if we take into account the fact that everyone was aware that the troops often had one rifle for three soldiers, and the Tsar introduced helmets only in 1916, because they "spoiled the military appearance of a soldier," so the helmet was also one for three)
B) "About the land" - The essence of this document: all land, natural resources, farms, cattle and horse breeding plants, inventory, and so on - everything was transferred to the ownership of the state. The right to land by Decree was granted to all able-bodied citizens without gender differences. Land plots are periodically required to be divided with an increase in population. The land is assigned to a person as long as he is able to cultivate it. After that, the land plot is withdrawn, and the disabled person receives a pension.

I understand a lot of words, but they are very important for understanding what masses the Bolsheviks covered. It is quite natural that this led to the division of society, and, accordingly, to a Civil War in which thousands of victims will be attributed to Lenin.

But as far as I remember, you don't blame Lincoln or Jefferson for the death of 2% of the population at the level at which Lenin is accused. At the same time, for some reason no one blames Kolchak or Denikin for the death of 2.6% of the Russian population. Although I believe that while Lenin was issuing Decrees, Kolchak was really killing people.

Actually, this is where we come to the kulaks. Who are the kulaks - it will be easier for you if I call them planters, where slaves worked before, and after the Revolution they came for land, which these same slaves received in equal shares. In addition to being planters, they were also engaged in speculative activities, but this was not the worst thing. They gathered antisocial elements around them, simply, they gathered gangs. In remote areas, where the Soviet Government did not immediately reach, they became a kind of "Escobars".

In addition to the peasants, there were workers. It is on the working class that Marx relies in his works. Lenin initially also relied on the workers. But there were not enough workers, since Russia was for the most part an agrarian country. I will not tell you about the Lena gold mines and the shooting of the workers of this mine.

One of the first Decrees of Lenin made it possible to transfer to the state, and in fact, to the people, any enterprise that would contribute to the development of the State.

Church. When the Revolution took place, Great Britain blocked the Bolsheviks' access to their money. The only way to get the money was to sell the royal property and take the tax from the Church. Yes, people destroyed Churches in order to withdraw valuables from the church, and gold. Fact. When Lenin is quoted, he is quoted in isolation from the context.
What does religion teach? Humility. Be patient and you will be rewarded!

Here is the full text of the quote: "The impotence of the exploited classes in the struggle against the exploiters inevitably generates faith in a better afterlife, just as the impotence of a savage in the struggle with nature generates faith in gods, devils, miracles, etc. Religion teaches humility and patience in earthly life, comforting with the hope of a heavenly reward.
And for those who live by someone else's labor, religion teaches charity in earthly life, offering them a very cheap excuse for their entire exploitative existence and selling tickets to heavenly well-being at a reasonable price. Religion is the opium of the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual nonsense in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demands for a life worthy of a human being."

But religion and the Church are completely different things. Believe me, do you think the higher leadership of the Church in modern Russia are such believers? Look at the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church!

So that's what Lenin did? Lenin simply forced the Church to pay the tax. All clergymen were equated with ordinary citizens who are obliged to pay tax.

It turns out that on the one hand, the workers and peasants of the Civil War, on whose side, by the way, a part of the former tsarist military leadership, scientists and similar intellectuals stood up.

On the other hand, those who tried to protect private property and, accordingly, get their hands on what lies badly after the fall of the Tsar. And there were a lot of them. As many as 14 countries came to Russia to take away/protect their own or not so much property here, and they did not mind taking control of the territories. Who are they?
USA, Czechoslovakia, England, France, Japan, China, Romania, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey (Ottoman Empire), Italy, Greece!
When they write about the red terror, for some reason they forget about the "white" terror, especially in Siberia, where, by the way, William Grace was. But Kolchak and Semenov were still maniacs. The Americans at least restrained these perverts a little. Interestingly, look under what flag the "White" army went.

 

Too much to digest.
There's this phenomona Frued called 'Projection', also known as 'transference' or even 'gas lighting.'
So when Stalin said, 'There's a plot to kill me.' It really meant he was plotting to kill others. Same with
the Nth Korean dear leader, 'The USA is trying to destablize the Korean Penninsula with nuclear weapons.'
Precisely what he is doing. Hiter said, 'The Jews want war' and 'The Jews are overunning Europe.' That
of course meant himself.
So when you read of a 'lost Russia' coming from Putin, just reverse it - the Bolshevik era was a lost Russia.
Lost lives, lost economy, lost church, lost history, lost freedom.

 

Fabulous! Short and to the point. Bravo!
For everyone who wants to really understand the reasons for the increased repressions in the USSR in 1937-1938, I highly recommend - From the protocol of interrogation of the accused Yezhov Nikolai Ivanovich dated August 4, 1939. https://istmat.org/node/24552
The site is called "Historical Materials" and publishes declassified documents from Russian archives. The site is in Russian, but you can always use a translator if someone needs it.
The interrogation protocol clearly shows that the increase in the number of repressions is connected with a conspiracy to overthrow Comrade Stalin. The increase in repressions had two main components - 1. put supporters of the conspiracy in important positions and liquidate (or withdraw from politics) supporters of Comrade Stalin.
2. Discredit the authorities.
And I'll point out the fact. If someone thinks that this protocol of interrogation is "intrigues of the NKVD", then pay attention - the protocol of interrogation was immediately stamped "top secret". Agree that knocking out the necessary testimony and immediately imposing a secrecy stamp is absurd. Therefore, I recommend reading it.
By the way, the site has a lot of real historical materials.

 

I don't see the logic in what you write. And here the question is not about Freud. It would be logical to assume in this case that Putin is trying to restore the Russian Empire within the borders that they were before joining the First World War. ( I'm afraid I'm giving you ideas) But he doesn't have that either. As for the Soviet Union, there is nothing but the phrase that the fall of the Union was the greatest tragedy of our State and Alexandrov's music)

 

What I am saying is that the Putin regime is peddling something best understood by psychology and not history.
It's almost an admission, to those who recognize it, that Putin is saying that Communism was a lost time for Russia.

 

There is a good phrase in Russia - You cannot enter the same river twice. There are no ideas of communism in the overwhelming majority in Russia. "Thanks" to Memorials, by the way. You are well aware that any engine of society is a young audience. Young people in Russia are fooled by Ticktock, Instagram and other online services.

I will give the simplest example. The name of the Covid vaccine is Sputnik V. If you ask why the vaccine is called that, 80% of young people between the ages of 18 and 35 will not be able to give you an answer. Moreover, I am sure that 95% will not answer this question.

All that young people know about the rulers of the USSR is that Stalin ate children, and Beria brought them to Stalin. Well, the fact that he shot a hundred thousand million people with his own hand. Dimon from this forum is a vivid example of such a generation.

To be honest, I do not know why Americans can't stand Communists so much. Communists don't fit your management model? Well, the Japanese also, to some extent, do not correspond to this management model.

In addition to all the mythical victims, the Communists were able to launch a satellite into Space, launched a Man into space, and achieved many technical achievements. Did the Communists threaten your system? By what?
Communists carried communism to some countries there? The American is being carried around the countries of democracy. Americans are allowed, Communists are not?

 

Yeah, Sputnik, 1957. Old enough to actually remember the day, or its aftermath.
I applaud the Soviet space program - even if it was by German engineers and attempt to beat
the Americans who were going to launch a satellite in 1958.
America is more opposed to Communism than any other ideology - it is diametrically opposed
to everything Americans believe in. In fact the reason many went to America was to escape the
old European model of religion suppression, monarchical rule, racial hate and anti-opportunity.
Communism didn't exist for many of these migrants, but when it arrived they understood it better
and quicker than Europeans did. Communism isn't just stupid, it's the perfect mechanism to gain
class power (there's that reverse again) and it's totally evil.

 

American oligarchs hate communists. (Just like Russians, French, Germans... and whatever oligarchs hate communists.) Because communism presupposes the absence of exploitation of man by man and the absence of the state as an institution of violence. This poses a threat to the oligarchs. They are afraid of losing wealth and power. Therefore, the oligarchs hate the communists.
The American people are being brainwashed by the American media (which is owned by the oligarchs).
Ask any ordinary American if he supports the ideas of justice, equality, brotherhood. I am sure that any adequate American will say that he supports these ideas. But these are ideas of communist ideology.
And gradually the American people begin to understand and come to the ideas of communism.
In Russia, too, the population did not immediately accept the ideas of communism. This takes time and an adequate perception of reality.

 

The absence of the state was what Marx believed would occur as a natural evolution. Every time communism has been put in place, they never seemed to be able to evolve past the large, powerful dictatorial state, the " dictatorship of proletariat " needed to eliminate capitalism.

 

delete

 

Yes. The dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the destruction of capitalism and the exploitation of man by man.
But communism has never been built in history. There were two attempts. The first time - in one city Paris and lasted 72 days. The second time in Russia and lasted more than 70 years, controlled half the world, and Russia became the second economy in the world in the shortest period. Despite the attempts of the scoundrel Khrushchev to destroy socialism (the first, underdeveloped stage of communism), socialism, as a socio-political system, lasted another 40 years. It was the scoundrel Khrushchev who abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat and introduced de facto capitalist forms of management into the economy. Since then, the economy of the USSR began to degrade.

 

Russia had and has a very large, dictatorial state government.

 

Marx and Lenin did not anticipate a few things. Specifically the possibility that social reforms, innovation, and incentive would drive the quality of live to all time highs. The belief that the falling rate of profit would drive the elites to squeeze the workers was key, they didn't think that reforms and laws would prevent that. We continue to see reforms today in higher minimum wage, welfare, free healthcare, public education etc.

There hasn't been any form of a proletariat in the West for over 50 years and anyone who lives in severe poverty in the West today is a victim of bad personal or family choices or genetic predisposition to poverty. They are not victims of a system. The system today is far superior to anything Marx or Lenin supported.

 

You know I find it interesting that you once decried the invasion of Muslims in Britain. You made a thread about it. Now you are a full blown Commie? How did that happen?

 

Today in Russia is capitalism. Exactly the same as in the US. And therefore in Russia exactly the same dictatorship as in the United States. The only difference is that in Russia the police do not set dogs on people and do not kill innocent citizens as in the USA.

 

I am not a member of the communist party, but I support the ideas of building communism in many ways.
I am against the invasion of Muslims in Britain or any other country in Europe. I am against any religion. I think that in the 21st century, believing in Jesus, Mohammed, Allah ... or someone else is an inadequacy of the perception of reality.
I think that in Europe there are a lot of their own religious madmen, and therefore the arrival of additional fanatics, moreover, with a historically alien religion, is bad. And those who allow this, in my opinion, should be brought to justice on charges of corrupting society and provoking conflicts and unrest. I consider the liberal attitude towards Muslims as stupid as the liberal attitude towards African cannibals.

 

1. Marxism appeared in the 19th century. Naturally, life has changed in 200 years, and the communist ideology will naturally receive a change taking into account the new realities. For example, half a century after Marx, Lenin revised and reformatted Marx's theory. Lenin described the development of capitalism and the inevitability of the transition of capitalism to its highest stage - imperialism. With all the consequences.
Today, taking into account the emergence of new technologies and conditions of consumption, a new adjustment is needed in the development of communist ideas.
And there is nothing surprising in this. Ideology is not dogma. The ideology must be developed.
2. The classic definition of "proletariat" is a matter of ownership of the means of production. If you own the means of production and receive surplus value from a person working for you (exploitation of man by man), you are not a proletariat.
If you are a hired worker, but do not own the means of production, you can be attributed to the proletariat.
3. You write about the fact that in the West there is no poverty for a working person, and only a loser or lazy person lives in poverty. (simplified)
But the question is - in the west, where is it? If we take the EU, Britain, the USA, then to some extent we can agree with you. The average standard of living in these countries is quite high. But look at Mexico, Colombia, Haiti... Bulgaria, Romania,... African countries...
To put it simply, for example, in the United States, a high standard of living is only because in Mexico, Haiti, Paraguay ... - a low standard of living.
And it's not that the American is hardworking and the Mexican is lazy, it's about the fair distribution.
That is, the most important issue is the issue of fair distribution of the results of labor. This is the key question.
And we must understand that the transition from capitalism to socialism, and then to communism is an objective and inevitable process.
As an example - (simplified) There was feudalism. Then the steam engine was invented. This led to the creation of factories and the emergence of a new bourgeois class. For the further development of society, the free movement of goods, finances and labor was necessary. Feudalism slowed down this process. - There was a bourgeois revolution and capitalism defeated feudalism.
Same thing now. If not the ideology of justice, equality, fraternity, then scientific and technological progress will inevitably lead to a change in the political and economic formation to a more progressive one. (It is already impossible to develop societies without a planned (socialist) economy).

 

How do you explain modern Chinese imperialism? Aren't they Communists? Or are they not true Communists?

Surely you understand Communism is inherently flawed. You cannot get people or any species to do something if they have no incentive. The Soviets experienced this first hand. No incentive equals no productivity. No incentive equals no innovation. No incentive means no growth.

In Stalin's era the incentive was a gun to the head, after Khrushchev and the shift in policy the system was doomed to fail. Meanwhile the West saw the greatest economic expansion in human history. This is irrefutable.

Something you need to ask yourself. Is implementing such a system even worth it, regardless of the poor historical performance. How many people died in the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. How many millions of people have to die for an experiment in your opinion? You know the theory, study the actual implementation and practice in history.

I suppose part of it just a psychotic urge to destroy a society they feel they feel apart from. Marx, Lenin, nor any of the top Bolsheviks resembled the average Russian. They had an axe to grind and it seems like you do too.

 

1. Never in the history of mankind has communism been built. Including in China.
2. In China, the socio-political system can be called a transitional period in the construction of socialism. (not communism). Today in China, I would say, the socio-political structure is about the same as it was in Russia during the NEP period. (about the beginning of the 20s of the 20th century). Of course, adjusted for the modern development of technology and other scientific and technological progress.
3. The USSR can be conditionally called a country with was built socialism from about 1936 to 1953.
And during this period, the country became the second economy in the world despite the bloodiest war in the history of mankind. The growth in the well-being of the citizens of the USSR was unprecedented. Never in the history of mankind in any country in the world has there been such a high growth in the well-being of people.
4. You ask - how many victims were there in the civil war in Russia? I will answer you - a lot. But I advise you not to dwell on this issue. Keep asking....for example, who is to blame for the civil war? I can give you the specific name of the person who is guilty of the civil war = this is the general of the tsarist army Kornilov. His actions started the civil war. Also, you should know why there were a large number of victims in Russia - 14 countries fought against Soviet Russia. And it was direct intervention. By the way, they fought against Soviet Russia - and USA, and Britain, and France, and Japan ... etc. They in the literal sense - they killed Russians. By the way, the first concentration camp on Russian soil was built by the British in Arkhangelsk, where they systematically, literally, killed Russians.
I'm wondering if you would like the Russians not to resist, but to allow themselves to be killed? Therefore, you can ask the governments of your countries all questions about the fact that many people died in the civil war in Russia.
ecause it is the governments of your countries that are to blame for the large number of victims during the civil war. Not Lenin, not Stalin, not Martians, not Reptilians ... but the governments of your countries.
And by the way, why don't you write about the insane number of victims in the transition period from feudalism to capitalism? During this period, in percentage terms, disproportionately more people died than during the civil war in Russia.
For example, in Holland, where for the first time in the world capitalism finally won (without rollbacks back to feudalism, as it was, for example, in France - Napoleon is a republic, then a return to the monarchy), the civil war lasted 86 years. Look at Holland, it is not visible on the map, but the civil war there is 86 years old. And look at Russia.
In Russia, the victims of the transition period were disproportionately smaller than what happened in other countries during the transition to capitalism.
5. As I wrote to you earlier, the change of the socio-political system to a more highly developed one, for example, the transition to socialism (for a start), is an objective process and does not depend on anyone's desire.
Like it or not, it will happen.
The only question is the number of victims. The transitional stage can take place relatively peacefully, but it can happen harshly - for example, first, in order to prolong the agony, the ruling class will establish fascism in their countries and will harshly suppress the dissatisfied, then they will inevitably organize a world war .... and only then will there be a change in the socio-political system . The whole question is not in "will or will not be", but the question is "when?" and "how?"

 

I was referring to your claim of Russia's 70 year attempt to build communism. Always had a powerful dictatorial government. The Stateless communism Marx prophesized was a product of his imagination.

 

1.
In the beginning, any change is a product of someone's imagination. For example, during the period of feudalism and monarchy, all the talk about presidential elections, parliamentary elections, equal rights before the law .... and so on, today the obvious realities of the political life of any state, were nothing more than a product of someone's imagination. If you were to ask an average 15th century layman about the election of the head of state, I am sure that you would be ridiculed.
But, as you know, after quite a bit of time by historical standards, all this became a reality.
2.
I repeat many times - communism was not built in any country in the world. We are just going through this process.
To begin with, it is necessary that politically and economically large countries build socialism at home.
As Comrade Lenin said, socialism is the first, underdeveloped phase of communism that has preserved the rudiments of the old system, such as, for example, money.
Socialism is a transition period to communism and its advantage is that a socialist state can exist alongside capitalist countries.
Communism cannot be built in a single country. This is a general process. But socialism, as the lowest stage of communism, can exist in parallel with capitalism....
And further. Any ideology can and must be transformed under changes in socio-economic conditions.
Marx wrote his works in the 19th century, when capitalism was just emerging. Therefore, his works do not meet modern requirements. The works of Lenin and Comrade Stalin are more in line with the present, but even they no longer fully meet the new scientific and technical conditions. Although they describe imperialism and transnational corporations.
The process is underway. And just as at one time capitalism either broke through, then fell into recession (rollback to feudalism), so the construction of a new society will proceed in stages.
By the way, it is possible that socialism will finally win in the USA. And the United States will become the most advanced country in socio-political terms.

 

Marx saw the stateless society, socialism and communism as a natural and inevitable evolution.

 

Nothing would prevent a single country from becoming communist. A communist country wouldnt be able to compete with capitalist countries still in existence.