And when Stalin himself declares that it was he who wrote the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks),” this cannot but cause at least surprise and bewilderment. How can a Marxist-Leninist write about himself like that, raising the cult of his personality to the skies?
Or let’s take the question of the Stalin Prizes. (Movement in the hall.) Even the tsars did not establish such prizes that they would call by their name.
Stalin himself recognized as the best the text of the National Anthem of the Soviet Union, in which there is not a word about the Communist Party, but there is the following unprecedented praise to Stalin: Stalin raised us - to be loyal to the people, inspired us to work and to exploits.
In these lines of the anthem, all the enormous educational, leading and inspiring activities of the great Leninist party are attributed to Stalin alone. This, of course, is a clear retreat from Marxism-Leninism, a clear belittlement and belittlement of the role of the party. For your information, it should be said that the Presidium of the Central Committee has already decided to create a new text of the anthem, which would reflect the role of the people, the role of the party. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)
But without Stalin’s knowledge, his name was assigned to many of the largest enterprises and cities; without his knowledge, Stalin’s monuments were erected throughout the country - these “monuments during his lifetime”? After all, it is a fact that on July 2, 1951, Stalin himself signed a decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which provided for the construction of a monumental sculpture of Stalin on the Volga-Don Canal, and on September 4 of the same year he issued an order to release 33 tons of copper for the construction of this monument. Anyone who has been near Stalingrad has seen the statue that stands there, and in a place where few people visit. And a lot of money was spent on its construction, and this at a time when our people in these areas were still living in Dugouts after the war. Judge for yourself - did Stalin write correctly in his biography that he “did not allow even a shadow of conceit, arrogance, or narcissism in his activities”? At the same time, Stalin showed disrespect for the memory of Renin. It is no coincidence that the Palace of Soviets, as a monument to Vladimir Ilyich, the decision to build which was made over 30 years ago, was not built, and the issue of its construction was constantly postponed and consigned to oblivion. We need to correct this situation and build a monument to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. (Stormy, prolonged applause.) One cannot help but recall the decision of the Soviet government of August 14, 1925 “On the establishment of V. I. Lenin Prizes for scientific work.” This resolution was published in the press, but there are still no Lenin Prizes. This also needs to be fixed. (Stormy, prolonged applause.) During Stalin’s life, thanks to the well-known methods that I have already spoken about, citing facts, as at least the “Brief Biography of Stalin” was written, all events were covered in such a way that Lenin seemed to play a secondary role even during the October Revolution socialist revolution. In many films and works of fiction, the image of Lenin is portrayed incorrectly and unacceptably belittled.
Stalin really loved watching the film “The Unforgettable Year 1919,” where he is depicted riding on the running board of an armored train and almost striking enemies with a saber. Let Kliment Efremovich, our dear friend, pluck up courage and write the truth about Stalin, because he knows how Stalin fought. Comrade It is, of course, difficult for Voroshilov to start this business, but it would be good for him to do it. This will be approved by everyone - both the people and the party. And the grandchildren will thank you for this. (Prolonged applause.)
When covering events related to the October Revolution and the Civil War, in a number of cases the matter was portrayed in such a way that the main role everywhere seemed to belong to Stalin, that everywhere and everywhere he was telling Lenin how and what to do. But this is slander against Lenin! (Prolonged applause.)
I will probably not sin against the truth if I say that 99 percent of those present here knew or heard little about Stalin before 1924, but everyone in the country knew Lenin: the whole party knew, the whole people knew, from young to old. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)
All this must be resolutely reconsidered so that the role of V.I. Lenin, the great deeds of our Communist Party and the Soviet people - the creative people, the creative people - are correctly reflected in history, literature, and works of art. (Applause.)
Comrades! The cult of personality contributed to the spread of vicious methods in party building and economic work, giving rise to gross violations of internal party and Soviet democracy, naked administration, various kinds of perversions, covering up shortcomings, varnishing reality. We have a lot of sycophants, hallelujahists, and defrauders.
It is also impossible not to see that as a result of numerous arrests of party, Soviet and economic workers, many of our cadres began to work uncertainly, with caution, to be afraid of the new, to be wary of their own shadow, and began to show less initiative in their work. And take the decisions of party and Soviet bodies. They began to be drawn up according to a template, often without taking into account the specific situation. Things got to the point where speeches by party and other workers, even at the smallest meetings and meetings on any issue, were made according to a crib sheet. All this gave rise to the danger of the rendering of party and Soviet work and the bureaucratization of the apparatus.
Stalin's isolation from life, his ignorance of the actual state of affairs on the ground can be clearly demonstrated by the example of the management of agriculture. Everyone who was even the slightest bit interested in the situation in the country saw the difficult state of agriculture, but Stalin did not notice this. Did we tell Stalin about this? Yes, they said, but he did not support us. Why did this happen? Because Stalin did not go anywhere, did not meet with workers and collective farmers and did not know the actual situation on the ground. He studied the country and agriculture only from films. And the films embellished and glossed over the state of affairs in agriculture. Collective farm life in many films was depicted in such a way that the tables were bursting with the abundance of turkeys and geese. Apparently, Stalin thought that this was actually the case.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin looked at life differently; he was always closely connected with the people: he received peasant walkers, often spoke at factories and factories, traveled to villages, and talked with peasants.
Stalin cut himself off from the people; he did not go anywhere. And this went on for decades. His last trip to the village was in January 1928, when he went to Siberia on grain procurement issues. How could he know the situation in the village? And when Stalin was told in one of his conversations that the situation in our agriculture is difficult, the situation in the country is especially bad with the production of meat and other livestock products, a commission was created, which was tasked with preparing a draft resolution
“On measures for the further development of livestock farming on collective and state farms.” We have developed such a project.
Of course, our proposals at that time did not cover all the possibilities, but ways to improve public livestock farming were outlined. It was then proposed to raise procurement prices for livestock products in order to increase the material interest of collective farmers, MTS and state farm workers in the development of livestock farming. But the project we developed was not accepted; in February 1953 it was postponed.
Moreover, when considering this project, Stalin made a proposal to increase the tax on collective farms and collective farmers by another 40 billion rubles, since, in his opinion, peasants live richly and, by selling only one chicken, a collective farmer can fully pay off the state tax. Just think, what did that mean? After all, 40 billion rubles is an amount that the peasants did not receive for all the products they handed over. In 1952, for example, collective farms and collective farmers received 26 billion 280 million rubles for all the products they delivered and sold to the state.
Was Stalin’s proposal based on any data? Of course not. Facts and figures in such cases did not interest him. If Stalin said something, it means it is so - after all, he is a “genius”, and a genius does not need to count, he only needs to look to immediately determine how everything should be. He said his word, and then everyone should repeat what he said and admire his wisdom.
But what was wise about the proposal to increase the agricultural tax by 40 billion rubles? Absolutely nothing, since this proposal did not come from a real assessment of reality, but from the fantastic fabrications of a person divorced from life. ... Now in agriculture we have begun to gradually get out of a difficult situation. The speeches of the delegates to the 20th Party Congress make each of us happy, when many delegates say that there are all conditions to fulfill the tasks of the sixth five-year plan for the production of basic livestock products not in five years, but in 2-3 years. We are confident in the successful implementation of the tasks of the new five-year plan. (Prolonged applause.)
SPEECH AT THE 19TH PARTY CONGRESS
(The delegates greet the appearance of Comrade Stalin on the podium with stormy, long-lasting applause, turning into an ovation. Everyone stands up. Shouts: “Hurray for Comrade Stalin,” “Long live Comrade Stalin!”, “Glory to the great Stalin!”
Comrades!
Allow me to express gratitude on behalf of our congress to all fraternal parties and groups whose representatives honored our congress with their presence or who sent greetings to the congress - for friendly greetings, for wishes of success, for trust. (Stormy, prolonged applause, turning into ovation).
This trust is especially valuable to us, which means a willingness to support our party in its struggle for a bright future for peoples, in its struggle against war, in its struggle to preserve peace. (Stormy, prolonged applause)
It would be a mistake to think that our party, which has become a powerful force, no longer needs support. This is not true. Our party and our country have always needed and will continue to need trust, sympathy and support from fraternal peoples abroad.
The peculiarity of this support is that any support for the peace-loving aspirations of our party from any fraternal party means at the same time support for one’s own people in their struggle to preserve peace. When the English workers in 1918-1919, during the armed attack of the English bourgeoisie on the Soviet Union, organized the struggle against the war under the slogan “Hands off Russia,” it was support, support, first of all, for the struggle of their people for peace, and then support for the Soviet Union. When Comrade Torez or Comrade Tolyatti declare that their peoples will not fight against the peoples of the Soviet Union (stormy applause) then this is support, first of all, support for the workers and peasants of France and Italy fighting for peace, and then support for the peace-loving aspirations of the Soviet Union. This feature of mutual support is explained by the fact that the interests of our party not only do not contradict, but, on the contrary, merge with the interests of peace-loving peoples. (Stormy applause). As for the Soviet Union, its interests are generally inseparable from the cause of world peace.
It is clear that our party cannot remain in debt to the fraternal parties and it itself must, in turn, provide support to them, as well as to their peoples in their struggle for liberation, in their struggle for preservation? peace. As you know, she does just that. (Stormy applause). After our party took power in 1917 and after the party took real measures to eliminate capitalist and landlord oppression, representatives of the fraternal parties, admiring the courage and successes of our party, awarded it the title of “Shock Brigade” of the world revolutionary and labor movement. By this they expressed the hope that the successes of the Shock Brigade would ease the situation for the peoples languishing under the yoke of capitalism. I think that our party justified these hopes, especially during the Second World War, when the Soviet Union, having defeated German and Japanese fascist tyranny, freed the peoples of Europe and Asia from the threat of fascist slavery. (Stormy applause).
Of course, it was very difficult to fulfill this honorable role while the “Shock Brigade” was the only one and while it had to fulfill this advanced role almost alone. But it was. Now it's a completely different matter. Now that new “Shock Brigades” have appeared in the people’s democratic countries from China and Korea to Czechoslovakia and Hungary, now it has become easier for our party to fight, and the work has become more fun. (Stormy, prolonged applause).
Particularly noteworthy are those communist, democratic or worker-peasant parties that have not yet come to power and that continue to work under the heel of bourgeois draconian laws. It is, of course, more difficult for them to work. However, it is not as difficult for them to work as it was difficult for us, Russian communists, during the period of tsarism, when the slightest movement forward was declared a grave crime. However, the Russian communists survived, were not afraid of difficulties and achieved victory. The same will happen with these parties.
Why will it not be so difficult for these parties to work in comparison with the Russian communists of the tsarist period?
Because, firstly, they have before their eyes such examples of struggle and success as are available in the Soviet Union and people's democratic countries. Consequently, they can learn from the mistakes and successes of these countries and thus make their work easier.
Because, secondly, the bourgeoisie itself, the main enemy of the liberation movement, became different, changed in a serious way, became more reactionary, lost ties with the people and thereby weakened itself. It is clear that this circumstance should also facilitate the work of revolutionary and democratic parties. (Stormy applause).
Previously, the bourgeoisie allowed itself to be liberal, defended bourgeois-democratic freedoms and thereby created popularity among the people. Now there is no trace left of liberalism. There is no more so-called “personal freedom” - individual rights are now recognized only for those who have capital, and all other citizens are considered raw human material, suitable only for exploitation. The principle of equality of people and nations has been trampled, it has been replaced by the principle of full rights for the exploiting minority and the lack of rights for the exploited majority of citizens. The banner of bourgeois-democratic freedoms has been thrown overboard. I think that you, representatives of the communist and democratic parties, will have to raise this banner and carry it forward if you want to gather the majority of the people around you. There is no one else to lift it. " Stormy applause).
Previously, the bourgeoisie was considered the head of the nation; it defended the rights and independence of the nation, placing them “above all else.” Now there is no trace left of the “national principle”. Now the bourgeoisie sells the rights and independence of the nation for dollars. The banner of national independence and national sovereignty has been thrown overboard. There is no doubt that you, representatives of the communist and democratic parties, will have to raise this banner and carry it forward if you want to be patriots of your country, if you want to become the leading force of the nation. There is no one else to lift him. (Stormy applause). This is how things stand at present. It is clear that all these circumstances should facilitate the work of communist and democratic parties that have not yet come to power.
Consequently, there is every reason to count on the success and victory of the fraternal parties in the countries under the rule of capital. (Stormy applause).
Long live our fraternal parties!
May the leaders of the fraternal parties live and live well! (Prolonged applause).
Long live peace between nations! (Prolonged applause).
Down with the warmongers! (Everyone stands up. Stormy, long-lasting applause, turning into ovation. Shouts: “Long live comrade, Stalin!”" Hurray for Comrade Stalin!”, “Long live the great leader of the working people of the world, Comrade Stalin,” “Hurray for the Great Stalin!”, “Long live peace between peoples!” Shouts: “Hurray”).
In the Brezhnev USSR during the era of decline, “stormy and prolonged applause” was often heard - at least that’s what the newspapers of that time wrote.
And I'll tell you about other applause.
The other day I watched the play “Evil Spirits” based on the famous novel by Pikul at the “Commonwealth of Taganka Actors” theater.
There the action takes place against the backdrop of old newsreels. And every time they showed Stalin, there was applause in the hall.
Stalin is loved and popular today - opinion polls testify to this. Moreover, he is loved not by calloused senile pennies, who can be ignored, but by young people. This is news.
In the 90s and even in the 2000s, it was different: young people stood for the novelty coming from the West, and the old people stood for Soviet antiquity, which Stalin embodied.
The implication was: the old people will leave and Stalinism will go away. But 65 years after the death of the Father of Nations, what is happening: the ideological and political unity of Soviet society is growing stronger, as they expressed it in Soviet times. Today this is the unity of “grandfathers” and “grandsons,” but there are also many “fathers” among them. And the center of crystallization is the powerful figure of Stalin. This is the banner around which the people's militia is quickly gathering. It’s ideological for now, but the hour is not far off - organizational unity will begin.
The impression is that fate itself contributes to Stalin’s popularity. Judge for yourself. In the 80s, when the anti-Stalin howl was launched, the main plot was repressions, 1937. It’s night, ruthless security officers break into the apartment of the peacefully sleeping People’s Commissar, take the father of the family to the Lubyanka, the children cry, the wife wrings her hands: “Damn him, bloody tyrant, forever and ever!”
Indeed, quite a few of them were taken away: on the House on the embankment there are so many memorial plaques with the last number 1937. But here is the irony of history: having promoted the theme of repressions against presumptuous “boyars,” the detractors and denouncers of Stalinism unexpectedly worked in favor of the Father of Peoples. The fact that, according to the plan, should have turned people away from Stalin forever, is today widely perceived as a very attractive side of his activities! Chairman Mao called such events “fire at headquarters.”
Today in Russia, many ordinary people view repressions against presumptuous leadership as a useful and inevitable matter. Recently one pensioner told me: “Until they are all transplanted, there will be no sense; Stalin is just not on them".
Another thing that makes the Generalissimo kind to the people is his selflessness and everyday modesty. He himself lived simply and pulled down his boyars. Today, unbridled material inequality, to which the Russian people, unlike the inhabitants of India or Latin America, are not accustomed, works for Stalin.
Under Stalin, many talented people came to the fore: without them, the breakthrough that amazed the whole world would not have taken place. Today, with all the fuss around the “new leaders,” the path to the top is very difficult for the common man. This happens all over the world, but we live not all over the world, but in our own country. And, naturally, we remember the times when it was not so.
What else do people look for in Stalin? It seems to me that it is true. All memoirists, recalling their work with Stalin, unanimously say: most of all, the Leader punished for lies. Not for a mistake - for lies and misinformation. From his employees he demanded substantive knowledge of facts and personal insight into the subject. This is the only way to achieve results in any activity - to know how the fragment of reality that we are trying to influence works. In the old days, this was well understood - and in the process of raising children, lying was punished most severely. But it was a long time ago.
Young people entering life want to understand how the world works - and they cannot. The school does not give a clear picture of the world, and it itself does not have one. This guy graduated from school - and where? He enters the so-called university, where he is supposed to be taught something useful. And it often turns out that all this is make-believe: they are not going to teach him, and the teachers themselves know little. Everyone cheerfully and energetically lies: about rights, opportunities, success. And the boy would have a job in his specialty, as it was in the time of his grandfathers. That would be a real success!
Young people want to become specialists, to advance, but the world of toxic fog forces them to become a precariat - people without specific occupations. They catch the stories of their grandfathers about their youth and call on Stalin.
For all these reasons, Stalin's appearance is greeted with applause. They are waiting for him, and he will appear - in a new guise, give it time.
James Adams:
Dear Russian gentlemen! Stand up to defend the constitution! The peoples of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt have already done this! Now it's your turn!!!
McCain:
We are confident that the people of Libya today are an inspiration to people in Tehran, Damascus and even Beijing and Moscow. They inspired and inspire the whole world
And away we go - the gradual increase in sentiment towards the cherished election day is ensured by both external factors (the activation of that very external enemy that does not exist because it can't be), and internal (political discredit by the party in power of the expediency of its existence - the guys were not taught not to cut the branch on which you are sitting). And this is not to mention the savory spitting of the candidate tandem in the face of the electorate at the recent United Russia congress. The seething of shit has engulfed our entire multinational community - both on the Internet and off it.
The illogicality of such a straightforward and stupid gesture can only be explained by the invisible gopher (meaning) that exists - United Russia as an instrument for making legislative decisions has completely exhausted itself. The applause, excitement and general rejoicing reminded me of another excerpt, but not from the book of Comrade. Budyonny (it seems), about which I already told our silent readers earlier, but some other source, whose ISBN I can hardly remember. So, I’ll retell it: I didn’t follow Comrade’s lead. Stalin, who wished to step aside a little to “let go of the control mechanisms” and accepted with glee the fact that the cargo universal responsibility will continue to rest on the shoulders of I.V. The 20th Congress is a different story, but the chewing irresponsible herd did not disappear anywhere and just as successfully accepted the other kind of information. Crowd elitism in action. However, using the Google search engine, let me add a couple of quotes.
... on Malenkov’s face I saw a terrible expression - not so much fear, no, not fear, but an expression that could be on a person who, more clearly than anyone else, or more clearly, in any case, many others, realized the mortal danger that hung over everyone heads and which others have not yet realized: you cannot agree to this request of Comrade Stalin, you cannot agree that he resign this one, the last of his three powers, it is impossible. Malenkov’s face, his gestures, his expressively raised hands were a direct plea to everyone present to immediately and decisively refuse Stalin’s request. And then, drowning out the words that were already heard from behind Stalin: “No, we ask you to stay!” or something like that, the hall buzzed with the words “No! No! Please stay! Please take your request back!”
And Stalin did not insist on his request.
It can be done another way:
Comrades! We must all unanimously and unanimously ask Comrade Stalin, our leader and teacher, to continue to be the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
Stormy applause followed.
Stalin:
- There is no need for applause at the Central Committee Plenum. It is necessary to resolve issues without emotions, in a businesslike manner. And I ask to be relieved of my duties as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. I'm already old. I don't read papers. Choose another secretary.Marshal S.K. Timoshenko stood up and said in a loud voice:
- Comrade Stalin, the people will not understand this. We, all as one, elect you as our leader - General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. There can be no other solution.Everyone stood and applauded his words. Stalin stood looking into the hall, then waved his hand and sat down.
“Why this retreat?” - Misha would not have asked such a question, due to its obvious absurdity (but he would have immediately remembered the recent congress, I know for sure)) - after all, over all these years, absolutely nothing (globally and fundamentally) has changed: not a single one has disappeared in the world a system of exploitation and oppression of workers, nor a system of collective irresponsibility and conscious submission to people who know how to take responsibility for both popular (including populist) decisions and unpopular (including rational) decisions.
The Russian leader's speech was interrupted by thunderous applause from the delegates. The audience gave a standing ovation.
“This applause gives me the right not to explain what experience and
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has authority,” Medvedev said.
Medvedev is not fumbling now, just as he was not fumbling these four years that flew by so quickly. A simple rule: “don’t do shit and don’t work with idiots” doesn’t work in Russian conditions. Even by shooting criminals of various kinds in batches, we do not get rid of, excuse me, fools. There is no doubt that everyone is naive and unintelligent in their own way, in their own field and within the framework of their own worldview. The fixed idea of the absolute extermination of all-encompassing ignorance is currently utopian, although not without meaning: obedient fools (the herd) are cool exactly until the moment they are fooled, thereby sending them in the opposite direction - against the system that gave birth to them.
In this context, “fools” act as an ideal weapon for “overthrowing the system”, because we all know the expression “you cannot arrest an idea”, and there will be those who want to believe in yet another piece of nonsense, a matter of technology. The 21st century has its place.
It would seem, what does the modern Russian education system have to do with it?
P.S. Returning to our gophers, sheep and the motives for such mockery of the electorate, we should predict the subsequent strengthening of the role of the newly created ONF (from those who do not stew in United Russia shit), communists (from those whose ideals are somewhat different from the dominant ones) and the liquidation of United Russia as a meaningless gang. . Whether this will actually be the case - time will tell, the orange mood among the politically active population and those who go to rallies “out of nothing to do.”