STALIN AND THE WIND OF HISTORY- II : ANDREI FURSOV
[Andrei Fursov is a Russian Historian and Sociologist, who has written extensively on the real agenda of de-stalinization and the psychology operating behind it. Socialist India is publishing this very important essay by Fursov in 3 parts. This is the second part of the essay. ]
The first part can be read here : https://blogsocialistindia.wordpress.com/2018/10/20/stalin-and-the-wind-of-history-i-andrei-fursov/
But it’s not just that. The simple truth is this: the one who led the team of at least 10 people, knows that absolute power is impossible — and it is even less possible, the more subordinates. Most of those who wrote and wrote about Stalin, never, nothing and no one was in charge was not responsible, i.e. in this sense the essence of people is irresponsible. In addition to power, they often project their ambitions, fears, grievances, desires, “sleepy thoughts are swinging” (N. Z), and, last but not least, the craving for denunciation (it’s no secret that most of the Soviet era of Stalin and the KGB, the former hate snitches, informers, it’s easier to hate the system and its leader, than to despise his own meanness — displacement, you know). Absolute power is the dream of cointelligence, who found one of his reflections in “the Master and Margarita”; among other things, is why the novel became a cult for cointelligence (“Notes of a dead man”, where this layer was revealed to mirror, not steel). To the point of the system to the personality of one man — there is something of social schizophrenia, and from infantilism, not to mention the professional failure.
It could be observed and a mass of other absurdities, errors, and fraud “menoscikov garbage” on the grave of Stalin, but what’s the point in digging poisoned by lies and hatred, mixed with complexes and phobias brains? More interesting to disassemble more: causes hatred for Stalin, fear of the entire layers and groups in our country and abroad, fear and hatred, which does not go of the past and, on the contrary, seems to grow as the distance from the Stalin era. Who knows, maybe this is the main Military Secret of the Soviet era, which is not given to unravel the military secret which hangs over them like a “sword of Damocles”?
It is often said: “Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.” Actually the person to no lesser extent determined not by friends and enemies: “Tell me who your enemy is, and I’ll tell you who you are.” Reflect on Stalin through the prism of hate and fear him of his enemies and their lackeys.
The attitude of the leaders: kings, General secretaries, presidents, — an interesting thing because of its, at least superficially, paradoxical. In Russian history there were three cool ruler — Ivan the terrible, Peter I and Joseph Stalin. The most violent and destructive was the work of the second: during his reign the population decrease was approximately 25% (people measures, ran); at the time of Peter’s death the Treasury was almost empty, ruined economy, and from Peter’s fleet in a few years, left three ships. And it’s a great modernizer? The people Peter was the Antichrist — the only Russian Tsar Antichrist, and this is very significant. But Ivan IV went down in history as the terrible, and his time in the XVII century. remembered as the last decades of peasant freedom. And oprichnina in people is almost a bad word is not mentioned — it is “merit” liberal Romanov historians. Stalin, unlike Peter, left behind a great power on the material Foundation of which, including nuclear, we live still, but Russia is still considered a major power (albeit regional, but without Stalin the Foundation of the us was and is awaiting the fate of the Serbs, Afghans and Libyans, no illusions here, no need to feed).
Paradox, but of the three rulers Peter, despite the extreme personal violence and disastrous reign, love of power and a significant part of the intelligentsia. He didn’t get a tenth of the criticism that liberal historiography and journalism brought down on the heads of Ivan the terrible and Joseph Stalin. The terrible king was no place on the monument “Millennium of Russia”, and Peter — in the foreground. What Peter had done, what did John and Joseph? A very simple thing: let the top steal on a large scale, was liberal to the “mischief” of this particular layer. For this kind of power (the portrait of Peter I in the office of Chernomyrdin is very symbolic) and reflect her interests, tastes and preferences of a particular segment of historians and publicists. Ivan the terrible and Stalin were tough and even cruel in relation, first, to the top. “Damned caste!” — these are the words of Stalin, when he learned that evacuated to Kuibyshev nomenclature tries to arrange for his children’s private school.
Throughout his life in power, Stalin opposed the “accursed caste”, not allowing it to turn into a class. He knew, as this transformation of the “caste” will oppose the construction of socialism — that is what Stalin meant when he spoke of rising class struggle as you progress in the course of building socialism. As demonstrated by restructuring, the leader was absolutely right: already in 1960-ies formed quasiclassical shadow of the USSR-2, which in Alliance with the West and destroyed the USSR-1 with all its achievements. In this case the real discontent of the population was due to the USSR-2, ie deviation from the model, but interested layers cranked slick propaganda trick: put the population of the USSR-2 with its flaws, growing inequality, artificially created shortages, etc. as the initial design model of the USSR-1, which we urgently need “reform”.
In Soviet times, as during Stalin’s lifetime and after his death, the leader of the hated mainly two power groups (and thus related groups of cointelligence). First, this is the part of the Soviet establishment, which was aimed at world revolution and whose members considered Stalin a traitor to the Affairs of the world revolution or, at least, a draft Dodger from her. It is about the leftist-globalists-Comintern, for which Russia, the USSR were just a springboard for world revolution. They, of course, could not appeal to any “socialism in one, separately taken country” (i.e. the revival of “Empire” in the “red version”), nor appeal to Russian national traditions, which they used to look down upon, nor the abolition in 1936 of the celebration on November 7 as the First day of the world revolution, nor the appearance in 1936 of the term “Soviet patriotism” or more. It is significant that already in the mid-1920s, G. Zinoviev, “third Grisha” Russian history (he would know those who are numbered, how pathetic even in comparison with the third will be the fourth), argued the necessity of removing Stalin from the post of Secretary General said that, “I do not like the Comintern”, and one of the main critics of Stalin in the 1930-ies was a high-ranking functionary of the Kominternovsky O. Pyatnitsky.
The second group of stalinisation can be called “Soviet liberals”. What is “liberal Soviet-style”? Of course, this is not a liberal in the classical sense, and indeed not a liberal — even nize-e-enko-nize-e-enko not liberal. Soviet nomenklatura liberal — interesting can be customized processing: is the official who sought to consume more than it ought on the rigid rules of the Soviet-item Ranzhirovanie-hierarchical system of consumption, and therefore ready to change the power in wealth, more eager to travel to the West through his fingers and looking at the shadow economy with which it merges in more social ecstasy.
In our day it is called corruption, but to subsistema this term is hardly applicable, corruption is the use of the public sphere of private activities and interests. The fact of the matter is however, that in sovremennosti was not legally fixed differences between these areas, since there was no private sphere — “all around collective, all around me.” It is corruption must go about undermining the system, which from time — to-time (mid 1970-ies, when the country has experienced unaccounted oil dollars) were quantitative in nature. Thus, it is more correct to speak about the deformation of the system. These deformers and Stalin hated the most, because the nomenclature and near-nomenclature thieves realized that if it or similar orders of retaliation can not be avoided; so feared the coming to power of neostalinist A. shelepina, put on Brezhnev — and lost. It was the “hero Malaya Zemlya” increased shadow of the USSR-2 (not shadow economy, namely the shadow of the USSR, connected with the shadow economy, and with Western capital, its supranational structures, Western intelligence agencies), but the shadow under Brezhnev knew her place, waiting for the time, and since the mid-1970s, ready to pounce, but under Gorbachev, she took the place of the master, destroying front-USSR 1. Real USSR in the early 1980-ies resembled a galactic Empire of Asimov “the Academy” (“Foundation”) — a happy facade when eaten the insides. Only in the USSR, unlike the Empire, there was no mathematics Selden with his plan — we had a “mathematician”-resetmeter B. Berezovsky and that’s it. But back to stalinophobia. She quite clearly corallium with pohrebinskyi installations with installations on consumption as the meaning of life. It is symbolic that one of the “kovarnyh of anti-Stalinist” stated on television: the national idea can keep and give me the opportunity to consume. If this type does not hate Stalin and Stalinism? . Stalinism is a historical work, installation work as the purpose and meaning of life, the USSR was a creative, highly spiritual project that is recognized even by those who the Soviet Union is clearly not sympathetic. Indicative in this respect phrase said former education Minister Andrei Fursenko that the defect (sic!) the Soviet school was the fact that she sought to educate man, whereas arapovski school — to bring qualified consumers. This, then, is the national, or rather, group idea, as the consumer and “petroplasma” no nationality, the main thing — the trough, and who will provide it, their own or others, minor matters, was so much grueling stick.
It is indicative the following. The same character who asked for “holiday consumption”, expressed in the sense that if the land East of the Urals will be able to master the world government, so it will take them. So potreblenija install antistalinist coincides with globalism are two sides of the same coin. So a line is drawn from antistalinist to smerdiakovs, i.e. to Russophobia. The social world of the anti-Stalinist — a global “barnyard”, whose main goal — to provide consumption under the guidance and supervision of a world government. Stalin thrice thwarted construction of such a world on Russian soil, and that is, I hate the anti-Stalinist. All prosaically, the same talk about freedom and democracy, “Soviet totalitarianism” of the former Soviet careerists and informers nobody can cheat.
Paradoxically, they were part of the left (conventionally: “the Trotskyites,” the left-wing globalists) and the right part (related: “bucharica”). In this respect it becomes clear that the “Trotskyist-bugarinsky block” is not a violation of common sense, logic and dialectic, Stalin, replying to a question as possible left-right block, formulated as: “Go left — to-right will come. Go right — you will come to the left. Dialectics”.
Fear of the late item before Stalin — is the fear of the “shadow of the USSR” before starting the project, fear the parasite before healthy body, before the retribution of him, fear of people. After 1991, this fear has found a new, explicit, and not hidden, class dimension, which, as demonstrated from time to time de-Stalinization campaign, does this fear panic, fatal.
An important question about the causes of hatred of Stalin in the West. Here two aspects – the practical and political metaphysico-historical. Practice-the political aspect is simple: Samaria Stalin, the enemies of Russia and Russians questioned our victory in the great Patriotic/Second world war, and consequently, the right of the Russian Federation to be among the great powers, belonging to the club which still strongly depends on the participation in the anti-Hitler coalition and the role in it.