There was socialism in the USSR. What kind of socialism was there in the Soviet Union and did it exist? There was no communism in the USSR. neither

Socialism in the USSR: a historical overview of the phenomenon.

Soviet Union was the first state created on the basis of Marxist socialism. Until 1989, the Communist Party directly controlled all levels of government; the party's Politburo actually ruled the country, and its general secretary was the most important person in the country. Soviet industry was owned and controlled by the state, and agricultural land was divided into state farms, collective farms, and small plots of land. Politically, the USSR was divided (from 1940 to 1991) into 15 union republics - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Russia, officially the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), was only one of the republics within the USSR, but the terms "Russia", "USSR" and "Soviet Union" were often used interchangeably.

Lenin era

The USSR was the first successor state Russian Empire and a short-lived Provisional Government.
The fundamental policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) was socialized from the very beginning. Between 1918 and 1921, in a period called “War Communism,” the state took control of the entire economy, largely through the centralization of planning and the elimination of private property. This led to inefficiency and ruin, and in 1921 there was a partial return to market economy, with the adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP). The NEP marked the beginning of a period of relative stability and prosperity. In 1922, Germany recognized the Soviet Union, and most other powers except the United States followed suit in 1924. Also in 1924, a Constitution was adopted, based on the dictatorship of the proletariat and economically based on public ownership of land and means of production (in accordance with the revolutionary proclamation of 1917).

Stalin era

The dogma of the New Economic Policy, created in 1921, was replaced by full state planning with the adoption of the first Five-Year Plan (1928-32). There was a transfer to the Gosplan (state planning commission), the setting of goals and priorities for the entire economy emphasized the production of capital rather than consumer goods. The system of collective farms and state farms was sharply rejected by the peasantry. WITH new strength confiscation of personal property of residents of villages and hamlets, persecution of religious denominations, and repression against all segments of the population broke out.

Thaw

The death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 marked the beginning of a new era in Soviet history. "Collective leadership" was curtailed. Soviet citizens received more personal freedom and civil rights. Georgy Malenkov replaced Stalin as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, while Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, began to play an increasingly important role in planning policy. In 1955, Malenkov was replaced by Nikolai Bulganin. At the 20th All-Union Congress (Jan. 1956), Khrushchev harshly condemned Stalin's dictatorial rule and personality cult. Nikita Sergeevich replaced N.A. Bulganin in 1958, thus becoming the leader of both the government and the party. In general, his reign is characterized by a change in the situation of the country, while the CPSU continues to dominate in all spheres of Soviet life.

Stagnation

Khrushchev was quietly and peacefully removed from all posts in 1964. He was replaced by the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee L.I. Brezhnev (who in 1960 became chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR). The official reasons for Khrushchev's overthrow were his advanced age (70 years old) and his deteriorating health. The truth was dissatisfaction with Nikita Sergeevich’s policies and his style of government. In particular, he was criticized for the poor performance of the economy, especially in the agricultural sector (crop failure in 1963); for aggravating the position of the USSR in the Cuban missile crisis; deterioration foreign policy with China; extravagant style of behavior. Several political figures lost their posts. The new leaders emphasized collective leadership, but because of Brezhnev's position, Brezhnev had a greater advantage and by 1970 he became the most powerful man in the country. The era of stagnation was in full swing. There was significant stagnation of the Soviet economy. The persecution of opponents has intensified state power. At the end of the 1960s, an attempt was made to change attitudes towards Stalin. Foreign policy was based on peaceful coexistence with the West.

Perestroika

Gorbachev inherited a country with a difficult economic and foreign policy situation. In his first nine months in office, he replaced 40% of the regional leadership. Like his mentor Andropov, he launched an active campaign against alcohol consumption. Like Khrushchev, he approved measures aimed at removing social restrictions. The measures, which Gorbachev called "glasnost" and "perestroika"), were intended to improve the Soviet economy by increasing the free flow of goods and information. Glasnost received an immediate response when in 1986 there was an explosion at power unit 4 Chernobyl nuclear power plant. For the first time, the poverty of the Soviet people, corruption, theft of the country's resources, and the unnecessaryness of the Afghan invasion received general condemnation. Rapid and radical changes began. Dissidents were released from custody and allowed to express their opinions. The USSR signed an agreement on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
There is no single position on the historical significance of ideology in the life of the country. High social security of the population, a developed military-industrial complex, achievements in culture and sports are strongly opposed by violations of human rights and freedoms, persecution of church life, control over all areas of life.

Toleubek Makhyzhanov. Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan

7 November (October 25) 1917 years, oppressed by centuries-old tsarist despotism and emerging capitalism, Russian workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors, under the leadership of the Communist Party led by V.I. Lenin, carried out a proletarian socialist revolution. The Provisional Government was overthrown and dictatorship proletariat- in the shape of Republic of Soviets. Great October Socialist Revolution was a natural consequence of progressive social development as a result of a long class struggle working people, which took place under the conditions of monopoly capitalism in Russia. As a result of her victory, the first in the world history of mankind arose socialist state.
Socialism - this is the lowest stage of the socio-economic formation - communism, which is based on state (national) ownership of the means of production, the social division of labor, as well as the planned and equal distribution of material goods among all members of a socialist society.
The economic basis of socialism was socialist ownership of the means of production. It made it possible to concentrate material and financial resources and labor resources of Soviet society on solving large-scale economic and social programs.
26 October 1917 year for 2nd The Congress of Soviets adopted epoch-making documents:
1 . Peace Decree. It became the threshold to the end of a senseless war that claimed the lives of more than 10- ten million people.
2 . Decree on land. He announced about confiscation of all landowners' land without redemption and transfer of all land into the hands of the people.
3 . For the first time in the thousand-year world history of mankind, a decree was adopted “ About cancellation death penalty».
4 . A decree on the creation was adopted Council people's commissars (Sovnarkom - SNK) headed by V.I.Lenin.

So, from that day on, the construction of the first socialist state began, called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 30 December 1922 took place in Moscow 1st Congress of Soviets of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, at which the declaration on education was adopted USSR And Union Treaty. The supreme legislative body was elected - Central Executive Committee of the USSR. To the Chairmen of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR CEC elected IN AND. Lenin. So under the leadership of the party led by IN AND. Lenin a multinational Soviet socialist state. It was organized on a voluntary basis, on the basis of preserving the national sovereignty of each Soviet republic that became part of the USSR. First The Constitution of the USSR was adopted at 2nd Congress of Soviets of People's Deputies of the USSR in 1924 year. The final formation of the Soviet Union ended by 1940 year, when the Union included three Baltic states. Part USSR included 15 sovereign union Soviet Socialist Republics. In turn, the union republics included 20 autonomous republics, 8 autonomous regions and 10 autonomous okrugs. The country's territory was 22 402 thousand square kilometers. Population by June 1985 reached the year 278.784.000 Human.
Fundamentals of the Soviet state and social system.
The Soviet social system was a socialist system based on socialist relations of production, which excluded the exploitation of man by man, the anarchy of production, and, consequently, the associated economic crises and unemployment.
The socio-economic structure of Soviet society corresponded to its political organization - a system of state bodies and mass public organizations led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Second The country's constitution was adopted at 8th Extraordinary Congress of Soviets of the USSR 5 December 1936 years due to changes in the economic and class structure in Soviet society.
Third The Constitution of the USSR was adopted in 1977 year.
Constitution countries guaranteed:
1. The right to work, i.e. the right to receive guaranteed work with payment corresponding to its quantity and quality.
It became a stimulus for creativity, innovation and enthusiasm among the working masses. Thanks to this, socialist competition arose for the first time in the USSR. A working man received as much as he deserved. Everything is fair, according to the principle: “ from each according to his ability, to each according to his work».
2. The right of personal property of citizens to their labor income and savings, to movable and immovable property.
3. The right to rest.
Annual leave with preservation wages and by making holiday homes and other cultural institutions available to workers. At the same time, vouchers to holiday homes and resorts were provided mainly free of charge at the expense of trade unions and other organizations.
4. The right to financial support in old age, as well as in case of illness and loss of ability to work.
5. Right to education.
The state guaranteed free secondary and higher education and scholarships to students. Education in schools in your native language!
6. The right to freedom of speech, press, conscience, meetings and rallies.
7. The right to associate in public organizations.
8. The right to vote and be elected to councils and people's courts.
At the same time, a citizen who had reached 18- years of age, in the Republican Councils - having reached 21 years and to the Soviets of the USSR - after 23 years.
What about our deputies?
Citizens who have reached 25 years, and to the Senate - 30 years. It should be noted that in order to be elected to Parliament, you must have lived in the country for at least 10 years and contribute a huge amount of money to the Central Election Commission.
There are plenty of such obstacles for the common man in bourgeois countries. They are designed to ensure that the legislative bodies of the country are represented only by rich people who protect the interests of the rich, and not the interests of the people.
Former US Senator Bayes Penrose said:
“I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress. We pass laws that give you the opportunity to make money. From the profits you make, you make new contributions to our campaign funds to send us back to Congress to pass laws that will allow you to make even more money.”
9. Guarantee of full equality of all citizens.
10. Guarantee of personal inviolability, housing and confidentiality of correspondence.

Bodies of state power and administration.

According to the Constitution of the USSR, higher authorities state authorities were Supreme Soviet of the USSR And Presidium Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
Accordingly, such bodies also existed in the Union republics.
Function of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
1. Issues of domestic and foreign policy, war and peace,
2. Monitoring compliance with the norms of the country’s Constitution.
3. Adoption of the laws of the country. The most important bills were adopted after popular discussion.
4. Establishment of a national economic plan.
5. Approval of the country's budget.
6. Formation of the country's government.
7. Election of the Supreme Court, appointment of the Prosecutor General. All these bodies were accountable to him.
8.Control function. Under the USSR Armed Forces, investigative and audit commissions were created on any issue.
The Supreme Soviet of the USSR consisted of two chambers: Council of the Union– represented the general interests of the country’s workers and Council of Nationality– represented interests related to the national characteristics of the peoples inhabiting the USSR.
The USSR Supreme Council elected the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Council, which was authorized to resolve issues such as ratification of international treaties, awarding medals and orders to citizens, and issuing decrees explaining the laws of the USSR.

Table. Composition of deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the tenth convocation.

Note.
Among the deputies - members and candidates for membership of the CPSU - 1075 , or 71,7%, non-party - 425 , or 28,3%. Women deputies - 487 , or 32,5%.
Deputies under the age of 30 years - 317 , or 21,1%, members of the Komsomol– 207 , or 13,8%.
Another distinctive feature of Soviet society compared to bourgeois society was that public associations, labor collectives and public assemblies workers had the right to discuss and make their proposals to draft legislative and other acts of national and local importance.

Government of the USSR - Council of Ministers of the USSR.
The Council of Ministers of the USSR is the highest executive and distributive body of state power. It was controlled by the USSR Armed Forces.
Function: implementation of the national economic plan, execution of the country’s budget, control over the activities of ministries and departments, strengthening the monetary system, protecting the interests of the state and the rights of citizens, public order, conducting foreign economic and political activity within the framework of the country's Constitution. The Council of Ministers of the Union Republics has the same function. At the same time, such ministries as the ministries of railways, maritime fleet and foreign trade remained under the jurisdiction of the union government.
Local authorities.
According to the Constitution, these are the Councils of People's Deputies of Working People.
They were elected by the relevant administrative-territorial units for a term of 2 of the year.
Functions: management of political, economic and cultural construction on its territory, establishment of a local budget, management of the activities of governing bodies subordinate to them, ensuring order, legality and respect for the rights of citizens on its territory.

What is the difference between bourgeois and Soviet deputies?
1 . Deputies at all levels in the USSR remained production workers, not professional parliamentarians.
2 . USSR deputies regularly reported to their voters and, in case of non-fulfillment of “orders” from the population, they were recalled by voters, which is not the case in bourgeois countries, incl. and with us. At the same time, not only citizens, but also labor collectives and public associations were authorized to recall deputies.
Judicial authorities.
All courts were formed through elections. People's judges were elected by the population for a term of 5 years. In the courts, criminal and civil cases were considered collectively. In the courts of first instance, cases were considered by a judge (chairman) and two folk assessors. Moreover, the judge and people's assessors had equal rights. When considering cases, the participation of a public representative from enterprises and organizations was provided for, as a prosecutor or defense attorney.
Prosecutor's office.
The Prosecutor General was elected USSR Armed Forces on 7 years.
In the Union Republics - on 5 years by decision of the Prosecutor General of the USSR. Regional, city and district prosecutors were elected to 5 years.
Function: supervision over the precise implementation of laws on the territory of the country, as well as supervision over the implementation of laws by the bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation, over the legality and validity of sentences and decisions passed by the judiciary, over the observance of the law in places of deprivation of liberty.

State security and public order bodies.

26 October 1917 year for 2 The Commissariat of Internal Affairs was created at the 1st Congress of Soviets, and a little later a workers' militia was formed under the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. December 1917 The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (VChK) was created to combat counter-revolutionaries and sabotage. It was headed by F.E. Dzherzhinsky.
Voluntary people's squads (VND) for the protection of public order were created in 1959 year to combat hooliganism, protect public order and conduct explanatory work among the population.
Another form of public participation in maintaining law and order is comrades' courts at enterprises, institutions, collective and state farms, at housing maintenance offices. Members of the comrades' courts were elected to 2 of the year. Comrades' courts heard cases of offenses and some minor crimes (violation of labor discipline, petty hooliganism, etc.).

Public organizations.

IN 1979 year in the USSR it was 121 million trade union members, united in more than 700 000 primary trade union organizations.
On 1 January 1976 year in the country there were 129 thousands of permanent employees production meetings to which they were elected 5,4 million people. During the years of the Ninth Five-Year Plan they introduced 7 millions of suggestions for improvement economic activity enterprises and organizations. Totally agree 1986 year in the national economy of the country were used 24 thousand inventions and more 4 millions of rationalization proposals received from citizens and labor collectives. There were 1 million 200 thousand groups And posts people's control to which they were elected 9,6 million people.
In the ranks Komsomol consisted 38 million boys and girls. Scientific and technical society and the All-Union society of inventors And innovators united in their ranks from above 17 million people During the election period Councils of People's Deputies of all levels participated in the propaganda work up to 15 millions of Soviet citizens. Millions of Soviet citizens were involved in the socio-political and socio-economic life of society through public associations (party, Komsomol, trade union, etc.), labor collectives of enterprises and organizations, posts of people's inspectors and comrades' courts. In these organizations of many thousands, issues of the comprehensive life of Soviet society, from politics to the everyday work of the working collective to improve the socialist society, were vigorously and lively discussed. After this, what authoritarian method of government can we talk about? These are just inventions of traitors. The people, as the rightful master of their destiny and country, became enthusiasts, initiators, creators and creators of glorious deeds and exploits on the path of building socialism in the USSR.
Philosopher, dissident, opponent of Soviet power Alexander Zinoviev wrote: " The ideals of communism are the best that humanity has invented in terms of ideals. And there will be no better ideals than theirs - they are logically excluded.
Socialist civilization is the pinnacle of human civilization.”
What types of property existed in the Soviet Union?
1. Personal property for consumer goods and individual for means and products of production.
2. Property of public associations– property of trade union organizations, the Komsomol and the party in the form of movable and immovable property. It was created through membership fees and income from printed publications, and was intended to carry out statutory and other tasks.
3. Collective-farm-cooperative own– property of collective farms and other cooperative enterprises and organizations necessary for the implementation production activities and solving statutory problems.
Having become the rightful owners of all the national wealth of the country, citizens enjoyed all the benefits of society fairly.
4. state(national) own- the common heritage of the entire Soviet people. The land, its subsoil, waters, and forests were the exclusive property of the state. It covered part of the fixed means of production in industry, construction and agriculture, means of transport and communications, banks, property of state-organized trade, utility and other enterprises, the main urban housing stock and other property necessary to carry out the tasks of the state. Back to top 1988 year, fixed assets of the national economy amounted to 2,59 trillion rubles
National wealth- the totality of material goods created by the labor of the people over the entire previous period of its development.
It included: fixed production assets, circulating production assets, circulation funds, state, collective farm, cooperative material reserves and insurance stocks, non-production assets, personal property of citizens and natural resources.
The value of national wealth in USSR finally 1987 year amounted to 3,9 trillion rubles. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the losses during the Great Patriotic War, which amounted to more 30% national wealth of the country or 2 trillion 600 billion rubles. To meet the needs of the country's population in all areas public life socialist society, the state created various consumption funds.
Public consumption funds- part of the national income of a socialist society, the purpose of which, first of all, is to fulfill social functions, as well as stimulation of qualified, conscientious work.
These funds were used along with wages in order to improve the well-being of the Soviet people and implement the principle of social justice. Funds were accumulated in the form of centralized funds in the country's budget and collective public consumption funds of socialist enterprises and organizations, and then allocated for the social needs of citizens. These funds accounted for 1/3 consumed material goods and services. They ensured free satisfaction of priority social needs, such as free education, advanced training of workers, free medical care, and free maintenance of children from low-income families in child care institutions. Some of the funds went to citizens in the form of various cash payments - pensions, scholarships, various benefits, vacation pay. These same funds covered 80% expenses for maintaining children in preschool institutions, maintaining housing for citizens of the country, providing public services to the population, part of the cost of vouchers to sanatoriums, holiday homes, and pioneer camps.
What did these funds created by the state give to citizens??
1. Cash payments, free and preferential services from such funds increased the real incomes of the population of the Soviet Union.
2. Real, and not declarative, equal opportunities for all citizens to receive all of the above benefits in education, medicine, housing, etc.
3. Guarantee for decent provision of old age, guarantees in case of illness, complete and partial loss of ability to work.
4. The most favorable conditions for improving the demographic situation in the country.
WITH 1917 By 1983 year the population of the country with 163,0 million increased to 278 million people, i.e. on 115 million within 69 years.
5. These funds covered the population's expenses for utility bills, payments for housing and communal services, electricity, etc.
Thanks to this, utility bills in the USSR were the lowest in the world.
For example: per square meter of living space based on the Resolution CEC And SNK USSR from 4 June 1926 of the year “On rent and measures to regulate the use of housing in urban settlements”, citizens paid from 3 before 4,4 kopecks Payment for electricity was 1 a penny for 1 sq./hour. In addition to this, the state 100% covered utility costs for employees of budgetary organizations: teachers, medical workers, etc.
6. Public funds, giving equal opportunities to citizens of the country to receive free secondary and higher education, improving the qualifications of workers in the national economy, indirectly stimulated social production through professional training, culture of workers and strengthening their health.
Another distinctive feature of the Soviet socialist society to improve the material well-being of Soviet citizens was the economic policy of the state to annual reduction in prices for consumer goods, which has been implemented by the government since 1948 of the year. It was canceled immediately after the death of I.V. Stalin. These measures were taken despite the fact that the country had just experienced the most difficult Patriotic War in its history and had switched to the path of peaceful development and creative work. Nazi Germany in 1941-45 gg. were destroyed 70 thousands of villages and towns, 32 thousands of industrial enterprises, 98 thousands of collective farms, 1876 - state farms, 2890 - MTS. Thanks to the selfless and heroic work of Soviet citizens of the country, it was possible to restore the destroyed farms in 4 years. Were restored 7,5 thousand large enterprises and more have been built 3,5 thousands new large enterprises.

Table. Real incomes of the population from lower retail prices.

For the period from 1948 By 1954 years state retail prices in USSR were reduced to 2,3 times. At the same time in USA for the period from 1947 – 1949 gg. By 1956 year, prices for consumer goods increased by 14%.
IN 1978 year, consumer prices increased compared to 1975 years:
V USA- on 21,2%, V Japan- on 22,6%, V Germany- on 11,4%,
V Great Britain- on 46,2%, V Italy- on 63%.
President of the U.S.A D.Carter said: " Inflation is a heavy burden for Americans, but for the poor, sick and old it is catastrophe".
Even during the years of deep crises that engulfed all countries of the capitalist world in 20-30 years of the last century, prices for goods did not decrease. Excess goods were simply destroyed. According to various estimates, in the United States alone, up to 7 million Human.
The budgetary policy of the government of the country also contributed to the increase in the material well-being of Soviet citizens.

Table. Formation of the country's budget. THE USSR.

From this table we see that the revenue side of the state budget in 91% was formed at the expense of the profits of socialist enterprises.
In capitalist countries, even the most developed ones, the budget is formed mainly at the expense of the people, i.e. taxpayers.
For example: in France - 93%, in USA - 79%, and in Kazakhstan - 89% at the expense of you and me. The most interesting thing is that in USA, which are considered the stronghold of capitalism, the revenue side of the country’s budget from capital turnover receives only 19%, and we have - less than 1%.
Healthcare.
The Soviet government allocated up to 12% GDP countries. Thanks to this, the provision of medical care to the country's population has become 100% free.
IN 1986 functioned in the country 10,5 thousand antenatal clinics where they worked 234 thousands of obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives. The total number of doctors in the country was 1.033.000 . According to calculations World Health Organization at UN, average 28 doctors should be served every 10 thousand people of the population. In the USSR on 10.000 people had to 42,8 doctor According to this indicator, the USSR occupied first place in the world. At the same time, this figure in the USA – 21,9 doctor in Italy – 19,8, in France - 17,5 , in Japan – 15,1 on 10.000 population.
On 10 thousand man in USSR had to 121 hospital beds, in the USA - 71 , in Italy – 99 , in England - 90 , in France - 72 beds
The total number of nursing staff was - 2.880.000 Human.
On 10.000 population accounted for 197,3 paramedical workers.
The number of hospitals was 23 thousands. Total number of hospital beds - 3.663.000 . The state allocated funds in the amount 12 rubles ($19.2 .) per patient per day for inpatient treatment and 55 rubles ($89.3 .) for one visit to the clinic.
The number of sanatoriums and holiday homes was 13 523 , they rested and improved their health more 59 million Soviet citizens annually. In Kaz. SSRs annually rested and improved their health in these institutions 1 million 300 thousands of people.
To the beginning 1982 year in the country there were 238 thousands of physical education groups. They systematically studied 78 million people.
For comparison:
V USA To 70 year of the last century, the number of hospitals located in state provision, amounted to 6956 , maternity hospitals - 78 With 3448 beds, as well as 124 hospitals for blacks 20600 beds.
In addition, there are hospitals in the USA: private, red cross and church. Their total number is 4723 on 432214 beds In total, in the USA - 11811 hospital institutions, i.e. almost in twice less than in the USSR. Number of inpatient beds - 1 million 700 thousand, i.e. on 53,5% less than in the USSR. Spending huge sums on medicine, which 2006 amounted to 2,26 trillion dollars, the USA takes only 37 place in the world in terms of the level of medical care and 72 place in overall health level. IN 2006 did not have health insurance for years 16% Americans, and this 47 million people.
What was the advantage of Soviet medicine over the vaunted Western medicine?
1 . It had a preventative focus.
2 . Was available to all members of society in mind 100% free.
3 . She was distinguished by highly qualified medical workers.
4 . Had a fairly extensive network medical institutions throughout the country, facilitated the availability of all types of medical care to all citizens.
Table. Some indicators of medicine in the USA and the USSR.

Note.

For every doctor in the United States, there were 4,2 times more patients than per one Soviet doctor.

Table. Total expenditure on health care in various capitalist states (% of gross domestic product) In the USSR, this figure fluctuated around 12%.

Countries	1960	1975	1980	1985
1. Australia 2. UK 3. Canada 4. France 5. Germany 6. Japan 7. Norway 8. Sweden 9. USA	5,1 3,9 5,5 4,3 4,7 3,0 3,3 4,7 5,2	7,4 5,5 7,3 6,8 7,8 5,6 6,7 8,0 8,4	7,2 5,7 7,4 7,5 7,9 6,6 6,6 9,5 9,2	7,3 5,7 8,4 8,6 8,2 6.6 6,4 9,4 10,7

Table. Demographic indicators of the USSR

Basic indicators	USSR			RK	RF
	1913	1979	1983	2000	1994
1.Population, million 2. Fertility. 3. Mortality. 4.Natural growth. 5.Average life expectancy. Among women. In men.	163.0 45,5 29,1 16,4 33 31	266,2 18,2 10,1 8,1	271,2 19,0 10,1 8,9 75 65	14.896 14,7 10,4 4,3 70,2 59	142,0. 7,6 17,5 -9.9

Note.
During the years of Soviet power, the average life expectancy of Soviet citizens increased by 2,18 times, incl. in women in 2,3 and in men 2,09 times. Mortality decreased in 2,8 times compared to Tsarist Russia.
For comparison.
IN RF the annual negative balance of “growth” is up to 800 thousands of people. Totally agree 1993-1994 years it amounted to 1,7 million people.
In Kazakhstan. In the country before 14% population does not live to see 40 - flying age. The average life expectancy of Kazakhstanis is decreasing. She compiled in 2009 year for men 59 years, i.e. decreased by 6 years compared to 2000.
As a result of the population census (2009), we, Kazakhstanis, turned out to be 16.196.000 . man what's on 256.000 less than we were in 1990 year, these figures, despite the authorities’ statements about the economic “miracle” and “prosperity” of the country, indicate "genocide" people by "democrats". Such figures are observed given our untold wealth, when both states extract 3-4 tons of oil per capita and collected at 1,5 – 1,7 tons of grain. It's simply mind boggling.
IN 1990 year in the country there was 46 thousands of doctors and 130 thousands of paramedical workers. Over the years of independence, the medical industry has experienced 4 reforms. Thousands of health centers in rural areas and cities were closed.

Old age pensions and other social benefits.

In the USSR and other socialist countries, social security was guaranteed to states.
Article 43 Constitution USSR read:
« Citizens of the USSR have the right to financial support in old age, in case of illness, complete or partial loss of ability to work, as well as loss of a breadwinner. This right is guaranteed by social insurance of workers, employees and collective farmers, temporary disability benefits, payment of old-age, disability and survivor pensions at the expense of the state and collective farms, employment of citizens who have partially lost their ability to work, care for elderly citizens and the disabled, and other forms social security."
Retirement age established in the USSR: for men – 60 years, for women – 55 years. In addition, workers in many categories had the right to retire even earlier: men in 55 – 50 years old, women in 50 – 45 years. Also on 5 years, the age for receiving an old-age pension was lowered for war invalids and persons who had worked for a long time Far North, female machine operators and workers of certain professions in the textile industry. The pension amounts in the Soviet Union were from 50 to 100% the previous wages of workers, employees and collective farmers. 90% All workers in the USSR, in case of illness, received compensation in the amount of the full amount of their wages.
Benefit in the amount 100% previous earnings were also paid in case of loss of ability to work due to a work injury or occupational disease. All expenses were made from the state budget and the consumption fund.
For comparison.
In capitalist countries, old-age pensions, for the first time in the centuries-old history of their development, were introduced in the middle of 30's years of the last century. At the same time, in order to receive a pension, a long insurance period is required.
For example, in Great Britain contributions for social needs are made by the employee with 18 - years of age before a man reaches 70 years old, but a woman 65 years. IN Finland Payment of contributions is made by all employees aged from 16 before 64 years, in Sweden– from 18 before 64 years, in Iceland from 16 before 66 years.

Table. The average amount of old-age pensions (in %) of the average salary.

Notes.

Most capitalist countries have established minimum and maximum pension amounts. In the total number of pensions granted, the minimum pensions in the UK are - 90%, in Sweden - 80%, in Italy – 60%.

In Kazakhstan.

The state has determined the minimum and maximum pension amounts.

IN 2009 year received: minimum pension in the amount - 15263 received tenge - 38.700 (2,8%) , average from 15264 before 26732 received tenge - 1367200 (80,5%) , maximum– from 26733 received - 292000 (17%) Human.

Table. Retirement age in a number of capitalist countries.

Education.
IN 1913 year in Tsarist Russia on 163 there were a million people in total 280 thousands of teachers. There were 105 higher and 450 secondary schools. The number of students was 54 thousands.
During the years of Soviet power, the total state expenditures on education amounted to 15% from GDP.
IN 2008 year in USA an amount allocated for education is 5,3 % from GDP, V Japan – 3,6 %, V RF – 3,9 %, V Kazakhstan – 3,0 %.
IN 1981 year in USSR was 1787 higher and secondary specialized educational institutions where they studied 10 million students. Of them 896 - these are the highest educational establishments. IN 1986 year they graduated 839,5 thousands of people.
By the end 1986 of the year 164 million people had higher and secondary education, i.e. 86% population employed in the national economy of the country.
On 10.000 people had to 197 students. According to this indicator, the USSR occupied first place in the world. In France this figure was - 165 , in Italy – 123 , in Germany – 106 , in England - 98 . At the same time in USA V 1980 according to the UN 22% older population 17 was illiterate for years, 2,4 million children did not attend school at all and more 7 Millions of schoolchildren have difficulty reading.
IN USSR illiteracy was completely eliminated in 1959 year.
In the country in 1986 it was a year 134 thousands of public libraries with book collections 2,1 billion copies, 137,4 thousands of cultural institutions, 152 thousands of film installations, 2 thousands of museums and 600 professional theaters.
The number of visits to film shows exceeded 3,9 billion
IN USSR was 143 thousands of secondary schools with attendance 44 million students. Worked in these schools 3 million teachers.
Number of preschool institutions - 130,3 thousand with attendance 14,8 million children. Every year we vacationed in pioneer camps 27 million Soviet schoolchildren. Children in the country were provided with 4450 Palaces and houses of pioneers, 1085 stations and 1283 club of young technicians, 641 stations for young naturalists, 39 railways, 500 clubs for young pilots and cosmonauts. They worked at the palaces of clubs and trade union clubs 26900 rooms for schoolchildren and technical clubs. Special music, art and choreographic schools were created for gifted children. There were them in the country 6 thousand.
The country created for children 51 children's and 113 puppet theaters.
The state allocated for one secondary school student – 240 , per student of secondary specialized education – 700 , per higher education student – 1200 , for one child in a nursery – 630 and in kindergarten – 530 rubles
Let’s compare it with the work of the “democrats” in educating the younger generation.
IN Kazakhstan from 8900 schools in 2009 year left 8000 , and the number of students decreased by 250 thousands of children.
From 8881 preschool institutions with 1.023.100 pupils in 1990 year, by 2006 year left in the country 1160 , with a visit 200 thousand children, that is, it decreased by 86,9% And 80,4% respectively.
In rural areas there was 4995 preschool institutions with attendance 375800 children, to 2008 only a year left 217 with attendance 12400 children, i.e. visible reduction in 95,6% And 96,7% respectively. Number researchers over the years of independence in the country it has decreased from 40,9 before 18,9 thousand, i.e. V 2,2 times.
At the same time, funding for science is 0,26% from the country's GDP.

Industry.

If before the revolution the volume of industrial production in Russia amounted to only 12,5% products of US industry, then in 1960 year, the volume of industrial production of the USSR compared to the USA was already 55%, and after 20 years, in 1980 more than a year - 80%.
Behind 1951-66. average annual growth rate of industrial output in USSR compiled – 10,5%, at the same time, this indicator is USA made up – 4,7%.
WITH 1950 By 1975 years, the annual increase in industrial production in the USSR was 9,6%, at the same time, among developed capitalist countries it amounted to 4,6%, those. V 2,08 times lower than that of the USSR.
IN 1972 volume of industrial production USSR made up 20% all over the world GDP.
During the years of Soviet power, more than 56700 industrial enterprises. IN 1986 worked in the national economy of the country 118,5 million people. In the USSR, unemployment was eliminated in 1930 year.

Table. Some industrial indicators in comparison with the USA and Tsarist Russia.

Main types of industrial products.	USA. 1937	USA. 1969	Russia. 1913	THE USSR. 1975	THE USSR. 1986
Electricity, million kWh	147.	1.552.	2,0.	1.038.	1.599.
Oil, million tons	173.	455.	10,0.	401.	615.
Gas, billion m3.	70,0.	579.	0,02.	289	686.
Coal, million tons	404.	494.	29,2.	701.	751.
Cast iron, million tons	38,0.	86,0.	4,2.	103,0.	161.
Steel, million tons	51,0.	128,0.	4,3.	141,0.	114

From the table we see that the USSR lagged behind the USA only in terms of electricity generation.
Table. Main types of industrial products USSR.

Main types of products.	1950	1960		1970	1980		1982		1985	1986
1.Oil, million tons									596	615
2.Gas, billion cubic meters				196	428					686
3. Electricity, billion kW. Ch.	91,2	292		741	1294		1367		1544	1599
4. Coal, million tons	261	510		624	716		718		726	751
5. Cast iron, million tons.	19,2	46,8		85,9	107		107		110	114
6.Steel, million tons	27,3	65,3		116	148		147		155	161
7. Cement, million tons.	10,2	45,5		95,2	125,0		123,7		130,8	135
8.Car production, thousand units. passenger cars. Freight.	64,6 294,4	138,8 362,0	344,2 524,5		1327 787	1307 780		1332 ?		1326 ?

Note.
IN 1913 year the country occupied 5 place in global production for all types of production, 8 electricity production site 6 for coal mining, 2 place for oil production and 5 place in mechanical engineering.
During the years of Soviet power, the volume of production electricity increased in 799 times; oil production in 61,5 times; gas in 34300 times; coal in 25,7 times; cast iron in 38,3 times and steel 26,5 times.
And in 1986 year USSR took first place in the world for the production of oil, gas, coal, production of iron, steel, iron ore and coke, second place in the world and first in Europe for electricity generation.
WITH 1913 to 1966 gg. labor productivity of workers increased in the USSR in 15,2 times, in the USA – 3,8 times, in England – in 1,9 times, in France – in 2,9 times.

Table. Growth rates of gross industrial output in the Union Republics. ( 1913 = 1).

Union republics.	1940	1950	1958	1966
THE USSR……………………… RSFSR…………………… Ukrainian SSR………… Byelorussian SSR………… Uzbek SSR…………… Kazakh SSR………… Georgian SSR…………. Azerbaijan SSR…... Lithuanian SSR…………... Moldavian SSR………… Latvian SSR…………. Kirghiz SSR…………. Tajik SSR………… Armenian SSR…………. Turkmen SSR……….. Estonian SSR…………..	7,7 8,7 7,3 8,1 4,7 10 5,9 2,6 5,8 0,9 9,9 8,8 8,7 6,7 1,3	13 15 8,4 9,3 8,7 16 8,3 4,9 12 2,8 21 13 22 9,6 4,3	33 35 22 27 17 35 15 21 44 8,2 50 31 55 20 12	66 67 44 64 32 62 25 51 99 18 63 33 25

By chemical industry: in 1986 year produced 27,9 million tons sulfuric acid, 1,5 million tons chemical fibers and threads, 5,3 million tons synthetic resins and plastics.
For comparison.
IN Russian Federation . Behind 8 years of Yeltsin ruling the country RF were destroyed and stopped about 30 thousand enterprises.
Behind 8 years Putin’s leadership of the country has not built a single large enterprise. Under him, the standard of living of Russians was at the level of the USSR 50-60 years.
IN 2005 year, the degree of depreciation of fixed assets was: for the fuel industry – 63%, on ferrous metallurgy – 65%, in mechanical engineering – 79%, in chemistry and petrochemistry – 80%, for the building materials industry – 69%, for the food industry – 35%, for light industry - 70%, for electricity – 66%.
If in 1990 year, tractor production amounted to 214 thousand pieces, then in 2004 year - 8 thousand pieces, i.e. production fell by 96,6%. Steel production fell by 2 times, rolled ferrous metals 2 times, civil engineering production - in 6 once.
In Kazakhstan. The authorities tirelessly talk about the fact that they had to build an independent Kazakhstan from scratch, as if before 1991 there was no statehood on our land. Look at the table and numbers, and you will understand whether there was a state called Kaz. SSR.
YES. Kunaev. 16 Congress of the CPC. Report report.
« For 1955 -85 the volume of industrial production in Kazakhstan increased 8.9 times, Agriculture- 6.2 times, construction - 68 times, the number of Kazakhs - 2.2 times, the population as a whole - 2 times. In short, in terms of economic potential, seven Kazakhstans were created at this time, compared to 1955. On this earth before October revolution“0.3% of the total production of Tsarist Russia was produced, and 2-3% of the population was literate.”
Table. Production per capita. 1990

WITH 1913 By 1972 years, the volume of industrial production increased by 169 once.
In our country in 2009 it was a year 3280 industrial enterprises. Of them 4% is owned by the state, and the rest - 3148 are owned by private capital, mainly foreigners. IN 2007 year coal production compared to 1990 amounted to 74,6%, electricity generation in 2006 amounted to 65% , become – 60% from level 1990 of the year. If in 1990 released in the country 41 thousand tractors per year, then in 2006 year - 0. For all indicators of industrial production, except oil production, for 20 years of independence we have not yet reached the level 1990 of the year.
Over the years, oil production has been steadily increasing, which 2008 amounted to 70,6 million tons, which 2,6 times more than 1990 year, i.e. By 4,7 tons per capita of the country. Of them 85,9% oil was exported. If this oil belonged to us, Kazakhstanis, we would additionally earn more 61,2 billions of dollars. Proven oil reserves in the country - 4,3 billion tons. The authorities intend to increase production to 150 million per year 2015 year. Then through 30 -35 years from now, you and I will be left with nothing.

Production of consumer goods.

IN 1986 consumer goods were produced in the year 313 billion rubles. All types of fabrics produced - 12,3 billion sq. m; underwear and outerwear - 1,8 billion pieces; shoes - 801 million pairs; hours - 69,9 million pieces; radio receiving devices - 8,9 million pieces; TVs -9,4 million pieces
At enterprises Food Industry produced 11,5 million tons meat, 1,6 million tons animal oils, 12,7 million tons granulated sugar, 4 billion conventional cans of fruit juices, 497 million deciliters of soft drinks.
As you can see, Soviet people did not walk around naked and barefoot, no matter how much the “shifters” wanted to imagine us like that. Like “civilized” people watched TV and drove cars.
Industrial goods used by Kazakhstanis in our time in 90% cases - imported, and for food products imports amount to from 40 to 90% depending on the region of the country and the type of product.
Transport.
IN 1986 transported by rail this year 4.061 million tons, automobile – 6 .648 million tons, and air – 3,2 million tons cargo.
In total, all types of transport transported: 10 billions 712 million tons of cargo.

Housing construction.

Table. Housing construction under five-year plans (USSR).

Note.
During the Great Patriotic War, more than one was burned and destroyed
6 million residential buildings.
Only in 1986 year put into operation 2,1 million comfortable apartments with total area 118,2 million sq.m. New apartments received from over 10 million people. Put into operation after major repairs 1 million apartments with total area 61 million sq.m.
For comparison.
In Kazakhstan 32% housing stock requires major repairs.
The average depreciation of fixed assets in public utilities across the country is – 70%. In Astana 230 the houses are in disrepair.
In the city of Ust-Kamenogorsk from 4350 multi-storey buildings 83 were officially recognized as emergency. The list goes on and on.

Trade and consumer services.

Retail turnover of state and cooperative trade amounted to 331,9 billion rubles. The volume of sales of agricultural products on the collective farm market amounted to 8,7 billion rubles.
The population was provided with various services worth 50 billion rubles.

Agriculture.

The Soviet state inherited from Tsarist Russia a technically backward, low-productivity, small-peasant agriculture based on manual labor. Wherein 15,2% peasant farms had horse-drawn agricultural machines, 28,3% - did not have draft animals, 31,6% - arable equipment.
WITH 1917 By 1972 years, funds have been allocated from the budget for the development of the country's agriculture in the amount of 367 billion rubles.
To the beginning 1974 year in the country there were state farms - 18 thousand, collective farms - 30 thousand. In these farms the number of tractors was - 2.046 thousand, combines – 639 thousands and cars – 1.243 thousand. 337,8 million hectares the lands belonged to collective farms and 701,8 million hectares - to state farms.
In the years 11 th Five-Year Plan aimed at strengthening the material and technical base of collective and state farms and the entire agro-industrial complex 1/3 all capital investments allocated for the development of the country's national economy. Product volume agro-industrial complex V 1986 amounted to 455,1 billion rubles.
The industrial sectors of the agro-industrial complex were occupied 39 million people. The average monthly wage of collective farmers in the public sector was 231 ruble. Gross agricultural output in 1986 amounted to 19,4% from the produced National Income. The profit of collective and state farms amounted to 23 billion rubles. USSR occupied first place in the world in terms of production of mineral fertilizers. IN 1986 year they were produced 34,7 million tons and agriculture supplied 26,5 million tons
Wheat was collected - 92,3 million tons, potatoes – 87,2 million tons, sugar beets – 79,3 million tons, corn – 12,5 million tons, rice – 2,63 million tons, sunflower – 5,3 million tons, vegetables – 29,7 million tons It should be added that the average annual grain harvest is up to 1986 year was 105 million tons
IN 1990 year THE USSR, making up 6% world population, produced 13% world grain production, 20% - milk, 10% - meat and 12% - eggs.

Table.

Main types of products.	Russia. 1913	THE USSR. 1975	THE USSR. 1986	USA 1970
Cattle, million heads.	58,4.	111,0.	42,4	96,2
Pigs, million heads.	23,0.	57,8.	79,4.	19,5
Sheep, million heads.	96,0.	146,9.	148,5.	59,0
Meat, million tons.	5,0.	15,2.	17,7.	?
Milk, million tons	29,4.	90,8.	101,1.	?
Egg, billion pcs.	11,9.	57,7.	80,3.	?

Note.
The number of pigs has increased 3,4 times; sheep - in 1,5 times; meat - in 3,5 times; milk - in 3 times; eggs - in 6,7 times.
In this case, it is necessary to take into account losses during WWII. The Germans completely burned more than 70 thousands of villages and villages, plundered 98 thousands of collective farms, 1876 state farms and 2890 MTS, more than 7 millions of horses 17 million head of cattle, 20 million pigs and 27 million sheep and goats.
In the personal subsidiary plots of the population there were 12,9 million heads of cows, 13,6 - million pigs and 33,2 million sheep and goats.
IN Kazakhstan on their private farms, the villagers had 1,9 million head of cattle, 3,2 million sheep and goats. IN 1990 year as part of the Union, Kazakhstan produced up to 12% agricultural products.

Table. Consumption of basic food products per capita (kilogram). THE USSR.

Main types of products.	1960	1970	1975	1980	1984	1985
1. Meat.	40	47,5	56,7	57,6	60,7	61,4
2. Fish.	9,9	15,4	16,8	17,6	17,5	17,7
3. Milk.	240	307	316	314	319	323
4. Eggs, pieces.	118	159	216	239	258	260
5. Sugar.	28,0	38,8	40,9	44,4	44,0	42,0
6. Bread products.	164	149	141	138	133	133
7. Vegetables.	70	82	89	97	102	102
8. Potatoes.	143	130	120	109	108	104

Comparison table. Consumption of basic food products per capita in the USSR and Kazakhstan and the percentage of reduction by 1990.

Types of food (per capita per year).	USSR	Kaz. USSR	Kazakhstan
	1985	1990	2001	% abbreviated
Meat and meat products, k.g.	61,4	71	38	46,4
Milk and dairy products, liter	323	307	195	36,4
Eggs, pieces.	260	222	109	50,9
Fish and fish products, kg	17,7	10,1	8,3	17,8
Sugar, k.g.	42	37,4	26,4	29,4
Vegetable oil, liter.	56	11	13,8	+ 12,5
Vegetables, melons, k.g.	80	76	83	+ 10,9
Fruits and berries, k.g.	21	28	35	+ 12,5
Bread and bakery products, k.g.	133	146	140	4,1

For comparison.
RF (Russian Federation). TO 2004 year, the area under cultivation decreased by 40%, number of cattle in 3 times, pigs – at 1.8 times, meat consumption per capita – at 1.5 times, milk - in 2,8 times, wool collection in 11 once. The degree of depreciation of the main production assets of agriculture amounted to 67%.
TO 2007 per capita meat consumption decreased compared to 1990 year on 65,3%, milk - on 59,5%. The share of imports of meat products amounted to 70%, animal oils – 60%.
TO 2007 ceased to exist in the country 13 thousands of Russian villages. At the same time, more 50% rural residents live below the poverty line. Every year food worth up to 23 billion dollars.
In Kazakhstan. IN 1990 year the share of agriculture in runway countries amounted to 41,8 %, and in 2004 year – 8,4%, those. decreased by 4,9 times.
Number of cattle in 2002 decreased by 56,1% against 1990 year, respectively sheep per 70,9%, pigs on 65,6%, horses for 31,2% and birds - on 64,4%. Sown area from 35.2 million hectares in 1990 decreased to 12,4 million hectares in 2006 year, i.e. on 64,7%. The volume of mineral fertilizers per hectare in 2008 amounted to only 12,6% from level 1991 of the year. IN 2008 year, the degree of wear and tear on agricultural machinery was 80% And at two times exceeded the standard service life. In fact, the basis of the country's agriculture has been almost destroyed
Behind 2008 year, prices for agricultural products increased by 19,3%.
According to statistics, the share of imports was: fish – 65,1%, sausages - 41,2%, cooking fat - 98,3%, meat and dairy products – 85,3%, sugar - 51%, vegetables and nuts – 92%. If meat imports into 1990 amounted to 13500 tons, then 2007 year he made 193200 tons, i.e. meat imports increased by 68%. This is the “huge” merit of the current government in managing agriculture.

International trade.

Table. Foreign trade indicators in billions of dollars.

USA	USA	Russia	USSR	USSR
1966	1968	1913	1968	1986
30,3	34,7	0,227.	30,0.	130.9 (in rub.)

Soviet Union had foreign economic relations with 145 countries of the world.
The cost of importing goods from CMEA countries reached 18.1 billion rubles, which amounted to 70% of the country's total imports.
You can write a lot and for a long time about the Soviet Union. I focused only on some indicators of the country's economy.
When a person who was born and raised in this very country writes about the achievements of a country, the reader may have doubts about the objectivity of what was said. Therefore, I would like to end the article with excerpts from a book by a German writer, a representative of the liberal-bourgeois intelligentsia Lion Feuchtwanger written by the author after visiting him USSR V 1937 year. Excerpts from the book "Moscow, 1937".

"About Soviet Youth".

Youth is truly the strongest asset of the Soviet Union. Everything possible is being done for her. Everywhere there are countless well-organized nurseries, kindergartens, and a large network of schools, the number of which is growing with incredible speed. Children have their own stadiums, cinemas, cafes and wonderful theaters. There are universities, countless courses in individual industries and peasant collective farms, and cultural organizations of the Red Army. The conditions in which Soviet youth are growing up are more favorable than anywhere else. Most of the letters I receive from young people from Western countries, with the exception of letters from young people in the Soviet Union, contain calls for help. Huge masses of young people in the West do not know where to go, either physically or spiritually. Not only do they have no hope of getting a job that will bring them joy, but they have no hope of getting a job at all. They don't know what to do. They don't know what the meaning of their existence is. All the paths that lie before them seem devoid of purpose. What a joy, after all this, to meet young people who were lucky enough to reap the first fruits of Soviet education - young intellectuals from the workers and peasants! How firmly, confidently, calmly they stand in life, they feel like an organic part of a wise whole. The future stretches out before them like a smooth path crossing a beautiful landscape. Whether they speak at meetings or talk to someone, the naive pride with which they talk about their happy life is not feigned. What really pours out of their mouths is what their hearts are full of.

"On the Soviet Constitution".

The difference between ordinary constitutions of democratic countries and the Constitution of the Soviet Union is that although other constitutions declare the rights and freedoms of citizens, the means by which these rights and freedoms could be exercised are not specified. At the same time, the Constitution of the Soviet Union even lists facts that are prerequisites for true democracy. After all, without a certain economic independence, free formation of opinion is impossible, and fear of unemployment and impoverished old age and fear for the future of children are the worst opponents of freedom.

"Classless Society".

The fundamental principle of a classless society is, perhaps, that everyone has the same opportunity from the moment of his birth to receive an education and choose a profession, and therefore everyone has the confidence that he will find employment according to his abilities. And this basic principle - which even the most ardent opponents of the Soviet Union do not dispute - was put into practice in the USSR. That is why I did not observe servility anywhere in Moscow. Word "comrade"- this is not an empty word. The comrade construction worker who rose from the metro shaft truly feels equal to the comrade people's commissar.

"Bolshevik self-criticism".

I listened in amazement to how enterprise managers were fiercely criticized at production meetings, and in bewilderment I looked at the wall newspapers, in which directors and responsible persons were downright brutally scolded or represented in caricatures. And strangers are also not prevented from expressing their opinions honestly. Soviet newspapers did not censor my articles, even if I complained about intolerance in some areas or about the excessive cult of Stalin. Basically, the dictatorship of the Soviets is limited by the prohibition of disseminating in words, in writing and in action two views: Firstly, that building socialism in the Union is impossible without a world revolution and, Secondly, that the Soviet Union must lose the coming war. Anyone who, based on these two prohibitions, draws the conclusion that the Soviet Union is completely homogeneous with fascist dictatorships, loses sight of one significant difference, namely: that the Soviet Union prohibits agitation for the assertion that twice two is five, while fascist dictatorships prohibit proving that two by two is four.

"The Cult of Stalin".

This joke has a very serious basis. There can be no doubt that this excessive worship is in the vast majority of cases sincere. People feel the need to express their gratitude, their boundless admiration specifically. They really think that they owe everything they have and everything they are to Stalin... and I have never found any signs indicating that this feeling is artificial. It grew organically, along with the successes of economic construction. Moreover, Stalin really is the flesh of the people. He's bigger than anyone I know statesmen, speaks the language of the people. Stalin stands out among them for his simplicity. I spoke to him frankly about the tasteless and not knowledgeable cult of his personality, and he also answered me frankly. He suggested that these are people who recognized the existing regime rather late and are now trying to prove their loyalty with redoubled zeal. Yes, he considers it possible that there is an evil intent of people trying to discredit him, and he said angrily: “ A fawning fool does more harm than a hundred enemies" He endures all this fuss only because he knows what naive joy the festive bustle brings to its organizers, and he knows that all this applies to him not as an individual, but as a representative of a political force that claims that the construction of a socialist economy in The Soviet Union is more important than permanent revolution. Stalin spoke slowly, clearly, in a quiet, slightly muffled voice. His thoughts are slow, carefully thought out, and fundamentally true. The great organizer Stalin, who realized that even the Russian peasant can be led to socialism, he, this great mathematician and psychologist, is trying to use his opponents for his own purposes, whose abilities he in no way underestimates. He obviously surrounded himself with many people close in spirit to Trotsky. He is considered to be ruthless, and for many years he has struggled to win capable Trotskyists to his side instead of destroying them, and there is something in the persistent efforts in which he tries to use them in the interests of his cause. touching!

"On the national policy of the USSR".

Socialism manifests itself in the Union in many languages ​​and in various forms, national in expression and international in essence. The national characteristics of the autonomous republics - language, art, folklore of all kinds - are carefully and lovingly protected. Peoples who had hitherto understood only the spoken word were given writing. Created everywhere national museums, scientific institutes for the study of national traditions, national operas and drama theaters located on high level. I was best convinced of how healthy and effective the national policy of the USSR was by the method used by the Union to resolve the difficult, seemingly intractable, Jewish question. Tsar's Minister - Plehve, could not think of any other way out than to force one third of the Jews to convert to Christianity, the other third - to emigration, and the third – to extinction. The Soviet Union found another way out. He assimilated most of his five million Jewish population and, by giving the other part a vast autonomous region and the means to populate it, created for himself millions of industrious, capable citizens fanatically loyal to the regime.

"Fear of Socialism."

The fact is that many (Western) intellectuals, even those who consider it a historical necessity to replace the capitalist system with a socialist one, are afraid of difficulties transition period. They quite sincerely wish for the world victory of socialism, but they are worried about their own future during the period of the great socialist revolution. Their heart rejects what their mind affirms. IN theories They - socialists, in practice, by their behavior they support the capitalist system. Thus, the very existence of the Soviet Union is for them a constant reminder of the fragility of their existence, a constant reproach for the ambiguity of their own behavior. The air they breathe in the West is unhealthy, waste air. There they do not dare to defend themselves with a fist or even a strong word from the advancing barbarism; there they do it timidly, with vague gestures; there the speeches of responsible persons against fascism are presented in a sugar-coated form, with a lot of reservations. When you get out of this oppressive atmosphere of lying democracy and hypocritical humanity into the clean air of the Soviet Union, it becomes easy to breathe. Here they do not hide behind mystical pompous phrases, reasonable ethics reign here, and only this ethical reason determines the plan according to which they build there, and the material they use for this construction is absolutely new. There is still rubbish and dirty beams scattered all around, but the contours of a mighty building are already clearly and clearly rising above them. This is real tower of babel, but a tower that brings not people closer to the sky, but the sky to people. And happiness favors their work: the people who build it have not mixed their languages, but they understand each other well - Yes Yes Yes. How nice it is, after the imperfections of the West, to see such a work to which we can say with all our hearts: - Yes Yes Yes! And since I thought it was dishonest to hide it " Yes" in my chest, I wrote this book."

Dear reader! I cited excerpts from a book by a German writer who, as a person from the creative intelligentsia, accurately and without any embellishment conveyed the feelings of Soviet people about their involvement in the construction of socialism, and the atmosphere of friendship and mutual understanding in Soviet society that he witnessed.

_____________________________
Addition to the formation of the USSR - Defending the gains of the revolution, including their national independence, Ukraine and other Soviet republics even in the years civil war concluded a number of bilateral treaties among themselves, thus creating a close military-political alliance. Ties between the republics grew stronger year by year. Thus, according to an agreement signed in November 1920, a number of government bodies of the RSFSR and Azerbaijan were united in the fields of defense, economics, foreign trade, food, transport, finance and communications. Subsequently, at the end of 1920 - beginning of 1921, similar bilateral agreements with the RSFSR were also concluded by Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Georgia. This was an important stage in nation-state building.

Thus, by the beginning of the twenties, three main forms of socialist federation emerged: one was based on autonomy (the RSFSR), the other was expressed in bilateral agreements of the RSFSR with other independent Soviet republics, the third was based on a new (compared to the RSFSR) form of federation, in which its constituent republics had broader rights than the autonomous ones in the RSFSR.

In the spring and summer of 1922, party organizations in Ukraine, Belarus and Transcaucasia, discussing ways of closer unification with the RSFSR, turned to the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with a request to develop the principles and forms of a unified Soviet state. A commission of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) was created from representatives of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and the Central Committee of the communist parties of the republics. The chairman of the commission was J.V. Stalin, who, since the creation of the first Soviet government, headed the People's Commissariat for National Affairs.

During the work of the commission, I.V. Stalin put forward a plan for “autonomization,” which provided for the entry of the Soviet republics into the RSFSR with the rights of autonomous republics. At the same time, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars and the STO of the RSFSR remained the highest bodies of state power and administration. The idea of ​​uniting republics with the rights of autonomy within the RSFSR, which, in addition to I.V. Stalin, was defended by V.M. Molotov, G.K. Ordzhonikidze, G.Ya. Sokolnikov, G.V. Chicherin and others, matured not only in the highest echelons power, but was also nominated at lower levels of the state apparatus and had many supporters among the communists of the outskirts. The project was approved by the party leadership of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Transcaucasian regional committee of the RCP (b).

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia opposed it, declaring that unification in the form of autonomization was premature, the unification of economic and general policies was necessary, but with the preservation of all the attributes of independence. In fact, this meant the formation of a confederation of Soviet republics, based on the unity of military, political, diplomatic and partly economic activities. In general, without objecting to the resolution, the Central Bureau of the Communist Party of Belarus expressed preference for contractual relations between independent union republics. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine did not discuss the project, but stated that it was based on the principle of Ukrainian independence.

However, V.I. Lenin, who was ill and could not take part in the work of the commission of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), rejected the idea of ​​autonomy. On September 26, 1922, he sent a letter to members of the Politburo in which he sharply criticized the “autonomization” project and formulated the idea of ​​​​creating a union of equal Soviet republics. He proposed replacing the formula for the “entry” of the republics into the RSFSR with the principle of their “unification together with the RSFSR” in the union Soviet socialist state on the basis of complete equality. Lenin emphasized the need to create all-Union bodies that would stand over the RSFSR to the same extent as over other republics. Defending the principle of complete equality of the uniting Soviet national republics, he wrote: “... we recognize ourselves as equal in rights with the Ukrainian SSR and others, and together and on an equal basis with them we are entering a new union, a new federation, the “Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia.” And V. Stalin was forced to admit his plan for autonomy was erroneous.

Questions of ideology. The impossibility of restoring socialism

Patriots in modern Russia as popular as the Democrats at the end of perestroika. Evidence of this is the marginalization of former democrats (those who remained faithful to their ideals and are now renamed by the public as liberals), and the steadily exceeding last years Putin's rating is at 80%. Even critics of the current Russian authorities prefer to criticize it from ultra-patriotic positions.

The main ideological directions in the patriotic environment are:

1. Nationalism(in some cases reaching the point of Nazism).

2. Monarchism(in various manifestations, from nostalgia for the Romanov Empire, to dreams of recreating a class monarchy legitimized by Zemsky Councils, and even to a vague attraction to a neo-pagan chiefdom).

3. Marxism(including all already tested types and forms, as well as attempts to synthesize something new, more appropriate to the modern moment).

We will analyze the problems of nationalists and monarchists in the following materials, and now we will turn to Marxist (communist, socialist) ideas. Ultimately, they are the most popular in modern Russian society and seem easy to implement to many (it is enough for the authorities to show the will).

The popularity of these ideas is understandable.

Firstly, society, disappointed in the democrats (liberals), whose ideas dominated in the 90s and were antagonistic to the Marxist ones, logically tried to return to the old experience, which the liberals could not refute.

Secondly, the very idea of ​​the revival of Russia presupposes its return to natural borders. At the same time, the socialist idea of ​​a voluntary union of free peoples clearly outperforms the pure imperial idea. Imperialism in public consciousness has long been equated with imperialism (violent seizure, suppression), and the broad masses still equate empire and monarchy, that is state structure, implying social inequality and class privileges (at least this is how the broad masses perceive it). The restoration of the “fraternal family of the peoples of the USSR” is perceived as the restoration of trampled justice for everyone - the restoration of a man-made paradise on Earth.

Third, the generation of 40-year-olds and older, who remember the USSR, feels discomfort because the dismantling of the socialist state did not lead to the promised prosperity, but on the contrary caused a long period of impoverishment of the population, humiliation of the state and civil wars, as in Russia itself (October 1993 - Moscow and two Chechen), and in most other fragments of the USSR.

Survey data, as well as numerous discussions in in social networks and the media indicate that a significant part of the population views Putin’s activities, as head of state and architect of the current political system, as an attempt extended over time to restore the Soviet state.

Hence the outbursts of dissatisfaction with his disrespectful statements about Lenin’s activities. Hence the periodically spreading “conspiracy theories”, the authors of which either assure us that Putin is in cahoots with the Rothschilds (as an option with the Rockefellers), or swear that the United States completely controls him, because they know “where his money is,” or worry that in the Kremlin “there was a coup a long time ago” and “the liberals are using Putin as a puppet.” All of this is an attempt to explain (albeit from the standpoint of cosmic stupidity) why Putin did not recreate the USSR in 15 years.

In a similar way, the authors of “conspiracy theories” based on the idea of ​​​​restoring a socialist state explain Russia’s policy in the Donbass. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, “foreign deposits”, “one hundred thousand palaces” and the “liberal-oligarchic conspiracy” are also present there. They are only directed against the “rebellious people of Donbass,” who supposedly “began to build a new socialist Russia.” A diagram is drawn according to which the “liberal-oligarchic Kremlin regime,” in collusion with the American imperialists and Ukrainian Nazis, is strangling the “socialist revolution” in Donbass, since it allegedly threatens all of them.

The fact that in Donbass, as in Russia and Ukraine, there are also social expectations, but there is not even a hint of a socialist revolution, interests few people. Ideologically bruised people They are almost never able to objectively assess reality. Only great political strategists, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, were able to flexibly change ideological dogmas, adapting them to the needs of reality. But this is why we are now talking about Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, because they all had little in common with classical Marxism (from which they grew), but they completely fit into objective reality.

So, modern reality indicates that, despite all the objectively existing nostalgia for the USSR and the public demand for social justice, the restoration of the socialist state impossible. By the way, Putin spoke honestly about this, repeatedly emphasizing that recreating the USSR in its previous form is unrealistic.

In this thesis, as in any programmatic political formulation, every word is important. Not only is the re-creation of the USSR unrealistic, but in the same form. That is, Russia does not refuse some other form of integration (for example, the same Eurasian Union). The return of Crimea indicates that, under certain conditions, Moscow can restore its direct sovereignty over lost territories inhabited by Russians. But it is impossible to recreate the federation of socialist republics that the USSR was. That is, it is not integration that is impossible, but the restoration of socialism as a state ideology.

Why? After all, it would seem that it couldn’t be simpler. The idea is popular. There is a successful experience of socialist state construction (only the 25th year has passed since the collapse of the USSR and the dismantling of socialism), theoretical basis well-researched, and new theorists are a dime a dozen. So why not? Well, at least taking into account the mistakes of the past and not exactly in the same form as it was, but in a somewhat modernized form. As some neo-Marxists say “with private property, with a modern economy, but with social justice”.

The fact is that the creation of a social bourgeois state in modern Russia is not only possible, but is being successfully carried out. And here restoration of socialism(namely socialism, and not its opportunistic modifications, designed to provide the next “communist” or “socialist” party with representation in the bourgeois parliament) – No. Society itself does not want this, although it is not aware of it.

In fact, today the “socialist” aspirations of the public are exactly the same as the “democratic” ones during the late perestroika. The terms have changed, but not the wishes of the people. Then the people had social stability, complete social security (guaranteed free education, including higher education, medicine, an apartment from the state, guaranteed employment, a real right to choose a profession, a real right to rest, guaranteed pensions at a decent level, etc.) .

But he wanted more (jeans and a magazine "Playboy" in every kiosk, two hundred varieties of sausage and six hundred types of beer, tomatoes in winter and persimmons in summer, change a car every year, travel abroad whenever I want, and, as an olive in a cocktail, have the opportunity to become a billionaire).

Everything that the people wanted from capitalism was given to him was given. As it should be, not everyone, but there are clochards in Paris too. But what Soviet socialism provided was lost.

Now the people want to return what was lost. But he does not want to part with what he received. During the era of perestroika, the desire to work as under socialism and live as under capitalism was called a “democratic choice”; now this seems to be a return to the lost “socialist paradise”. The main idea has not changed. Six hundred types of beer and Soviet state paternalism must coexist in one bottle.

But this is just impossible. Both socialism and capitalism are systems. And each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, each system is limited in its maneuverability by its basic foundations, beyond which it cannot break out under any circumstances.

Socialism just cannot “modernize” and become “a little” capitalism, just as capitalism cannot exist without private ownership of the means of production and the right to make profit from this property.

Capitalism even tries to limit the possibility of using property “for other purposes.” Taxes on property, inheritance, land, etc. This is why they are introduced so that the owner does not rest on his laurels, living off the wealth accumulated by previous generations or himself, but would be forced, under the threat of ruin, to constantly ensure that the property works and makes a profit. In the same way, constant inflation, which is an integral companion of the capitalist economy, forces accumulated money to be put into circulation (and not consumed) (turning it into capital).

In its turn, socialism is also limited by certain rigid boundaries inherent (to one degree or another) in all existing and existing socialist states. If these boundaries are blurred, then the state is quickly losing its socialist content. It was in this way that perestroika, starting under the slogans of “socialism with a human face”, “return to Leninist principles”, “European socialism” and “convergence” (the merging of capitalism and socialism into one system that combines the advantages and sweeps aside the shortcomings of both base ones), quickly resulted into a simple restoration of capitalism.

And this is not an isolated case. This rule is. “Yugoslav socialism”, which allowed private property, died in the same way. The “Bolivarian socialism” of Chavez-Maduro is also failing. Even the conditional “Chinese socialism”, with all its harshness state control, which involves executions not only of corrupt bureaucrats, but also of wrong businessmen, are unable to cope with either the massive export of capital or the openly subversive activities of stock exchange players, whose desire to maximize profits damages not only the financial and economic interests of the state, but also its security.

Why it is forbidden combine all the good features of the two systems in one bottle and leave all the bad ones behind?

For the same reason that it is impossible to combine the qualities of a Formula 1 car and an executive limousine in one model.

This - two different systems oriented towards solving various strategic problems. The task of the capitalist state is to create conditions for rapid growth of capital at any cost. Not industry, not welfare - capital.

If for this it is necessary to eliminate the Indians who “ineffectively” use the lands they occupy, then in a few decades millions will disappear, literally dissolving in time and space. If the population of the colonies is “inefficient”, then in a couple of years millions of Irish or Indians will die of starvation; if the population of your own country “does not fit into the market” - nothing personal, only business.

If money can be made out of thin air, with the help of stock market speculation, capital is sent there, banks stop financing the real sector of the economy, national industry dies, production is transferred to other countries, but GDP grows, and capital is thriving. The social function is, in principle, not immanent in the capitalist state. It starts to get interested social problems only then and only to the extent that they begin to threaten the well-being of capital and it is not possible to solve them by traditional force. Ideally, the world of luxury villas and the world of bidonvilles simply should not intersect, existing in parallel realities.

Is constructed and operates appropriately state machine. Its task is to suppress everything that interferes with the growth of capital and to maximally support rapidly growing capital. Well, the ability of owners of billions of dollars to corrupt government officials makes it easy to amend laws in cases where it is inappropriate to directly prescribe the relevant norms in them.

Hence theory of the state - “night watchman”, to whom society allocates for maintenance exactly as much as it considers necessary. In fact, exactly capital, and not society decides how much, for what needs, and most importantly from what sources to allocate to the state. Therefore, all the most successful (from a capitalist point of view) financial and economic decisions (“Thatcherism”, “Reaganomics”) led to a reduction in the tax burden on capital and to its increase on employees. And the state, the “night watchman,” does not seek to interfere in the private life of its citizens, monitor their morality, cultivate taste, etc. as long as it does not pose a threat to the interests of capital.

In general, state - "night watchman" fewer tasks and fewer functions than a socialist state. In fact, its main function is to protect the existing state of affairs from external and internal attacks.

In its turn, socialist state should provide citizens with not just a fair distribution of income, but a whole range of social services. To do this, it needs significantly more resources than a capitalist state. Therefore, salaries in the USSR were lower than in the West, but almost the entire social sphere (paid in the West) was financed by the state.

But, in order to fulfill its functions of creating and developing infrastructure, industrial enterprises, and constantly improving the general standard of living of the population, a socialist state needs full control over production. You cannot buy a car plant and produce Mercedes, not because Mercedes is a bad car. You just need to first provide everyone with Zhiguli cars.

From the point of view of a socialist state, updating the model range of the same cars every two or three years is an unacceptable waste of resources. Classic Zhiguli cars still carry their owners normally in all regions and climatic zones of not only Russia, but also the former USSR. And they deliver you where you need to go. Mercedes is much more comfortable, but It’s easier to provide everyone with Zhiguli cars.

What's the point of coming up with a new design every year? men's suits or women's dresses, if they can be worn for two, three, or even five years? From the point of view of a socialist state, throwing away good clothes just because they are out of fashion is uneconomical. After all, logic dictates that the longer a thing lasts, the better it is, and the saved resources, both public and personal, can be used for something useful.

If, in such conditions, a private owner (capitalist) works next to state-owned enterprises, he will easily win their competition simply due to the fact that he will update the assortment more often, albeit at the expense of quality. It doesn’t matter, because no one will file a claim against you because the car you sold broke down after five years if your client is determined to change the car every two to three years.

Given the unlimited possibility of developing private business, parallel to state-owned enterprises, the public sector will very quickly be squeezed out of a number of industries (trade, light industry, food industry, etc.). Supporters of “modernized socialism” say it’s no big deal. The capitalist will work in those industries in which he is stronger, and the socialist state will do what he does better - defense industry, heavy industry, search and extraction of minerals.

This, however, is unrealistic. In fact, Lenin wrote about this, warning that any small private property daily, hourly gives rise to large ones. A generic feature of capitalism is the desire to increase the volume of capital. If your business does not develop, does not grow, then it is dying.

Before our eyes, post-Soviet business, starting with stalls, eateries and semi-handicraft workshops, captured commanding heights in the economy in a matter of years. The state will not be able to legally restrict business. He will penetrate into areas of activity that interest him either through lobbying - convincing society and the state with the help of the media that he will be a more effective owner, or by corrupting officials and deputies. If the obstacle turns out to be insurmountable, he will begin a fight with the state. Expansion is the way of life of capital. Without mastering his country, he cannot move further and loses to foreign competitors. Therefore, capital will always primarily fight against the public sector.

Moreover, in one of his many definitions of communism, Lenin argued that it is accounting and control. Undoubtedly, one of the main competitive advantages of a socialist state is its ability to quickly mobilize enormous resources and unlimited maneuver with them. In the first place here is the ability to maneuver precisely with labor resources. The great construction projects of communism became possible primarily because the USSR was able to supply them with the necessary number of workers and relevant specialists in the shortest possible time. At the same time, the costs turned out to be significantly lower, and the pace of creation of new infrastructure was significantly higher than under capitalism.

Why? Because the capitalist state can build Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and the BAM, and repeat any of the Soviet “constructions of the century.” But, first, he will need to create acceptable conditions for life, recreation and entertainment there, and then lure the required number of workers and specialists with higher salaries. Since they will come with their families, it is necessary to provide jobs for their wives, schools and preschool institutions for their children.

The socialist state in the 70s BAM sent people just like in the 30s to build a “garden city.” At the beginning to the taiga in a tent. Then build barracks for yourself, and in a few years comfortable housing will begin to appear, followed by social institutions, etc. In order to be able to manage labor resources in this way, it is necessary to completely control all jobs. If you can find alternative work outside the public sector, it is extremely difficult to make an offer you cannot refuse.

Thus, coexistence socialist and capitalist sectors in the economy of the same state leads to the rapid destruction of the socialist sector. The capitalist will dump, entice the best personnel, corrupt the authorities, but he will destroy the competitor. Any capital strives for a monopoly position that allows it to extract maximum profit.

As the capitalist sector grows, the socialist state will lose the resources (material and human) that allow it to fulfill its basic social function. We also saw this at the end of perestroika and in the dashing 90s, when the Constitution still obliged the state to ensure social security no less than in the USSR, but the state no longer had the resources to implement it.

Let's move on. It was no coincidence that in the USSR they limited the size of dachas and personal plots and engaged in seemingly petty regulation of personal consumption. As we defined above, a socialist state must ensure a fair (as close to equal as possible) distribution of income. But there are always and everywhere people who prefer to increase their income (including through illegal means) and not share it with the state.

How to catch all kinds of speculators, shop workers and other citizens who do not share the ideals of socialism? It is not written on them that they have already fallen out of the system of state control and are no longer financially dependent on the jobs provided by the state. Today it may seem to us that the harsh struggle of the USSR against violations of socialist legality in the economic sphere is a quirk. But that's not true. After all, we are talking about creating the rudiments parallel economy, and capitalist. If you don’t fight it, it will grow and destroy both the socialist economy and the state itself (this is what happened in the 80s).

In the USSR there was a concept "unearned income". Receiving unearned income entailed criminal penalties. But, if you can build any houses you want and own any plots of land, then how can you determine whether the dacha was built with unearned income or whether its owner is simply an outstanding master and built himself a three-story palace with his own hands? Limiting, rationing and unifying consumption levels made it easier to combat economic crimes. A house that was too big or a car that was too expensive was a marker for the relevant authorities, who could ask the question: “What money was used to buy all this?” And unlike a modern capitalist state, it was not the prosecutor who had to prove that the money was stolen, but the owner of the dacha who had to prove that he had earned everything honestly.

Second unification function– demonstration of status. In the USSR, a miner or highly skilled worker earned more than an ordinary member of the Central Committee. But the standard of living of even district-level managers was still higher than that of ordinary production leaders. This was ensured through various types of benefits, including the issue of quickly obtaining more spacious and high-quality housing in houses with an improved layout. And this is also natural. After all, if everyone is equal and a simple worker can ensure the standard of living of a major official, then how to ensure selection for public service qualified specialists? After all, for this you need to study much longer. And what kind of talents do you have? And the higher the position, the higher the responsibility, and the working hours are irregular, and weekends are not guaranteed. And at the factory I defended my shift - I’m free.

If you just pay a lot to an official, you need to provide him with the opportunity to spend this money. But he doesn’t need ten Zhiguli cars, twenty Dnepr or Minsk refrigerators and a hundred Mayak or Jupiter tape recorders. He will need more expensive, but also better quality goods. The industry does not produce its own - it must be purchased abroad. If such goods appear on free sale, then not only officials will buy them and more and more of them will be needed. Own enterprises will lose the market. The budget will receive less revenue and the social function of the state will again be under threat. If scarce goods are distributed among those who are entitled, then why should they pay more if the state already distributes, highlighting who is entitled to what?

Finally, the presence of a multi-structure economy presupposes a multi-party system. Each structure must be provided with political representation, otherwise the citizens involved in it are deprived of their rights. And even without political representation, it is impossible to coordinate public policy, to build it in such a way that it does not damage any major social group, provoking her to fight the state.

But how is it possible, in a state in which socialism is the official ideology (after all, ideologically concerned citizens are now demanding the consolidation of the state status of ideology from the Russian government), allow the existence of bourgeois (or simply non-socialist) parties? What if they come to power in the elections? What kind of society will they build? And how will this relate to the state nature of socialist ideology?

We saw how. After the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution, which secured the monopoly of the CPSU on power, the USSR collapsed within less than two years. And this is logical - in an ideological state, the party is the backbone of the system. If the monopoly of a party on power is challenged, then the state nature of the ideology is also contested (another party has a different ideology). Hence, one-party system(or quasi multi-party system, when all parties are twin brothers, and one of them is the main one) is an inevitable feature of a socialist state.

Summarize. An attempt to introduce socialism in the form of a state ideology will require:

1. Liquidation of first large, and then all private enterprises.

2. Establishing a state monopoly on economic activity.

3. Establishment of a state monopoly on foreign trade.

4. Lack of legal opportunity to find work outside the public sector (the state is the only employer).

5. Unification and rationing of the distribution of goods (prestigious goods, quality services, etc.) under state control.

6. Introduction of one-party system and ideological control of the ruling party over society.

These measures can be implemented in a more or less strict form, but they are mandatory, since without their implementation the socialist state, firstly, will not be able to perform those functions social protection and fair distribution that society expects from him. And, secondly, it will quickly degenerate into capitalism again.

I very much doubt that the majority of citizens of the Russian Federation today are ready to give up their usual standard of living and lifestyle in order to return to a society of social justice.

I'll repeat it again. The population wants Soviet stability and predictability. But it wants all this to be ensured under new conditions, without the actual dismantling of the capitalist state. And this is impossible.

Another evidence of the correctness of my assessment of the true aspirations of the population and the true nature of their social demands is the fact that none of the communist and socialist parties existing in Russia, except perhaps completely marginal ones that do not have a single chance of becoming a serious political force, act as from real communist Leninist revolutionary positions. Systemic and most non-systemic Marxists prefer to sit in the bourgeois parliament. That is, from the position of Marx-Lenin-Stalin, they are opportunists embedded in the bourgeois political system, and them in this voter supports.

Meanwhile, today hardly anyone can doubt that (unlike the communists themselves, who repeatedly and not only in the USSR allowed the peaceful restoration of capitalism) the change from the bourgeois system to the socialist one without a revolution is impossible. The level of violence may be high or low, but the revolutionary nature of change is inevitable. After all, it is necessary to change constitutional foundations existing statehood, which recognizes the “sacred right of private property”, to new ones, according to which private ownership of the means of production is unacceptable in principle, and the rest of the property (including real estate) is defined as "personal property", which implies a ban on its use for the purpose of profit, that is, the creation of capital.

So, the revolutionary avant-garde, which should truly be communist party, No. The lower classes really want it live as before, only, as has been the case at all times, in all countries and under all authorities, we would like additional bonuses in the form of the Soviet system of social guarantees.

The top not only can manage in the old way, but have just gotten the hang of it and manage very effectively. There is no revolutionary situation, and is not expected. There is no revolutionary party, and it is not expected. Spontaneous “people's communism” is a common phenomenon for any era. It always exists, is always utopian and has never influenced anything.

Consequently, the restoration of a state in which socialism (communism) would be the official “only true” ideology in the foreseeable future (at least until the end of the unfolding global systemic crisis) is impossible. It is unknown what ideologies will be relevant in the post-crisis world. Some suggest that humanity may even return to enlightened feudalism (or to some kind of new form class society).

The only problem associated with ideologized groups of accentuated individuals is their attempts to use the Donbass as a testing ground for their social constructs, with the aim of subsequently transferring them to Russia. The results are negative for Donbass, and for Russia, and for the “ideologists” themselves. However, as at least primary order is established in the DPR/LPR, their (“ideologists”) influence on the life of the republics decreases.

This applies not only to communists, but also to nationalists and monarchists, whose ideas and the reasons for their impracticability we will consider in the next material.

Rostislav Ishchenko, columnist for MIA Rossiya Segodnya

From the editors of RuAN

The USSR had state capitalism plus the slave system

Stages construction socialism V SSSR

More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...

SOVIET SOCIALISM

So, we looked at three stages in the history of the USSR - from November 1917 to the summer of 1918, war communism and NEP. All of them belong to the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. The main content of the transition period is the struggle to overcome the elements of the capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois structure of society and the formation of a new system - socialism.

As we have seen, the policy pursued by the Soviet government with the transition to the next stage underwent serious changes, even to the point of a complete break with the previous course. At the same time, this policy had an internal logic. The vector of the history of the USSR in the period under review was determined by how the ruling Bolshevik party understood the essence of socialism and the path of transition to it.

By the beginning of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the Bolsheviks fully shared the concept of socialism, the main provisions of which were set out in the classic work of Marxism, “Critique of the Gotha Program”. The lack of practical experience in implementing this concept could not prompt its revision. After the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks began to carry out socialist transformations in full accordance with the tenets of classical Marxism, but they did it gradually, trying to maintain the necessary measure in the pace and depth of the revolutionary breakdown of the old mode of production.

However, they inherited a difficult inheritance. The need to solve the food problem forced them to forcibly confiscate surplus grain from the wealthy part of the village, which caused an armed uprising of the kulaks against Soviet power. War communism was a natural reaction to civil war and economic difficulties and, at the same time, the most consistent policy of implementing in practice the provisions of the classical Marxist concept of socialism. At the end of the civil war, the inadequacy of the methods of war communism for peacetime conditions became apparent. The NEP turned out to be a successful practical step to overcome the difficulties of the transition period, but the prevailing ideas about the essence of the socialist mode of production remained unchanged. However, the logic of the development of NEP ideas brought to life V.I. Lenin’s cooperative plan, which meant a radical revision of the entire concept of socialism and an actual departure from the tenets of classical Marxism.

The same logic, determined by one or another idea of ​​socialism, led to the formation of the last, fourth stage of the history of the Soviet Union. The socio-economic system of this stage can be briefly described as Soviet-type socialism, or simply Soviet socialism. We lived in this society until 1991. The emergence and development of Soviet-type socialism is associated with the name of I.V. Stalin. Over time, our society and public policy changed, but not so much that we could talk about a change in the stages of the country’s development. The fact is that the fourth stage corresponds to a fully formed mode of production, which was commonly called socialist. The leaders of the country changed, political “freezes” were replaced by “thaws” and vice versa, but the mode of production, which determines and shapes all the main features of society, remained unchanged. The nature of the dominant mode of production is the decisive factor that determines the main features of the social structure. Therefore, we have reason to consider the period of the history of the USSR from the end of the NEP to the beginning of the 90s. as a single, fourth stage of its development.

What understanding of socialism, what concept is the basis of Soviet socialism? It is obvious that it has practically nothing in common with Lenin's cooperative plan, according to which a socialist society should be an association of workers' cooperatives. At the same time, a number of common features make Soviet socialism similar to war communism. Indeed, the main, defining feature of the mode of production is the dominant form of ownership of the means of production. As we saw above, distinctive feature War communism was the nationalization, that is, the transfer into public ownership of all industrial and commercial enterprises. The similarity with Soviet-type socialism in this main feature is obvious. Moreover, in terms of nationalization of agricultural production, Soviet socialism has advanced significantly further than its predecessor, since the independent cooperative status of collective farms cannot be taken seriously. Initially, the main goal of organizing collective farms was to create a structure through which the state was able to withdraw - directly or through unequal exchange - the quantities of bread and other agricultural products it needed. The analogy with surplus appropriation is so obvious that it requires no comment.

Both compared stages of our history are characterized by maximum centralization of production and distribution management. Further, under Soviet socialism it was not possible to overcome the tendency towards equalization of distribution, therefore, on this basis, it did not go far from war communism, under which the desire to implement the principle of distribution according to labor also resulted in actual equalization. The universal labor conscription of the times of war communism smoothly transitioned into the fight against parasitism, which was waged by the state throughout the history of the USSR. The similarity of the two historical stages is also visible in the rejection of market relations.

Their only significant difference lies in the degree of use of commodity-money relations. It was the practice of war communism that proved the utopianism of the idea of ​​organizing direct product exchange and the impossibility of the modern economy functioning without the use of money. The model of Soviet-style socialism took this experience into account.

So, Soviet-type socialism is strikingly different from the society whose contours were outlined by V.I. Lenin with his cooperative plan, but coincides in its main features with military communism. The differences between Soviet socialism and war communism are not qualitative, but only quantitative - in the degree of implementation of certain communist principles. But as shown above, War Communism represents the most consistent attempt to implement the concept of socialism as interpreted by the “Critique of the Gotha Program”. Thus, the theoretical source of Soviet-style socialism is not Lenin's cooperative plan, but the classical Marxist concept of socialism. This conclusion is of fundamental importance, as it allows us to understand and explain a lot in the society in which we all lived.

How did the return to the old dogmas of classical Marxism occur? In 1921, during the formation of the foundations of the NEP, V.I. Lenin continued to remain captive of the old utopian views on socialism, although in practice he had already switched to using completely realistic methods. On the one hand, he considered the NEP a temporary retreat to capitalism and limited the time of application of its methods only to the period of transition to socialism. On the other side, actually NEP meant a turn towards finding ways to form a new concept of socialism. Lenin's cooperative plan became a logical continuation of the ideas of the NEP and, if implemented, would lead the country onto the path of building true socialism, adequate to the level of development of the productive forces of society. However, Lenin put forward his plan, indicating a change in his views on socialism, at the very end of his life. Lenin's idea was presented only in one of his last works - the article “On Cooperation”. He did not have time to specify and detail, and simply explain it in more detail. These circumstances explain the unfortunate fate of V.I. Lenin’s cooperative plan, which never turned into a complete concept for building a socialist society.

Lenin's cooperative plan is simply was not understood contemporaries. As a result of this, it was “halved”, completely silencing that part of it that related to the industrial sphere, and the idea of ​​peasant cooperation was, as we know, distorted.

J.V. Stalin, the creator of the model of Soviet-type socialism, in his misunderstanding of Lenin’s cooperative plan did not differ from his party comrades. For this reason, he remained in positions corresponding to the spring of 1921, continuing to consider the NEP a temporary retreat forced by circumstances. Naturally, his goal was to someday in the future stop the retreat and go on the offensive again. The inability to creatively approach Marxist theory, inherent in Stalin and his entourage, did not allow them to step over dogmas and, based on the experience of war communism and NEP, develop a new concept of socialism, within the framework of which would be achieved optimal combination various forms of ownership, market and administrative methods of economic management.

Instead of going, according to Lenin, forward from NEP, Stalin turned the country around back, on the well-known rails of nationalization of everything and everyone, embodying slightly modernized ideas of military communism in a new historical situation. Thus, the course of the history of the USSR was predetermined for many years.

The specific circumstances due to which our country, having barely found the right direction of development, was again thrown back onto the path at the end of which the tragic ending of 1991 loomed, are analyzed in the next chapter.

From the book Let's profit from the crisis of capitalism... or Where to invest money correctly author Khotimsky Dmitry

Socialism In addition to problems with incorrect setting of tasks and violation of human rights, socialism was unable to solve problems with hoarding. In the 1980s, the population of the USSR, despite all the attempts of the state to fight “unearned” income, developed a colossal

From the book About interest on loans, jurisdictional, and reckless. Reader modern problems"monetary civilization". author Katasonov Valentin Yurievich

From the book Twitonomics. Everything you need to know about economics, short and to the point by Compton Nick

What is socialism? Socialism is a theory of economic organization that is perhaps the best known alternative to capitalism. Socialists believe that the abolition of private property and exploitation should lead to more equitable distribution

From the book Ford and Stalin: On how to live like human beings author USSR Internal Predictor

6.6. “The world behind the scenes” and Soviet Bolshevism in the Second World War of the twentieth century In general, by the end of the 1930s. successes of the USSR in construction in one particular country new system intra-social relations were undeniable even taking into account the fact that the economic

From the book Socialism, Economic Calculation and the Entrepreneurial Function [fragment] author Huerta de Soto Jesus

Chapter III Socialism The previous chapter was devoted to the analysis of the concept of entrepreneurship. We begin this chapter with a detailed explanation of the nature of socialism and how socialism prevents the emergence of the coordinating tendencies necessary for life in society. IN

From the book Socialism [Economic and Sociological Analysis] author Mises Ludwig von

Chapter II. Socialism 1. State and economic activity The goal of socialism is to transfer the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of an organized society, the state. The socialist state owns all material

From the book New Era - Old Anxieties: Economic policy author Yasin Evgeniy Grigorievich

From the book Battles of the Diamond Barons author Goryainov Sergey Alexandrovich

Chapter 4. The Soviet Diamond Project “Next, in his speech at the board, P. F. Lomako made a speech characteristic of this time. Briefly, it was like this: - Since 1954, in the capitalist world, the leaders of the imperialist powers, led by the United States, began to create

author Alexandrov Yuri

SOCIALISM AND COMMODITIES Capitalist production is commodity production. This means that the product being manufactured is considered by its manufacturer as a product, that is, it is initially intended for sale. Each product has a value expressed in monetary terms, and subjects

From the book USSR: the logic of history. author Alexandrov Yuri

SOCIALISM AND COMPETITION In continuation of the analysis of the Soviet planned centralized economy, it is necessary to consider one more factor that determined its low efficiency, especially in the last period of the existence of the USSR. The programs of the CPSU declared that the goal

From the book USSR: the logic of history. author Alexandrov Yuri

SOCIALISM AND STATE OWNERSHIP It is obvious that the exclusive position that state (national) property occupied in the USSR is the main factor that determined the method of production and the main features of Soviet society. We are accustomed to associate socialism with

From the book Imperialism of the Dollar Western Europe author Leontyev A.

From the book Modernization: from Elizabeth Tudor to Yegor Gaidar by Margania Otar

Christian Socialism Since May 1922, a new government appeared in Austria, led by 46-year-old Christian socialist Ignaz Seipel, who managed to qualitatively change the course of affairs in the country by attracting widespread international assistance. To understand

From the book Teplukhin's Matrix. Before and after the first million author Teplukhin Pavel

From the book The Art of Creating Advertising Messages author Sugarman Joseph

From the book Conversations author Ageev Alexander Ivanovich

Nowadays, we quite often hear from adherents of Bolshevik thought how they “built socialism” in the USSR. The question rightly arises: was this really so? And is the socialist system a system that can be taken and built? Naturally, everything here is not as simple as it might seem to a convinced Bolshevik-Leninist or an ordinary person in the street.

First, let's remember a little theory. The nature of any social system is determined by the method of production of material goods. The two aspects of the mode of production are the forces of production and their corresponding relations of production. It is clear that communist production relations cannot arise on the basis of the same productive forces on the basis of which capitalist production relations arose. The question arises: how did the Soviet general secretaries try to build socialism on the basis of capitalist productive forces? The history of the Soviet state has clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to build socialism, to impose it artificially through decrees. Although the Bolshevik leaders did not think so. In reality, everything was different: in the USSR they built state capitalism, not . A simple decree (in our case, the Decree on Land) banning wage labor could not at all destroy the wage labor system; The party nomenklatura was not able to destroy capitalist class antagonism by getting rid of the bourgeoisie; It did not destroy the capitalist basis either, nationalizing all industry, because it makes no difference who exploits the workers - a private owner or the state. This is because it is impossible to change the formation through political decisions: the political superstructure of the Soviet state, undoubtedly, could in some way influence the economic basis of Soviet society, but not so much as to change it qualitatively, radically. The base determines the superstructure, not vice versa. When we talk about a change in production relations from capitalist to communist, we must understand that there must be a corresponding change in the productive forces.

Socialism in the USSR as a national state

This was only one side of the myth about the construction of socialism in the USSR. The point is that it is impossible to build socialism in a single country. Why? One of the progressive missions it carries out is the creation of a single market space, connecting the economies of all states into a single economic whole based on their mutual dependence. The framework of national states for the productive forces has long become cramped, as evidenced by crises of overproduction. In essence, industry and trade ceased to be domestic. For example, the Soviet Union, although it produced grain, began purchasing it abroad in the mid-1960s. National borders are an obstacle to the productive forces of capitalism. Again, this is easily confirmed by the example of the USSR, which actively sold its own industrial products and energy resources on the foreign market. Capitalist economic system has long united all the economies of national states, has become a system on a global scale, and therefore the next socio-economic formation - communist - will be a world system. Even the Bolsheviks themselves, who verbally built socialism in the USSR, still cherished the hope of the victory of the world revolution: for this they even broke the tsarist agreements on cooperation with some Third World countries, they also supported the workers' uprising in Hamburg in 1923. It is clear that it didn't end well. The global nature of the socialist system was also noted by the classics of Marxism themselves, speaking about the need for a socialist revolution in several of the most developed capitalist countries. In summary: it was simply impossible to build socialism only in the USSR.

One can purely hypothetically assume that socialism was built in the USSR. Plants and factories were built industrial production grew, in a word, the productive forces developed at full speed, and suddenly there was a collapse of the Soviet “socialist” state, that is, the restoration of capitalism. Have the “socialist” productive forces really degraded so much over these 70 years that a “restoration of capitalism” has taken place? There is an inconsistency, because the productive forces progressed in the Soviet era - no one will deny this. Obviously, everything was different: the productive forces, like the relations of production, were capitalist. This is where we can put an end to the question of building socialism in the USSR.

Conclusion about the need for appropriate material resources

It will be possible to talk about building socialism only when the material basis of socialism—the socialist productive forces—is ripe for this. Soviet leaders could introduce as many decrees and laws as they wanted, but it still would not have led to a qualitative change material base society. A change in production relations does not depend on anyone's subjective will.