Interesting and Humour - page 3495
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I am trying to build an adequate picture of the world. I carefully filter sources. Formulating evaluation criteria.
What else?
http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/5679659/post401910239
I am impressed by your attempt to answer the question: why so?
There are a lot of people who try to answer this question. For the last 25 years, anti-Soviet Russophobia and subservience to the West have been the mainstream. And this adulation did not allow to think.
But there are other answers and there are other people who think about it and give answers.
Here is what I have proofread on the nodal points.
1. The Civil War. Was it avoidable? No. Let's clarify the start date of the civil war. Contrary to the commonly accepted date - 1918, we should consider as such the date in February 1917, when soldiers of the garrison joined the workers' demonstrations in St. Petersburg and began to round up officers and policemen. With impunity.
The cause of the civil war was not the intrigues of individual citizens or parties, but irreconcilable, deep splits in society. These rifts had been brewing for decades and they were all laid bare at once with the removal of the Tsar from the throne. In all countries of the world such rifts are resolved in the only way - by civil war.
2. Raskulakization. Could it have been done differently, humanly? By convincing people without alienating potential supporters in the middle classes? I don't know. It was necessary to free up labor resources for industrialization and to replace those who had left agriculture by increasing productivity. It was called 'collectivisation and industrialisation'.
Were the problems of preparation for war solved? Almost, the country was about two years behind in its preparations for war (military-industrial parity was not achieved until mid-1943).
3. 1937. The nodal year for understanding 1991. A massive attack by anti-Soviet and Russophobes, so that we never even try to sort it out, but only repent and drum our second-rateness into our heads.
Personally I support the view of those people who believe that 1937, with the very convenient word for distortion "repressions", was a continuation of the civil war. If one believes that, then the question automatically arises: who and with whom.
The answer.
There were three different points of view within the party
- world revolution
- Receiving benefits as victors in the revolution
- The construction of a just society, which must necessarily be defended in a war.
We fought with available weapons (denunciations, anonymous information, special dispatches). But the people who took part in this war were those who came out of the civil war, and their formation was achieved by destroying the enemy with a counter-saber blow - to pieces of meat.The latter point of view prevailed. The result was industrialization and victory in the war.
4. Death of Stalin. People who want to live well come to power - this is the second part of the party according to the 1937 classification. Both the top of the nomenklatura and the feted top of the intelligentsia lived well. And by 1985, all these people came to the conclusion that their children should have the right to inherit their parents' social status.
That was it. The fate of the country was sealed.
Yes, socialism in Russia is dead. But the history of socialism in Russia, is not a refutation of the very idea of a just society. A certain part of our society wants very much otherwise, they twist, fabricate documents, lie... But today there are more and more people who understand the history of the country as I have outlined it. These people are becoming bolder and bolder in the media.
We will return to the red idea in a new branch of history, because justice is in our genes. And man's destiny is NOT to "get/buy/feed it all and recycle it into shit".
One needs to understand one's history and draw conclusions and I hear them very often.
1. No splits in society, especially with the smell of civil war
2. The problem of betrayal by the elites must be addressed.
To avoid betrayal of the elites it is necessary first to raise these very elites, to create a spirit and experience of strategic management, this does not exist now, for example the same Fursov states: we have not formed political elites at all and probably many would agree, especially looking at the recent phenomenal scandals in the top levels of government....
There will be no civil war because everyone is busy surviving and earning and there is not enough passionate charge for such a cause......
Justice is very good, but the red idea is a dead end, if you understand it in the Soviet sense, it is madness when the system begins to devour itself, after all Voroshilov seems to have told proudly to comrade Stalin that the Red Army is polished to white bones - in the end they drank the command staff and were helpless in a new war - it is just madness from hell, And if you remember the famous telegram from 1938 to increase the limit of executions - it is clear that we do not want to thank such a red idea, and there was no justice, just a show and forced equalization.
You are very bad at drawing an adequate picture of the world. Try to take a broader view of the world and of human beings. And not only from the position of "eating", for your concern for a fair distribution does not solve any other problem than eating. At the heart of your desire for a fair distribution is the idea that it is as if there is an unfair distribution in the world and that someone has been given and you have not been given enough. Just resentment towards the world.
To avoid betrayal of the elites it is necessary first to raise these same elites, to create the spirit and experience of strategic management, this does not exist now, for example the same Fursov states: we do not have political elites at all and probably many would agree, especially looking at the recent phenomenal scandals in the top levels of government....
There will be no civil war because everyone is busy surviving and earning and there is not enough passionate charge for such a cause......
Justice is very good, but the red idea is a dead end, if you understand it in the Soviet sense, it is madness when the system begins to devour itself, after all Voroshilov seems to have told proudly to comrade Stalin that the Red Army is cleaned to the white bones - in the end they drank the command staff and were helpless in a new war - it is just madness from hell, And if you remember the famous telegram of 1938 to increase the limit of shootings - it is clear that we do not need such a red idea, and there was no justice, just a show and forced equalization.
I look at the Chinese with envy.
When Mao died there were about 15 people gathered - all repressed by Mao in our terminology. All were thirsty for the blood of the dead Mao.
But there was one among them, Deng Xiaoping, who said: Mao did this, this and this for the good of our country. He is our idol. He belongs in the mausoleum, on the money.
That's it.
That's the end of the Mao discussion. Let us deal with our current problems. At that time, China was a third-world country. And today?
You have found reasons and discarded the great history of a great country along with a great idea.
So far I can state that you haven't heard me at all.
Let's call it a day.
Of what I write, you hardly understand 10%.
Have you ever thought that you might be deluded? Both about the "great" idea and about my understanding?
I look at the Chinese with envy.
When Mao died, 15 people gathered - all were repressed Mao in our terminology. All were thirsty for the blood of the dead Mao.
But there was one among them, Deng Xiaoping, who said: Mao did this, this and this for the good of our country. He is our idol. He belongs in the mausoleum, on the money.
That's it.
That's the end of the Mao discussion. Let us deal with our current problems. At the time, China was a third-world country.
Faa, how many times?
Immediately after coming to power in 1977, Deng Xiaoping annulled the results and conclusions of Mao's "cultural revolution" policy and proclaimed the "Beijing Spring" programme in which criticism of Mao's policies was openly encouraged
He who speaks about politics and the history of our Motherland will greet the New Year with a birch broom.
I will check in the morning...