Kolomna Kush is a political association of thinking and searching people, and not wooden men walking in step and thinking alike. Naturally, on many issues of political theory and practice, the most heated discussions sometimes flare up between members of the Bush. The note published below by one of the members of the Association is just such an excellent invitation to a discussion on one of the topical theoretical issues.
Thus, we are starting a new section “Controversy” on our resources. After some time, another friend of ours will write a response to it. In turn, it will be possible to respond to the answer, etc.
Naturally, anyone can join the debate. We will only welcome an open, broad discussion.
Original taken from masterwaff What kind of socialism was there in the Soviet Union and did it exist?
Many plasma and not so Marxists, as well as a considerable list of people who are far from socialist ideals and communist rhetoric, often engage in fierce polemics on the question: “Was there socialism in the USSR?” Moreover, in this case, “socialism” often means a kind of “desired socialism,” that is, a socialist system that has already been freed from the key distortions inherent in countries with a market economy.
So, when answering the question about the presence of socialism in the USSR, first of all it is necessary to determine what socialism is. And this is where differences probably begin among the polemicizing parties. If we define socialism as the first phase of the construction of communism or as a social system in which there are no classes, then most likely the answer is still affirmative. After all, indeed, large groups of people differing in their attitude to the means of production did not exist; at the very least, they were moving towards communism. What's wrong?But here it is worth remembering some of the properties of socialism declared by the classics or, at least, being direct properties of what was declared. Namely, on the next two.
Socialism in a market environment
The first property is that what is produced by a socialist society goes to meet its needs. This removes the inevitable distortions of the capitalist system, in which a certain product/service is produced not in the quantity in which he/she is needed by society, but in the quantity in which it can be sold.
This is a much more serious problem than it might initially seem. In particular, it determines the presence of inevitable crises of overproduction in countries with capitalist economies, and removes this inevitability (however, of course, does not cancel the possibility of such) in socialist countries.
This is a fairly voluminous and serious topic for a separate article, but for now we will limit ourselves to only this, in the hope that someday this issue will be able to be addressed in more detail.
So, the USSR did not have the physical ability to direct its production solely to meet the needs of its population. The reason for this was that the Soviet Union arose and existed in the alien environment of the global market economy. Therefore, it was forced to act in the foreign market as a mega-corporation, to act according to market laws of competition.
I repeat, otherwise its existence at an early stage would simply be impossible.
Soviet industry produced a gigantic amount of what was competitive and sold well, the emphasis was quite seriously shifted away from the needs of the Soviet people (however, still far from the way liberal myth-makers describe it). As a result, the USSR captured 40% of the world civil aviation market, built nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power stations in various countries, and was the first (by a huge margin) arms exporter in the world. Like any successful corporation, it put forward and saturated the market with what sold well and was competitive (and often had no analogues at all), while at the same time shading and allocating fewer resources to the development and distribution of its own (in corporate language) " weak positions." The fact that the Soviet automobile industry caused, at best, a bitter smile in comparison with its Western counterparts, and the Soviet aviation industry aroused pride among us and envy among Western competitors, is largely due to this inevitable paradigm of behavior in a market environment.
Such a contradiction could be resolved only in one way - if the surrounding political and economic environment were not alien to the socialist state. That is, there can be no miracles here. A socialist state must first subject the world economic structure to “terroformation”, and only then can it begin to act in accordance with its interests, and not imposed laws. A new global economic order cannot descend from heaven on its own. And this must be taken into account.
As a result, from this point you can see that:
1) The Soviet Union did not have a production vector aimed exclusively at
directly to meet the needs of citizens of the USSR.
2) This shift in direction is objectively inevitable and cannot be eliminated until
as long as the dominant economic system is alien to socialism.
3) The USSR (at least until its last decade) was engaged
“terroforming” of the economic landscape of the planet, as a consequence of which, in
If successful, this shift could be eliminated.
Alienation under socialism
The second property is that under socialism there is no alienation of labor.
And here I would like to talk in more detail.
Alienation manifests itself in various forms. For example, one of its forms is the alienation of labor.
Marx writes the following about him:
“What is the alienation of labor?
Firstly, that labor is something external for the worker, not belonging to his essence; in that in his work he does not affirm himself, but denies, feels not happy, but unhappy, does not freely develop his physical and spiritual energy, but exhausts his physical nature and destroys his spiritual strength. Therefore, the worker only feels like himself outside of work, and in the process of work he feels cut off from himself. He is at home when he is not working; and when he works, he is no longer at home. Because of this, his work is not voluntary, but forced; this is forced labor. This is not the satisfaction of the need for labor, but only a means to satisfy all other needs, but not the need for labor. The alienation of labor is clearly reflected in the fact that as soon as physical or other coercion to work ceases, people flee from labor like the plague. External labor, labor in the process of which a person alienates himself, is self-sacrifice, self-torture. And, finally, the external nature of labor is manifested for the worker in the fact that this labor does not belong to him, but to another, and in the process of labor he himself belongs not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the independent activity of human imagination, the human brain and the human heart influences the individual independently of himself, i.e. as some kind of alien activity, divine or devilish, the worker’s activity is not his own activity. It belongs to another, it is the worker’s loss of himself.
The result is such a situation that a person (worker) feels free to act only when performing his animal functions - when eating, drinking, during sexual intercourse, at best, while still settling down in his home, decorating himself, etc. - and in his human functions he feels like only an animal. What is inherent in the animal becomes the lot of man, and the human turns into what is inherent in the animal?
True, food, drink, sexual intercourse, etc. are also truly human functions. But in abstraction, which separates them from the circle of other human activities and turns them into the last and only final goals, they have an animal character.”
I do not dare to describe this form of alienation of labor and, as a consequence, the alienation of the human personality itself more precisely, so we will limit ourselves to this.
Marx has already mentioned the alienation of personality in passing. It essentially grows both from the alienation of labor on the one hand (man does not belong to himself, he can realize himself only in his animal, and not in his human, creative, where he plays the role of an animal), and, on the other hand, from the alienation surplus value, which plunges a person into the cabala of life “from paycheck to paycheck.” The wages paid to us are calculated primarily not from how much we produce, but fromthe cost of goods and services needed to keep us alive and able to work for a month, and the cost of maintaining our status (which is why our bank account rarely looks any different at the end of each month than it did the month before).
The surplus value alienated from the worker is colossal; it is many times greater than the wages paid to him for the amount of goods and services he produces. Which is not surprising, since it is precisely this that is one of the main engines of the entire world capitalist economy.
Now let’s try to figure out how things were with all these forms of alienation in the USSR.
There was definitely alienation of labor in the Soviet Union. People also worked in shifts and sweatshops, turning nuts, plowing in the fields, doing carpentry, and much, much more, just like in the West. Throughout his entire work shift, the man did not belong to himself. As they say, we look at Marx’s definition and draw conclusions.
But is it possible in principle to remove the alienation of labor given the current nature of production? The answer is obvious - no. Until all routine work is machined, all of humanity simply does not have the opportunity to engage in self-realization in creative work. And the socialist social system is not a time machine capable of instantly transporting society to another era. This is simply a mechanism that allows you to get to the desired era at the fastest pace.
So, as when considering the problem of the direction of production under socialism, here we see, on the one hand, a retreat from the properties of this very “desired” socialism, on the other hand, we can state the inevitability of such a retreat. Temporary, yes. But it's inevitable.
With the alienation of surplus value, the situation is much more complicated. It existed and did not exist at the same time. The salary was indeed enormously less than the cost of the product produced. Due to this, in particular, the corporate behavior of the USSR was implemented in the external environment.
But, on the other hand (and this strikingly distinguished the USSR from the West), this alienation was indirect and, what is much more important, in the nature of an “investment in the future” for the “investor” worker. Above the worker there was no exploiter who bought himself a new yacht with alienated profits or hired a dozen or two more slaves to expand the production that belonged to him. The alienated profit is returned to the employee through education for his children, medical care, security of the family and external borders, work to create platforms for creative work (such as, for example, the exploration of the atom, space), in which the children of this employee can realize themselves.
In other words, the state itself decided that people now need 20 tanks more than 20 sticks of sausage, yes. But, on the other hand, this yours 20 tanks, they protect you, unlike clearly not your yacht, private military companies, etc. Feel the difference.
Yes, the USSR took part of the cost for the development of competitive areas (as part of corporate behavior in the foreign market), but, again, here we can see the “investment in the future” of such alienation, because ultimately it went towards “terroforming” the external environment and removing the shift into "corporatism". Which, in turn, would further increase the pace of the state’s transition to a new nature of production.
Note that we have not even touched upon the fact that this share is orders of magnitude smaller than what the capitalist rips off from the worker simply for the sake of buying luxury goods and maintaining his status at the top.
One can try to argue that the engine of the capitalist economy also brought Western countries into space, also allowed them to conquer the atomic nucleus, and also gave the mass of people the opportunity to realize themselves in a creative, rather than routine, field. This is again a topic for a separate conversation, but in a nutshell, this happened for the following reasons:
1) Competition with the USSR forced a number of areas on which the very survival of the West depended to “de-socialize”. Thus, the US space program had directive development plans, the absence of an external “eater” of profits from it, and a “corporate” rejection of surplus value of an “investment” nature strictly controlled from above. After the competitor “terraformer” left the arena, these mechanisms were promptly curtailed.
2) Unequal access to education leads to social segregation of people in relation to who is more fortunate to find themselves in a creative profession and who is not.
3) Lack of design and profit as the main incentive ultimately cannot (and do not set goals) to lead humanity to a new nature of production. That is, behind the visible wrapper of “also progress”, in the end, a stable thousand-year-old “worldwide human society” is rapidly being built with the alienation of the individual forever.
So, let’s summarize the second property of “desired” socialism.
1) In the USSR, as in the West, there was alienation of labor.
2) Given the current nature of production, such alienation is inevitable.
3) The alienation of surplus value in the USSR was not of an exploitative, but of an investment nature.
The directly alienated surplus value was used either to improve living conditions and
self-realization of a person, or a global restructuring of the world rules of the game under socialist
goals, that is, ultimately, to overcome the imbalance in the direction of production and alienation
labor as such, thanks to the development of the machine nature of production.
4) Alienation of the individual as a derivative of the alienation of labor and surplus value, in the USSR
was present, but had a continuously decreasing scale, as more and more numbers grew
people who had the opportunity to creatively realize their personality, whether in high-level sports
achievements or in space exploration.
Conclusion
To the question: “Was there socialism in the USSR?” (if by this we mean “desired socialism,” which was mentioned at the beginning of the article), the author is inclined to answer rather negatively. The very historical objectivity and socio-economic situation of the current historical period did not allow the Soviet Union to get rid of a number of key distortions that prevented it from ultimately becoming the “desired” socialism. However, during our research, it was clearly shown that the USSR used all available opportunities to break it through the means of this very historical objectivity, thereby becoming true, “desired socialism.”
Thus, it is more appropriate to talk not about “socialism in the USSR”, but, in a more dialectical formulation, about “the path to building socialism in the USSR.” Because it was truly a living process to bring a bright socialist future closer.
Socialism in the USSR: a historical overview of the phenomenon.
The 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 to the Russian Empire and the 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 a 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 and state farms was sharply rejected by the peasantry. The confiscation of personal property of village residents, persecution of religious denominations, and repression against all segments of the population flared up with renewed vigor.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; worsening foreign policy with China; extravagant style of behavior. Several political figures lost their positions. 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 of state power intensified. 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 the 4th power unit of the 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. The high social security of the population, the developed military-industrial complex, and achievements in culture and sports are strongly opposed by violations of human rights and freedoms, persecution of church life, and control over all spheres of life.
Researchers of the nature of Soviet socialism have been and are conducting fierce debates over whether there was socialism in the USSR or not. If not, then what kind of social system existed in the Soviet Union? An additional difficulty is posed by the public consciousness of people who are dominated by the stamp driven into the mass consciousness over the 70 years of Soviet power that there was socialism in the USSR. In the 30s, Joseph Stalin announced the construction of the foundations of a socialist society in the USSR; in the 60s, Leonid Brezhnev officially announced that “developed socialism” had been built in the Soviet Union. Naturally, the entire Soviet propaganda machine, with all its might, in every possible way disseminated these rather controversial theses of the leaders to the whole world. So was there socialism in the USSR? This problem is not only of a historical and social science nature, but has direct political and ideological significance, since many opponents of communist ideology in every possible way exaggerate the themes of repression and mass hunger to denigrate modern political parties of a communist and socialist orientation.
Socialism according to Marx.
The term “socialism” (from the Latin Socialis - public) was introduced by the Frenchman Pierre Leroux in 1834. A little later, the concept of “utopian socialism” arose, prominent representatives of which were humanists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment (T. More, T. Campanella, A. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, R. Owen). In their writings, they developed various plans for the construction of a future socialist ideal society, in which there will be no private property and no exploitation of man by man. These projects were idealistic in nature, since they did not carry a rational materialistic support, but were based solely on faith in the spiritual transformation and self-improvement of man.
The founders of “scientific socialism” K. Marx and F. Engels in their works do not give an exact formulation of the concept of “socialism” other than its characteristics as the first step towards building a communist society. Moreover, it is impossible to define something that does not yet exist. The classics of Marxism showed the necessary, in their opinion, features of the socio-economic social character that should have been inherent in a new, more progressive socialist formation compared to capitalism.
So, according to Marx, a socialist society should be characterized, first of all, by a higher level of development of productive forces compared to capitalism, the absence of private ownership of the means of production, the absence of exploitation of man by man, the disappearance of differences between classes, a democratic social structure in the form of democracy (i.e. . full power of the people), the gradual withering away of the functions of the state as an apparatus for managing society.
For the sake of objectivity, let's look at all the main components of socialism according to Marx for their presence in the USSR.
1. Development of productive forces.
It was assumed that the socialist economy should develop immeasurably more powerfully than the market economy due to the higher level of productive forces, which would be ensured by the use of more advanced technologies in production and the labor enthusiasm of people freed from inhuman capitalist exploitation. And in fact, the rate of economic growth of the USSR in the 20-30s was absolutely record-breaking, both for that time and for the present. So, for example, labor productivity during the years of the first five-year plan increased by 41%, and if we take the annual increase in labor productivity in the period from 1933 to 1940, then in the USSR it was 16.4% per year, and in the USA for the same period 0.5 %... Despite the devastating civil war, the tragic consequences of forced collectivization, mass hunger, repression, the Great Patriotic War and the debilitating Cold War with the USA and Western countries, the planned socialist economy had such gigantic internal reserves that the Soviet Union competed with dignity and successfully developed on an equal basis with Western countries.
However, already in the second half of the 60s of the 20th century, the growth of productive forces in the USSR slowed down sharply compared to Western countries. The main reasons for this were that, firstly, the USSR “slept through” the scientific and technological revolution, and secondly, in practice, workers were alienated from the results of their labor and there were no effective material incentives for workers: the naked enthusiasm of the 20-40s had dried up, and the country’s leadership was afraid to offer the people something else (like the NEP) for fear of a revival of capitalist relations. The tendency to lag behind in economic competition with the West intensified in the 70s and became especially pronounced in the 80s. The cornerstone principle and prerequisite for the successful development of a socialist economy—the continuous growth of productive forces that outstrips capitalist countries—has not been put into practice.
2. Lack of private ownership of the means of production.
In the USSR, private ownership of the means of production was indeed destroyed. However, it was not supposed to happen in the same way as the classics of Marxism thought. Marx and Engels said that socialism grows based on the achievements of capitalism and destroys it in the competitive socio-economic struggle, in fact proving its progressive essence. However, such a struggle did not work out: in the late 20s and early 30s, due to the need for speedy industrialization and in search of funds for it, the NEP was curtailed in the USSR, entrepreneurship was destroyed and collectivization was forcibly carried out. Further, in the USSR property became state property, not public property. And these are completely different concepts. Under socialism, the workers themselves, through general meetings, collectively manage the enterprise at which they work (by the way, in the early 20s this was the case), and not a director appointed by order from above and not a sectoral ministry. In fact, the party and economic nomenklatura controlled all the “national” property, while the working people were alienated from the results of their labor.
3. No exploitation of man by man.
In the USSR, after the destruction of the NEP, the exploitation of man by man truly ceased. But this form of exploitation was replaced by a state form of exploitation, which, especially in rural areas, resembled feudal serfdom (for example, during the Stalinist period, collective farmers did not even have passports, i.e., in fact, they were deprived of the citizenship of their country, and payment of food products instead of wages ( for so-called workdays) could be equated to the slave system). Emergency jobs, assault, overtime - all these everyday phenomena of Soviet production were again signs of the brutal exploitation of human physical and moral strength, only not on the part of a private entrepreneur, capitalist, but on the part of the state. The meager wages of workers, clearly inadequate to the efforts expended, again enriched the state and were one of the significant factors in the successful development of the Soviet economy. The question is, then, what is the fundamental difference between state and private exploitation? Thus, exploitation in the USSR was not ended; it only changed the personality of the exploiter.
4. Withering away of classes.
Again, according to Marx, socialism presupposes universal equality and the disappearance of differences in the nature of the activities of the working class and the peasantry. Scientific and technological progress, according to Marx, will be able to destroy direct physical labor and elevate it to the level of mental labor. Of course, Marx could not foresee the phenomenon of general computerization of labor, the use of automation in production, but he believed in the forward force of social progress, and this belief was based precisely on a strictly scientific materialist worldview. The further development of science and technology simply could not help but lead to the leveling of the difference between physical and mental labor, between industrial production and the agricultural sector.
The idea of universal equality as an additional factor in the withering away of classes stemmed from the principle of the abolition of private property and equal access for all to the benefits of civilization. The official Soviet ideology stated that there were two classes left in the USSR: workers and peasants and the social stratum of the intelligentsia. Based on the modern understanding of social structuring, it would be more convenient to consider the components of Soviet society from the point of view of the presence of socio-professional strata. Without going into small characteristics, we can distinguish such strata as workers, peasants, technical and creative intelligentsia and the party-economic bureaucracy, which had all the power in the country. And if the social position of the first four strata differed slightly, then the bureaucracy turned into a real ruling class. Thus, the class structure in Soviet society remained and did not show any tendency to die out; on the contrary, the bureaucracy also acquired visible hereditary features.
5.Democratic social structure and the withering away of state functions.
Marxism assumed a socialist social system in which “the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all.” If we translate this wonderful formulation into a more specific plane, then this means full respect for human and civil rights and freedoms of the individual. Also, according to Marx, under socialism as the first stage of the future communist society, the functions of the state as an apparatus for managing society will gradually die out and this apparatus will be replaced by people's self-government. People's self-government was organically associated with the withering away of classes due to the destruction of private property. “When, in the course of development, class distinctions disappear and all production is concentrated in the hands of associations of individuals, then public power will lose its political character” (Manifesto of the Communist Party). Was this in the USSR? Definitely not, since human rights and freedoms were trampled and systematically limited by the state. In the period from 1927 to the 9XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks until the mid-80s of the 20th century, any attempts at dissent in the ruling party and in society as a whole were suppressed. As is known, a special peak of suppression, which took the form of mass political repression, occurred in 1937-1953. And in the future, the policy of strict control over society by the state, although it took on softer forms, still continued to be implemented. The state-party apparatus increasingly strengthened its power over the people. Councils of deputies at all levels and trade unions have become only an insignificant appendage of the state mechanism. From the Republic of Soviets, the USSR evolved into an authoritarian bureaucratic state.
Marxism is not a dogma...
Thus, we can state that a socialist society, for various reasons, was never created in the USSR. With a very big stretch, we can talk about building the foundations of socialist relations in the Soviet state in the economic sphere. But the very path of such construction was essentially anti-socialist and contradicted genuine Marxism. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s dream of a “system of civilized cooperators” was never destined to come true. History, as we know, does not recognize the subjunctive mood, but the very fact of the October Revolution and the world historical role of the USSR in the history of mankind is indisputable. And the legacy of the Bolshevik party that “stormed the sky” back in 1917, the ideological content and practical goals of the movement, must be comprehended based on the current international experience of the activities of communist and socialist parties of our time, the realities of the capitalist world and its development trends.
In the conditions of the capitalist renaissance in Kazakhstan, the Communist People's Party must improve the Marxist-Leninist ideology in relation to the changed characteristics of Kazakhstani society caused by the dominance of market relations. The ideology of renewed socialism, close to the aspirations and interests of broad sections of the population, is the main hope of the people's communists for confident forward movement. The CPPK has certain positive developments that have been successfully tested in presidential and parliamentary elections. The task is to build a coherent ideological system of the party in direct connection with agitation and propaganda work.
And let the orthodoxies, who have withdrawn into the shell of mini-parties and narrow sectarian groups, accuse us of revising Marxism. In response to the cries of pathetic losers who failed to master even the ABCs of Marxism and are therefore doomed to vegetate on the periphery of political life, we affirm: the teachings of Karl Marx are a science that studies the world around us in its constant movement and change. As a result, Marxism periodically needs to be adjusted to fit the changing world, it needs to discard outdated postulates and views and replace them with new ones that are adequate to the existing realities of the socio-economic and political life of society. In this and only in this is the inexhaustible and victorious power of Marxism.
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 the long class struggle of the 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 of 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 continued pay and the provision of rest homes and other cultural institutions 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, the highest bodies of state power 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 people's assemblies of workers had the right to discuss and make 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 activities 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 proposals to improve the economic activities of 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 carrying out production activities and solving statutory tasks.
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 than 30%
national wealth of the country or 2
trillion 600
billion rubles. To meet the needs of the country's population in all spheres of social life of a 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 in obtaining free secondary and higher education, improving the skills 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
thousands of antenatal clinics in which 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 supported by the state 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
. It had a fairly extensive network of medical institutions throughout the country, facilitating 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 |
266,2 18,2 10,1 8,1 |
271,2 19,0 10,1 8,9 75 |
14.896 14,7 10,4 4,3 70,2 |
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
The age for receiving an old-age pension was lowered for war invalids, people who worked for a long time in the Far North, female machine operators and workers in 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 higher education institutions. 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 to 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. The number of scientific workers over the years of independence in the country 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 |
138,8 |
344,2 |
1327 |
1307 |
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…………. |
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 by 8.9 times, agriculture - by 6.2 times, construction - by 68 times, the number of Kazakhs - by 2.2 times, the population as a whole - by 2 times. In short, in terms of economic potential, seven Kazakhstans were created at this time, compared to 1955. Before the October Revolution, this land produced 0.3% of the total production of Tsarist Russia, and there were 2-3% of the literate population.”
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 heads 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 to 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. More than any other statesman I know, he speaks the language of the people. Stalin stands out among them for his simplicity. I spoke to him openly about the tasteless and inordinate 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. National museums, scientific institutes for the study of national traditions, national operas and drama theaters of a high level have been created everywhere. 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 the difficulties of the 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 during the years of the civil war, concluded a number of bilateral treaties with each other, 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.
Before jumping to hasty conclusions, this is a false movement of Marxism born out of Trotskyism, let us remember what real communists wrote in http://www.alexanderyakovlev.org/almanah/inside/almanah-doc/55752 to establish the causes of mass repressions against members and candidates for members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, elected at the XVII Party Congress, i.e. "Lenin Guard": “The shameful deeds that took place within the walls of the NKVD were allegedly carried out with sanction and even “in the interests of the party.” In fact, this was done to please one person, and sometimes on his direct instructions (see, for example, the code telegram dated January 10, 1939).
This is what the anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist “personality cult” created by the boundless praise and exaltation of J.V. Stalin led to.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was deeply right when he warned the party: “Comrade. Stalin, having become Secretary General, concentrated immense power in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be able to use this power carefully enough.”
The following documents are attached to the report:
1. Telegram from I.V. Stalin dated January 10, 1939
2. Certificate of authorization by I.V. Stalin for the execution of 138 senior officials.”
Also recommended for reading is the article in “Russian Special Forces” from 2010 http://www.specnaz.ru/article/?1633
Lecture by Vadim Rogovin - given in December 1996 2 June 2001
Social inequality, bureaucracy and betrayal of socialism in the Soviet Union
In December 1996, Russian socialist historian, professor Vadim Zakharovich Rogovin gave a series of lectures in Germany, which were a great success. The lecture at the Ruhr University in Bochum (Rhine-Westphalia), held on December 5, was attended by about 200 people; at Rogovin's lecture at the Berlin University. Humboldt on December 11, about 400 people were present.
The theme of both speeches was related to issues of social inequality, bureaucracy and the betrayal of socialism in the Soviet Union. The organizer of the lecture trip was V.Z. Rogovin was addressed by the German section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the Union of Socialist Workers (Bund Sozialistischer Arbeiter), the predecessor of the Party for Social Equality (Partei fuer Soziale Gleichheit).
The text of the lecture in Berlin was published in the magazine Worker-Internationalist (No. 13-14, May 1997, pp. 40-43) back translated from English.
Today, when there is so much talk all over the world about the death of socialism, it is appropriate to ask the following question: what died in the Soviet Union and a number of other European countries? What were the goals of socialism, and to what extent were they realized in the so-called socialist countries? Why was socialism in the USSR betrayed twice: the first time by Stalin and the Stalinists, and then by Gorbachev and his clique?
If we reflect on these questions, we will come to the conclusion that the goal of socialism is to create social equality among people.
It is no coincidence that public opinion has always judged the situation in countries with state-owned property from the point of view of the extent to which the principles of social equality are implemented there. Interesting cases often arise in this regard.
One of my colleagues, who often visits Spain, told the following story: once a famous singer, a Cuban dissident, performed on Madrid television. With tears in her eyes from indignation, she spoke about the privileges that exist in Cuba. She said that sick party functionaries are given separate rooms in hospitals. Everyone who heard about this was amazed: “It turns out that what privileges exist in Cuba!”
No one paid attention to how on the same day a message appeared in the local newspaper that the president of a large joint stock company could not appear at the meeting, since that day he flew to the USA to get a consultation with the doctor treating him. This incident did not cause any particular surprise or outrage. In fact, does anyone really expect social equality and social justice from capitalism?
Although such facts are very often used for clearly demagogic purposes, the people, with their moral sense and their social instinct, have always perceived privileges in the Soviet Union and in other so-called socialist countries as a phenomenon that distorts the image of social equality and socialism.
Marxism and social equality
Marxism has repeatedly addressed this issue and tried to resolve it, including theoretically.
In their assessment of the Paris Commune, Marx and Engels attached great importance to the fact that the wages of employees were no higher than the average wages of workers. They viewed these measures as effective means to prevent the state from transforming from a body that should serve society into an institution that stands above society.
Lenin developed these thoughts in his book State and revolution. He wrote that the masses wanted a government that would guarantee low prices and fair wages and require as little money as possible for their own maintenance. Such a government is fundamentally impossible under capitalism. He emphasized that the leaders of the Second International sought to suppress these Marxist ideas and act as if this was no longer a pressing issue. The leaders of the Christian church did the same after the church became a state institution. They forgot that Christianity originally had a deeply revolutionary-democratic and egalitarian character.
Immediately after the October Revolution, various activities were carried out aimed at smoothing out social differences between individual groups.
To prevent the growth of the privileges of responsible functionaries, the so-called party maximum was established, that is, the upper limit of the income that party functionaries could receive. In the first years of the revolution, the following example was considered common. The director of one enterprise is a party member; he receives, relatively speaking, three hundred rubles for his activities. And the director of another similar enterprise is a non-party member, and he receives five hundred rubles.
In the 1920s, it was considered natural for a worker to be nominated for the post of secretary of the city party committee, stay in this job for some time, and then again - not due to any shortcomings in his work - return to his original job at the machine. This position, this rotation was considered completely normal and natural.
The situation began to change with Lenin's departure from the leadership of the party at the end of 1922, when most of his comrades-in-arms were not up to the task of their historical task. For a number of years they blocked with Stalin, clamping down on party democracy, pursuing a course towards an ever stronger bureaucratic regime and ever greater social inequality.
Left opposition against Stalin
It was no coincidence that the so-called Left Opposition, which was joined by many old Bolsheviks, arose already in 1923. Led by Leon Trotsky, this movement entered into a bitter struggle with the ruling faction and expressed alarm at the development of bureaucratic tendencies within the party and the workers' state.
In the debate between the ruling faction and the Left Opposition, relatively little was said at that time about the issue of privilege. But the social meaning of the intense struggle between them led to the fact that they took different positions in relation to social equality and inequality.
In 1925, one of the opposition leaders, Zinoviev, wrote that the Soviet working class was striving for greater social equality. But this was only a short comment in a long article. Zinoviev, of course, did not fundamentally question the fact that there could be a difference in wages between skilled and less skilled labor. He only wanted to smooth out the difference between the highest and lowest earnings. Stalin, however, immediately seized on this statement and interpreted it in such a way that the opposition supposedly wanted “equalization.”
Stalin concentrated his report at the Fourteenth Party Congress precisely on this passage and argued that Zinoviev rejected Marx’s Gothic program the thesis that during the transition period from capitalism to socialism certain differences in the sense of wages should be maintained. The opposition, Stalin said, attacks both the incomes of skilled workers and a significant share of the incomes of hard-working peasants. In reality, behind these demagogic words there were aspirations to protect the emerging privileges of the bureaucracy. The most selfish representatives of the bureaucracy perfectly understood the meaning of this speech by Stalin.
Looking back, Trotsky noticed that even Stalin's supporters, as well as members of the Left Opposition, belonged to the same social environment. However, the latter consciously cut themselves off from this environment and defended the interests of the sans-culottes, workers and peasants.
After Stalin managed to defeat the Left Opposition, he made decisive changes in the ideology of the ruling party. He put forward the thesis according to which the main principle of socialism is that everyone should receive payment according to the results of their work. Trying to explain the content of this principle, not a single Soviet economic expert could ever explain how it is possible, for example, to compare the work of a miner with the work of a doctor, the work of a ballerina with the work of a metallurgist?
After Stalin's death, this postulate, despite criticism of Stalin's political legacy, was not questioned by any of his heirs. All of them resolutely and harshly opposed the so-called “equalization”.
In fact, the principle of payment according to work is an expression of bourgeois law. It has only the following meaning if interpreted in a liberal manner: everyone receives depending on the results of his labor, and this result is realized in the free market as a result of fluctuations in supply and demand. It is clear that these principles of a market economy entail inequality. The function of the bourgeois state is to maintain this inequality.
Marx and Lenin predicted that the state that would be created and begin to develop after the socialist revolution would have a dual character: on the one hand, it has a socialist character, since it defends socialized property against capitalist restoration. On the other hand, it has a bourgeois character, since it preserves existing privileges for the minority and the possibility of growing inequality. They therefore described the transitional state as a bourgeois state, but without a bourgeoisie. According to Marxist doctrine, this inequality should disappear insofar as socialist self-government develops, and accordingly the process of the withering away of the state moves forward.
Beginning in the mid-1920s, however, the situation in the Soviet Union developed significantly differently. The dominant bureaucracy pushed workers away from any influence on the distribution of material goods and turned into a powerful caste of those who specialized in the distribution of these goods. In the mid-1930s, the scale of inequality and lack of justice in the Soviet Union even surpassed, in a certain sense, the situation in developed capitalist countries. If ordinary workers and peasants in the USSR lived poorer than their counterparts in the West, then the various layers of the Soviet bureaucracy generally controlled approximately the same amount of wealth as the bourgeoisie of the capitalist world.
When we talk about privileges in the Soviet Union, we must keep in mind that the Soviet Union in the 20s and 30s was a very backward and poor country. For this reason, it may seem that some of the privileges of that time would seem insignificant in today's Germany. But for the consciousness of ordinary people of that time they were extremely important. A new atmosphere developed in society. If in the past people with higher material wealth were somewhat embarrassed by their position, now they began to be proud of it.
The wife of the famous Soviet poet Osip Mandelstam, Nadezhda Mandelstam, wrote in her memoirs: “For us it was very often the case that even a piece of bread was considered a privilege.” She talks about a young man she knows who eats a steak received from a special distributor of his academician father-in-law and says: “Very tasty and very pleasant, especially because others don’t have it.”
Nadezhda Mandelstam adds that medical services were distributed in the same way. The best medicine was reserved for the elite of society. When she once complained about this in front of a retired dignitary, he answered her, completely surprised: “Do you really think that I should be treated the same as a simple cleaning lady?” Nadezhda Mandelstam adds that this dignitary was actually a very kind and decent person. But who wouldn’t go crazy from our fight against “equalization”.
Trying to overcome its own isolation, the bureaucracy granted some of the privileges to other segments of the population: the labor aristocracy, the collective farm aristocracy and, above all, the upper strata of the intelligentsia. This distribution of privileges could not take place without determined resistance from a large part of the Communist Party. In this regard, Trotsky wrote: in one country that went through the October Revolution, it is impossible to cultivate inequality except through the implementation of increasingly harsh and repressive measures.
Trotsky returned to the idea that the totalitarian nature of the state and mass terror were caused by the desire of the bureaucracy to protect and preserve its privileges. She did not want and was afraid to allow social protest to turn into open class struggle.
Soviet Union after Stalin's death
After Stalin's death, social development in the Soviet Union did not change significantly, although it did not follow the same line. Having lost the previous levers of totalitarian power, the bureaucracy was forced to make certain preventive concessions to the egalitarian aspirations of the masses. Immediately after Stalin's death, various social reforms and social programs began to be adopted in order to improve the situation of the low-paid and poorly provided segments of the population. Over the course of the ensuing decade, the standard of living of these strata increased, while the situation among the dominant bureaucracy, as well as among the privileged intelligentsia, relatively deteriorated.
The hidden conflict between the upper strata of the intelligentsia and the bureaucracy, which appeared already in the 60s, was rooted precisely in this development. This conflict found its external manifestation, on the one hand, in the dissident movement and, on the other hand, in emigration. This conflict was connected not only with the fact that the intelligentsia sought ever greater spiritual freedom and sought access to power. It was also a painful reaction to the loss of the privileges and material advantages that this layer had under Stalin. As for the bureaucracy, it responded to the deterioration of its position by growing unprecedented corruption.
The social situation in the USSR at that time can be described in the following words of Trotsky: the bureaucracy, which was not yet a class of owners in the literal sense of the word, since it did not own any forms of property, nevertheless possessed all the negative features of the former ruling classes. The emergence of deep social differences devalued in the minds of the masses the great social achievements of the October Revolution - the socialization of the means of production and land. The dominance of the bureaucracy led to the fact that socialism began to have a bad reputation in the eyes of workers and peasants and forced them, to a certain extent, to look for a way out in a direction that lay outside socialism.
Trotsky pointed out that the contradiction between forms of ownership and forms of distribution cannot develop indefinitely. It must be resolved in one direction or another. Either the forms of distribution will be adapted to socialist forms of ownership, that is, they should become more equal. Or bourgeois principles will eventually extend not only to distribution, but also to these forms of property themselves.
Based on these theses, Trotsky repeatedly developed forecasts that contained two possible scenarios for the development of events. The first could be called, with a certain reservation, revolutionary, the other - counter-revolutionary. Unfortunately, the second option was realized, which Trotsky called counter-revolutionary. Moreover, it was implemented with amazing accuracy, despite a significant time delay. (If brilliant predictions were carried out with literal accuracy, as their authors thought, then they would be more like what religious people call prophecies, and history itself would in this case be of a mystical nature).
Consequences of perestroika
As Trotsky foresaw, the very first serious shock led to the fact that the social antagonisms of Soviet society burst out into the open.
In the first years of “perestroika,” nothing foreshadowed that it could lead to the dismantling of the foundations of Soviet society. Quite the contrary, in 1985, 1986, 1987 Gorbachev made a constant demand to turn towards greater socialism or the revival of the Leninist understanding of socialism.
It is interesting in this regard that at this stage the only significant politician who spoke to the left of Gorbachev was Yeltsin. Since you are familiar with Yeltsin as a politician today, it is interesting to hear some excerpts from his statements from an earlier period.
At the 1986 party congress, Yeltsin, with full agreement and approval, quoted the following words of Lenin: social inequality, destroying democracy, leads to the disintegration of the party and disintegrates the ranks of communists.
Three years later, at the Congress of People's Deputies, he posed the following rhetorical question: why in our society, which is building socialism, are millions of people living half below the poverty line, while others are literally swimming in luxury?
In his book, which was published in 1991, you can read passages such as: “I cannot eat sturgeon when my neighbor cannot buy milk for her small child.” “I am ashamed to buy expensive medicines, since I know that many of my fellow citizens repeatedly find themselves unable to buy aspirin.”
And in his election campaign of 1989-1990. he promised that his policies would serve primarily people whose incomes were below average. Only on the basis of these slogans, which appealed to the people's sense of justice, did he manage to reach the heights of power.
The development of perestroika, starting in 1988, confirmed that the dismantling of the socialist foundations of society flowed into the mainstream of capitalist order, or more precisely, into the mainstream of capitalist chaos. This process is accompanied by a catastrophic decline in the economy and culture.
The capitalism that is now being affirmed cannot be a new edition of pre-revolutionary Russian capitalism, since the world has become immeasurably closer and more interdependent than in 1917. International finance capital is incomparably more powerful. For this reason, capitalism in Russia can only be bonded and semi-colonial. At the same time, the forces of capitalist restoration can achieve their goals only through many years of civil war and through the plunder of the country, of everything that was created by the Soviet Union literally from the ruins.
The state of the country over the past five years can best be described only through an expression that has become quite popular in Russia lately - “slow-burning civil war.” This “low-intensity civil war” breaks out from time to time into “hot” wars, as exemplified by the shooting of parliament in 1993 or the war in Chechnya, which is far from over, despite all the promises of the ruling circles.
As for the ruin of the country, probably never before in history has there been such a destruction of productive forces in peacetime, as has happened in the last five years in Russia and in other former republics of the USSR. At the same time, there is a certain continuity between the previous and current regimes. It can be said that the current regime has taken over the worst aspects of the previous Soviet regime and combined them with the worst aspects of capitalist society.
Trotsky said: the income of the bureaucracy is nothing more than theft. But besides this relatively legal theft, there is another super-theft, to which Stalin always turned a blind eye, and today Yeltsin, since these thieves are his best social support. The ruling bureaucracy could not rule otherwise than by resorting to systematic acts of robbery. All together this created a system of bureaucratic gangsterism.
International significance of the October Revolution
If we look at the tragic fate of our country, we can rightfully say that the October Revolution brought much more to the working people of other countries than to the working people of the Soviet Union. Socialist transformations forced the ruling classes of capitalist countries to make quite large social concessions to the working class of these countries. The participation of the state in the relations of production, distribution and exchange in order to resolve social problems is a general sociological pattern of this century, which modern capitalism also has to reckon with.
In all capitalist countries in the second half of the 20th century there was a certain restriction of capitalist freedom. These measures include, for example, the introduction of a minimum hourly wage and other guarantees that workers in developed capitalist countries still have. Over the decades, active redistribution has been carried out: on the one hand, the development of social programs as assistance for the low-income, on the other hand, strict control over income and a more or less strict tax policy built on this. These events had an impact not only on the social situation in society, but also on the economy. They increased consumer demand on the part of the population and thus mitigated the crisis of overproduction in highly developed capitalist countries.
Capitalism, however, has never been able to eliminate social inequality. This inequality reveals itself both within a given country and between developed and underdeveloped countries, or, as they say today, between the North and the South of our planet.
It is also curious that the collapse of the Soviet Union into a number of secondary states led to the destruction of the “welfare state” in developed capitalist countries. Attempts are being made to eliminate social gains that have been built over decades.
At the same time, I would like to emphasize that the truly socialist path has not yet been tried in any country that called itself socialist.
This path, which was shown in the 20-30s by the Left Opposition, is to keep inequality within the framework of strict economic necessity so that subsequently, on the basis of the gradual development of society, to achieve that different social groups are increasingly equalized , - also in the sense of their access to the consumption of life's goods.
As contradictions between the privileged and the poor continue to persist in the world, there remains room for the development of old and the emergence of new social and political movements. The success of these movements depends on the extent to which they are able to learn from the positive and negative experiences of socialist construction.