Our contemporary, the French philosopher Jean Luc Nancy, said that “the problem of Russian is not even the fact that they had communism. The main thing is that they, apparently, do not understand what it meant”. Just do not understand. Didn’t realize until now. Because today, after more than a quarter century after the collapse of the Soviet system, even the head of the ROC Patriarch Kirill is convinced that the idea of communism, “great idea to build a world of freedom and justice” could in other contexts, not “to result of blood.” We still do not know or do not want to accept the fact that the Marxist idea of communism, which lingers in the minds of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, were initially hydrated a lot of blood.
photo: Alex geldings
I still don’t think Patriarch Kirill personally, the idea of communism is “ambitious” value. Most likely, the tragedy of post-Communist ROC is that if she doesn’t beat bows to the idea of communism, the Church does not come the pious old ladies, which in “red corner,” a portrait of Stalin coexists with the image of the Mother of God. But after all this, already leaving the jubilee for the cause of Lenin and Trotsky a year, we had so much arguing about the nature of their ideals, but about whether there was actually a “Soviet man”. It is clear that we are all born in the Soviet Union, was a Soviet people, in the sense that they lived in the Soviet Union and had no right on their own to leave. But it is not clear how each of us was Soviet in the sense that it wholly and to the end gave his soul to the ideals of the October revolution, Lenin and Trotsky.
For some participants in the current year, the dispute about the pros and cons October, the Soviets were just a mask that I wore every morning the citizens of the USSR, leaving home to work, and the Komsomol, party or trade Union meeting. And the other parties to the dispute were convinced that after all the Soviet power has created a “new personality”, which was not known earlier to mankind.
I personally in all of these discussions about the Soviet people traditionally tried to “huliganit” and to remind you that along with those who supposedly believed in the ideals of communism and those for whom the word communism was only a familiar mask, were still those who did not want to hide their negative attitude to the Soviet system. Of course, this happened in people rarely, but still I was destined to hear exposing the Soviets as a new serfdom publicly. “I ne jinka! — shouted the Ukrainian collective farm in a friendly court in response to charges that her foreman’s misconduct. (She, the farm girl Maria really slipped your neighbor in the sack with personal belongings a piece of hose, reminding her that she had no husband. — Ed.) — I ne jinka, I am a slave! Chi Mauger butts zhinkov with time parapanema feet!” She lifted her skirt and showed the foreman his blue-red feet in the cracks and again shouted: “I am a slave!”
I honestly Philistine in his native Odessa, which left in 1963 and met a man who would not only in words but in deeds proved with his life faithful to the ideals of communism. I for all 50 years of his life in the Soviet Union never met a person, that would be different to those called for in 1919 the workers and peasants, Vladimir Lenin: that this person worked entirely “for the good of the whole society” — that is, not for themselves and their neighbors, and in the name of the far, in the name of “society as a whole, the tens and hundreds of millions of people.”
But I’m witnessing this tearing apart the soul scene samartliani (in all senses) of a farm Mary had already begun then, in 1965, to suspect that her mood, her attitude to the collective and to our Soviet “great power” is shared by many peasants, attached since the days of Stalin’s life to the ground. Yes, a farmer, served in the army, could not go back to his village. Yes, children, graduated with honors from the school, the chairmen of collective farms were usually let to study in the city. But what really was supposed to feel like millions of peasants, whom the foreman, whether they like it or not, was dragged every morning on the field? And though they are all peasants, worked for the “check mark” for their labor, and often they did not pay. In fact survived the Soviet peasantry, and the Soviet city only because Stalin after the famine of 1932-1933 was returned to the peasants of the land, not exceeding 50 acres, as “private farms”. Was it possible these people sincerely and with all his soul to love the system state, which by force, and many are forever tied to the farm and its land. And probably not by chance the Soviet people in 1991, even after the most fertile of the Brezhnev era, quite calmly contemplated the demise of the Soviet system and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because the truth is that the vast majority of Russia’s population — or 82% of farmers, or about 10% of the townspeople did not choose no socialism. If 100 years ago the peasants in soldiers ‘ uniforms who longed for peace and right to pull the landlord an extra piece of land, know that their waiting for collectivization, they never would have gone over to the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Trotsky.
And here arises a serious question: when, in fact, would appear to the Soviet people as a mass phenomenon? Wrote Leon Trotsky in his work “World revolution” published in the late 1930s, no more than 8-9% of the population can be attributed to the Soviet “political nation”, the Soviet people, in the exact sense of the word. By the way, shows in his research archivist-historian Alexander Dangerou, and Stalin had no illusions about the Soviets overwhelming majority of the population. In conversation with the emissary of President Roosevelt, Averell Harriman the autumn of 1941, Stalin admitted: “We know people do not want to fight for world revolution: fight for Soviet power” (Nicholas B. I., Secret pages of history. — M., publishing house of humanitarian literature, 1995). And Stalin knew what he was talking about. For 5 months of the summer and fall of 1941, 3 million 800 thousand red army soldiers surrendered, while about 1 million 200 thousand deserted. And of the 2 million 400 thousand survivors of German concentration camps Soviet POWs 950 thousand (i.e. 40%) entered service in the Wehrmacht and the national anti-Soviet formation. And it clearly shows Vasily Grossman in his novel “Life and fate” when the war turned into the domestic, in defense of the national dignity of the Russian people, the heroism of the Russian soldier became a mass phenomenon, made possible the great Victory of 1945.
The real history of the Soviet Union suggests that the Soviets as a personal connection with the state came only when she was reunited with Russianness. And it happened during the great Patriotic war. But, as shown by the subsequent history of the country, the Soviet faith in the ideals of Lenin as a desire to live and work only for the great ideas of communism as a mass phenomenon did not appear. And the wine does not Khrushchev as saying the current ideologists of the Slavophile patriotism. If Khrushchev began a policy of humanization of Soviet life, began to pay farmers for their labor, to move workers from the barracks in the building, releasing hundreds of thousands of innocent prisoners of the Gulag, probably, the USSR did not have lasted until 1991.
It was impossible to never, under any circumstances, Marxist utopia the ideal person to implement in reality. Whether a Russian woman, a Box of Nikolai Gogol, with his passion of collecting in a jug just in case all else, could become a “front page”, bearing in your mind the ideal gratuitous Communist labor? A few days ago a driver taking me from the country, talked about his unique aunt, the frontovichka, member of the party, that is the battlefield carrying the wounded soldiers. She was a heroine of the war, but after her death (she was for many years head of the infirmary at the factory) her sister got from her inheritance in the form of 20 three-liter bottles of alcohol. And the driver of the van told me that his aunt every day trying to make the factory a little alcohol and even though she didn’t drink, but gradually filled these bottles. No, I am convinced that the Russian Box as the Box was, and remained, and Soviet power, nothing changed.
When assessing what in fact was this new Soviet way of life, born Oct, there are many new questions that we still don’t have an answer. Is it possible with the economic system, the hallmarks of which was a shortage, shortage of food items, clothes, shoes when for many people the Central issue of survival, to create a new person with a new motivation? I personally think that it was impossible turning the whole country into a monastery, where people only think about God and the salvation of souls. Monastery because the monastery that he is for the elite.
The fact is that even in the ideal of monastic life was more realistic, had more connection with the interests of the individual than in the ideal Communist life, which the Civil war imposed on Russia by the Marxist Lenin. Yes, a monk in the monastery without thought of material reward. Nevertheless he is not working in the name of the General, and for the salvation of his own soul. He with “unpaid labor” wants to come to Paradise, come to God. And then the Soviet ideal demanded from the common man to forget about their children, about their neighbors and gave all their energy to selfless service to the idea of the victory of the world revolution. An outright utopia. Especially in conditions when the overwhelming majority of the peasants lived in separate old house, built before the revolution, and after 1934 he saved himself with the fact that fed pigs and herded cows.
The best in the “MK” – short formal newsletter: subscribe to our channel in the Telegram