OpinionOpinion
In modern literature, when analyzing the 75th anniversary of
the victory, a purely abstract approach dominates when the issue
of the subject of war and the goals that he pursued in the fight
against fascist Germany are circumvented. Hitler did not conceal
that he sought to destroy the USSR, to subjugate the Soviet people,
who had made a breakthrough beyond the boundaries of capitalist
society, having established the power of workers and peasants
organized in the Soviets, who had built a new socialist society
under the leadership of the Bolsheviks. It was a society which the
working people controlled themselves, through the Soviets created
by the people in the process of revolution; for this, the masses of
people went through the cultural revolution, mastered scientific
knowledge through the educational system. Its development was
interrupted by the Great Patriotic War, in which socialist society
was again in danger, and its preservation became the main goal
pursued by the Soviet people as a subject of war, led by the Soviet
government and the Communist Party.
It was a war of the “old”, in its most reactionary, fascist forms,
dangerous end, the end of human history, and the “new”, in the
form of a socialist society, prolonging social development, which
included the democratic forces of the bourgeois states themselves,
who entered into an alliance with USSR against fascism. These
goals of the Soviet people drowned, disappeared in the television
address of V.V. Putin on 04/16/2020 when explaining to him the
postponement of the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the
victory in connection with the coronavirus pandemic in Russia.
They were replaced by abstract words, phrases that it was a war
“for all good against all bad”, which is in full accordance with the
spirit of the ideas of perestroika M.S. Gorbachev, who called for
the improvement of socialism, in the same abstract spirit. Here it
is appropriate to recall Hegel’s article “Who thinks abstractly?” V.V.
Putin has a negative attitude towards socialism. M.S. Gorbachev
did not deny the words of socialism, he “rebuilt” it, and as a result
of perestroika, socialism was destroyed. The statue, in words,
for socialism, in fact, M.S. Gorbachev transferred to the Central
Committee of the CPSU A.N. Yakovleva, making him responsible for
the ideology and ideologist of perestroika.
If we take into account their general activity, it can be argued
that M.S. Gorbachev, since he did not give up the status of a
communist, betrayed the ideals of socialism. In contrast, A.N.
Yakovlev claims that he was never a communist. It turns out that
he can not be considered a traitor. In his confessions, A.N. Yakovlev
writes that he initially focused on the destruction of socialism,
for which he proposed bringing the theory and practice built on
a Marxist basis to absurdity, because, he writes, “any act brought
to the point of absurdity invariably becomes a farce” [3, p. 5-32].
After the Twentieth Congress in an ultra-narrow circle, “a group of
true, not imaginary reformers, developed (of course, verbally) the
following plan: to strike at Stalin, at Stalinism with the authority
of Lenin. And then, if successful, Plekhanov and Social Democracy
beat Lenin, liberalism and “moral socialism” - the revolutionaries
in general ... with clear implications: the criminal is not Stalin,
but the system itself is criminal” [3, p. 13-14]. The “new political
course” “signified a historical turn from revolution to evolution, i.e.
transition to social reformism.”
“At the official party level, at the beginning of perestroika, this
was stubbornly denied, including by me (it could not have been otherwise), but it was precisely the reformist policy that triumphed
in life” [3, p. 15-16]. “I can proudly say that a clever, but very simple
tactic ... worked.” “For example, my works and speeches from 1987-
1988, partly from 1989, were densely crammed with quotes from
Marx and especially from Lenin ... Could it be more radical in those
years? No, frontal, ramming reformism would be immediately
ostracized, destroyed, isolated in prisons and camps” [3, p. fifteen].
Many communists noted the presence in the government of M.S.
Gorbachev’s “thoughtful conspiracy”, pointed to “the degradation
of the party, moral values and culture of the country”, “denigrating
the basic values of the USSR in the media,” the “danger of
destruction” of the country and society as a result of betrayal [1].
The symbol of betrayal in the country is exposed by General A.A.
Vlasov, distinguished himself in the defense of Moscow. Later, when
his army was surrounded, A.A. Vlasov voluntarily surrendered,
expressed his desire to cooperate with the Nazis, created the ROA
(the army, which was supposed to free Russia from Bolshevism and
socialism).
At the end of the war he was convicted and executed as a traitor.
It is clear that M.S. Gorbachev is a traitor with the highest social
status, because he was the General Secretary of the CPSU Central
Committee. In conclusion, I want to draw attention to the spread
of this phenomenon not only among the oligarchs, but also in the
built V.V. Putin’s “vertical of power” on the example of a speech by
the head of Sberbank G. Gref at the XVI (Gaidar) economic forum
in St. Petersburg. Mr. Gref said, addressing its participants, that
he would be scared if the power is in the hands of the people, if
his representatives are recognized as subjects of history: “You say
terrible things. You propose to transfer power to the hands of the
population. As soon as ordinary people understand the basis of
their self, they identify themselves, manage, i.e. it will be extremely
difficult to manipulate them. ” Therefore, it is necessary not to allow
people to knowledge, to limit their knowledge. After all, people do
not want to be manipulated when they “have knowledge”. At one
time, such statements were made by Empress Catherine the Second,
calling a fool one of the governors who sent her a project to improve
public education. According to G. Gref, “in ancient times, thinkers
who thought from the perspective of the rich thought up theories,”
encrypted them, fearing to convey to the common people [2,3].
“For example, “as a democrat” Confucius “began”, but he ended
up with the doctrine of dividing society into strata. Gref finds the
same in Buddhism. In Jewish culture, in his opinion, the same
“life science” was developed by Kabbalah, but for three thousand
years it was a secret teaching, “because people understood what
it was to remove the veil from the eyes of millions, to make them
self-sufficient.” “How to manage them?”: “Any mass control implies
an element of manipulation.” He has a real fear in a society where
“everyone has equal access to information.” “How to live, how to
manage a society where everyone has the opportunity to judge
directly, to receive unprepared information, not through analysts
trained by the government, political scientists, and huge media from
the media that are as if independent, but in fact, we understand,”
says G. Gref, that all the media are busy with strata?” How far are
these attitudes from the policy of V.I. Lenin! They are shocking also
the current citizens who reproach the rulers of post-Soviet Russia
for the lack of “fair elections”, ignoring the referenda provided for
by the Constitution of the Russian Federation on key issues of life,
anti-people’s health care reforms (during the presidency of V.V.
Putin, the number of clinics and hospitals has decreased by half),
lowering the level in the education system, reforming the pension
system, etc. etc.
All of them can be recognized not as “heirs”, but as “traitors” of
the great victory of the Soviet people, who 75 years ago defended
their right to live in a socialist country, receive knowledge, work
and manage their country. Thus, 32 thousand enterprises were
destroyed by the Nazis on the territory of the USSR, 78 thousand
enterprises were destroyed on its territory in post-Soviet Russia,
which led to a sharp reduction in workers, who are still afraid of
the ruling bourgeoisie and the “vertical of power”, which explains
the destruction of enterprises. At the victory parade in Moscow
in 1945, its participants threw banners of fascist military units,
symbols of bourgeois power to the Mausoleum of V.I. Lenin on
Red Square, and today the Mausoleum will be draped; Is this not
evidence of betrayal in relation to the victory of the Soviet people
in World War II?
References
- Abrakova TA (2009) The Soviet past in the perception of the people of the era of perestroika. Time, event, historical experience in the discourse of the modern historian. XVI reading in memory of the corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences SI Arkhangelsk 15-17, Nizhny Novgorod 99-100.
- Lenin VI (1974) On the “Left” Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeoisie. Lenin VI Full Sobr Op T 36, M Politizdat 283-314.
- Yakovlev AN (2001) Bolshevism is a social disease of the twentieth century. Courtois S, Vert N, Panne JL, Pachkovsky A, Bartoshek K, Margolen JL The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Perwith fr Ed rev M p. 5-32.
