It would be inaccurate and not enough to say that in today's Russian society, there are active opponents of Stalin, and significant weight it more or less conscious adherents. Evaluation of Stalin — this is an issue on which society has not only consent, and viewed the prospects for its acquisition. This fact indicates both the significance of the figure itself, and that even the dead Stalin continues to "live their lives" — he was able to withstand the blows of exposures and exposures.
It should be stated two trivial fact.
First. As information and propaganda attacks on Stalin subside — or lethargy of his enemies, or because it begins to seem as if the victory over his "cult" won, or because the theme itself is just boring society — a positive attitude towards this figure, and its reverence begin again to grow.
The opponents of Stalin's method of propaganda pressure can sometimes weaken such reverence. But, on the one hand, there is some feature below which it does not fall in popularity, and with another — as the pressure decreases or stops, ranking public seductiveness species grows again.
2nd. In general, the positive evaluation Stalin mainly characterized by the representatives of the older age groups, if the young. It seems natural: meaning that the older de accustomed to the estimates so far — and by virtue of conservatism do not want to turn away from them, while the young are free from the stereotypes of the past and posted a negative revelatory estimates of the individual.
But the usual pattern only obscures the real paradoxical conclusion. It turns out that the positive Stalin was characterized first by those who had to live with him, witnessed his policies have experienced it for themselves and for their own lives. A negative — those who have not witnessed the events, and are repelled from the mediated info and tendentious interpretations. It turns out that bad estimates this figure will only be kept as long as intense and hard-pressed, it begs the public consciousness, and positive are resilient and recover even without stimulation from the outside. The witnesses and contemporaries of Stalin's rule tend to take it positively, and negative views are inherent to those who do not have personal experience to the impartial judgment.
You can try to explain a similar situation in that the older generation is still under the influence of propaganda treatment of the Stalin era. In other words, within the framework of speculation that "when people lied, and later he uttered the truth." Indeed, there are those who honestly admit: "We believed Stalin. But the XX Congress (XXII Congress, Solzhenitsyn, alteration, even of something nibudt) opened our eyes — and we realized what it was a nightmare and we like fools!" But such a position — only an indicator of the willingness of its media believe all that utter — on behalf of this or another recognized authority figure informational instability uncritical susceptibility. And the possibility that they lied "before" and later uttered the truth, is no higher than the probability of what was then read as the truth, and later began to lie. To a large extent there is an aspect of the truth, rather, is that people tend to take on some neofitsioznom level, at the level of what is usually called spontaneous memory of the people.
In other words, the introduction of negative assessments of Stalin's propaganda requires constant pressure. The positive assessment of his restored spontaneously, including on the evidence of witnesses.
There are official propaganda, there is a spontaneous people's memory. They may be the same, but may vary. With all this official propaganda is able to change its focus almost instantaneously, and spontaneous memory is measured and is inert, because it is based on real experiences. When the official propaganda works in the same direction as the spontaneous memory — the result as a whole is clear (although it can turn around demonstratively opposite). When the official propaganda directed against the spontaneous memory, such propaganda — because of her anger, organization, and lack of ability to properly respond to the opponent — for the time being able to suppress the latter, but only partially and temporarily. At some point, there comes a point when a spontaneous memory, curled up like a spring under intolerable pressure to limit the ability begins to straighten up and destroy the effect achieved by the official propaganda.
De-Stalinization campaign, something reminiscent of the one hand, the description of Tolstoy, Napoleon's campaign against Moscow (compression of the spring national energy and national patience, then — its extension), and the other — a ride on a steam train with square wheels: go for large efforts can only need to make efforts constantly and very huge. What is irrational and bored.
Society after the death of Stalin survived two massive campaign to expose his — in the late 50's — early 60's and in the years of perestroika. Plus, the official anti-communism 90. As a result, on this day a positive attitude towards Stalin typically for about 50 percent of the population, the negative — about 30 percent. These characteristics are not absolute, they fluctuate, but generally are about. Usually, in all political interactive talk show devoted to Stalin overcome his supporters.
At the end of October, in the television show "The conscientious Sun" on NTV viewers were asked to whom they is Stalin — the offender, the hero or an effective manager. With all of this for some viewers the opportunity to vote was closed. Voting is not on the phone, and SMS messaging is not so vserasprostranennymi middle of the older generation, complementarily configured to Stalin. But ultimately positive assessment clearly prevailed over the negative (61/39). Stalin offender dubbed the 39 percent, the hero — 54 percent, and the effective manager — 9 percent.
Supporters of de-Stalinization, twice were not able to reach the goals — half a century, and 20 years ago — and now beckoning to the latest information war, believe that the premise of re-Stalinization is the current government policy. This blame Putin and all the official propaganda that virtually mistake. The power in the 2000s, really gave up the obvious attacks on Stalin and from ignoring this figure. But power does not create such a trend — it adjust to it. And adjusts specifically as realized: a positive image of Stalin steadfast, despite all the previous revelatory campaign.
Here are more details ARCSPO as long as his team members were present by the Levada Center, does not subject sympathy for Stalin. In 1990, the positive assessment of Stalin after a couple of years of massive mental and informational pressure recruited least 10 per cent, during the 1990s, they rushed up confidently, although semi-official propaganda as long hard suspected of pro-Stalinist sympathies. By 2003, the ratio of positive and negative evaluations was 53 against 33. In other words again: segodnyaschy forms the government does not this trend — it is perceived and to a large extent it complied.
If you lived in Stalin's positive assessment of its policies stem from personal experience, that a young generation without being its witnesses are witnesses of post-Stalinist policies. And it turns out: it was Stalin's policy — known for its performance and cost, the cost that is paid by the progress made, and now the other — the a
nti-Stalin — politics. It does not show success and the costs — are obvious and much more ambitious and catastrophic.
All traces of the success of Stalin's policies can be followed: the Stalinist skyscrapers to Stalin's industry, from the Victory Banner and staff ruined Reichstag to maps showing what was then the country's borders, and what was the impact in the world. The cost of the same can only be judged from the words, and the greater part of individuals are not fully adequate.
Cost same anti-Stalinist policies pursued since the late 1980s and throughout most of the 1990s, by contrast, yavna all. But the success has only to hear, and even then in the main that could damage or could not understand what to do.
In one case, you can behold the evidence of success and only hear about the cost, in the other — there are obvious cost and loss, and the successes just said. The opponents of Stalin believe that such a picture — because of the lack of memorials to the victims of Stalinist repression. But they are unlikely to be greater than under Stalin built factories and power plants. A if even get to build as many sites, all of them will be equal to the least convincing than the old giants of the industry.
Now, if each plant had on Stalin's post-industrial factory, then a similar monumental propaganda might seem convincing. In the meantime, "There was a time — and there were cellars, had an affair — and the prices are falling, and streaming channels where you want and where you want to end would fall." In the basement, of course, now for the most part do not live — but to resettle people in at least some individual apartments was only thanks to the ability of the industry, which is built under Stalin. But the fall in prices now looks unscientific fiction, they always grow and even what occasion. Prices grow if grows cost oil — and if drops. Prices grow, if the ruble rises against greenback — and if drops. Channels are not laid, as factories and power plants explode.
Stalin then in the eyes of ordinary people see some emblem of success, a way majestically Victory and all the other victories. Do not accept what has been produced under Stalin, is unrealistic. One can only wonder: it was made thanks to Stalin or in spite of it? Well, think about the cost that had to be made to pay for.
Thanks to the contrary either — you can argue endlessly. But even if the contrary, that Stalin had not interfered with the people to achieve success — their people all the same going for. And the anti-Stalinists in power to the people in general could not be reached success, either to prevent anti-Stalinists themselves stronger than prevented Stalin, or assistance such that damage from it is much greater than that of Stalin.
The question of the cost of even more essential. And then there are inconsistencies.
If you start talking about the cost means it is necessary to agree on the terms. But whistleblowers avoid reprisals read about it, and reduce everything to the ordinary sense descriptions: "Millions and millions! Flywheel Terrorism Val suffering! 10's of millions! 40000000! 50000000! Eighty million!" The common man is terrified, depressed immeasurable suffering of countless victims of flour. Later, he slightly rebounding and — if checked against the actual historical evidence — finds out that it was a little different. Specifically: in the period from 1921 to the spring of 1953 all were convicted for their political 4,000,000, and sentenced to death 800 thousand people. With all of this in 1937-1938 were convicted of 1,344,923 people, of whom were sentenced to death 681,692 people. In other words, 85 percent of all those shot has specifically on these two disastrous years. Then it was made more than a third of all the other sentences in these articles. And all of these processes have suffered least 2 percent of the population.
It is necessary to pay attention to the two incidents. In 1-x, except 1937-1938, political repression were not widespread nature. And what happened in those two years, has already condemned the Stalinist self control. In-2, how many of those sentenced for a real hit — apply modern term — "unconstitutionally" iskolko of them were innocent, we do not know. Most of these rehabilitations are not realized on the basis of case studies of real events, but in terms of the presence or in the absence of formal violations sudoproizvodstvennoy procedure. And this despite the fact that all the sentences imposed in accordance with the resolution of the "light office work." In other words, they can be regarded as carried out with legal violations, and therefore the wines will be formally sentenced unproven. But this "lite office work" and were guilty and the innocent, why in fact guilty do not cease to be a really guilty. Rehabilitated the same usual, all in a row, who fell under the formal infringement proceedings index.
And when being investigated characteristics of 4 million and 800 thousand prisoners were shot, those who have read as a minute back of the "framework of the 10-million", completely forgets what was said and immediately change the subject, rhetorically, exclaiming: "What is this, not that enough?" But if it's a lot, why it was necessary to talk about the "framework of the 10-million"? Means either a man at first did not know what, in fact, states or — more precisely — he did, but lied to, achieving greater sensory impact. In the first case, it appears that saying — a man and his ignorant worldview can not be regarded as worthy of attention. 2nd — he's the man dishonest. Liar — whose world outlook is a conscious liar, and hence, much less taken into account can not.
Marked the real extent of repression — this is a lot or not enough? Generally it does not matter what kind of innocent human life is ruined — a lot. No matter how innocent death — it's a disaster, destruction of the whole world, unique and an end in itself.
But the fact that one life — a lot, do not be monotonous to do with how many lives ruined — one or two, eight hundred thousand or millions. So how exactly such an approach, and it appears that more than a million, a million less — all the same. And the people that they say so — in other words, starting with a 10-s millions, and later to the number of two orders of the smallest state: "What's the difference, is not enough" — they behold the concrete in front of him are not real people's lives, not Catastrophe people, and just only reason against someone they can not stand — but can not stand on some of his own, others who do not have a case for discussion of reasons.
Four million of the repressed (together — the guilty and the innocent) — is four million. And in a country with a population of two hundred millionth — two percent. And in the same country for 30 years — noticeably smaller 2-percent.
In autumn 2007, on the eve of the 90th anniversary of the October Revolution, the polls were conducted a survey: "Were in the middle of your relatives who died in detention or have received life in Stalin's camps?" Then answered yes 16 percent of those surveyed, 57 percent pronounced that such was not, and 22 percent — that these do not. But in the past with the Stalinist era, every time man, including repressed, will inevitably become due branching family relationships relative to more people. Over 60 families by each of two repressed increased in the third degree — in other words, at least eight times. What about yields (taking into account the fact that not everyone has remained relatives) about 1/2 percent of the repressed of the total population in those years.
The cost is different price, if you say: "We paid for our success lives 10 s of millions of people" — and if we say, "We paid for it with their lives less than 2-percent of the population."
If you think about it, in what historical criteria, which heightened struggle, confrontation of the vast masses of all this was happening, the general will, which then managed to get by losses, almost close to the smallest. Especially when you consider that the number of victims of power politics during perestroika and the 90s really is many times greater than the number of victims of Stalinist repression. Even if, as others do haters of that period of our history, to add on to the same all the dispossessed, and all the victims of famine years — even if the number of "irreversible loss" for 30 years would be a fraction of the estimated 15 million man, Our home are just lost in the last two decades.
But it is also true that the victory of Stalin were paid exorbitant exertion, bolshennymi victims, great price. And in 1937 — is, of course, a terrible catastrophe.
It all seems so clear that they say: "These were enemies. Conscientious communist revolutionaries led by Stalin, saving the country and crush the fascist counter-revolutionary agents, and sorry there is nothing." Everything seems clear if to say in another way: "Mad paranoid despot Stalin in favor of his own lust for power destroyed conscientious and dedicated Communist Revolution."
Neither is any other statement is not actually crash. The first is a feat. In 2 — sin.
The catastrophe occurs when some honest communists led by Stalin destroyed along with the enemy, and other bona fide Communists — by the way, is also believed in Stalin. It's much worse. And then disaster — is mutual. It is — to both sides. Just to understand it, to understand the nightmare, to understand how this could happen to almost abandon the first clicks of sins. And try to understand it as a tragedy.
Of course, the question remains: "Is it possible to have the lowest price?" Just answer this question we do not have. No one would argue that it was possible to lower the price, can not confirm his words or those other facts.
We can assert that Stalin's fault that he had not tried to snatch bloodless. But Gandhi wanted to solve their tasks without bloodshed — and it ended in a bloody massacre in India in the late 1940s. Gorbachev had intended to operate without blood — when, by the way, this was much more reason and hope, than in 1920-1930-ies — and so it is something no one would call either a hero or an effective manager.
Could or could not do with Stalin lowest price? We do not know. If we had examples of such solutions, and similar tasks in similar criteria lowest price — we could read about something. We do not have it.
We know more. Stalin had certain goals. He was able to solve them. Country, such as in the same period in similar criteria could be solved by the same scale tasks, we do not know. The following Russian policy or were not similar in scale goals, or were not able to solve them.
Here general question about the political aspects of the assessment of personality and its activities.
By the time Stalin was in the top managers of the country, the era of Russia has set two main tasks of civilization. The first was the completion of the transition to the industrial phase of development with which our homeland behind for decades, and supporting the development of post-industrial production bridgeheads. Second — in the development of a society of social democracy and the public of the country.
In fact, these two problems and called Lofty October Socialist Revolution. Stalin, one way or another they both decided. He made the socio-political system, which at that time was a long time later and remained competitive on the world stage and served as an example for many people.
Prepyadstviya this system began when, taking advantage, namely, the experience and achievements of the system, its rivals went on. She got task transition in the modern era is — post-industrial production. Some rulers of the country have not undertaken for its decision, squeezing everything you can out of an old system. Others — not cope and led the country to disaster.
Successful one who solves the puzzles of history, not the one who pays the lowest cost, but does not solve the puzzles. The issue price is set — but only against the background of a goal achieved. The failure of the objectives of history, can not be justified zeal to minimize the loss. The military commander, who can win a little blood, better leader, which pays for the victory bolshennymi losses. But only on one condition — if victory is achieved. If the minimization of losses is considered as something more fundamental than a victory, the captain, together with its own army must not engaging in battle, to surrender to the enemy.
Everything said — almost certainly. That's why the general consciousness and spontaneous folk memory so drawn to the form of Stalin. But also of course the fact that a popular part of the society treats it differently. In general, everything is politically more or less clear. It is clear that certain groups can not stand Stalin, due to natural ideological and political differences with the ideology they profess and express our economic interests. Similarly, it is clear that there is no reason to feel love for him in people whose families have been affected by his actions (although there is often everything is not quite so sure). But apart from these — in its own clear — motives must be emphasized once playing at once one of the leading roles.
The fact that Stalin and policy — is some mobilization concentrate on the one hand and rigid responsibility — other. Assert their style of management and policy — is a job requirement and constant voltage coupled with an ability to get things done, often located almost beyond probable. This is a constant voltage, the work on the limit. The people of that generation — the generation of the Revolution and the Russian war — people for whom the words of the Strugatsky, "Sun began on Saturday." Sorcerers overvoltage. People style of life in which your work — and most importantly you gave it to her one hundred percent. And none of what you do not get more enjoyment from it if.
At least two socio-professional groups, and this style is alien to almost all hated. In 1-x, the bureaucracy, being born in the mobilization system, but who wanted to delight in power and reach — only without burdening their responsibility and stress. In-2, an elite philistinism, obyvatelstvuyuschey part of the intelligentsia, who wanted the lord of relaxation and comfort. The first group was the creator and pioneer of de-Stalinization of the XX Congress of the times. The second has adopted this motto is to fight with the first group — as in the 60s, and in the restructuring.
The mobilization style sought not only constant voltage — he achieved the feat of constant readiness, real commitment to heroism, in other words, the commission of acts for which you pay yourself, but which serve to more that you have within yourself, if your biological existence. In other words, this style is sought to be constantly remain human, which differs from the first animal that has something for which he is ready to die, and animal — has not. Always sought to whip himself, always giving precedence over a bio, seeking to become the owner of your social shell — and to subordinate themselves to your mental nature.
But specifically, it was creepy and foreign carriers different nature — the nature of luxury and indolence, — constantly opening the door to a man sitting in monkeys. Monkeys, which is either always says to you in the spirit of anti-human Popper's philosophy: "Why to compromise — and so will do. Indeed, rebelling against that or any other imperfections, you inevitably subjected himself to the leader of the rebels." Or, giving the resistance of the human that it will not be able to for you to put down gently lull begins
, "Yes, you're right, the situation is not good. Impossible to live on — to boldly to challenge the imperfections, backwardness and barbarism. But not so fast — remember the value. do not pay a lot of progress — no need to push. need to come up with a system where you like before going to bask in comfort, but imagine such self-regulatory affairs, who themselves will put everything in its place. Without stress, turmoil, mobilization and particular responsibility it will work by itself and by itself will move towards perfection. "
Stalin — or something that can be described by this naming — represented the world of style and Frontier. World moving forward, the world is the ability to skip over their helplessness. A world where people from every recent victory over the circumstances of the latest rises in the level of their own tribal existence. A society where The knowledge is more important than eating.
Anti-Stalinism as a socio-political, but not in the least degree of socio-psychological and temperamental phenomenon was a world of relaxation. Society yum-yum, where the development of the use of human development takes place. Where bio triumphs over social and mental. Where is the overproduction of comfort regarded as a practice that can replace the lack of creativity. Where to eat — more important than figuring out and consume — is more important than done. In the world of Frontier people are casting themselves in monkeys. In a world of relaxation monkeys prevails over man.
Meanwhile, the development of man and his rise from the consumer to the researcher, from the consumer to the creator, in fact, is what is usually called progress. The latter, of course, has many sides — technical and scientific, and technological-industrial, social and economic. But the bulk of them — the one where a man rises from the monkeys to the state of the demiurge.
But the world is arranged so that you have to pay for progress. For climbing in general must pay. Will, stress, nerves, real resources. Progress one way or the other breaks the established order and hardened. A cash order and therefore requests the configuration that it is imperfect. For some groups, which play a huge role in it and enjoying bolshennymi benefits, it is more profitable. For others — the least, and for many — generally unprofitable.
How to respond to those for whom this procedure profitable, and those who just got used to it and do not want to change anything? Because they react — in one form or another to resist. Some members of these groups are quite far-sighted, so that by the side of progress. And most of them are against it. And they can realize that progress is not only threatens their interests — and contrary to their values and morals. In other words, it is as impartial process — regardless of morality. But they do not out of morality and therefore oppose this indestructible wheels. And from time to time, incidentally, they manage to slow down or stop its movement. For the movement of progress paid by those who stood in his way. During his suspension — those who went along with him, and tied with the movement of his hopes. Moreover, as progress is morality, he and against his supporters often arrives without the observance of moral rules — does not have any sense of gratitude, no sense of justice group.
Only there is no choice — or progress is moving or not moving. If you do not move — or corruption occurs when achieved and done previously destroyed slowly and unavoidable, or regress when it breaks just as unavoidable, but only rapidly. Or forward or backward. Who does not want to pay for the progress of the country, making it the raw materials to pay for someone else's progress.
I repeat: the beginning of XX century Russia stood in front of two problems. Problem breakthrough in the quality of the new civilization — the end of entering the industrial era and the creation of the first bastions of the post-industrial era. And the task of creation of social democracy and the public of the country. With that, by the way, that has not been solved yet, and the creation of the task of political democracy.
These tasks do not put the Bolsheviks and Stalin. They put the history and progress, which caused a revolution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Stalin, these tasks only expressed and realized that without solving them in the shortest possible time, the country runs the risk of merely historical abyss. Stalin was able to solve them — because I could, and at a known cost.
This does not mean that it is bad or that it is bad. This means that he could.
Who better — let the show. So far no one has shown — and all the appeals trial of de-Stalinization will be wave after wave crashing against the foot of his miraculous monument. They will split the society, will heat up the debate civilians. And they will be, by the way, because of the described state of affairs to raise his defense more and more adherents. Fifteen years of de-Stalinization — and destalinizatorov can demonstrate a cabinet of curiosities.
To overcome that image and the memory is only one method: in similar circumstances to solve a large-scale tasks, if he decided — but with minimal losses and the lowest price.
It is only necessary to keep in mind: out of nothing — nothing appears. And to pay for progress.