Stalin and the wind of history

Article AI Fursova "Stalin and the wind of history" does not coincide with the requirements of the site, though I would venture to publish it. Much to ask the moderators do not udolyat article once, let there hung a couple of days because of its beneficial effect on the world)))

That's the trouble! When used to
He was furious with sickle
Took place on the field squall —
Sheaf would collapse over the sheaf.

The truth — the bitter medicine, unpleasant taste, but restoring health.

  • Stalin and the wind of history
  • Stalin and the wind of history

Stalin once said that after his death his grave will cause a lot of garbage, but the wind will scatter his stories. All went well, as foreseen leader. Barely a few years as one of the main "Stakhanovists Terror" of the 1930s, Khrushchev (which is on it's request to increase the quota for the shooting of Stalin wrote: "Calm down, you fool") began pouring leader mud. Khrushchev was not the first in this regard: a systematic watering Stalin (although interspersed with real criticism) began Trotsky, well, do not mind a former Trotskyite released Khrushchev left only watering. Then Khrushchev as "scavengers" have joined the most zealous of the "sixties", but what about the dissidents, "sang" to other people's "voice" and "floated" on other people's "waves", and say nothing — they were part of Western anti-Soviet propaganda.
Restructuring marked a new stage in the defamation Stalin. Here, however, Stalin was the main target, and Soviet socialism, the Soviet system, Soviet history, and behind them — the Russian history as a whole. After all, said one of the same demons restructuring, reorganization that they were breaking not only the Soviet Union, but the whole paradigm of thousands of years of Russian history. And what is the main figure of breaking was chosen Stalin, is further evidence of the role of the human phenomenon, not only in the Soviet, but also in Russian history — Stalinism, among other things, has become an active and great-Russian form of survival in the twentieth century. under extremely hostile environment, to focus on the "final solution of the Russian question" — Hitler in this respect is not the only one, he just — by plebeian manner — loudly shouted, repeating that which plucked from the Anglo-Saxons.

("The Soviet Union collapsed, destroyed by the Soviet regime. Seems to be sovetofoby can calm down about Stalin and the Soviet Union. But no, they are restless. However, the current destalinizatory — figures largely a farce and odious, looking small even compared to the tuning punks. On the screens TV grimace miserable social types such as half-educated pafasno-fake journalist, academician-dropout with manners of an informer, an alcoholic with a claim to the role of the international businessman and other incompetent. Here necessarily remember Karel Capek ("they come like a thousand masks, without people" — about salamanders) and Nicholas Z ("Everything was in confusion in the general dance / And fly to the ends / baboons and British / Witches, fleas, dead … / PhD bygone centuries / Warlord new years / My mind! these Freaks — / Only fiction and nonsense ").

Indeed, other than gibberish not call that "anti-Stalinist clowns" serves as a "reasoning". It is either a solid, bordering on hysteria emotions in the spirit of amateur club with cries of "nightmare", "horror", "shame" is very reminiscent of the Jackal Tobacco Kipling "Mowgli" with his "Shame on the jungle!" — Emotions without any facts and figures. Or manipulation of fantastic figures of victims of "Stalinist repression", "tens and tens of millions" (why not hundreds?). If that link, then on "The Gulag Archipelago" Solzhenitsyn. But Solzhenitsyn was a master legendirovaniya and blanks "pads". For example, he did not claim to "Archipelago …" on tsifirnuyu accuracy, moreover, put it in the sense that the said product is, so to speak, impressionistic character. Made secure "Winds" — that means school.

But in the last quarter of a century on the basis of historical data (files open) and ours, and Western (mostly American) researchers, most of which are not seen to be sympathetic to either Stalin or the USSR, or even to Russia, estimated the actual number of repressed in the years 1922-53. (Remember, by the way, that although the "Stalinist" era officially began in 1929, in fact, only since 1939, we can formally talk about Stalin full control over "the party and the government," although there were some nuances), and no "tens of millions" or even a "tens of millions" there was not a hint.

Over the past years, there are well-documented reports showing actual mechanism of "repression of the 1930s," which were unleashed massive as it is "old guard" and "regional barons" like Khrushchev and Eikhe as a response to Stalin's proposal on alternative elections. Crack down on "starogvardeytsev" leader could not but point (not mass!) Attack on their staffs paid. I leave aside the struggle with real conspiracies — opposition to Stalin's Comintern left-globalists, like Trotsky, who believed that Stalin gave the world revolution, etc. Thus, the real picture "of repression of the 1930s" is much more difficult than it is trying to present Stalin's detractors, it is multi-layered and multi-vector process of ending the civil war, in which only the "Stalinist segment" is not part of the greater rigor.

Similarly, the main unit fails a second charge of Stalin — how to shape in the early months of the Great Patriotic War, "blinked", "asleep", "Sorge did not believe," "believed Hitler", "escaped from the Kremlin and the three days was in prostration "etc. All these lies have long been refuted by documents, the researchers aware of this — and the fact that Stalin did not overslept, and that in fact never believed Hitler, and that right could not believe Sorge, and the real fault generals on the eve of June 22. This is no place to unpack all these questions, but one of the comments do not help myself. Oh, how scoff anti-Stalinists over the TASS statement on 14 June 1941, the statement said that the relations between the USSR and Germany, all right, that the Soviet Union continued to pursue peaceful course etc. "Scavengers" is interpreted as "folly and weakness of Stalin" as "kowtowing to Hitler." They did not occur to him that the destination application were not Hitler and the Third Reich, and Roosevelt and the United States. In April 1941, the U.S. Congress decided that in the case of the German attack on the USSR, the United States will help the USSR, and in the event of a Soviet attack on Germany — Germany.

TASS statement fixed the total absence of aggressive intentions of the Soviet Union in relation to Germany and has demonstrated the lack of it is the U.S., not Germany. Stalin was well aware that in the inevitable showdown with Reich, his only real ally may be just the U.S., they also will keep the UK from slipping into a German-British anti-Soviet alliance. And, of course, it was impossible to prevent careless movement, which pushed the Russian Hitler provoke the North Atlantic (or, rather, the world — with the participation of Japan and Turk
ey), the anti-Soviet bloc. In this case, the Soviet Union (relative military capabilities on the 1937 — 14%) would have had to confront the U.S. (41.7%), Germany (14.4%), the UK (10.2% excluding imperial possessions), France ( 4.2%), Japan (3.5%), Italy (2.5%) plus smaller dragons. By the way, in view of these figures and facts solutions Congressional obvious falsity of the whole scheme Rezun and those with him about the alleged preparation of Stalin to attack Germany in particular and Europe in general.

There is a purely psychological nuance to the charges of scientific and pseudo-scientific fraternity against Stalin. In all, more precisely, in all that is negative in the direction of Stalin (positive conducted through the "in spite of Stalin") blame one person as a supposedly endowed with absolute power, and therefore powerful. But, first, Stalin managed to consolidate his power until the end of 1930, before that — life-and-death struggle, walk on the edge, always ready to respond to the cry of joy pack, "Akela has missed." The war — not the best time for individual decisions. But during the years 1945-1953. — This is the time constant infighting different nomenclature groups with each other — and against Stalin. Postwar 8th anniversary — is the story of the gradual turfing, environment, aging leader nomenclature (with the participation of certain forces and structures from abroad); Stalin's attempt to strike back at the XIX Congress of the CPSU (B) / Communist Party (1952) and immediately after the ended in the death of the leader. Thus, in a real, not a "professor" of history, about which Goethe said that it has no relation to the real spirit of the past — is "… the spirit of the professors and their concepts, / Which of these gentlemen out of place / In the true antiquity of the issue," Stalin had never been absolute ruler — One Ring he was not. This does not mean that it can not be held personally liable for any errors, cruelty, and so forth, is — along with a brutal era, and by the laws of nature and that it should be evaluated.

But it's not only that. The simple truth is this: the one who led the team for at least 10 people, know that absolute power can not be — and the less it is possible, the more subordinates. The greater part of those who wrote and wrote about Stalin had nothing and no one managed, unaccountable, that is, In this sense, the essence of irresponsible people. In addition to power, they often project their ambitions, fears, demands, desires, "sleepy thoughts fluttering" (N. Z) and, last but not least, the craving for denunciation (not a secret that most Soviet-era KGB and Stalin hated former snitches, informers, because it is easier to hate the system and its leader, than to despise his own meanness — displacement, you know.) Absolute power — a dream sovintelligentsii, which found one of his reflections in "Master and Margarita", among other things, which is why the novel became a cult classic for sovintelligentsii (and "Notes of the deceased," where this layer was revealed to the mirror — not steel). To reduce the essence of the personality of one man — there is something of the social and schizophrenia, and from infantilism, not to mention the professional failure.

It might be noted and a lot of other absurdities, fallacies and falsehoods "nanoschikov garbage" on the grave of Stalin, but what's the point in digging poisoned by lies and hatred, mixed with complexes and phobias brains? Interesting to understand something else: the causes hatred for Stalin, fear of him the whole strata and groups in our country and abroad, fear and hatred, which does not leave in the past, but on the contrary, it sometimes seems to grow as the distance from the Stalin era. Who knows, maybe this is the main military secret Soviet era, which is not given to unravel burzhuinam and which hangs over them like a "sword of Damocles"?

It is often said, "Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are." In fact, people are no less determined not friends, and enemies, "Tell me who your enemy is, and I'll tell you who you are." Reflect on Stalin through the prism of hatred towards him and fear him of his enemies and their lackeys.

Relation to the leaders: kings, general secretaries, presidents, — an interesting thing because of its, at least on the surface, paradoxical. In Russian history there have been three sharp ruler — Ivan the Terrible, Peter I and Joseph Stalin. The most brutal and destructive was the work of a second: his reign population loss of about 25% (the people up, deserted) at the time of Peter's death, the treasury was almost empty, ruined economy, and from Peter's fleet in a few years remaining three ships. And it's great modernizer? In the folk memory of Peter was the Antichrist — the only Russian Tsar Antichrist, and this is very significant. But Ivan IV made history as the Terrible and his time in the XVII century. remembered as the last decades of the peasant freedom. And Oprichnina the people almost do not remember a bad word — it is "merit" Romanov liberal historians. Stalin, unlike Peter, left behind a great power on the material foundation of which, including nuclear, we still live, and Russia still listed as a major power (albeit regional, but without the foundation of the Stalinist we expected and expects the fate of the Serbs, Afghans and Libyans, no illusions here to feed is not necessary).

The paradox is that of the three rulers of Peter, despite the extreme personal violence and disastrous reign, love of power and a large part of the intelligentsia. He did not get a tenth of the criticism to which the liberal historiography and journalism brought down on the heads of Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin. Tsar Ivan the Terrible had no place on the monument "Millennium of Russia", and Peter — in the foreground. What is so Peter did, what did John and Joseph? A very simple thing: let the top to steal a large scale, was liberal to the "mischief" of this particular layer. For this kind of power (a portrait of Peter I in the office of Chernomyrdin's very symbolic) and reflect her interests, tastes and preferences of a particular segment of historians and publicists. Ivan the Terrible and Stalin were tough and even cruel in relation to, first of all, to the top. "Damned Cast!" — These words were said by Stalin when he learned that evacuated to Kuibyshev nomenclature trying to organize for their children's individual schools.

Throughout his life, in power, Stalin opposed the "accursed caste," not letting it turn into a class. He knew that as the transformation of the "caste" will oppose the construction of socialism — that is what Stalin had in mind when he spoke of the growth of the class struggle as you progress in the construction of socialism. As demonstrated the restructuring, the leader was absolutely right: in the 1960s, the Soviet Union was formed kvaziklassovy shadow-2, which in alliance with the West and destroyed the USSR-1 with all of his accomplishments. In this case, the actual population of discontent was caused by the USSR-2, ie deviation from the model, but interested groups cranked slick propaganda trick: put the population of the USSR-2 with its flaws, growing inequality, artificially created shortage etc. as the initial design model of the USSR-1, which is an urgent need to "reform."

In Soviet times, as during Stalin's lifetime and after his death, the leader of the hated mainly two power groups (and, consequently, the related units sovintelligentsii). First, this is the part of the Soviet establishment, which has been charged for the world revolution and its representatives believed Stalin traitor cause of world revolution, or at least deviationist from it. It's about left-globalization-Comintern, for which Russia, th
e Soviet Union was a springboard for the world revolution. They, of course, could not like any of "socialism in a single country" (ie, the revival of the "empire" in the "red form") or an appeal to the Russian national traditions, which they used to look down on, or cancellation of a 1936 celebration on November 7 as the First day of the world revolution, nor the appearance of the same in 1936 the term "Soviet patriotism" or more. It is significant that in the mid-1920s, Zinoviev, "third Grisha" Russian history (known to those who are numbered, what a jerk, even compared with the third will be the fourth), argued the necessity of removing Stalin from the post of secretary general in that order "do not like the Comintern," and one of the main critics of Stalin in the 1930s, was a senior functionary of the Comintern O. Pyatnitskii.

The second group stalinonenavistnikov can be called "Soviet liberals." What is a "liberal Soviet-style"? Of course, this is not a liberal in the classical sense, and generally not a liberal — even nize-e-enko-nize-e-enko not liberal. Soviet nomenklatura Liberal — interesting shtemp: This official, who sought to consume more than it is necessary under the strict rules of the Soviet nomenklatura-rank the hierarchical system of consumption, and therefore ready to change the power in wealth, more eager to travel to the West through his fingers and looking at the shadow economy with which it merges into the more socially ecstasy.

Today it is called corruption, but sovsisteme this term is hardly applicable, corruption is the use of the public sphere for private purposes and interests. The point, however, that in sovrealnosti was not legally recorded differences between these spheres, since there was no private sphere — "all around the collective, all around me." Instead it should be about corruption undermining the system, which for the time being — until the time (until the mid-1970s, when the country flooded unaccounted petrodollars) wore quantitative. Thus, to speak of the deformation of the system. These deformers and Stalin hated the most, as the nomenclature and near-nomenclature thieves realized that if it or similar retaliation can not be avoided, so it is feared the rise to power of neo-Stalinists A. Shelepina, put on Brezhnev — and lost. That's when the "hero Minor Earth" has increased the shadow of the USSR-2 (no shadow economy, namely the shadow of the USSR associated with both its underground economy, and with Western capital, its supranational structures, Western intelligence agencies), but the shadow under Brezhnev knew her place , waiting for the time, and since the mid-1970s, ready to pounce, but under Gorbachev, she took the place of the master, destroying front-USSR 1. Real USSR in the early 1980s resembled a galactic empire of Azimov "Academy" ("Foundation") — happy facade with corroded insides. Only the Soviet Union, unlike the empire, there was no math Selden with his plan — we had a "mathematician", gesheftmatik Berezovsky and that's it. But back to the stalinofobii. It is quite clearly correlated with potreblencheskimi installations with installations on consumption as the meaning of life. It is symbolic that one of the "clowns anti-Stalinists" said on the air: the national idea can keep and give me the opportunity to consume. Can this type does not hate Stalin and Stalinism? Do not be. Stalinism — a historical creation, installation on creativity as the meaning and purpose of life, the Soviet Union was a creative, highly spiritual project that is recognized even by those who Soviet Union clearly has no sympathy. Indicative in this respect phrase said former Education Minister Andrei Fursenko that the defect (sic!) of the Soviet school was the fact that she wanted to raise a man the creator when the task erefovskoy school — to bring qualified consumers. It comes out, and there is a national, or rather, the idea of a group, as a consumer, and "potreblyatstva" no nationality, the main thing — the trough, and who will provide it, yours or others, minor matters, the main thing that was where hryukalnik stick.

Symbolically as follows. The one character who claimed for themselves, "festival of consumption", expressed himself in the sense that if the land east of the Urals will be able to master the world government, and then let it take them. Since the installation of anti-Stalinism potreblencheskaya coincides with the globalist — are two sides of the same coin. So the line is drawn from the anti-Stalinism to smerdyakovschine, ie to the Russo-phobia. The social world anti-Stalinists — a global "barnyard", whose main goal — to provide consumption under the direction and supervision of a world government. Stalin thrice thwarted construction of the world on Russian soil, that is what his hate and anti-Stalinists. All prosaically, the talk is about freedom, democracy, the "Soviet totalitarianism" of the former Soviet careerists and informers nobody can cheat.

Paradoxically, they have been part of the Left (the conditional: "Trotskyites" globalists left) and part of the right (conditional: "Bukharin"). In this regard, it is clear that the "Trotsky-Bukharin bloc" — it's not a violation of common sense, logic and dialectic, which Stalin, responding to a question as possible left-right block, put it, "You go to the left — you come right. Will you go to the right — come to the left. Dialectics. "
Fear of the late Soviet nomenklatura to Stalin — is the fear of the "shadow of the USSR" before starting the project, the fear of the parasite to the healthy organism of retribution from him, the fear of the people. After 1991, this fear has found a new, frank, and not hidden, class dimension, which, as demonstrated from time to time de-Stalinization campaign, does this fear panic, fatal.

  • Stalin and the wind of history
  • Stalin and the wind of history

The important question about the causes of hatred for Stalin in the West. There are two aspects — the practical-political-historical and metaphysical. Practical-political aspect is simple: zamaryvaya Stalin's Russia and Russian foes have questioned our victory in the Great Patriotic War / World War II, and therefore the right of Russia to be among the great powers, membership of a club which is still to a large extent determined by the participation in the anti-Hitler coalition and the role in it.

Equating Stalin with Hitler, and the Soviet Union — to the Third Reich, along with conversations about what to Stalin is the same wine in the outbreak of war as Hitler, and perhaps even more running in the same direction — to hang on the USSR (and therefore on the Russian Federation) blame for the war, impose complex historical guilt and inferiority. That is a practical-political aspect of all is clear and simple.

More interesting, in my opinion, the metaphysical and the historical aspect of the problem causes hatred of western tip of Stalin. The fact that Stalin tore three plans of the top — right of the globalists — for a global world under the auspices of something like a world government, the need for which many said Warburgs, the Rockefellers and their henchmen of intellectual subservient. However, in fairness it must be said that the first of the need for something like the world government talked about in the XIX century. Rothschild, however, the Russian tsars Alexander I and Nicholas I, his policies have undermined that possibility. Hence — the hatred of the Rothschilds to the Romanovs — as they say, at the end of the XIX century. One of the Rothschild said that to their
families peace with the Romanovs and Russia is impossible.

Stalin made for scrapping "zateyki" global "supreme" called "world government" more than all the Russian tsars together, using in this case the contradiction between the right-globalists themselves. Sickle Red Empire, he poured three sheaves of globalization on the history of the twentieth century.

The first time, Stalin did it in the second half of the 1920s, specifically in 1927-1929., When his team, relying on the power of a large system prevailed, "Russia", to promote razvedstruktur representatives of the Russian Empire and the contradictions among burzhuinov replaced the project "world revolution" project "of the red (socialist) empire." Fininternu in his plans for Venice size of Europe or the world as a whole had to deploy the project "World War" and lead to the rise of Hitler, fully consolidating concrete state — the Third Reich. As a result of the Anglo-American pump is greatly increased in 1929 — a year of expulsion of Trotsky from Russia ("Last Bow" Stalin's scheme of "world revolution"), "Hitler Incorporated" could fight, playing the role of the aggressor in the play written for him. According to the "play", he had to smash the Soviet Union, and then to fall under attack Anglo-Saxons.

But history — an insidious lady, everything turned out differently, and the second time Stalin tore plans of the globalists, defeating Hitler. And helped him fight the UK and the U.S., crash during the war, not only the Third Reich, but also the third British Empire (second deposition over the North American states).

For the third time Stalin tore globalist plans so that when the Soviet Union it by not allowing myself to throw a noose around the neck of the Marshall Plan, created a nuclear shield and sword, and not recovered for 20, as predicted Western spices, and for 10 years, becoming at the turn of 1940 — 1950s into a superpower.

Stalin — the designer and chief designer of the single geohistorical project, which can be countered by globalism — neoimperskogo. At the beginning of the twentieth century. globalist (on a capitalist basis) project of Anglo-Saxons — the British Empire and the United States — faced with the fact of the existence of empires, which prevented simply by virtue of its existence, the implementation of their project. The most important of these four empires were two — the German and Russian. They are something, and up against each other, and then broke down, using and strengthening the internal contradictions. The First World War — Terminator Eurasian empires. Approximately ten years everything was going as planned, but at the end of the 1920s, the process is out of control: the command of Stalin took over and above the left and on the right (for those and other Russian was an appendage of the West, carrying a bundle of firewood in the bourgeois hearth) and has over 10 years has built a powerful empire with a red military-industrial complex — has built using the global trends and global same contradictions that put his service. Stalin found the golden key to the secret door burzhuinov-globalization — the profit that one of them could get by investing in the Soviet Union, competing with the other part.

Stalin — the author and creator of the only successful anti-globalization project of the twentieth century. He demonstrated that it is possible to oppose the globalists and how to fight them. If we consider the year in the USSR collapse of the globalist project in its "world-revolutionary form" in 1929 (significantly curtailing the same year of the NEP, intimately binds the USSR to globalization — the left-right dialectic), it can be said that Stalin pushed the arrival of globalization smoothly for 60 years — until the final delivery of Gorbachev in Malta, 2-3 December 1989 everything. Clearly, such a forgiving "The owners of the world game" will never be able to. Especially that Stalin demonstrated the technology to combat them by making a request for the deployment of the game and its management, including alternative world market and undermining the dollar. Here globalists had to exclaim, as one of the XVIII century Russian poets. "Lzya whether the old man to love?" Of course not. Them the "old man" as Uncle Joe and Old Joe, as Stalin called the Anglo-Saxons, it is impossible to love — to hate. In view of the above analysis of Stalinism and the Soviet experience, mandatory historical criticism of the first and second, the work on the bugs — the urgent task for us.

There is another interesting quirk of anti-Stalin campaign in the West (and we in this direction is active "fifth column") — the equation of Stalinism and Nazism, on the practical-political aspect of what we discussed above. But there is an even more interesting aspect. I agree with those analysts who point to the similarity of the current global elite goal-setting and the Nazi elite: both originate from the need to radically reduce the world's population, both — the fans neoordenskih religious orders and structures of global governance, both — the anti-Christian. The Third Reich was not an alternative to globalism, it was a means of global elites (highly benefited from the implementation of the "Third Reich" — especially financially), and at the same time brutal experiment to establish a "new world order" (after which it was possible to implement soft).

Stalin's neo-imperial anti-capitalism was an alternative like Hitler and the Anglo-Saxon "new order." That's why Stalinism try not only to equalize against Hitlerism, but to present it even tougher totalitarianism than this last one. Thus, firstly, the similarity of Hitler camouflaged the new order and the "new world order" of post-war Anglo-Saxon globalists, and secondly, is compromised, is removed from the agenda of the only real alternative to the (capitalist) globalism and stop Stories in the spirit of a "3 D" ( deindustrialization, depopulation, deratsionalizatsiya consciousness and behavior), which was commissioned by the owners develop hundreds of "think tanks". This alternative — neoimperskom on anti-capitalist basis.

The stronger the resistance to globalism, the more will be remembered figure of Stalin and the historical experience of the Soviet Union, which, of course, we can not and do not need either restore or replicate. Stalin made mistakes, sometimes very annoying. Yes, it bore the blame for a number of processes and phenomena — the wine, which he shares with his time. But it is the fate of all politicians. And is not guilt of British and American politicians? Even as it is, and it does not go in comparison with the negative aspect of Stalin. Who ordered the subject of nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although this was no military necessity? Who ordered the bombing Cambodia, which killed about a million people — to obscure this fact Pol Pot "'ve added the" extra million and a half of the victims and began to shout to the world about the atrocities of the Cambodian communists. But over the almost 1 million Hutus and Tutsis, and about 2 million people from neighboring countries, carved in the 1990s, with the connivance of (at least) the top of the world, ie Western and African capitalists somehow keep quiet. It was only when it became necessary to use the genocide in central Africa, these "dancing to the glory of monsters" (the title of one of the best books about these events) as a means to strike at 2-3 dozen representatives of the world's elite, ie to internal squabbles, the massacre remembered 18 years later, and August 17, 2012 a lawsuit was filed chief prosecutor of the International Court. Examples could be multiplied, but the situation is not that clear.

Once upon a time … Stalin remarked, is the logic of intentions and c
ircumstances, there is a logic, and the logic of circumstances stronger than the logic intentions. The intention is to have some forces layers to denigrate Stalin and the Soviet past, hiding in the blackness of the many negative and sometimes disastrous results postsovetiki, management incompetence, inability to historical creativity (what creativity? This defect, and the task — to educate qualified consumers to those stupid bathed in a squalid potreblyatstve and nothing thought).

But there are also circumstances. These circumstances — the real life of the Russian Federation on the eve of a new round of privatization reforms, this circumstance budget for 2013 — a budget that is sowing doubt about the fact that the Russian Federation — the "social state", is planned with the circumstances of January 1, 2013 to reduce the storage of Retired 6% of salary up to 2% (this is not the elimination of the pension system?) is the circumstances of depopulation of the Russian Federation and slipping it into raw material appendages of the West compared not only with the Soviet Union, but even with the Russian Empire, that and much more. It was these circumstances are the background and the object of comparison with the Stalinist era. The reforms being carried out in the Russian Federation since 1992 — the best advertising Stalin and his era, the argument in their favor, and it was not Stalin's success — despite the vilification of "scavengers" — in the "Name of Russia". This success is based on the achievements of the Stalin era, both material and social, for great style and great strategy era, very frightened many top. Jumping

Like this post? Please share to your friends: