A note Gagarin took after his first flight (text on the picture)
I know you all love daydreaming about space travel and even envy us cosmonauts a little, boys especially. But did you know we envy you too? Our space flights are just the beginning. Planets, whole new worlds await you! It is you, young Leninists, who will explore the universe, and we are happy to pass the torch to you.
#space #Gagarin #USSR #soviet #history
Machine translation from https://histoireetsociete.com/2024/09/29/comment-khrouchtchev-a-fait-derailler-la-locomotive-de-lhistoire/
We are among ourselves... in this blog which has broken ties with social networks and which seeks to build in our small collective a place of collective reflection since this is not permitted in the political-media space which is heading towards war , fascistization, clientelist divisions and the fear of facing both the past and the future. As I tried to explain, we are in a temporal paradox, that of a historical shift. It is clear that what we are facing is new, the solutions are unusual and require experimentation, collective reflection... But at the same time what prohibits this essential cooperation is the way in which we have managed to convince the working class, the youth, all the victims that there was no other alternative than individualist coping... What is happening is abominable and our leaders are leading us towards the apocalypse, but socialism, the collective, is worse. And we will not get through this without confronting this trauma of the past as the Russians and the Chinese do. Once again this translation by Marianne on the “Khrushchevian derailment” represents a contribution and as long as it is ignored there cannot be a revolutionary party and not even a reformist one. Since with the end of the USSR, there is no longer a reformist party, only parties which believe they can more or less control the pace of regression, negotiate it. (note by Danielle Bleitrach translation by Marianne Dunlop historyandsociety)
By Serguei Kostrikov and Elena Kostrikova (1)
This text is actually the conclusion of the book by Serguei Kostrikov and Elena Kostrikova, The locomotives of history: the revolutionary year 1917, a title which alludes to the famous phrase of Karl Marx: “Revolutions are the locomotives of History”. I do not believe I am betraying the authors by attributing a large part of the responsibility for the derailment of the locomotive to Khrushchev, even if he was not the sole cause. (notes and translation by Marianne Dunlop for History and Society).
We are convinced that the materials contained in this book, taken from Russian periodicals of the revolutionary year 1917, convincingly prove that the February bourgeois revolution and the great October socialist revolution were inevitable. Contrary to the predictions of its enemies, not only did Russia not sink into the abyss of oblivion, but it became one of the greatest world powers, it defeated the universal evil of fascism, it led the struggle of the advanced forces of humanity against oppression, for real democracy, for justice, for national and social liberation – this is the historical merit of the working people led by the Bolshevik Party.
Ideological opponents of Marxism will say with philistine sarcasm: "Well, where did your world power go, why did it collapse, where is your Marxism-Bolshevism?" The Soviet system, the socialist economy and the friendship between our peoples withstood the test of strength during the years of relentless war. In the USSR, unlike Tsarist Russia, there were no irreconcilable contradictions, no economic and social problems that could not be resolved within the framework of socialism. Our power has not disintegrated, it has been destroyed. At the end of the 20th century, we all witnessed a monstrous betrayal, the example of which is difficult to find in history. This betrayal was committed by representatives of the ruling "elite", who placed themselves at the service of external forces who had never stopped fighting against the first socialist country in the world.
The roots of the tragedy that occurred lie not in the vices of socialism, but in the fact that at a certain stage the leadership of the Communist Party ceased to rely on Marxist doctrine, did not not realized the need for its development. “Without theory we are dead,” Stalin warned. The world was changing, the international situation posed more and more difficult questions, and at that time the field of ideology in our country gradually stagnated.
After World War II, the authority of the USSR and socialism had reached an exceptionally high level. This is evidenced by the new role of our country in the world, the emergence of new socialist states, the rise to the forefront of communist and workers' parties in many countries, the development of the national liberation movement in the colonial empires. From the point of view of bourgeois ideologists and politicians, it was necessary to disrupt this wave of growth of the authority of socialism and the influence of Marxist ideology. And in the bourgeois camp, it was necessary to find ways to modernize capitalism. This is clearly seen not only in the alternation of conservative and liberal parties in power, the establishment of neoliberalism and neoconservatism in the economy and politics. Reactionary movements, including neo-fascists, have been revived. They also tried to penetrate the sphere of left-wing ideology, not only in their country, but also in socialist countries. Many left-wing organizations appeared. All of them are characterized by petty-bourgeois revolutionism, ultra-leftist phrases, distancing from Marxism-Leninism, its revision, attempts at petty-bourgeois interpretation in relation to new conditions, or a complete rejection of the doctrine and a struggle against her.
These groupings reflected the objective tendencies of Western societies in the conditions of the scientific and technical revolution and the socio-economic processes that it engendered. Engineers, technicians and other intellectuals, previously privileged, inevitably transformed into openly exploited “proletarians of mental work” and became politically radicalized. On the other hand, the many leftists reflected the struggle of the bourgeoisie against the true communist movement, against Marxism as such. It is important that we understand the main thing: in the West there was an active intellectual search aimed at creating ideological constructs that opposed or destroyed Marxism. This was a new major front of ideological struggle. And we had to meet this challenge with all our might.
Why, having created a powerful socialist state, having won the Great Victory, were we not prepared for confrontation in a new form? Why, after making a gigantic breakthrough into the future, were we not able to truly evaluate what we had accomplished and defend it when the time was right? Why did people who were not only dogmatic, who did not develop Marxism, but who were not Marxists at all, find themselves at the head of the party? ?
One of the reasons lies in the changes of people within the state and party leadership that took place in the post-war period, and especially after the death of Stalin. Our victory was dearly paid for. The human losses were heavy and irreplaceable. To a large extent, the war destroyed an entire generation of newly formed Soviets. These were, one could say, people of the future, in good physical and moral health. Children of workers and peasants who, without the war, would have become production managers, scientists, representatives of creative professions, military and political leaders.
They constituted an invaluable genetic heritage for the nation. Today, we miss not only them, but also their children, who would have been raised to become true Soviets, true patriots of their country. Those who were lucky enough to survive performed a true miracle: in a few years they restored what had been destroyed, created a superpower and were the first to make a breakthrough into space.
Unfortunately, while the best representatives of our people were fighting and creating, careerists with Party cards were sneaking into power, skillfully posing as ideological communists. In the mid-1950s, at the top of the party bureaucracy, whose vices had been ruthlessly combatted by Stalin, there was a rush for power. The results are known. First of all, the denunciation and liquidation of Beria, then "the dismantling of the anti-party group Molotov-Malenkov-Kaganovich and others." In the end, Khrushchev, ignorant but skilled in the art of intrigue, prevailed over all others.
Under Stalin, every civil servant, whatever his rank, knew full well that his position did not protect him from the most severe sanctions. With Khrushchev, the apparatchiks received a guarantee of immunity – that is, in effect, irresponsibility – from the party apparatus and bureaucracy. From that moment on, a process of massive and accelerated decay and degeneration of the ruling bureaucracy began. “The cadres decide everything” (2), said Stalin. The “dragon’s teeth” sown under Khrushchev produced poisonous sprouts for a long time. In the 1980s, Khrushchev-era “cadres” rose to the highest level of power. It was Khrushchev who allowed people like Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Yakovlev and their ilk to sneak into the highest ranks of the party. “We had too many 'Khrushchevs',” VM Molotov later recalled with bitterness.
For Khrushchev, the reckless “denunciation of the cult of personality” served above all his own justification and self-affirmation, and not at all the restoration of Leninist norms. He himself easily violated these norms by dismissing from office, dismissing from the capital or retiring all those who did not agree with his adventurist orientation and whom he considered dangerous to himself- even. He did not imprison them or shoot them just because he had cut himself off from this path. But he humiliated them mercilessly. Molotov, Malenkov, Zhukov, Shepilov, Furtseva and many others understood this perfectly. All this has not improved the party. But he undermined his authority, as well as the authority of socialism on the world stage. Like a merchant on the spree, Nikita squandered and squandered the gigantic moral and political capital acquired at the cost of the blood and sweat of our people..
Khrushchev undeservedly reaped the fruits of the victories won under Stalin. The breakthrough into space (3) allowed him for a time to distract attention from the socio-economic problems he had caused. With the arrival of Khrushchev, his line of extensive development of the country and the economy triumphed. The reckless and unbridled expansion of virgin lands at the expense of the restoration and development of the indigenous agricultural areas of central Russia, decimated by the war, is spectacular in appearance, including in terms of propaganda. But it was not justified. At the beginning of the 1960s, we had already drawn on state reserves, then began to regularly buy grain from abroad, financing foreign producers..
The failures of the economy and the rise in prices caused discontent among the population. This is how workers were shot at in Novocherkassk. During the entire Soviet period, no leader of the country had dared to do such a thing !
As a result, Khrushchev's policies translated for the USSR into senseless spending inside and outside the country, adventurous economic and political decisions, demagoguery, ideological swindling and propaganda, the split and weakening of the international communist movement, the loss of world authority, guidelines, ideals and the degeneration of party cadres. His arrogant troublemaking policies almost led to nuclear conflict with America in 1962.
Khrushchev's name is associated with stagnation in the field of ideology. An uneducated man with a petty-bourgeois mentality, he adopted the slogan “catching up with and overtaking the West in all areas” as his basic development strategy. In the very essence of this slogan was the idea not of our identity, not of the already realized benefits of socialism, not of reasonable sufficiency. The idea of our backwardness and even a kind of inferiority was imposed on the Soviet people. Of course, Lenin also spoke of the need for Soviet Russia to “catch up with the advanced countries.” But he spoke about scientific, technical, cultural and industrial progress, about the advanced organization of management and production, on the basis of which a completely different society was to develop. Lenin reasoned from the position of a politician in the 1920s, at the head of a country devastated by wars and interventions and culturally and technically backward. Khrushchev, on the other hand, was the head of a superpower that had achieved enormous successes in economics, science and culture, and had managed to win an unprecedented war thanks to the achievements of socialism. It was necessary to view the pursuit of development dialectically, and not to chase after the bourgeois West. Khrushchev's slogan "catch up and overtake" was deeply philistine and reflected a petty-bourgeois view of development and its goal. We were asked to beat the enemy on their territory and according to their rules. Khrushchev psychologically oriented the population towards a consumer society, without taking into account the traditions of our peoples, economic expediency, state possibilities and probable socio-psychological, ideological and political consequences.
The obvious advantages of socialism, which allowed everyone to develop normally, healthily and creatively, were replaced by petty-bourgeois consumer instincts – “theirs are better, bigger, more beautiful”. The West has transformed itself into a glittering showcase of an infinite quantity of junk, of necessary and less necessary goods – a veritable Ali Baba's cave. Like a savage blinded by glitter from a tin can and abandoning real jewelry for cheap trinkets, Khrushchev's common man was ready to give his soul for chewing gum and Coca-Cola, not doubting not that all the benefits of socialism were guaranteed to him forever. We had lost our ideological “immunity” against capitalism! On a daily basis, the West has surpassed us.
After Stalin, ideology in the USSR stagnated. From Khrushchev onwards, no senior Soviet party leader, unlike his predecessors, wrote anything himself. At the same time, the new party “elite” was terribly removed from the lives of the people. Lenin and Stalin, driven by the desire for a just world order, knew how to ignite the masses with their ideas. In the most difficult hours, they were able to find words that were close and understandable to ordinary people, touching their souls and instilling in them faith in victory. They encouraged work and struggle. But he who does not consume himself will never be able to lead others.
They encouraged others to follow him. The soulless and bureaucratic “agitation” of the era of “stagnation” could only discourage the study of Marxism. Despite the numerous Marxist-Leninist universities, schools and circles where studies were formalized, the mass of the Party became politically and ideologically infantile and easily infected by petty-bourgeois instincts..
Our official ideological propaganda apparatus, headed by MA Suslov, did not find answers appropriate to the times, did not react correctly to the new phenomena brought to the fore by the processes of the scientific and technical revolution and globalization . Foreign ideology began to quietly seep into the vacated space, ideas were borrowed from Western philosophers, sociologists and economists. Certain academic institutions have become sanctuaries of opportunism: the Institute of the United States and Canada, IMEMO, IMRD, etc. A whole layer of intellectuals who did not think in a Marxist way was created. But it was they who found themselves at the time in the roles of advisors, consultants and speechwriters within the Central Committee of the CPSU. “Burlatski-Arbatov-Bovin” and others wrote speeches of leaders, party programs and resolutions on the most important issues.
The famous “thaw”, which made Khrushchev so beloved by our liberals and those of the West, did not occur by his will. He used it as a social backdrop to assert his power by crushing his predecessors and political opponents. Khrushchev and liberalism have little overlap. The character himself embodied petty-bourgeois radicalism. Khrushchev's "thaw" gave birth to the "sixties", these "adult children" of socialism. Why socialism? Because they owe him everything: a life saved from fascism, a better education, and even their creativity. With enchanting siren voices, they led naive novelists to sing about "the fog and the smell of the taiga", while they themselves firmly believed only in money. Like cuckoos, they destroyed and ravaged the nest that sheltered them. Biding their time, they were happy to relax in the houses of creativity and state dachas, gracefully entertaining the nomenklatura when they asked. They did not risk much, because they were firmly convinced that their Western patrons would not let them down. At the first opportunity, they “escaped” abroad. Today they are professors, like Nikita Khrushchev's son, in foreign universities, letting the people get out of the mud into which they have dragged them.
The real heroes of the sixties and seventies were very different. These young people who, following the example of their fathers and older brothers, built new cities and factories, built dams on the Angara and Yenisei, led the Baikal railway through impassable taiga to Love, explored space, made scientific discoveries, and simply worked honestly where the Motherland called them. They were true ideologues, true patriots, whose motto was: “As long as my dear country lives!” » (4). Current authorities try hard not to remember those times. But the monuments of this great era and its heroes are magnificent books and films, truly talented songs and much more..
What about today? Does our country, our people, the whole world have a socialist perspective or has the bourgeois “end of history” arrived? What needs to be done to give workers around the world hope for a better life? ?
First of all, do not deny our great past, draw from it the strength for a new breakthrough towards the future. The revolutionary teachings of Marxism are by no means obsolete. Its founders saw far. It is in their writings that the key to understanding the modern era is found. Let's return to Marxism, let's relearn to think scientifically, dialectically, from the point of view of the class, and not in a philistine way.
A hundred years ago, VI Lenin prophetically declared: “To imagine that world history moves forward smoothly and neatly, without occasional gigantic leaps backward, is undialectical, unscientific, theoretically incorrect. »
Which means: “There will be new victories, new fighters will rise!” » ; “A new October is coming ! » (4)
Notes :
1) The authors of the book “The Locomotives of History: The Revolutionary Year 1917” are two Russian historians specializing in revolutionary movements. Sergei Kostrikov heads the chair of history and political science at the Moscow State University of Management; Elena Kostrikova is a doctor of law, member of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. We published on H&S articles by their son, a journalist at Pravda.
2) This famous phrase from Stalin should not be misinterpreted: it simply means that choosing the right leaders (at all levels) is of the utmost importance.
3) 1957 : 1is Sputnik ; 1962 : 1is man in space. These projects were planned and prepared under Stalin.
4) Quotes from Soviet songs : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3KVAByJids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8QWh6LX38Q
For more details (in Russian) on the methods and mechanisms of the collapse of the Soviet Union, see S.G. Kara-Murza, Manipulation of Consciousness - http://flibusta.site/b/478923
#USSR #soviet #russian #revolutions #Lenin #Stalin #bolsheviks #ideology #communism #socialism #history #study for #future
Machine translation from https://histoireetsociete.com/2024/09/29/comment-khrouchtchev-a-fait-derailler-la-locomotive-de-lhistoire/
We are among ourselves... in this blog which has broken ties with social networks and which seeks to build in our small collective a place of collective reflection since this is not permitted in the political-media space which is heading towards war , fascistization, clientelist divisions and the fear of facing both the past and the future. As I tried to explain, we are in a temporal paradox, that of a historical shift. It is clear that what we are facing is new, the solutions are unusual and require experimentation, collective reflection... But at the same time what prohibits this essential cooperation is the way in which we have managed to convince the working class, the youth, all the victims that there was no other alternative than individualist coping... What is happening is abominable and our leaders are leading us towards the apocalypse, but socialism, the collective, is worse. And we will not get through this without confronting this trauma of the past as the Russians and the Chinese do. Once again this translation by Marianne on the “Khrushchevian derailment” represents a contribution and as long as it is ignored there cannot be a revolutionary party and not even a reformist one. Since with the end of the USSR, there is no longer a reformist party, only parties which believe they can more or less control the pace of regression, negotiate it. (note by Danielle Bleitrach translation by Marianne Dunlop historyandsociety)
By Serguei Kostrikov and Elena Kostrikova (1)
This text is actually the conclusion of the book by Serguei Kostrikov and Elena Kostrikova, The locomotives of history: the revolutionary year 1917, a title which alludes to the famous phrase of Karl Marx: “Revolutions are the locomotives of History”. I do not believe I am betraying the authors by attributing a large part of the responsibility for the derailment of the locomotive to Khrushchev, even if he was not the sole cause. (notes and translation by Marianne Dunlop for History and Society).
We are convinced that the materials contained in this book, taken from Russian periodicals of the revolutionary year 1917, convincingly prove that the February bourgeois revolution and the great October socialist revolution were inevitable. Contrary to the predictions of its enemies, not only did Russia not sink into the abyss of oblivion, but it became one of the greatest world powers, it defeated the universal evil of fascism, it led the struggle of the advanced forces of humanity against oppression, for real democracy, for justice, for national and social liberation – this is the historical merit of the working people led by the Bolshevik Party.
Ideological opponents of Marxism will say with philistine sarcasm: "Well, where did your world power go, why did it collapse, where is your Marxism-Bolshevism?" The Soviet system, the socialist economy and the friendship between our peoples withstood the test of strength during the years of relentless war. In the USSR, unlike Tsarist Russia, there were no irreconcilable contradictions, no economic and social problems that could not be resolved within the framework of socialism. Our power has not disintegrated, it has been destroyed. At the end of the 20th century, we all witnessed a monstrous betrayal, the example of which is difficult to find in history. This betrayal was committed by representatives of the ruling "elite", who placed themselves at the service of external forces who had never stopped fighting against the first socialist country in the world.
The roots of the tragedy that occurred lie not in the vices of socialism, but in the fact that at a certain stage the leadership of the Communist Party ceased to rely on Marxist doctrine, did not not realized the need for its development. “Without theory we are dead,” Stalin warned. The world was changing, the international situation posed more and more difficult questions, and at that time the field of ideology in our country gradually stagnated.
After World War II, the authority of the USSR and socialism had reached an exceptionally high level. This is evidenced by the new role of our country in the world, the emergence of new socialist states, the rise to the forefront of communist and workers' parties in many countries, the development of the national liberation movement in the colonial empires. From the point of view of bourgeois ideologists and politicians, it was necessary to disrupt this wave of growth of the authority of socialism and the influence of Marxist ideology. And in the bourgeois camp, it was necessary to find ways to modernize capitalism. This is clearly seen not only in the alternation of conservative and liberal parties in power, the establishment of neoliberalism and neoconservatism in the economy and politics. Reactionary movements, including neo-fascists, have been revived. They also tried to penetrate the sphere of left-wing ideology, not only in their country, but also in socialist countries. Many left-wing organizations appeared. All of them are characterized by petty-bourgeois revolutionism, ultra-leftist phrases, distancing from Marxism-Leninism, its revision, attempts at petty-bourgeois interpretation in relation to new conditions, or a complete rejection of the doctrine and a struggle against her.
These groupings reflected the objective tendencies of Western societies in the conditions of the scientific and technical revolution and the socio-economic processes that it engendered. Engineers, technicians and other intellectuals, previously privileged, inevitably transformed into openly exploited “proletarians of mental work” and became politically radicalized. On the other hand, the many leftists reflected the struggle of the bourgeoisie against the true communist movement, against Marxism as such. It is important that we understand the main thing: in the West there was an active intellectual search aimed at creating ideological constructs that opposed or destroyed Marxism. This was a new major front of ideological struggle. And we had to meet this challenge with all our might.
Why, having created a powerful socialist state, having won the Great Victory, were we not prepared for confrontation in a new form? Why, after making a gigantic breakthrough into the future, were we not able to truly evaluate what we had accomplished and defend it when the time was right? Why did people who were not only dogmatic, who did not develop Marxism, but who were not Marxists at all, find themselves at the head of the party? ?
One of the reasons lies in the changes of people within the state and party leadership that took place in the post-war period, and especially after the death of Stalin. Our victory was dearly paid for. The human losses were heavy and irreplaceable. To a large extent, the war destroyed an entire generation of newly formed Soviets. These were, one could say, people of the future, in good physical and moral health. Children of workers and peasants who, without the war, would have become production managers, scientists, representatives of creative professions, military and political leaders.
They constituted an invaluable genetic heritage for the nation. Today, we miss not only them, but also their children, who would have been raised to become true Soviets, true patriots of their country. Those who were lucky enough to survive performed a true miracle: in a few years they restored what had been destroyed, created a superpower and were the first to make a breakthrough into space.
Unfortunately, while the best representatives of our people were fighting and creating, careerists with Party cards were sneaking into power, skillfully posing as ideological communists. In the mid-1950s, at the top of the party bureaucracy, whose vices had been ruthlessly combatted by Stalin, there was a rush for power. The results are known. First of all, the denunciation and liquidation of Beria, then "the dismantling of the anti-party group Molotov-Malenkov-Kaganovich and others." In the end, Khrushchev, ignorant but skilled in the art of intrigue, prevailed over all others.
Under Stalin, every civil servant, whatever his rank, knew full well that his position did not protect him from the most severe sanctions. With Khrushchev, the apparatchiks received a guarantee of immunity – that is, in effect, irresponsibility – from the party apparatus and bureaucracy. From that moment on, a process of massive and accelerated decay and degeneration of the ruling bureaucracy began. “The cadres decide everything” (2), said Stalin. The “dragon’s teeth” sown under Khrushchev produced poisonous sprouts for a long time. In the 1980s, Khrushchev-era “cadres” rose to the highest level of power. It was Khrushchev who allowed people like Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Yakovlev and their ilk to sneak into the highest ranks of the party. “We had too many 'Khrushchevs',” VM Molotov later recalled with bitterness.
For Khrushchev, the reckless “denunciation of the cult of personality” served above all his own justification and self-affirmation, and not at all the restoration of Leninist norms. He himself easily violated these norms by dismissing from office, dismissing from the capital or retiring all those who did not agree with his adventurist orientation and whom he considered dangerous to himself- even. He did not imprison them or shoot them just because he had cut himself off from this path. But he humiliated them mercilessly. Molotov, Malenkov, Zhukov, Shepilov, Furtseva and many others understood this perfectly. All this has not improved the party. But he undermined his authority, as well as the authority of socialism on the world stage. Like a merchant on the spree, Nikita squandered and squandered the gigantic moral and political capital acquired at the cost of the blood and sweat of our people..
Khrushchev undeservedly reaped the fruits of the victories won under Stalin. The breakthrough into space (3) allowed him for a time to distract attention from the socio-economic problems he had caused. With the arrival of Khrushchev, his line of extensive development of the country and the economy triumphed. The reckless and unbridled expansion of virgin lands at the expense of the restoration and development of the indigenous agricultural areas of central Russia, decimated by the war, is spectacular in appearance, including in terms of propaganda. But it was not justified. At the beginning of the 1960s, we had already drawn on state reserves, then began to regularly buy grain from abroad, financing foreign producers..
The failures of the economy and the rise in prices caused discontent among the population. This is how workers were shot at in Novocherkassk. During the entire Soviet period, no leader of the country had dared to do such a thing !
As a result, Khrushchev's policies translated for the USSR into senseless spending inside and outside the country, adventurous economic and political decisions, demagoguery, ideological swindling and propaganda, the split and weakening of the international communist movement, the loss of world authority, guidelines, ideals and the degeneration of party cadres. His arrogant troublemaking policies almost led to nuclear conflict with America in 1962.
Khrushchev's name is associated with stagnation in the field of ideology. An uneducated man with a petty-bourgeois mentality, he adopted the slogan “catching up with and overtaking the West in all areas” as his basic development strategy. In the very essence of this slogan was the idea not of our identity, not of the already realized benefits of socialism, not of reasonable sufficiency. The idea of our backwardness and even a kind of inferiority was imposed on the Soviet people. Of course, Lenin also spoke of the need for Soviet Russia to “catch up with the advanced countries.” But he spoke about scientific, technical, cultural and industrial progress, about the advanced organization of management and production, on the basis of which a completely different society was to develop. Lenin reasoned from the position of a politician in the 1920s, at the head of a country devastated by wars and interventions and culturally and technically backward. Khrushchev, on the other hand, was the head of a superpower that had achieved enormous successes in economics, science and culture, and had managed to win an unprecedented war thanks to the achievements of socialism. It was necessary to view the pursuit of development dialectically, and not to chase after the bourgeois West. Khrushchev's slogan "catch up and overtake" was deeply philistine and reflected a petty-bourgeois view of development and its goal. We were asked to beat the enemy on their territory and according to their rules. Khrushchev psychologically oriented the population towards a consumer society, without taking into account the traditions of our peoples, economic expediency, state possibilities and probable socio-psychological, ideological and political consequences.
The obvious advantages of socialism, which allowed everyone to develop normally, healthily and creatively, were replaced by petty-bourgeois consumer instincts – “theirs are better, bigger, more beautiful”. The West has transformed itself into a glittering showcase of an infinite quantity of junk, of necessary and less necessary goods – a veritable Ali Baba's cave. Like a savage blinded by glitter from a tin can and abandoning real jewelry for cheap trinkets, Khrushchev's common man was ready to give his soul for chewing gum and Coca-Cola, not doubting not that all the benefits of socialism were guaranteed to him forever. We had lost our ideological “immunity” against capitalism! On a daily basis, the West has surpassed us.
After Stalin, ideology in the USSR stagnated. From Khrushchev onwards, no senior Soviet party leader, unlike his predecessors, wrote anything himself. At the same time, the new party “elite” was terribly removed from the lives of the people. Lenin and Stalin, driven by the desire for a just world order, knew how to ignite the masses with their ideas. In the most difficult hours, they were able to find words that were close and understandable to ordinary people, touching their souls and instilling in them faith in victory. They encouraged work and struggle. But he who does not consume himself will never be able to lead others.
They encouraged others to follow him. The soulless and bureaucratic “agitation” of the era of “stagnation” could only discourage the study of Marxism. Despite the numerous Marxist-Leninist universities, schools and circles where studies were formalized, the mass of the Party became politically and ideologically infantile and easily infected by petty-bourgeois instincts..
Our official ideological propaganda apparatus, headed by MA Suslov, did not find answers appropriate to the times, did not react correctly to the new phenomena brought to the fore by the processes of the scientific and technical revolution and globalization . Foreign ideology began to quietly seep into the vacated space, ideas were borrowed from Western philosophers, sociologists and economists. Certain academic institutions have become sanctuaries of opportunism: the Institute of the United States and Canada, IMEMO, IMRD, etc. A whole layer of intellectuals who did not think in a Marxist way was created. But it was they who found themselves at the time in the roles of advisors, consultants and speechwriters within the Central Committee of the CPSU. “Burlatski-Arbatov-Bovin” and others wrote speeches of leaders, party programs and resolutions on the most important issues.
The famous “thaw”, which made Khrushchev so beloved by our liberals and those of the West, did not occur by his will. He used it as a social backdrop to assert his power by crushing his predecessors and political opponents. Khrushchev and liberalism have little overlap. The character himself embodied petty-bourgeois radicalism. Khrushchev's "thaw" gave birth to the "sixties", these "adult children" of socialism. Why socialism? Because they owe him everything: a life saved from fascism, a better education, and even their creativity. With enchanting siren voices, they led naive novelists to sing about "the fog and the smell of the taiga", while they themselves firmly believed only in money. Like cuckoos, they destroyed and ravaged the nest that sheltered them. Biding their time, they were happy to relax in the houses of creativity and state dachas, gracefully entertaining the nomenklatura when they asked. They did not risk much, because they were firmly convinced that their Western patrons would not let them down. At the first opportunity, they “escaped” abroad. Today they are professors, like Nikita Khrushchev's son, in foreign universities, letting the people get out of the mud into which they have dragged them.
The real heroes of the sixties and seventies were very different. These young people who, following the example of their fathers and older brothers, built new cities and factories, built dams on the Angara and Yenisei, led the Baikal railway through impassable taiga to Love, explored space, made scientific discoveries, and simply worked honestly where the Motherland called them. They were true ideologues, true patriots, whose motto was: “As long as my dear country lives!” » (4). Current authorities try hard not to remember those times. But the monuments of this great era and its heroes are magnificent books and films, truly talented songs and much more..
What about today? Does our country, our people, the whole world have a socialist perspective or has the bourgeois “end of history” arrived? What needs to be done to give workers around the world hope for a better life? ?
First of all, do not deny our great past, draw from it the strength for a new breakthrough towards the future. The revolutionary teachings of Marxism are by no means obsolete. Its founders saw far. It is in their writings that the key to understanding the modern era is found. Let's return to Marxism, let's relearn to think scientifically, dialectically, from the point of view of the class, and not in a philistine way.
A hundred years ago, VI Lenin prophetically declared: “To imagine that world history moves forward smoothly and neatly, without occasional gigantic leaps backward, is undialectical, unscientific, theoretically incorrect. »
Which means: “There will be new victories, new fighters will rise!” » ; “A new October is coming ! » (4)
Notes :
1) The authors of the book “The Locomotives of History: The Revolutionary Year 1917” are two Russian historians specializing in revolutionary movements. Sergei Kostrikov heads the chair of history and political science at the Moscow State University of Management; Elena Kostrikova is a doctor of law, member of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. We published on H&S articles by their son, a journalist at Pravda.
2) This famous phrase from Stalin should not be misinterpreted: it simply means that choosing the right leaders (at all levels) is of the utmost importance.
3) 1957 : 1is Sputnik ; 1962 : 1is man in space. These projects were planned and prepared under Stalin.
4) Quotes from Soviet songs : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3KVAByJids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8QWh6LX38Q
There was a fine feeling of friendship in these men. During lunch, they told us, with a great deal of amusement, about an American who had been in Kiev with an international committee. This man, they said, went home to America and wrote a series of articles and a book about the Ukraine. But the thing that amused them was that he did not know much about the Ukraine. They told us: he had rarely been out of his hotel room, he hadn't seen anything, he might as well have written his book without having left America. These Ukrainians said that this book was full of inaccuracies, and they had a letter from his chief agreeing that this was so. They were mostly worried that this man, who was known now as an authority on the Ukraine, might be believed in America. And they told with laughter how one night, near the hotel where he was eating, a car backfired in the street and he leaped back, crying, "The Bolsheviks are shooting prisoners!" And, said the Ukrainians, he probably still believes it.
--- John Steinbeck, in his book A Russian Journal (published 1948)
"A top US government codebreaker who decrypted secret Soviet communications during the Cold War concluded that Ethel Rosenberg knew about her husband's activities but 'did not engage in the work herself,' according to a recently declassified memo that her sons say proves their mother was not a spy and should lead to her exoneration in the sensational 1950s atomic espionage case."
Julius Rosenberg gave Manhattan Project nuclear secrets to the Soviets, starting in 1942 and ending ending with his and Ethel Rosenberg's arrest in 1951. Both were executed on June 19, 1953. I thought my whole life Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were both involved in the espionage, but that might be wrong.
Declassified memo sheds light on Ethel Rosenberg's Cold War spy case | AP News
#geopolitics #nuclearweapons
#USA #US #coldwar #history #USSR #Russia
it is not the socialist revolution that provokes mass violence, but the bourgeois counter-revolution, that begins when capital realises that it is losing its property and power.
...Beyond that, the picture was of a “triumphal procession of Soviet power” (this heading in Soviet textbooks was no accident). In the winter of 1917-1918 the relationship of forces saw half a million members of the workers’ militia, the Red Guard, pitted against a few tens of thousand White Guard members in the south of Russia. Everything was quiet until the counter-revolution received vast sums of money from the Triple Alliance (primarily from Germany) as well as from the Entente, and all these imperialist countries launched aggression against the young Soviet power.
...And this applies to countless examples, all over the world, where the West first provoked and brutally antagonized socialist or communist countries, then accused them of cruelty, and finally “liberated” them in the name of freedom and democracy, literally raping the will of their people. All this just so European and North American imperialism would survive and thrive.
...Ask the common men and women of the streets of London, Paris or New York, what they know about Stalin’s era, or the famines in the early years of the USSR, or in Communist China?
99.99% know nothing. Where these famines took place, or why? But they are absolutely certain that they took place. No doubts, whatsoever. No doubts that they happened “because of Communism”. Westerners are intellectually obedient, like sheep. Most of them do not question the propaganda unleashed by their regime. Are they really “free”?
The famine in the Soviet Union actually took place because the young revolutionary country was totally devastated by the Western and Japanese invasions, which tried to break and plunder the country. British, French, U.S., Czech, Polish, German, Japanese invasions, to name just a few.
But ask, for instance, the Czechs, how much they know about their Legions that controlled the Trans-Siberian railroad, on their way from Europe to Vladivostok. Plundering, rape, and mass killing. I tried. I asked, in Prague and Pilsen. They thought I was a lunatic. The Legions are portrayed as heroic, in their history books.
...In both cases, Western propaganda made people believe that the real cause for the loss of lives in Russia and China was Communism! The brainwashing has been so successful, that even in Russia and China, millions of people have been fully indoctrinated by these countlessly repeated lies coming out of the West.
But ask in London, whether people know anything about the fact that under the British occupation of India, tens of millions of people died from starvation; victims of the famines triggered by London, for many reasons, one of them being an attempt to lower the population. Over 50 million Indian people, cumulatively, died in these famines, between 1769 to 1943, in British administered India.
Should we, as a result, ban the British political system? I am convinced that we should! But that is usually not what the people of the world, including the victims of the British colonialist barbarity, are demanding.
...The goal of Western propaganda has always been to equate Communism and Fascism, the two most antagonistic systems in history, in the world. It was the Soviet Communist system, which smashed Nazism to pieces, saving the world, at an enormous cost of approximately 25 million human lives.
Only Western imperialism can be compared to German Nazism. The two are made of the same stuff.
#capitalism #imperialism #europe #Western #intervention #mccarthyism #anticommunism #anti-Russia #USSR #Stalin #bolsheviks #socialism #communism #soviet #russian #history #China
Anti-Communism Is A Fundamentalist Religion, Now Followed By Billions| Countercurrents — https://countercurrents.org/2020/06/anti-communism-is-a-fundamentalist-religion-now-followed-by-billions/
“Manufacturing Consent”
... for fascism“If the triumph of communism
is the worst imaginable result,
the support of fascism abroad
is justified as a lesser evil.”In 1988, just before the destruction of the USSR, #Herman and #Chomsky published a theory on the use of mass media "to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior" that "integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society." (p.1.) The media’s "societal purpose," they explained, is to "defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state." (p.298.)
This propaganda model focused on five thematic "filters" of the mass media:
1) size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth and profit orientation...;
2) advertising as primary income source ...;
3) reliance... on info. provided by government, business and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power;
4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media;
5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. (p.2.)With the "specter" of communism as "the ultimate evil," the media created a "cultural milieu in which anticommunism is the dominant religion." By "elevating opposition to communism to a first principle of Western ideology and politics," the media used it as a "potent" "political-control mechanism." This "fragment[ed] the left and labor movements" and sidelined "social democrats" accused of being "too soft on communists." While many Cold War "liberal" progressives supported US-led wars justified with anticommunist pretexts, "others lapsed into silence, paralyzed by the fear of being tarred with charges of infidelity to the national religion." (p.29.)
By stirring "anti-Communist fervor ... the demand for serious evidence in support of claims of ‘communist’ abuses is suspended, and charlatans can survive as evidential sources." These "charlatans" take "center stage" as media "experts" and "remain there even after exposure as highly unreliable, if not downright liars." (p.30.)
Source: Edward S.Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, 1988.
Source: Ukraine: A Captive but Unconquerable Nation, Bulletin of the World AntiCommunist League, Jun 1969
https://coat.ncf.ca/P4C/70/70_2-8.htm
#europe #Western #coldwar #USA #US #canada #ukraine #Vietnam #Iran #Guatemala #Brazil #Dominican #NATO #propaganda #fascism #anticommunism #mccarthyism #russophobia #anti-Russia in #soviet #USSR #russian #ukrainian #Russia #history
It seems that the interest in #peace is secondary. Greed for power and resources is more important. Therefore, there will be #war as long as the warmongers face no real resistance and are strong enough to stir up trouble.
Leading US diplomats, led by the great stateman-scholar George Kennan, warned at the time that the NATO enlargement would lead to disaster: “The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding #NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.” So, it has proved.
Here is not the place to revisit all of the foreign policy disasters that have resulted from US arrogance towards #Russia, but it suffices here to mention a brief and partial chronology of key events. In 1999, NATO bombed #Belgrade for 78 days with the goal of breaking #Serbia apart and giving rise to an independent #Kosovo, now home to a major NATO base in the #Balkans. In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the #Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty over Russia’s strenuous objections. In 2003, the US and NATO allies repudiated the UN Security Council by going to war in #Iraq on false pretenses. In 2004, the US continued with NATO enlargement, this time to the Baltic States and countries in the Black Sea region (Bulgaria and Romania) and the Balkans. In 2008, over Russia’s urgent and strenuous objections, the US pledged to expand NATO to #Georgia and #Ukraine.
source
#history #NATO #USA #US #europe #coldwar #Western #deepstate #warmongers #IMF #neocons #expansion #war against #soviet #economy #USSR #russian #Russia
My intention here is not to defend the actions of the #ThirdReich or any of its leaders, but only to support a narrow claim: that of all the belligerent leaders, #Churchill was the one most intent on prolonging and escalating the conflict into a world war of annihilation. #Germany and #Italy did not want it – in fact, before the conquest of Western Europe, German leaders including Hitler were skeptical that they’d be able to take on #Britain in a fight. We can be skeptical of Hitler’s motives for offering peace again and again, and for holding back against British civilians despite months and months provocations, but the fact is that Germany was offering peace, and by all accounts sincerely wanted it. After the annexation of #Poland, Hitler told other party members, “The Reich is now complete.” Would Germany have eventually attack the #SovietUnion? Perhaps. But they would not have done so in June 1941 if #England had agreed to end a war which had no hope of victory short of expanding it into a much larger conflict, by bringing in the #USA, #USSR, or both.
Like the Turkish massacre of Armenians, the atrocities that took place in the east – for which the German perpetrators are responsible, make no mistake – could not have happened except in the chaos of a world war in which millions were already being killed. Because its so central to our founding ideology, we speak of World War 2 as if it was the best possible outcome, or certainly the least bad outcome, but any objective look shows that it was the worst possible outcome, and that it could have been avoided if not for the warmongers – chief among them #WinstonChurchill.
I’ve read Churchill’s own history of WWII. And his own justifications for his actions don’t add up even in his own words. The most damning evidence is his waging of a unilateral, one-way air war against German civilians immediately after the German military forces spared the trapped British soldiery at #Dunkirk.
There were no good men in command of the #Axis or the #Allies. But then, as now, #ClownWorld was the greater evil, as the state of our present world suffices to prove.
In the early 80s, our ambassador Alexander #Yakovlev (a classic example of the genre - bed and whiskey) was recruited in Canada. In 1985, he became Mikhail #Gorbachev's chief adviser, and it was through Yakovlev that the last General Secretary was instilled with a plan to reform the USSR economy. In essence, the plan was very simple - to get rid of the superfluous Union republics and then, with the help of the USA, to become a prosperous capitalist state. It was this plan that Gorbachev proposed to Ronald #Reagan at his very first meeting.
And here is the first remark - historians will probably argue endlessly whether Gorbachev knew or not that this plan was foisted on him by the Americans themselves, or was simply a fool. Personally, I think that he knew and openly and purposefully destroyed the Union. Because this plan included not only the collapse of the country's rather strong economy under the guise of reforms, but also the bringing to power of outright renegades - #Yeltsin and the group of American advisers who stood behind him, who came to "help" the Soviet Union.
...Specifically, for the deployment of military operations in Ukraine, a number of contractors were involved, both already well-identified Russophobes and specially established ones at that. Here, we will only list some of them and, accordingly, their main sponsors:
The Atlantic Council- Sponsored by SAAB, Raytheon, and Lockheed. This is the director of the Ukrainian project. Their main lobbyist, by the way, is the same Alperovich who recently authored "The World on the Brink."
The Center for Analysis of European Policy (established in 2005) - Sponsored specifically by Lockheed, BAE System, Bel Helicopter, and Raytheon, and was designed to promote the agenda in the media.
The German Marshall Fund- Sponsored by the Ministry of Defense of Latvia, Airbus, Boeing, and Raytheon. The main lobbyist is still the same William Kristol, and the former president of Estonia and our old enemy McFaul are also involved.
The Institute for the Study of War (2007) - Sponsored by Raytheon and General Dynamics Dean Corporation. The director of the institute is Kimberly Kagan (wife of Victoria Nuland's husband's brother).
These are just a few of the contractors that, by various estimates, handled up to $7 billion in U.S. government and private spending on military corporations to fuel the Ukrainian war. Much of that money ended up in the pockets of the #Nuland family and the #Kagan clan, who are connected to the #Clinton and #Obama families.
#USA #US #american #deepstate #CIA #MIC #warmongers #neocons #russophobia #ukraine #anti-Russia #ukrainian #war #history #soviet #russian #USSR #Russia
Specific Authors of the Ukrainian War - by Zinderneuf — https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/specific-authors-of-the-ukrainian
Specific Authors of the Ukrainian War - by Zinderneuf — https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/specific-authors-of-the-ukrainian
#usa #ussr #russia #china #iraq #latvia #estonia
"> #InternationalRepublicanInstitute #NationalDemocraticInstitute #ned #NationalEndowmentforDemocracy #cia #pnac #ProjectfortheNewAmericanCentury #ForeignPolicyInitiative #AtlanticCouncil #CenterforAnalysisofEuropeanPolicy #GermanMarshallFund #InstitutefortheStudyofWar #cpsu #MinistryofDefenseofLatvia ">
#Airbus #BAE #BAESystems #BelHelicopter #Boeing
#GeneralDynamicsDeanCorporation #GeneralDynamics #Lockheed #Northrop
#RandCorporation #Raytheon #Rheinmetall #SAAB "> #Cohen #Sachs #SaddamHussein #MuammarGaddafi
#AlexanderYakovlev #MikhailGorbachev #RonaldReagan #Yeltsin #McFaul #Sullivan
#CarlGershman #AllenWeinstein #WilliamKristol #RobertKagan #VictoriaNuland
#KimberlyKagan #Alperovich #Clinton #Obama #VladimirKuznetsov #AlexeyStolyarov
#SvetlanaTikhanovskaya #AlexeiNavalny "> #MaratKhairulin #Zinderneuf #history #coldwar2
#neocons ">
@Τρομοκρατιστής ✭
Roosevelt was interested in balance of power - a divided europe served US interests.
Austen Chamberlain's doctrine was let Germany expand eastwards. That was in the UK's interest.
But the USA dominated UK via Canada and Churchill represented their policy.
Auswaertiges Amt Weissbuch Nr. 3 Polnische Dokumente Zur Vorgeschichte Des Krieges
https://archive.org/details/auswaertigesamtweissbuchnr.3polnischedokumentezurvorgeschichtedeskrieges1940128s.scan_202003/
what the "democratic" bloc did for the "democratic front of Spain" ? NOTHING.
No. They worked against it. They helped Franco. That was the intention of the the non-interventionist doctrine - to stop aid reaching the republic. That has been confirmed by UK cabinet papers.
Only Stalin later helped but their intervention wasn't innocent…
To be innocent would be irresponsible.
The USSR was hardly 20 years old and had already suffered 2-3 attempted invasions. It was the only socialist state on planet earth.
How can one criticise the only country that aided the republic?
Spain was being ruined by the POUM and a load of foreign agents.
Just as with the fight against the Nazis, the imperialists and their Trotskyists criticise the USSR and paint themselves as heros - or at least - as innocent bystanders.
#history #uk #britain #europe #WWII #WW2 #soviet #USSR #Russia #socialism
Members of the British Parliament in March 1940 were really furious that London's plans to launch a military strike against the USSR had been thwarted, as described in documents from the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, published by the Presidential Library.
In essence, Britain, France and other Western countries acted then in the same way that their followers within NATO are now hatching aggressive plans against Russia. Saturday marks the 75th anniversary of the entry into force of the North Atlantic Treaty establishing NATO.England and France in early 1940 made a fundamental decision to go to war against the USSR, to strike from Finland, with which the Soviet Union was then fighting, to capture Leningrad, to strike from the Caucasus, destroying the local Soviet oil fields, and to establish a “national Russian government”. This decision was made by the Supreme Military Council, the official main body of the military leadership of England and France, it was headed by the Prime Ministers of both countries, Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier.
But the plans of London and Paris to strike the Soviet Union was not destined to come true. England and France did not care about them in connection with the military successes of Germany in the west of Europe in 1940. And on March 12, 1940 the war between the USSR and Finland ended, Moscow and Helsinki signed a peace treaty.
On March 14, 1940, the USSR Ambassador to England Ivan Maisky reported by cipher telegram to Moscow, to the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, “about the mood in the English Parliament in connection with the conclusion of peace between the USSR and Finland”.
“I was today at a meeting of Parliament, where Chamberlain made a report on the conclusion of peace between the USSR and Finland, and once again could see how great was the danger of open intervention of England and France on the side of Finland” - reported Maisky.He described the general mood of the members of the British Parliament at that meeting.
”
“It was a vivid demonstration of concentrated but impotent frenzy, and it is worthy of note that this feeling permeated both the Conservatives and very significant circles of the opposition,” the diplomat reported. “The parliamentary 'masses' were furious and met every anti-Soviet outburst with tumultuous approbation. I have rarely seen a parliament in a state of such irritation and excitement,” Maisky pointed out.
”
The most ardent supporters of supporting Finland with military equipment and men were British Labor. Maisky had reported this fact to the USSR NKID earlier, on February 11, 1940, when reporting on England's military aid to Finland. He described the details of his conversation with Richard Austin Butler, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in England.“Butler told him that the Laborists, especially the 'working delegation' returned from Helsinki headed by Sitrin, were pressing the British government hard in the sense of strengthening and intensifying aid to Finland,” Maisky wrote.
The current British Labor prime minister, Keir Starmer, has asked the country's National Security Council to consider plans for more support for Kiev, The Times reported last week.
https://ria.ru/20240824/velikobritaniya-1968202055.html
#uk #britain #british #parliament #england #france #germany #finland #europe #eu #Western support #nazism #nazi #NATO #WWII #WW2 #history #soviet #USSR #russian #Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty
https://t.me/oper_goblin/31183
#USA #US #american #deepstate #propaganda #CIA #Western #media #radio #lie #anticommunism #anti-Russia #psyops #mindmanipulation #mccarthyism against #russian #Russia #soviet #USSR #history
Meanwhile, Dulles proved his commitment to anti-communism by heading for a long time one of the most specialized anti-communist organizations in the world, with a budget not inferior to that of the U.S. Army, the main task of which was the PLANNED BORDER against COMMUNISM in the USSR.
...U.S. leaders and their military-political advisers openly declared that in both the Korean and Vietnam wars, American liberals and Democrats pursued the goal, above all, of destroying the COMMUNIST regimes in those countries, along with the populations that had tasted socialism. How, then, does the goal of American liberals differ from the goals of the fascists who raved about destroying Bolshevism?
...“Methods of 'decisive action,' including, if necessary, assassination...financing underground organizations in Russia's satellite states...establishing insurgent gangs 'under American leadership'...assassinations of prominent Communists will be strongly encouraged...American agents, dropped by parachute, will coordinate anti-Communist activities....”
...Experience has already shown that, in addition to their official activities, British and American diplomats carry on very active work in the USSR and the countries of the People's Democracies in which they are accredited, which is summarized in general terms as follows:
I. Organization of anti-government conspiracies and support for these purposes of anti-people, reactionary (including fascist) elements, representatives of bourgeois parties expelled from the political arena, and especially right-wing socialists.
II. Espionage, for which all these reactionary elements, including former Hitler agents, are widely used.
III. Diversionary, subversive and terrorist activities calculated to retard the economic development of the countries of the People's Democracies, weaken their defense capabilities, provoke discontent within the country, and hinder democratic reforms.
IV. Attempts to induce military psychosis, fear of an allegedly inevitable war in order to create a tense atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety.
https://diasp.org/posts/10805609
#USA #US #CIA #uk #britain #british #american #intelligence #deepstate #Dulles #anticommunism #fraud #murders #terrorism #capitalism #imperialism #war #coldwar #fascism #mccarthyism against #democracy #bolsheviks #socialism #communism #USSR #soviet #russian #Russia #history
Additional read:
THE GREAT CONSPIRACY AGAINST RUSSIA – https://resistir.info/livros/the_great_conspiracy.pdf
📰 -- Боялся рвануть из СССР в Америку, годами мучился на Западе и все равно стал мировой легендой. История Валерия Каменского по ссылке https://sport24.ru/hockey/article-671479-boyalsya-rvanut-iz-sssr-v-ameriku-godami-muchilsya-na-zapade-i-vse-ravno-stal-mirovoy-legendoy-istoriya-kamenskogo
#ValeriKamensky #USSR #Russia #ColoradoAvalanche #QuebecNordiques #NHL #Hockey
#lang_ru #хоккей #нхл #колорадоэвеланш #nhl #coloradoavalanche #vk_colorado_avalanche
Meanhile.... free speech strangled still more in Russia
As Russian iphone customers lose their ability to use VPNs to get around the Putin regime's censorship, it's essential to remember that Apple shares the responsibility for this repression.
The company's "use the app store or do without" policy is a choke point that dictatorships happily leverage against their citizens.
Putin is a monster, but he counts on the control freakery in Cupertino. - _Dan Gillmor
#privacy #VPN #BigBrother #media #censorship #Putin #USSR #dictatorship
С днем рождения легендарная "лавина" -- Алексей Гусаров 🇷🇺#5 !
🏔 🎉 🎂 ⚜
Сегодня, 8-го июля свой юбилей отмечает советский и российский защитник «Квебек Нордикс» и «Колорадо Эвеланш» -- Алексей Васильевич Гусаров! 🎊
Выдающемуся защитнику, олимпийскому чемпиону-1988 и трехкратному чемпиону мира-1986, 1989 и 1990 годов в составе сборной СССР, серебряному призёру Олимпийских игр-1998 года в составе сборной России, обладателю Кубка Стэнли-1996 в составе «Колорадо Эвеланш» и члену Тройного золотого клуба, а ныне скауту в системе "лавин" -- исполняется 60 лет! 👏🏻
Искренние пожелания Вам крепкого здоровья, удачи, благополучия, семейного счастья и успехов во всех начинаниях! Огромное спасибо за те полных 10 сезонов проведших в системе франшизы «Квебек/Колорадо» https://vk.com/@colorado_avalanche-gusarskaya-ballada-besposchadnyi-na-ldu-no-skromnyi-po-zhizn
#AlexeiGusarov #USSR #Russia #ColoradoAvalanche #QuebecNordiques #NHL #Hockey
ГУСАРСКАЯ БАЛЛАДА. БЕСПОЩАДНЫЙ НА ЛЬДУ, НО СКРОМНЫЙ ПО ЖИЗНИ.
#lang_ru #хоккей #нхл #колорадоэвеланш #nhl #coloradoavalanche #vk_colorado_avalanche
On the sheet:
Plan for the deployment of missiles in Western Europe
Bottom of the image:
To avoid a strike on the United States in a nuclear war, we’ll send missiles as a gift to Europe, and we’ll stay away.
Source of image: @PicturesUssr on x/twitter
Translations: @antmdh and @PicturesUssr on x/twitter
