Why, despite all efforts to convince people, Stalin's popularity is only growing?
Before a serious visit to Poland, Dmitry Medvedev again - and already somewhat irritatedly - recalled the current political line: "The people won the war, not Stalin."
But in response, tricks are heard on the Internet, why does the body need a head if it has legs, why do we need a president if he is only a hindrance to the people?
Why, despite all efforts to convince people, Stalin's popularity only grows? Don't they understand that he was a bloody tyrant?
To begin with, I am not a Stalinist, because in general I adhere to the commandment "do not make yourself an idol." But today we are not talking about a benevolent idol or a hateful idol. Today, a battle is unfolding around the figure of Stalin … no, not for the future of the Russian state, but for whether he will have this future at all. Don't worry, humanists, this is not your topic.
“When people talk about“de-Stalinization,”one must clearly distinguish between wrapper and candy,” wrote Leonid Radzikhovsky in “Daily Journal” a year ago. - The wrapper is a stunning discovery of what kind of byaka I. V. Stalin, and the message that people should not be tortured and killed at all … Candy is a solution to absolutely real POLITICAL, by no means historical and moral problems.
Moreover, it is clear that the wrapper is intended for one, and the candy is mainly for something completely different …"
So let’s discard - excuse me generously - the humanitarian wrapper and get to the "candy" itself, no matter how bitter it may be.
“Destalinization, as you know, went through two stages - Khrushchev's and Gorbachev's. Now they argue: will there be a third, Medvedev, stage.
I must say that both times this campaign did not bring happiness to the organizers - both (and only them from among all the kings over the past half century) were thrown off. And is it really true that the devil bewitches the mustachioed old man, avenges him?.."
So, the first shot at the dead Stalin was actually a funeral one - "they buried the corpse on ideological soil." The second was aimed at the Soviet system (“Again it was necessary to dismember the corpse, divide the inheritance”). According to Radzikhovsky, the two past de-Stalinizations completed the task - there is nothing more to divide: on the basis of this, he concluded that there would be no third de-Stalinization. A year after this forecast, we see that it was fundamentally flawed. The third de-Stalinization has begun. What is the political goal this time?
Let's not reinvent the wheel. And let us give the floor to the same Radzikhovsky (I hope I haven’t tired them yet?) - first of all, because this man is from the liberal camp, and therefore in his mouth the following assumption will sound, at least not as a libel of evil patriots. So, what do we have left after the "sweet" of Khrushchev and Gorbachev?
“The very matrix, which, naturally, existed centuries before Lenin, before Stalin, successfully survived both anti-Stalinist“de-Stalinization-1”and anti-Leninist“de-Stalinization-2”…
That, without which - in the opinion of the liberals - Russia "will rise from sleep." That, without which - in the opinion of the guardians - Russia simply will not exist, will disintegrate, lose its civilization”.
Radzikhovsky considers this question eternal and leaves it without consideration in his article. But there is no other reason!
Thus, at stake for the third de-Stalinization is the biggest stake for Russia - the civilizational one, in other words - the stake is greater than life. The life of Russia as an independent civilizational project.
Liberals consider this very Russian “matrix” to be autocratic-authoritarian, but by cutting it down, they bring down the entire Russian history and Russian self-awareness. Someone through thoughtlessness, and someone completely consciously and purposefully. Hence the calls for endless repentance - oh, not only for Stalin, for all of Russia, starting from Alexander Nevsky, who raised his sword against the blessed West. With Germany, they limited themselves to only repentance for the Third Reich - after all, the European people: they deserve leniency. And we - Asians - are being cut down at the root.
Westerners need de-Stalinization so that the Russian people will forget about the great power once and for all. But as soon as we forget, we will certainly be dismembered for the sake of fidelity. So that it’s guaranteed that they don’t raise their heads. “Destalinization has been turned into a means of ridding the people of statehood,” warns Sergei Kurginyan.
Really. Stalin died long ago, taking political repressions to his grave, and the Soviet system also died. Who is being killed this time? Why is the "great destalinizer" Fedotov called?
“The priority task of the Human Rights Council, voiced by Mikhail Fedotov, is the de-Stalinization of public consciousness - part of a general campaign of hatred for the Soviet past in all its manifestations. Our public consciousness has not been Stalinized … And Stalin's popularity is caused exclusively by the absolute helplessness and inadequacy of the current leadership of the country, or unwillingness to do something for the good of society. If our state stopped engaging in corruption and began to engage in development and modernization, Stalin would have sunk into historical oblivion … "- Mikhail Delyagin (" Russian Journal ") is sure.
But it is a mistake to think that de-Stalinization is just a distraction. The current elite are getting stronger misgivings - and they intend to make every effort to avoid responsibility. And Stalin is a symbol of a strong hand, a nightmare of officials and oligarchs who are synergistic at the national expense. No ideology - just a question of responsibility. Therefore, Western liberals received powerful reinforcement: “The idea of de-Stalinization has long seized the leading masses,” as Anatoly Wasserman and Nurali Latypov noted (blogovesty).
But the more we are “de-Stalinized”, the more often the name of Stalin comes up. For example, here is an indicative commentary (one of very many!) To the note about the appeal to the President by the investigator from Kushchevskaya on the Infox.ru website:
“Rogoza in his video asks Medvedev to control … Naive! Only Stalin could control! And everyone - from below to the very top - would have sat down for a long time. Under Stalin, a verification commission from the Central Committee had just left for our region, and two secretaries of the regional committee had already shot themselves - and everyone knew why”(Sergei53).
Note that the point here is not at all a historical fact, but in relation to the fact of modernity.
“Stalin is a living reproach - a reproach to which there is nothing to object to for our current leadership. They hate him not because he killed people, by and large, as far as I can tell, - Mikhail Delyagin says with knowledge of the subject, - in our leadership, very few people care about it. They hate him because he did a lot of things. And the current leadership, in general, has done practically nothing”.
Of course, this is a maximalist exaggeration. Something is still being done (although it is hopelessly losing in comparison of scale), and recently some have even been reminded of their responsibility. Only it is unlikely that this seriously frightened the others. They plant only a small fry, very rarely - someone larger, and even then, if the crime boss flew off the reels and fell under the gun of the indignant public. The rest are only threatened with resignation, almost an honorable one. People who feel their humiliation and actual lack of rights are no longer annoyed, but sullenly angry - and, willy-nilly, makes them remember Stalin. They do not see any other administration for the current order. And how do you order this to be “de-Stalinized”?
“Is it really so good with human rights here that our top priority was“fighting a ghost of more than half a century ago?” (A. Wasserman, N. Latypov, blogovesty).
The best de-Stalinization is the improvement of the state. Only it is not the people that need to be cured by picking Stalin out of them, but the state apparatus, which, through its activities, does not allow us to forget about it. But it seemed to someone at the top that this was not the point at all: the liberals suggested that the irreconcilable spirit of great power was hindering Russia - so it must be broken, having trampled on the imperial Stalinist banner. So this name of Stalin breeds theft, corruption and a corrupt elite that violates the law ?!
